Player-created solutions to player-created problems

[0B]

My point is that NPC pirates should be forcing loadout decisions (as long as they're not game-breaking), not just players (be they gankers, or players that have a legitimate interest in threatening/attacking you). Equipping a ship to survive attack shouldn't feel like an imposition, but just "common sense in a galaxy like this".

That does make sense, to be honest. NPC AI is a beast to make difficult. I guess the main issues with gankers is that they don't have a reason to attack you. If this galaxy really is one where everyone attacks everyone without warning or reason, then why do sidewinders exist? Shouldn't every ship be built to withstand such a thing by default?

I understand that if someone's chosen career specifically puts them in the targets of pirates/thargoids/etc, that it would behoove them to plan appropriately. However, if I'm just ubering some tourist around the bubble, there isn't much of a reason for someone to attack me. Even someone shuttling something like biowaste shouldn't really be a target (Who robs a dump truck for its trash?)

So I don't disagree with you- if folks are carrying expensive cargo or are making forays into unknown systems, then it makes sense for there to be credible threats and for them to outfit their ship accordingly. However, not all players behave with any sort of rationale when selecting targets.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

That does make sense, to be honest. NPC AI is a beast to make difficult. I guess the main issues with gankers is that they don't have a reason to attack you. If this galaxy really is one where everyone attacks everyone without warning or reason, then why do sidewinders exist? Shouldn't every ship be built to withstand such a thing by default?

I understand that if someone's chosen career specifically puts them in the targets of pirates/thargoids/etc, that it would behoove them to plan appropriately. However, if I'm just ubering some tourist around the bubble, there isn't much of a reason for someone to attack me. Even someone shuttling something like biowaste shouldn't really be a target (Who robs a dump truck for its trash?)

So I don't disagree with you- if folks are carrying expensive cargo or are making forays into unknown systems, then it makes sense for there to be credible threats and for them to outfit their ship accordingly. However, not all players behave with any sort of rationale when selecting targets.

But NPCs have been made easier at times in the past, for instance in the interdiction minigame. They are no good at it, regardless of their combat rank. And they send anaconda enemies for the "hardest" missions, which seems to make it even worse. And why only one ship at a time? A wing of two would give me more trouble, and make much more sense for a wing mission. What about bad NPC loadouts? There's nothing new that needs to be done to AI as such. Even FSD disruption is just firing a dumbfire missile.

As for the plausibility of random player attacks, this only begins to fail at hotspots like Deciat and CGs - otherwise you are not particularly in danger from players and could fly a sidewinder almost as happily as you could in solo. Certainly for long enough to make enough money that the cost of your sidewinder rebuy would be insignificant.

Anyway, personally I think the chance of a "murderous psychopath" being attracted to the CMDR lifestyle would be high, and they would be overrepresented in the CMDR population compared to the average citizen - just as they are in game .

 

[Mohrgan]

Anyway, personally I think the chance of a "murderous psychopath" being attracted to the CMDR lifestyle would be high, and they would be overrepresented in the CMDR population compared to the average citizen - just as they are in game .

You may be right, but two things. The Pilots Federation would sort out the undesirables, causing insurance payouts is undesirable, so the PF would have a low population of gankers. This is not like the picture we see in our analysis. We don;t really have a high percentage of gankers anyway. Their impact of gankers is over-blown by emotions and self promotion. People that have to depend on crimes to make a living, generally don't have a great life. You need to look at those that exploit the petty criminals to find any real money.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

The Pilots Federation would sort out the undesirables, causing insurance payouts is undesirable, so the PF would have a low population of gankers. This is not like the picture we see in our analysis.

Sounds like an idea for a Crime and Punishment mechanism - pilot's federation enforcers - engineered NPCs with intelligent builds and interdiction skills, that rebuy and come back!

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Not much new here but well laid out and well written OP.

My solution to gankers is for all ships to be fitted with energy bombs that can be detonated upon being killed by another player! The sweet salty tears of gankers as they die the moment they kill you.

Joking-not-joking.

 

[Morbad]

What are some player-created problems you know of? What are things that other players can do to solve them, and/or what have they already done?

I can't think of any.

All the problems that people attribute to players exist because the underlying mechanisms of the game do not provide players with the agency to counter them, without relying on out-of-context means, that may well amount to more severe problems themselves.

I don't think anyone would mind a rework to Fdev's crime and punishment system, but I doubt it would be a 100% solution, either.

Such solutions aren't required, because such a solution would result in an equally absurd system. Ganking doesn't need to be absent, it just needs to make more sense.

are there lawfuls or others that sit at Deciat to escort traders/explorers and counter-gank known gankers?

There are frequently "lawfuls" that sit at Deciat and occupy the attention of gankers, because that's the only vaguely effective, contextual, way to counter them. The instancing, travel, interdiction, combat, and escape mechanisms make 'escorts', especially within a single system, very difficult. It's a case of the tools Frontier has provided not being suited to task.

A PvP solution to the problem would require players to spend time waiting for the call to action - and, given travel times both interstellar and in-system, they would very likely arrive well after the fact (if the instance in which the targeted ship still existed that long after its destruction).

Only because of the utter lack of consequence (something else that is wholly Frontier's responsibility) renders any form of proactive defense, or attrition, unachievable.

In any plausible setting, the overriding reason for initiating hostilities against an entity is to cripple it's ability to continue, or initiate, threatening behavior of it's own. From the mano a mano street fight, to conflicts between global superpowers, degrading the enemies' will and/or ability to continue is usually the whole point of violence. This is categorically impossible in the current state of Elite: Dangerous. We have the tools for violence, but violence itself has little corresponding utility...and this extends well beyond PvP.

The solution (PvP or otherwise) that should exist, in any credible setting, would be to hunt perpetrators down and either kill them (in a permanent or semipermanent fashion) or render them too poor to continue their hostilities. This, in turn, would have a deterrent value.

If this galaxy really is one where everyone attacks everyone without warning or reason, then why do sidewinders exist? Shouldn't every ship be built to withstand such a thing by default?

The Sidewinder is a pretty safe ship. One of the smallest profiles in the game, room for plenty of armor, and able to made quite fast. My CMDR has a Sidewinder and the convergence of circumstances required for that ship to be destroyed approaches the absurd.

Still has little reason to exist in a setting where it's nearly impossible to suffer a setback that will provide the means to get a more capable vessel within thirty minutes of launching.

 

[0B]

I think you make a lot of good points, but I have a major quibble with this:

I can't think of any.

All the problems that people attribute to players exist because the underlying mechanisms of the game do not provide players with the agency to counter them, without relying on out-of-context means, that may well amount to more severe problems themselves.

If everything's part of the mechanisms of the game and not the actions of the players, then when you earn credits, it's not you earning credits, the game did that. You didn't win a tough fight against two other players, the game did that. (Or more specifically, the game won a fight against itself). You didn't make it to Beagle Point, the game made it to Beagle Point. If we blame all obstacles/problems on the game, then I propose that we don't get to take credit for any of our successes, either.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Only because of the utter lack of consequence (something else that is wholly Frontier's responsibility) renders any form of proactive defense, or attrition, unachievable.

Not seeing how this is linked to time taken to travel around the galaxy.

In any plausible setting, the overriding reason for initiating hostilities against an entity is to cripple it's ability to continue, or initiate, threatening behavior of it's own. From the mano a mano street fight, to conflicts between global superpowers, degrading the enemies' will and/or ability to continue is usually the whole point of violence. This is categorically impossible in the current state of Elite: Dangerous. We have the tools for violence, but violence itself has little corresponding utility...and this extends well beyond PvP.

The tools for violence are there for those who wish to engage in it. Not all players choose to do so - and it remains optional.

The solution (PvP or otherwise) that should exist, in any credible setting, would be to hunt perpetrators down and either kill them (in a permanent or semipermanent fashion) or render them too poor to continue their hostilities. This, in turn, would have a deterrent value.

How many of the player-base would be expected to continue playing the game (or even buy it in the first place) if other players could effectively reset their save on destruction?

 

[Chrystoph]

Not much new here but well laid out and well written OP.

My solution to gankers is for all ships to be fitted with energy bombs that can be detonated upon being killed by another player! The sweet salty tears of gankers as they die the moment they kill you.

Joking-not-joking.

Personally, I've always thought that a failed interdicton should risk a lethal detonation of the FSD from backlash, starting at a 50% chance and de-escalating with a larger Interdictor v the hull size of the target; that way, it is cause and effect.

Make, "Git Gud", cut both ways!

 

[Morbad]

If everything's part of the mechanisms of the game and not the actions of the players, then when you earn credits, it's not you earning credits, the game did that. You didn't win a tough fight against two other players, the game did that. (Or more specifically, the game won a fight against itself). You didn't make it to Beagle Point, the game made it to Beagle Point. If we blame all obstacles/problems on the game, then I propose that we don't get to take credit for any of our successes, either.

All CMDR actions are dictated by players, within the constraints provided by game mechanisms. Those constraints enable everything that could be perceived as a problem with CMDR behavior.

It's not about blame or credit. It's about what the game allows. CMDRs cannot police CMDRs because the game doesn't allow CMDRs to inflict meaningful, objective, consequences upon CMDRs.

One can 'earn' credits, but this doesn't amount to much because the game has no scarcity of credits. One can outfight one's peers, but the game doesn't provide any tangible rewards for doing so, because rewards and consequences are two sides of the same coin. The only way to gain meaningful success is with the arbitrary imposition of subjective, individual, constraints. There is no way to hold anyone to these--they have to opt in--which brings us full circle. We have no contextual agency, no leverage, over others so we cannot solve problems created by others.

Not seeing how this is linked to time taken to travel around the galaxy.

Don't need to be reactive if mechanisms allowed or rewarded proactive behavior. A PvP solution, in a game where meaningful consequences were possible, wouldn't require an ex post facto call to action; preventative action could be taken.

The tools for violence are there for those who wish to engage in it.

What use is a weapon if you can never harm anything with it?

Violence, itself a tool, has marginal utility in this game.

How many of the player-base would be expected to continue playing the game (or even buy it in the first place) if other players could effectively reset their save on destruction?

I don't know.

All I'm sure of is that CMDR behavior would be more believable if the potential for meaningful loss was present.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Don't need to be reactive if mechanisms allowed or rewarded proactive behavior. A PvP solution, in a game where meaningful consequences were possible, wouldn't require an ex post facto call to action; preventative action could be taken.

Who would provide the PvP solution for dealing with those who attack players who don't want to get involved in PvP themselves?

What use is a weapon if you can never harm anything with it?

As a deterrent.

Violence, itself a tool, has marginal utility in this game.

Indeed.

I don't know.

I suspect it would be fewer than currently play the game.

All I'm sure of is that CMDR behavior would be more believable if the potential for meaningful loss was present.

For those few who played, maybe.

 

[Jukelo]

Can't have player-created solutions to player-created problems when there are no consequences to player actions, one way or another. Sure, that ganker who killed you isn't goign to pay the price, but neither is that death going to set you back to a noticeable degree. All that's hurt is a few feelings, and the wider sense of a game that takes itself half seriously of course.

 

[Mohrgan]

Sounds like an idea for a Crime and Punishment mechanism - pilot's federation enforcers - engineered NPCs with intelligent builds and interdiction skills, that rebuy and come back!

And/Or, simply suspend PF benefits (Insurance coverage) while a player has Notoriety. Being defeated with notoriety would result in the criminal having to pay the full cost of the lost ship. Deterrence me thinks...

 

[Jukelo]

And/Or, simply suspend PF benefits (Insurance coverage) while a player has Notoriety. Being defeated with notoriety would result in the criminal having to pay the full cost of the lost ship. Deterrence me thinks...

A fully equipped FDL's full value can be recouped in a couple hours in the current credit meta. Do we believe gankers die often enough that this would become a real deterrent?

 

[Alex Korr V]

A fully equipped FDL's full value can be recouped in a couple hours in the current credit meta. Do we believe gankers die often enough that this would become a real deterrent?

Couple of hours of your real time per death seems like a reasonable price, if not high.

 

[0B]

Couple of hours of your real time per death seems like a reasonable price, if not high.

It's interesting, the more we look at this problem the more it seems like Fdev does have a few ways (deliberate or not) that counter ganking.

In fact, the converse of what you say is that smaller ships (like the ones new players use) take less time to recoup the cost. It's only a pain in the case of cargo or exploration data loss. Part of the reason Deciat is so annoying is because new players may be bringing meta-alloys from Maia or the pleiades region, and in the earlier ships it takes more time to arrive. But in all other cases, the "newbwinder" dying is much less of a hassle than the "griefconda." This may be different for guardian sites, as you may have spent some time and would not want to redo it. However, by the time you get to that point you likely have some awareness of griefing/gankers, and can thus account for it.

Ganking is discouraged over piracy because you do not gain cargo from a destroyed ship. Thus, the only gain you would get is combat xp if you are not already elite. If you are killing for PP or BGS, then you already have other rewards. Every type of killing except ganking gives a reward of some sort.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Couple of hours of your real time per death seems like a reasonable price, if not high.

.... plus all of the Engineering, if the loss was the full ship rather than a 100% payment instead of 5%?

 

[Mohrgan]

A fully equipped FDL's full value can be recouped in a couple hours in the current credit meta. Do we believe gankers die often enough that this would become a real deterrent?

That's a few hours of reprieve for the prey...

I think there are so few gankers that it wouldn't make any difference at all. None. It just seems the right set of occurrences, to me that is, and no real inconveinience to the criminal it seems. Why would a powerful organization like the PF, one that can fine you or put a bounty on your head, stop at dropping your 'good-standing' within the organization until the matter is adjudicated? Criminals are coddled around here.

 

[Mohrgan]

.... plus all of the Engineering, if the loss was the full ship rather than a 100% payment instead of 5%?

I would not stoop to torture. A 100% Re-Buy is, along with the current scheme, enough to set my role play right.

It's nature. Gankers gotta gank. They have a compulsion, and one that can easily be accommodated within a video game.

 

[Misty_Dark]

I would not stoop to torture. A 100% Re-Buy is, along with the current scheme, enough to set my role play right.

It's nature. Gankers gotta gank. They have a compulsion, and one that can easily be accommodated within a video game.

Gankers, or most players for that matter, who would risk loosing a full cost rebuy, would not stay long enough to let their ship get destroyed, they would pull the network cable or do something else that cause the same effect.

[edit]
fixed bad wording