It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.

[Chaparral]

Personally I'll never understand what all the fuss is about.

After all ganking is a victimless crime. It's like punching someone in the dark.

Don't we all have night vision now?

 

[yminale]

While I agree with the vilified part, I have to disagree that protection is simple. Keeping a bunch of combat-poor pilots in fragile ships alive is extremely difficult, and the better/more plausible solution would be for those pilots to learn to evade and fly stronger builds.

Stop victim blaming. If Fdev saids you can play the game any way you want but you can't, whose fault is it.

I know you could kill a few gankers and tie them up with interdictions and such but have you seen some of the kills? I have some pilots literally fly right at me, others don't dismiss their ships while in SRV. They almost gank themselves. There is nothing you can do to save these pilots/ships.

OMG people are inexperienced. You know what happens when you abuse inexperienced players. THEY QUIT. They write bad reviews. They tell their friends that Elite is a gank fest and to stay away. You might not care but Fdev should (they probably don't because they are in maintenance mode after Horizon).

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

Stop victim blaming.

Please quote the specific sentence where I assign any moral or ethical judgement to any of it. I picked the word "plausible" for a reason.

You yourself were listing how difficult it is to be an escort - would your task not be much, much, much easier if the explorers were more difficult targets?

I also don't agree with the implication a gank is at all like an actual assault in real life, but let's just agree to disagree on that one.

The more similar analogy to real life - still quite a stretch, but much less than assault - is how merchant vessels have to adjust behavior during wartime. The notable example being cross Atlantic shipping adopting the use of convoys during WW2. Sure, individual captains might have preferred to not have to coordinate, but they did it, to not get blown up as much.

If Fdev saids you can play the game any way you want but you can't, whose fault is it.

Yes. FDev says I can play any way I want. Right now the way I want to play is pretty boring, since no explorers in open, but I don't blame them.

OMG people are inexperienced. You know what happens when you abuse inexperienced players. THEY QUIT. They write bad reviews. They tell their friends that Elite is a gank fest and to stay away. You might not care but Fdev should (they probably don't because they are in maintenance mode after Horizon).

I know no such thing. Sometimes they get better. Sometimes they even become the bad guy with the pirate flag.

 

[Kaocraft]

Biggest issue is that PvP ganking is essentially risk-free.

Gankers take the exact same risk as all of us, which is they risk being bored and wasting their time. Honestly with the amount of jumping they have to make in PvP-fit ships, an explorer could probably make the same trip twice or more in the same amount of time. Which works out well, since if they get blown up they might have to.

 

[yminale]

Please quote the specific sentence where I assign any moral or ethical judgement to any of it. I picked the word "plausible" for a reason.

You implied that it's the explorer responsibility to not being attacked. You are basically saying Git Gud which implies your position has moral superiority. You of course ignore the point that the game makes a certain playing style extremely difficult even though it claims otherwise.

You yourself were listing how difficult it is to be an escort - would your task not be much, much, much easier if the explorers were more difficult targets?

Our issues are purely structural and NOT due to players themselves. If they could evade and fight back they wouldn't need escorts. A better solution would be Open PvE server as PG are too limited.

I also don't agree with the implication a gank is at all like an actual assault in real life, but let's just agree to disagree on that one.

The legal definition of Assault is implied or threat of violence. What you are thinking about is Battery which is a separate crime.

The more similar analogy to real life

This a F!@#$ing game. If something causes you to rage quit than there is a flaw in your game design.

 

[yminale]

Gankers take the exact same risk as all of us, which is they risk being bored and wasting their time. Honestly with the amount of jumping they have to make in PvP-fit ships, an explorer could probably make the same trip twice or more in the same amount of time. Which works out well, since if they get blown up they might have to.

This is nonsense. Explorers have to waste more time since they are exploring. When Gankers meet explorers, the explorers are outgunned and sometimes out numbered. Gankers have the clear advantage and their risk of losing is almost zero.

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

You implied that it's the explorer responsibility to not being attacked.

No. I explicitly said it would be more effective for them to evade.

You of course ignore the point that the game makes a certain playing style extremely difficult even though it claims otherwise.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here but I'm pretty sure my style is more difficult than the explorers'. In my opinion exploration requires endurance more than anything else to overcome its difficulties.

The legal definition of Assault is implied or threat of violence. What you are thinking about is Battery which is a separate crime.

Oh are we in a court of law now?

Or when soldiers make an assault on the enemy, does that just mean they yell at them really loud and stuff?

This a F!@#$ing game. If something causes you to rage quit than there is a flaw in your game design.

Well I agree there are a lot of flaws in FDev's design but rage quitting usually has more to do with the player than the game.

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

This is nonsense. Explorers have to waste more time since they are exploring.

So are they exploring or wasting time? You're really spinning my head here, because surely you're not implying the gankers can get to waypoint 4 in fewer jumps / less time than the explorers.

 

[Kaocraft]

This is nonsense. Explorers have to waste more time since they are exploring. When Gankers meet explorers, the explorers are outgunned and sometimes out numbered. Gankers have the clear advantage and their risk of losing is almost zero.

In the Gank Wars, whoever spends more time being bored or annoyed is the loser. Gankers lose when they expend a lot of time and effort but don't get to kill or annoy anyone. Explorers only lose when they get ganked. For most explorers, the risk of being ganked is so low that they don't even bother to take the most basic defensive precautions against it. Being able to get somewhere in 98 jumps instead of 99 is literally more important to them than any concerns about surviving an interdiction.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Just saw an article that relates to the thread

https://massivelyop.com/2019/02/07/...ial-penalty-for-open-pvp-in-mmos-never-works/

Interesting article - it seems to describe this game, with regard to PvP in Open, pretty well - and the likely consequences if a game feature were made Open only (not that players would necessarily leave the game, just abandon the feature).

It's an article that neatly describes the situation that modes provides a solution for in ED. You can play alone, play with friends or play with everyone.

Most importantly, there's no reason to leave the game simply because one does not enjoy PvP - as the game's design makes it an optional feature (just like other players).

 

[Jereaca]

I don't know how to make this any clearer without being super blunt.

The explorer community has proven that it is incapable of defending itself, (not an accusatory comment, I am well aware that an efficient explorer is not going to kill any gankers), but is infinitely frustrated upon being killed by another player, and unable to sufficiently organsise themselves as to prevent interference from other player groups.

The people with the skills to prevent the majority of mishaps (PG drama non withstanding), are the ones being vilified simply because there are a few of us who are bad eggs.

I was'nt asking to include a PvP element in the event, I was raising the point that the majority of the sodium being tossed around could have been prevented simply by having a least a small amount of players who are combat capable camping out in the waypoints to deter anyone from upsetting the expedition. Hell if enough were involed I very much doubt that most of the escort would ever have to fire a shot.
For the majority risks of unwanted Pvp were minimal due to the PG, for all those who were refused admission/kicked, well, we've seen the moutains of comments from peed off explorers have'nt we.

The PG stuff was effectively the nail in the coffin for any chance of cohesion this event had. After that drama kicked off the explorer community basically threw some of thier own to the wolves. It might have been risky with admitting people into the PG, but the point remains, the majority of the deaths that occured on DW were more than preventable. Be it through taking longer time before the event to vet players entering the PG, or simply by doing the whole thing in open with an armed escort, whcih would have been the effective measure of giving your would be gankers a big fat wing flavoured middle finger. And I'm pretty sure if some of the explorers had thier way, they'd snatch revenge at the drop of a hat. Not to far a stretch to even think some of thier camp might even sign on for security detail themselves.

Sure its not fool proof (instancing, time active etc) but it would have been a lot more effective than the way it played out.

Either way the potential for people to work together to overcome the biggest adversity they would be likely to face, was unfotunaly, utterly squandered.

"and unable to sufficiently organsise themselves as to prevent interference from other player groups. "
So if you want to do PvE activities learn to PvP? And/or get other PvP players to protect your PvE gameplay. Referencing your previous post, I don't assume all PvP players are gankers or seal clubbers or malicious. I do think a significant percentage of them are, how high? That I don't know.

I do understand your frustrations with being vilified when you are trying to help. Can you look at it from the other side as well? The objective of dw2 is exploration, not being the object PvP defenders and attackers fight over....

I agree the PG limitations just made this worse, but with the current set up of modes it isn't really a surprise. The removal of people from fleetcom "just in case" showcases these limitations. Not to mention the group size limits wouldn't help matters either. With no way to ensure that each player invited to fleetcom isn't going to try to kill the other players what did you expect to happen?

Unless PGs actually get the capacity to prevent PvP in them or the start of an accessible to all PvE mode this will all just repeat if there ever is a dw3. I wish we could have a PvE mode with the same rule set as the current open, only that all the players agree not to go after each other, but I think we all know how that would end up. So likely only option would be a ton of changes. Game loses something when you make it that players can't accidentally shoot each other in a large fight or run into each other... But if you don't set that up the same bads eggs you reference would run rampant.

 

[Tharrn]

In the Gank Wars, whoever spends more time being bored or annoyed is the loser. Gankers lose when they expend a lot of time and effort but don't get to kill or annoy anyone. Explorers only lose when they get ganked. For most explorers, the risk of being ganked is so low that they don't even bother to take the most basic defensive precautions against it. Being able to get somewhere in 98 jumps instead of 99 is literally more important to them than any concerns about surviving an interdiction.

My defensive measure is playing in FleetComm only. Works like a charm.

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

So if you want to do PvE activities learn to PvP? And/or get other PvP players to protect your PvE gameplay. Referencing your previous post, I don't assume all PvP players are gankers or seal clubbers or malicious. I do think a significant percentage of them are, how high? That I don't know.

I do understand your frustrations with being vilified when you are trying to help. Can you look at it from the other side as well? The objective of dw2 is exploration, not being the object PvP defenders and attackers fight over....

The fundamental issue is that, whenever the population size is larger than one, there is always danger. It has nothing to do with the game, it has to do with people.

I do understand PG can reduce this, probably 99%. And I don't do the infiltration thing.

But I don't understand how anyone can go in a group of basically strangers and expect safety. I've been in wings of 4 and not fully trusted everyone, and turned out to be correct.

I dunno, maybe I'm paranoid or rode the subway too much as a child but the level of trust some folks expect/have seems really unusual to me.

Even if they removed all guns from the game tomorrow and gave everyone infinite shields, by the following day someone will have figured out a way to grief via comms. It's just the way the world is.

Re "I don't assume all PvP players are gankers or seal clubbers or malicious. I do think a significant percentage of them are, how high? That I don't know.", some of us are actually both, the only time I've ever pulled someone and not given them a way out via comms is on DG2. This is because I really do consider it the most interesting/plot compelling thing I've seen about ED (both in game and out of game aspects) and I picked a side. (This might say more about the weakness of Powerplay and other such plot devices in ED than it says about DG2)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

IThe PG stuff was effectively the nail in the coffin for any chance of cohesion this event had. After that drama kicked off the explorer community basically threw some of thier own to the wolves. It might have been risky with admitting people into the PG, but the point remains, the majority of the deaths that occured on DW were more than preventable. Be it through taking longer time before the event to vet players entering the PG, or simply by doing the whole thing in open with an armed escort, whcih would have been the effective measure of giving your would be gankers a big fat wing flavoured middle finger. And I'm pretty sure if some of the explorers had thier way, they'd snatch revenge at the drop of a hat. Not to far a stretch to even think some of thier camp might even sign on for security detail themselves.

"doing the whole thing in open with an armed escort". You cannot be serious. Lets say 10,000 players, a generous 20 players per instance. 500 instances. And the gankers prerogative to attack or not, so able to pick and choose.

The reason so many explorers were killed were the 3,000 applications in the last week. That's the reason. Not because it wasn't held in Open with an escort wing. That would have been a real disaster.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I agree the PG limitations just made this worse, but with the current set up of modes it isn't really a surprise. The removal of people from fleetcom "just in case" showcases these limitations. Not to mention the group size limits wouldn't help matters either. With no way to ensure that each player invited to fleetcom isn't going to try to kill the other players what did you expect to happen?

Which is where the introduction of a set of optional Private Group rules could be beneficial for players of different play-styles, for example:

For PvP:

• Enable mass-lock delay on hyper-jumps if due to player ship? [yes/no]
• Increase menu exit delay if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
• Disable menu exit option if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
• Lost connection while "in danger" due to player attack results in destruction / rebuy? [yes/no]

For PvE:

• Disable player / player interdiction? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake following? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake dropping? [yes/no]
• Kick player on attacking another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
• Kick player on destroying another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
• Remove menu exit delay if "in danger" flag was only set due to player attack? [yes/no]

For all play-styles:

• Move player to another instance after a period of inactivity on a landing pad.

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

For all play-styles:

• Move player to another instance after a period of inactivity on a landing pad.

Finally something everyone in the thread can agree on

 

[Robert Maynard]

Finally something everyone in the thread can agree on

Oh yes, we certainly can on that one....

.... although it would make some players quite salty (if it were also applied in Open - something that Sandro acknowledged might need dealing with if OOPP went ahead) - I remember, during the Hutton Orbital CG, that some players took great delight in blocking the medium pad in Open causing a queue for their compatriots to attack.

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

Oh yes, we certainly can on that one....

.... although it would make some players quite salty (if it were also applied in Open - something that Sandro acknowledged might need dealing with if OOPP went ahead) - I remember, during the Hutton Orbital CG, that some players took great delight in blocking the medium pad in Open causing a queue for their compatriots to attack.

Lol before I hit "post" I knew someone was going to correct me on that, congrats on being the first and near immediate one to do it

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Oh yes, we certainly can on that one....

.... although it would make some players quite salty (if it were also applied in Open - something that Sandro acknowledged might need dealing with if OOPP went ahead) - I remember, during the Hutton Orbital CG, that some players took great delight in blocking the medium pad in Open causing a queue for their compatriots to attack.

Yet another reason why I play in solo.

DW2 is scheduled to last eighteen weeks, correct?

That's six weeks longer than most Basic Military Training programs.

And, it's a live fire program, if you're in open.

No thanks. I've done my time.

 

[Evoflash]

Without DG2, DW2 is essentially risk free.

You've not seen my parking......