Make the vicinity of space docks a safe haven

[jackwall]

Of course I was being less than serious with my Squadron of ganker killers idea from earlier.
As a promoted concept it would fall under 'abuse'. Individually, I could decide to be 'vigilant' LOL if I was so inspired.

I am someone whose has been negatively impacted by gankers in the past, a) I'm well over it. b) I fly mostly SOLO because it works for me. c) I am against building features that punish gankers with anything more than a significant dis-incentive ..... the $1M question being, what dis-incentives gankers?

S!

 

[jackwall]

I'm sorry, I didn't quite follow you.

I believe the point being made is that CMDRs need to constantly actively aware. Keeping the situational awareness up and not 'sleeping at the wheel' to use the phrase when deciding where to fly to/from and what type of other ships are around / worth steering clear of.

S!

 

[tolm]

Maybe stations and NPC security should be fitted with non-lethal weapons to handle tankers,

I’m thinking a weapon based on the Thargoid Shutdown field (see - not making this up, lore!) whereby a targeted energy burst disables the ship . Anyone deploying weapons within, say, 10k of a station would be targeted by said long-range “shutdown cannon” and after a 3 second warning, if weapons are not retracted, would be hit. Line of sight, hit scan, never misses. Your ship then has to reboot.

This would prevent weapon use without killing innocents - since anyone leaning on the wrong button would have time to retract the weapons and even if they don’t, the worst they lose is a reboot time.

I will admit there’s probably some additional changes required to allow deployment / use of wake scanners, etc without triggering the response.

 

[SergMx]

I believe the point being made is that CMDRs need to constantly actively aware. Keeping the situational awareness up and not 'sleeping at the wheel' to use the phrase when deciding where to fly to/from and what type of other ships are around / worth steering clear of.

S!

I'm sorry, but it doesn't make it any clearer.

 

[SergMx]

Maybe stations and NPC security should be fitted with non-lethal weapons to handle tankers,

I’m thinking a weapon based on the Thargoid Shutdown field (see - not making this up, lore!) whereby a targeted energy burst disables the ship . Anyone deploying weapons within, say, 10k of a station would be targeted by said long-range “shutdown cannon” and after a 3 second warning, if weapons are not retracted, would be hit. Line of sight, hit scan, never misses. Your ship then has to reboot.

This would prevent weapon use without killing innocents - since anyone leaning on the wrong button would have time to retract the weapons and even if they don’t, the worst they lose is a reboot time.

I will admit there’s probably some additional changes required to allow deployment / use of wake scanners, etc without triggering the response.

You could do that, but why?
When we see a warning for speeding, we just slow down. If we accidentally hit something, we just don't do it anymore.
The person who did it on purpose will watch for a long time as he is docked and sent to the nearest prison ...

P.S. It is clear that in systems of anarchy and weak order such a thing will not happen.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'm sorry, I didn't quite follow you.

In short: any C+P in ED is reactive- it reacts to events. Someone who is attacked will trigger the C+P - but no C+P system will enable escape for someone who has a weak ship that takes seconds to destroy.

Therefore the player has to take into account systems that are hostile and ship builds to mitigate this even before people talk about C+P.

My randomisation idea was this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-npc-player-scan-spawns-an-atr-vessel.533172/

What it essentially does is (via fair gameplay means) is make C+P much harder to predict- couple that with slowly locking out systems based on gov type (so that say, at notoriety 3 all democracies deny you entry, all the way down to 10 where anarchy is your refuge) you have a more flexible system.

So people who gank can't count on ever having a shield or fly freely, which makes life harder in a lot of attacking ships. For the general population that is better, but still allows attack if the person has the skills and still makes ship design / strategic thinking valuable.

 

[SergMx]

In short: any C+P in ED is reactive- it reacts to events. Someone who is attacked will trigger the C+P - but no C+P system will enable escape for someone who has a weak ship that takes seconds to destroy.

Therefore the player has to take into account systems that are hostile and ship builds to mitigate this even before people talk about C+P.

My randomisation idea was this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-npc-player-scan-spawns-an-atr-vessel.533172/

What it essentially does is (via fair gameplay means) is make C+P much harder to predict- couple that with slowly locking out systems based on gov type (so that say, at notoriety 3 all democracies deny you entry, all the way down to 10 where anarchy is your refuge) you have a more flexible system.

So people who gank can't count on ever having a shield or fly freely, which makes life harder in a lot of attacking ships. For the general population that is better, but still allows attack if the person has the skills and still makes ship design / strategic thinking valuable.

I don't know what C+P is.
For example, I'm flying a weak ship at high speed through an airlock and get a warning that I can't dock. Do I understand you correctly?

 

[jackwall]

I don't know what C+P is.
For example, I'm flying a weak ship at high speed through an airlock and get a warning that I can't dock. Do I understand you correctly?

Crime and Punishment.
I think the idea being discussed is aimed at the more notorious CMDRs ....

Speeding in the airlock ? .....in principle, yes ... but think about CMDRs who commit worst crimes!

s!

 

[SergMx]

Crime and Punishment.
I think the idea being discussed is aimed at the more notorious CMDRs ....

Speeding in the airlock ? .....in principle, yes ... but think about CMDRs who commit worst crimes!

s!

For example ganker being in the station zone 7500m, instantly destroys the weak ship, his ship is forced, slowly docked with the station and he is sent to the nearest prison ( you can tour the center of the galaxy on APEX ).

What's wrong with that ?

 

[Rubbernuke]

For example ganker being in the station zone 7500m, instantly destroys the weak ship, his ship is forced, slowly docked with the station and he is sent to the nearest prison ( you can tour the center of the galaxy on APEX ).

What's wrong with that ?

Lots, really.

It takes away agency but also does not solve the root problem- the person still was destroyed, who will still whine about ganking. The ganker won't care, or use LR weapons.

 

[Brrokk]

Which could mean that as few as 34% of players play in open with the rest evenly split over the other options.

As far as CGs go the number of players contributing is quite low nowadays.

Heh, I remember when FD said that about "majority in Open", a huge forum debate ensued about whether it meant more than 33% or more than 50%. Having set it rolling, FD simply sat back and ate popcorn, so we'll probably never know.

Personally I think "majority" properly means "more than 50%" in this context, but I have no idea what FD intended by it.

It's worth remembering, though, that it was before the end of board flipping (which randomised some people's mode choices) and before the introduction of Squadrons (which often have PGs), so the statistics could be different these days.

 

[SergMx]

Lots, really.

It takes away agency but also does not solve the root problem- the person still was destroyed, who will still whine about ganking. The ganker won't care, or use LR weapons.

As far as I'm concerned we're not talking about defending the man, we're talking about consequences for the ganker. Because at this point he has no consequences and he's repeating it.

LR weapons ?

 

[Rubbernuke]

As far as I'm concerned we're not talking about defending the man, we're talking about consequences for the ganker. Because at this point he has no consequences and he's repeating it.

LR weapons ?

There are no consequences for the ganker- they'll just keep on doing it.

LR = Long range weapons.

 

[SergMx]

Heh, I remember when FD said that about "majority in Open", a huge forum debate ensued about whether it meant more than 33% or more than 50%. Having set it rolling, FD simply sat back and ate popcorn, so we'll probably never know.

Personally I think "majority" properly means "more than 50%" in this context, but I have no idea what FD intended by it.

It's worth remembering, though, that it was before the end of board flipping (which randomised some people's mode choices) and before the introduction of Squadrons (which often have PGs), so the statistics could be different these days.

By the way there was a phrase in the thread here - deprive ganker of content. This is interesting ... if a person has fame, then he can not enter the open ?

 

[SergMx]

There are no consequences for the ganker- they'll just keep on doing it.

LR = Long range weapons.

7500 m ?

 

[Rubbernuke]

7500 m ?

With microgimballing on things like rails, I fully expect so.

 

[SteveWW57]

Never mind making the vicinity of stations ganker free/penalise those that do it, what about INSIDE a station?

There is a ganker in a FDL who rams smaller ships inside a station to destroy them. And gets away with it apart from possibly a small fine. Also rams outside a station for the record. To me, that is not gameplay, that is harassing anyone that comes along. No justification whatever.

Steve

 

[jackwall]

Never mind making the vicinity of stations ganker free/penalise those that do it, what about INSIDE a station?

There is a ganker in a FDL who rams smaller ships inside a station to destroy them. And gets away with it apart from possibly a small fine. Also rams outside a station for the record. To me, that is not gameplay, that is harassing anyone that comes along. No justification whatever.

Steve

Of course both would need to be addressed in any changes considered.

The notoriety mechanisms in ED .... hmmmm If only this were to be "refreshed" .....could this me the feature addition to core gameplay that is expected ?

I haven't a clue ... fact !

S!

 

[SergMx]

With microgimballing on things like rails, I fully expect so.

No. It's not about hitting, it's about distance.
With long range modifications, anything above 6000m will not be affected by damage.

 

[Rubbernuke]

No. It's not about hitting, it's about distance.
With long range modifications, anything above 6000m will not be affected by damage.

To be honest I don't know the maximum limit, all I do know is its a long way away and is easier the further away you are.