Question for Open players who don't like PVP/ganking... help me understand

[Screemonster]

You can make every ship ATR and you still have about ten seconds of opportunity to kill- more if you don't see destruction as a negative. People including myself have made numerous suggestions but all of them still require some level of personal preparedness because CONCORD level policing will never exist.

Even CONCORD level policing doesn't stop ganking, it just changes the methods used. It's a fundamental problem with multiplayer game designs that revolve around in-character "consequences" for PvP - no matter how harsh the punishment for ganking and sealclubbing, the punishment occurs after the fact and the victim still got ganked. From the victim's point of view, does it matter if the ganker got punished for their actions? It's not going to bring back their rebuy/exploration data/meta-alloy/hold full of diamonds/whatever.

And when you have harsh IC punishments for crimes, you have people tricking other people into becoming criminals. In older RPGs it was things like leaving items lying around in town to tempt people into picking them up whereupon the invincible town guards would chop them up for being thieves, in ED you got suicidewinders getting people shot to ribbons by the station guns.

Harsh in-character punishment does little to make the victim of a gank feel less victimised and is often easy to creatively weaponise against others.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Gosh, this goes on and on. The problem is very simple: you can do whatever you like in a game but sometimes you have a dilemma. The dilemma is your problem, not anyone else's.

Examples:

You can club seals in Deciat.
You can have others thinking you're an OK person.
- Pick one.

You can blow up every trader you meet
You can be not blocked by others.
- Pick one.

(It's easy to think up more examples).

Dilemmas like this crop up in every multi-player game, not just ED. They're not really much to do with modes, blocks, complaints, etc. Try "ninja looting" in LOTRO for example. People form an opinion of you based on what you do, and sometimes it comes back to bite. That's just how things are.

Sadly what happens is any negative action is construed as 'bad'- its why I highlighted when a rival pledge thought I was ganking when they were engaged in Powerplay.

 

[Stigbob]

Even CONCORD level policing doesn't stop ganking, it just changes the methods used. It's a fundamental problem with multiplayer game designs that revolve around in-character "consequences" for PvP - no matter how harsh the punishment for ganking and sealclubbing, the punishment occurs after the fact and the victim still got ganked. From the victim's point of view, does it matter if the ganker got punished for their actions? It's not going to bring back their rebuy/exploration data/meta-alloy/hold full of diamonds/whatever.

And when you have harsh IC punishments for crimes, you have people tricking other people into becoming criminals. In older RPGs it was things like leaving items lying around in town to tempt people into picking them up whereupon the invincible town guards would chop them up for being thieves, in ED you got suicidewinders getting people shot to ribbons by the station guns.

Harsh in-character punishment does little to make the victim of a gank feel less victimised and is often easy to creatively weaponise against others.

It doesn't need any more in game punishments than already exist as it's a perfectly acceptable way to play the game, being a bad guy is OK ganking is fine.

Logging into open means anything goes, so you should take that into account and be prepared when you choose that mode. If you react badly to exploding you should always choose a different option at the main menu.

At the same time you should also be prepared to get blocked by other players if you get your jollies by deliberately trying to spoil the game for other players.

FDEV fixed this years ago, make the choices that suit you and don't worry about what other people do. The social tools we've already been given can tailor the game to exactly what you want if you use them.

 

[Vetinari]

Sadly what happens is any negative action is construed as 'bad'- its why I highlighted when a rival pledge thought I was ganking when they were engaged in Powerplay.

Glad you clarified it was an enemy PP target. PP in Open is essentially consensual PVP to include interdictions, thats effectively what it is and you get an extra warning in the PP menu. Dont have to play in Open but if you do then you should be expecting or perhaps wanting PP PVP of some variety. Not the same as mining or trading or exploring in Open.

I got attacked once in 9 moths of PP in Open. By a player who was aligned to the same faction. If I fire back I get a demerit (seems more like attempted griefing)

Started a short thread about it, general opinion was a target is a target, doesnt matter if theyre the same PP or an ally.

Thats allowed within the rules / mechanics of the game.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

I don't know. People call 'silly names' immersion breaking, but have you seen vanity plates and baby names lately? Technology might improve in the future, but I doubt our species will grow up much.

-Dr. Longus Humongous

I blame the Romans.

Spoiler

 

[Rubbernuke]

I blame the Romans.

Spoiler

ALDs favourite senator I'm told.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

ALDs favourite senator I'm told.

I was told Patreus.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I was told Patreus.

I must admit his pastrami is legend.

 

[Leper Messiah]

What I get fed up with is not particularly 'baddie' players, or even 'goodie' players, it's the extremest justification in threads like this, for either side.

The biggest threat to me is usually that I can be tracked on a bounty board. I could track me if you get my meaning. But people don't. They just complain that the game needs to change to accommodate their wishes instead of seeing an imbalance between goodie & baddie and switching sides, or just splitting up into smaller gangs & having coalitions & rivalries that allow the PvP to have some meaning - gang warfare. Some try to do it, and I applaud them for their efforts regardless of hat colour.

Thing is tracking someone on a bounty board is irrelevant if the victim has no interest in combat. Rubbernuke is right in that the game does overly concentrate on combat above all else, it's not "right" or "wrong" to be combat focussed, it's a failure on FD behalf to set up the game in a way combat isn't the be all and end all. Engineers "could" have been good if the mods were non combat or at the most non lethal combat mods.....but always seems to boil down to who has the biggest guns....mankinds eternal problem!!

 

[Leper Messiah]

Its "the" fundamental truth of Open- you swim in the same sea the sharks do. So, if you don't want to be eaten you find ways to either run away, be in a different place or become a shark yourself.



If only everyone was aware, then griefers would have no food and that cycle is broken. But, since people absolve themselves of personal responsibility the cycle marches on.



In the end the only part of the game you control is your ship- where it goes, what its made of, how its flown. Obsessing on other players and motivations is pointless- view them as variables that you account for.



The question then becomes- what then? You could lock people out of Shin Dhez and it would not make any real difference- even superpower level locks would make little difference. Its why its down to the individual to be savvy. Planning, even for a short trip is vital. Situational awareness doubly so. A little knowledge (fly in paths that make interception attempts obvious for example)- seconds count, reflexes and responses count. Don't skip or trivialise vital skills and the game becomes safer as well as being more rewarding.



There is no ongoing narrative in game. Everything that happens as of now is what players make it. You can LARP about as much as you want but it will always come down to the basics when players meet.



You can make every ship ATR and you still have about ten seconds of opportunity to kill- more if you don't see destruction as a negative. People including myself have made numerous suggestions but all of them still require some level of personal preparedness because CONCORD level policing will never exist.


To be honest I've never come across a group thats 100% angelic.



Common sense is using what information is available + ship and pilot skills to form a real time strategy for your game. Common sense says to look before you cross the road, not put on a blindfold and step from the kerb hoping not to be hit.

1) yup I don't deny that's how the game is right now. I hope you understand I'm not saying one playstyle is right or wrong. Not havng a go at you personally (apart from some of your language ). I'm saying it makes no sense.......hi sec as shark infested waters?

2) there's "aware" and there's "aware"....i.e. people will know they need shields and strong ones, but against engineered weapons in a combat meta build it's still weak. Sometimes I realy wonder what went through FDs heads when they concocted "engineers"!! I imagine people who fly shieldless are pretty rare?

3) Not quite as simple as that as the game is incredibly unbalanced.

4) I dunno, making things harder for criminal types (in some areas only, other areas would open up if FD do it right) would still makes sense. It would mean hotspots for "prey" would be reduced. I mean look at it this way with less people narked off you get less "blocking" and then you get better instancing, surely that's best for everyone in open (I think).

5) there is narrative, the whole bubble has a story and a narrative, the players are "in" that narrative...and it's going down the pan! FD not helping either.

6) I'm on about in SC, it's 10 seconds TTK "after" you've interdicted, what would happen is you jump into a system, within seconds you are scanned (while you yourself are lookng for a target), the authorities are around the star ready to scan incoming ships (like border control). So are closer to you than you would be to any targets (unless they loiter at the jump in spot(who would do that?)). It will still make it very hard for a criminal to function in a hi sec system. Med sec it's all reduced, lo sec reduced further and nothing in an anarchy (unless you are wanted by the controlling faction or something). I'm only asking for the in game security and notoriety to REALLY make sense! the framework is there, it just needs to be a bit less limp wristed. Thing is all but the most inept would have a better chance and if the changes I envision come to pass (ooh a flying pig! ) and someone get's wasted in a lo or no sec system I'd have no real sympathy for them as it would make sense and I would be on the side of the ne'er do well.

7) so it's really hard to get enough "good" guys to get together to even begin to help out in game authority....I also imagine most combat based players would rather be the bad guys, it's understandable.

8) good anaology, but some roads will be minor roads and free of traffic for the most part, I mean in the UK kids play football etc on the local side streets......doesn't mean they do the same thing on 70mph motorways, that's daft. The game needs to make more sense IMO. particularly in criminal repurcussions.

 

[Rubbernuke]

1) yup I don't deny that's how the game is right now. I hope you understand I'm not saying one playstyle is right or wrong. Not havng a go at you personally (apart from some of your language ). I'm saying it makes no sense.......hi sec as shark infested waters?

Its not a matter of playstyles though- although I despise exploration like I do a bone marrow biopsy I do accept some freaks love doing it for some unfathomable reason. What I'm trying to get across is that the context its undertaken in is hostile, with a dystopian setting. You cannot escape that hostility, but you can control when and where you come across it.

2) there's "aware" and there's "aware"....i.e. people will know they need shields and strong ones, but against engineered weapons in a combat meta build it's still weak. Sometimes I realy wonder what went through FDs heads when they concocted "engineers"!! I imagine people who fly shieldless are pretty rare?

Awareness is many things: ship builds, locations, skills, flight styles. Once you know what to look for or do, you realise the game is bombarding you with information that is very helpful in keeping you safe.

3) Not quite as simple as that as the game is incredibly unbalanced.

It is- which is where the early game shines. Its you learning how to run away and be anonymous is the myriad of systems until you are in some shape to brave more dangerous things.

4) I dunno, making things harder for criminal types (in some areas only, other areas would open up if FD do it right) would still makes sense. It would mean hotspots for "prey" would be reduced. I mean look at it this way with less people narked off you get less "blocking" and then you get better instancing, surely that's best for everyone in open (I think).

It definitely could be harder for criminals, but at the same time it should be that by closing off legal avenues of play it opens up criminal routes. Done well it would separate out players slightly.

5) there is narrative, the whole bubble has a story and a narrative, the players are "in" that narrative...and it's going down the pan! FD not helping either.

True, FD need to press play on the VCR again. Until then the 'day to day' narrative is what you do and how that interfaces with others. Some days its all smooth, other days its not.

6) I'm on about in SC, it's 10 seconds TTK "after" you've interdicted, what would happen is you jump into a system, within seconds you are scanned (while you yourself are lookng for a target), the authorities are around the star ready to scan incoming ships (like border control). So are closer to you than you would be to any targets (unless they loiter at the jump in spot(who would do that?)). It will still make it very hard for a criminal to function in a hi sec system. Med sec it's all reduced, lo sec reduced further and nothing in an anarchy (unless you are wanted by the controlling faction or something). I'm only asking for the in game security and notoriety to REALLY make sense! the framework is there, it just needs to be a bit less limp wristed. Thing is all but the most inept would have a better chance and if the changes I envision come to pass (ooh a flying pig! ) and someone get's wasted in a lo or no sec system I'd have no real sympathy for them as it would make sense and I would be on the side of the ne'er do well.

What you need is stuff like this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-npc-player-scan-spawns-an-atr-vessel.533172/

What it essentially does is strip a criminal of shields wherever they go if they are scanned. Its skill based to evade, and clumsy people will suffer.

7) so it's really hard to get enough "good" guys to get together to even begin to help out in game authority....I also imagine most combat based players would rather be the bad guys, it's understandable.

In an ideal world, people would co-operate for mutual benefit but the only players who get that are attackers currently. Because of solo and block its easier (and in some cases justified) to bypass that. With FCs its much easier to 'be your own bubble' in Open too.

8) good anaology, but some roads will be minor roads and free of traffic for the most part, I mean in the UK kids play football etc on the local side streets......doesn't mean they do the same thing on 70mph motorways, that's daft. The game needs to make more sense IMO. particularly in criminal repurcussions.

With some extra attention the C+P would be much better- however even then it still requires input from the defender. Until people start being pro-active nothing will really change.

 

[Riverside]

Thing is tracking someone on a bounty board is irrelevant if the victim has no interest in combat. Rubbernuke is right in that the game does overly concentrate on combat above all else, it's not "right" or "wrong" to be combat focussed, it's a failure on FD behalf to set up the game in a way combat isn't the be all and end all. Engineers "could" have been good if the mods were non combat or at the most non lethal combat mods.....but always seems to boil down to who has the biggest guns....mankinds eternal problem!!

I'm not interested in Combat. But if you mess around with my stuff I'll track where you go & mess around with your stuff, if you have any. Or more likely just contact you & ask what you were doing

There are people who are interested in combat, and there are tools already in the game that they can use.

 

[Vetinari]

hostile dystopian setting.

I keep hearing this and yet it seems to me the only time you get killed without an in-game lore reason is by real people in the real world.

They might have an in-game reason, but if they dont tell you about it its not in-game, its in their head.

All NPCs have and give an in-game reason, its only a hostile environment for a reason.

Not enough people give two hoots about you or combat to bother engaging let alone get 'pro-active' to suit your needs and game. Especially when you dont have a reason to engage with.

 

[Jace Harriman]

The thing that I don't think is quite getting said/acknowledged here is that Elite Dangerous is an absurdly dense and opaque game.

Just on this one subject - that Open is (and should be) dangerous, the threat of banking should be obvious - not only requires reading the blurb when you click Open, but we've also referenced developer intent based on pre-release statements from five years ago. We've talked about Deciat being a danger hotspot. We've talked about how everything would be fine if you just had a better build. About how, oobviously, you shouldn't be in Open until you're ready to face those challenges. About how ganking is easy to avoid if you just get good at evading.

I would argue that some of those things are obvious to you only because you've been here a while. They're obvious if you know. If not? You need the forums, you need the wikis, you need the third party tools. The Deciat danger hotspot is news to me, because up until then days ago I hadn't played since pre-Engineer. As someone who has been with the Elite franchise since infancy, who has read and followed all the pre-dev stuff, and does know the gist of things, who has been casually following along in the meanwhile, the learning curve has been absurd. Even with something as seemingly simple as getting good jump range out of an AspX, there has been so much to process, and so much wading through tips and advice that are now several years out of date but persist forever in search results.

A friend of mine picked up ED a couple of days ago on the Xbox store, because it was on sale and I'd been singing it's praises. He's not experienced the game's website, and the blurb text it offers, nor the quotes we reference back to from pre-release. He doesn't know who Braben is, or any of what he has said. He knows that the game describes itself as dangerous, and that in Open PVP is on, but he's not going to know about PGs that are safe multiplayer spaces, or which systems pose a high ganking risk. Everything "obvious" in this thread won't be.

And that's the issue I have with some of the attitudes here. If most experienced people are good enough to evade a gank, then it's the inexperienced people you'll be going after. How many people does a negative experience like that drive away from Open entirely? How many people understand that if they get better at X, they'll be fine? How many people are actually going to to "git good", or to feel inclined to come back to Open, if the community attitude is "go play in Solo/PG then?"

To repeat myself from earlier, I don't think this is - or should! - be something for players to fix. I love the fact that Elite has gank evasion academies, and safe space PGs, that's very much the spirit of this game; but it's a duct tape fix, and one you need to know about to go looking for.

The "simple" fix would be to add a PVP flag, and have the game check for it when it does P2P matchmaking for instances. If your flag is on, it dumps you in the instance where gankers are lurking. If it's off, it puts you in a different instance. For the PVP crowd, it changes nothing: it's no different to you than the player being in Solo, you just don't see them. But for the PVE crowd, it adds a more convenient and intuitive safe way to get a slightly more multiplayer experience. With Odyssey coming out, especially if there are social hubs, that's something that I think would be very welcome.

Regardless of where you stand on PVP and ganking, I don't think there would be any harm in a system like this. And it doesn't require an extensive rewrite of crime and punishment or a new faction or anything like that, just a change to how the game does what it already does.

 

[Danquememe]

5) Thing is some areas should NOT be dangerous. They're only dangerous because PvPers crap on the Lore and exploit the lax rules.

I can't crap on the lore because I have no idea what the lore in this game actually is. There's been almost nothing delivered to me in-game at all.

I am not saying that to trigger or troll you, but simply to relate the fact that I don't share your frame of reference. That's the game's fault, not yours.

But about safe areas: I agree, and IMHO there should be actual security in a high security area. Not just inside or directly adjacent to a station, but like, within the system itself. I do not play EVE, but I believe there's a more robust security presence in its high security systems/zones.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I can't crap on the lore because I have no idea what the lore in this game actually is. There's been almost nothing delivered to me in-game at all.

I am not saying that to trigger or troll you, but simply to relate the fact that I don't share your frame of reference. That's the game's fault, not yours.

But about safe areas: I agree, and IMHO there should be actual security in a high security area. Not just inside or directly adjacent to a station, but like, within the system itself. I do not play EVE, but I believe there's a more robust security presence in its high security systems/zones.

Personally I'd prefer nowhere to be safe. If you sat down someone would ninja kick you out from your tea cup. But thats me.

 

[Danquememe]

Also within lore the PF should NOT tolerate "pirate" behaviour, and at a certain level (god knows what as both sides will never agree!) people should be kicked out of the PF and have a "Rogue" tag making them a KOS target in all PF controlled areas.

I agree with this, too. I have no idea how I, a ganker, am allowed to remain a member of the Pilots Federation.

As far as I'm concerned, they kicked me out when they booted me from the starter system for accidentally and completely inadvertently and without my knowledge being "too good" at trading. I was excluded from the starter system after 3 hours of play and two ports of call.

So yeah, no hard feelings but I don't feel like I'm a member of the PF at all, especially not with my "career" since.

 

[Danquememe]

The thing that I don't think is quite getting said/acknowledged here is that Elite Dangerous is an absurdly dense and opaque game.

This was a good post; I'm just quoting this bit, because it captures the essence of your point.

Here's the crazy thing: in my own case - and in the case of not a few others - getting ganked actually triggered the sequence of events that lead to me gaining access to more experienced members in the community. It vastly accelerated my learning process, and my progression in the game.

Some people get ganked, and come here to the forums or Reddit or whatever and post about their experience. Other players share tips with them, maybe invite them to their PG, etc. The player who was ganked ultimately gains knowledge and direction - whatever that may be - and progresses their game.

Likewise, some of the people who get ganked get a friend request from the ganker. If they accept, they may suddenly find that they've got an extremely experienced player absolutely ready, willing and able to help them learn the game. Same outcome in terms of access to the knowledge & etc that will help the player progress in the game.

In both cases, the multiplayer interaction leads to an exposure to the broader world of the game. I get that it can be perceived as a negative reaction, and for a new player with very little money in the account, it can feel stressful. But it can also be the entry point to the broader community, the way in which you make the friends that will come to help define your Elite experience.

I am not so naive to think this happens for everyone, but I suspect it's not that uncommon, either. Not when you consider the many and varied ways that people connect, both inside and out of game.

Just offering this as an alternative way of looking at combat interaction for new players in the game. I'm not entirely convinced it isn't just some aspect of "learning to play." And I don't mean that to sound harsh - but in a game as grinding and opaque as Elite, it's a way to make connections, either directly or indireclty, with other players.

I don't think this is a "good" system, but I think it's the system we actually have. I am not celebrating it. I'm acknowledging it.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

hostile dystopian setting.

Take a look at the BGS and you'll quickly see this "background simulation" is filled to the brim with conflict - often over mere scraps.

After that get a look at Powerplay. A handful of individuals with sway over trillions of souls.

Finally the Pilots Federation: a shadowy organization seemingly above it all. Of which every player character is a member.

Elite is dystopian.

 

[Drelthar]

CMDR, insulted? Far from it. I've never been so flattered.

Super glad you took it the right way.

Absolute champ