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

[Deleted member 192138]

Engineers and Jameson Memorial won't effect BGS, but Shinrarta Dezhra and Deciat especially aren't the safest places to fly through in open.

 

[Riverside]

Dragons always need data, pirates need to find the X that marks the spot or something

Explorer Offering up UC data

rOmiLaYu please check your PMs and thank you for doing this for the community.

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Leper Messiah]

You should come fly with me in open sometime and see for yourself what it's really like. We could just go run some missions together or clear a CZ or something.

Thanks for the offer, I'd be a gibbering wreck...not kidding pretty much literally!! Mp not my thing!

 

[Leper Messiah]

This brings me to my ultimate point in all these discussion: the only people responsible for our game experiences are ourselves. You're responsible for you. I'm responsible for me. Job done. Why is this so hard to accept? Why the insistence on blaming others when the power is yours to take?

hmmmm, this is the main fallacy of your arument Phisto, you + many "blame" others just as much. "They don't play with good enough builds, they don't have enough skills".....It goes both ways the "blame" game.

But indeed the problem is open is the way it is and you play it the way it is. There's no flaw in that argument.

I'm thinking FD should have created a 4th option open PVE, but I know the BGS/PP people hate that idea as much as others hate open only.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

Hats off to this thread, it's going on far longer than expected without being deleted, much like Prince Philip.

 

[Leper Messiah]

I agree 99% with everything you have said, but there's one bit nagging at me slightly, and it's this assertion that gankers are the only ones playing the game "literally as intended", and "per its creator's own words".

A few dozen pages ago, someone brought up something David Braben said in the livestream. I forget the exact phrasing - something along the lines of players creating problems for other players - but it was held up as irrefutable proof that ganking is the one true way and that The Holy Braben has decreed it so (exaggeration for dramatic effect). And sure, maybe that's exactly what he meant when he said that. But it isn't how I interpreted it at all, and if there's one thing this last week on the forums has proven definitively, it's that this community does not interpret anything the same way as each other. For every thread looking at statement XYZ and saying it's proof that some feature will or won't be in Odyssey, there's another insisting the exact opposite, based on the exact same statement. It's not just opinions that don't always align in this community, it's the facts.

I think what we can all agree though is that, even if the developers did intend for ganking as-is to be part of the game, they probably didn't expect it to have the kind of negative impact it has on some of the targets and victims. I think we can agree that people feeling like they've been bullied off Open, or people having that one negative gank experience and spending the next six years in Solo is what the developers intended. I would also argue that gankers compensating those they kill, offering friendship and advice and what-not isn't as intended, either. Not every unintended thing is bad. The Fuel Rats don't exist because the developers intended them to. Third-party tools don't exist by developer intent. The road to riches, LTD or void opal mining being the lucrative cash cow aren't what the developers intended. But, Elite Dangerous is intentionally a game in which happy accidents and tolerated exploits are able to exist.

I could (and did, before I deleted it!) wax philosophical on that for several more paragraphs... but instead, let me suggest a different way of framing your third point. Open fails PVPers, because PVPers are forced to play in an environment where their targets are not necessarily willing participants. That's the real problem here: not that you guys are doing anything wrong by playing the game in a way that you feel is the correct way to play, but that the game isn't facilitating that in a way that is acceptable to all parties. The flaw in this whole conversation is that each side keeps trying to put the blame on the other. For the gankers, you place the fault with those who aren't playing Solo. For the gankees, we place the fault with a lack of empathy or remorse from the gankers. In reality, the fault is with the game, which does not adequately cater to what is, IMO, a pretty obvious and predictable problem. Suggesting that this is the game as intended gives the developers a free pass: if this is the situation they did intend, then they were short-sighted, and they should intentionally do something about it rather than us all having to suck it up and live with the status quo.

And to back up that assertion with an actionable suggestion: PVP tags. The game already does matchmaking to decide what instance you end up in. Give us an option to tag ourselves for PVP, and have the game factor that in when it decides who to put in which instance. It is an easy(ish) solution, and one that has existed in MMOs for donkey's years. That way, if you're a PVPer and a player shows up in your instance, you know they've flagged themselves for it, that they're willingly participating in that kind of gameplay. Slap a cooldown on it if necessary (which many games do)... but since it's to do with instances and matchmaking, it's not going to take effect until the next system / next round of instance matchmaking anyway, so unless someone is fumbling through their settings to turn off their PVP flag while you're chasing them, there's almost a built-in mechanical cooldown anyway. Not only does that funnel all the willing PVPers into the same instances, but it also means that Open is safe(r) for PVE folks to come out of Solo, and means that if you bump into another player in a PVE instance there's no fear of shenanigans which might actively encourage the kind of non-PVP co-op that some folks are hoping for. It's a solution where no one loses: PVPers get willing targets and better odds of quality PVP, and PVEers get a gank free experience without it being solitary. Win-win.

Yeah the PvP flag/tag is defo the best idea IMO, I know many PvP people don't like it because they don't want indestructible targets....but that's not how Elite works, it would be the instancing that filters everyone where they prefer to be. Can't really see a flaw in it, but I'm sure someone will educate me (or already have).

 

[Riverside]

hmmmm, this is the main fallacy of your arument Phisto, you + many "blame" others just as much. "They don't play with good enough builds, they don't have enough skills".....It goes both ways the "blame" game.

But indeed the problem is open is the way it is and you play it the way it is. There's no flaw in that argument.

I'm thinking FD should have created a 4th option open PVE, but I know the BGS/PP people hate that idea as much as others hate open only.

I think the modes & block list options work fine tbh, they allow a player to decide for themselves. I completely agree about the blame game though. There's things less experienced players have yet to learn, and that lesson does not need to be so harshly & gleefully applied. And if it is, the player(s) concerned really should understand that there may be repercussions that do not favour their skillset.

There is a place in the game for griefing, and I think the balance already struck by the game structure is pretty good. It just gets talked about a lot (mostly by those condoning it nowadays).

 

[Ian Doncaster]

but I don't want to unintentionally step on some player faction's BGS efforts by unloading the "wrong" place.

If the system isn't being intentionally contested between two player groups at the time, then your exploration data won't make any difference because managing (and optimising for) the effects of passing traffic is part of the BGS game and any group that can't do that really basic task doesn't deserve to own the system.

If the system is intentionally contested, which is relatively rare, then your exploration data still won't make any difference because the amount of effort two groups in a fight are going to be pouring into the system will mean that your exploration data is lost in the noise.

 

[Vetinari]

Just because the rules "allow" it, doesn't make it right

I think what we can all agree though is that, even if the developers did intend for ganking as-is to be part of the game, they probably didn't expect it to have the kind of negative impact it has on some of the targets and victims. I think we can agree that people feeling like they've been bullied off Open, or people having that one negative gank experience and spending the next six years in Solo is what the developers intended. I would also argue that gankers compensating those they kill, offering friendship and advice and what-not isn't as intended, either. Not every unintended thing is bad. The Fuel Rats don't exist because the developers intended them to. Third-party tools don't exist by developer intent. The road to riches, LTD or void opal mining being the lucrative cash cow aren't what the developers intended. But, Elite Dangerous is intentionally a game in which happy accidents and tolerated exploits are able to exist.

Some people dont think it does have a negative impact, they think its someone elses fault or because its not against the rules yet its fine to do it. Even if the obvious outcome is a change to the rules that affects everyone. Gankers dont care about the game or about you or the wider community, they only care about themselves. Theyve said it on this thread. They also think that in-game exploits are fine but as SG said:

Just because the rules "allow" it, doesn't make it right

In reality, the fault is with the game, which does not adequately cater to what is, IMO, a pretty obvious and predictable problem. Suggesting that this is the game as intended gives the developers a free pass: if this is the situation they did intend, then they were short-sighted, and they should intentionally do something about it rather than us all having to suck it up and live with the status quo.

This isnt the situation as intended. There were checks and balances. Safety net for the victim, appropriate punishment for the attacker. The victim exploited their safety net, the attacker exploited their punishment. Both were removed. This left the imbalance with the victim. Fdev now say that blocking someone is the preferred solution, ie they tried and failed coz of exploiters so now its up to the players and fdev hope enough players will block that will mostly contain it.

The entire purpose of this thread has been to try and groom people into believing and blaming the game for the fault of individual. 4 times now it has been drawn back round to 'its the games fault' so please dont let this lie take hold in your head. It is individuals and groups who are responsible for their actions. As Sir GAnksalot said.

Just because the rules "allow" it, doesn't make it right

A few dozen pages ago, someone brought up something David Braben said in the livestream. I forget the exact phrasing - something along the lines of players creating problems for other players

He said 'making things go wrong for other people' he did not say 'Players making things go wrong...'. Obviously DB cant control players so he cant speak for them and is only talking about the things he can control, the game environment and background. The traditional way he has always made things 'go wrong'.

Gankers tactic is to seize on small words or phrases and twist them to their own meaning. This is a perfect example of this tactic. Numerous others are littered throughout this thread.

but even if he did mean ganking absolutely specifically and for some reason just forgot to use the word, as SG says:

Just because the rules "allow" it, doesn't make it right

Suggesting that this is the game as intended gives the developers a free pass: if this is the situation they did intend, then they were short-sighted, and they should intentionally do something about it rather than us all having to suck it up and live with the status quo

As abovem its not as intended, exploiters and gankers killed the game as intended and now the preferred solutions are block, PG & Solo because you cant win against an exploiter, a griefer or a ganker as nonoe of them care about the game itself and do it just because they 'can'. But as SG says:

Just because the rules "allow" it, doesn't make it right

 

[Vetinari]

As a matter of fact, if I were interdicted and contacted by a CMDR (instead of just being blown to bits on sight), I'd be more than happy to either fly to another system or unload it at a station of his choosing.

Hadn't though of that! That would definitely be the "quick and dirty" way of making sure and no, at this point of Credits floating around in hallways and ship heads, I'm really not that fussed about the cash. Thanks!

Check the 'Turning The Wheel' thread, see if its something you want to help....or hinder. Either way explo can get you something, allied with a faction for a permit if nothing else if you aint got em all.

FC Owner takes 25% of UC iirc. Do they really need the money?

Edit: Community Goal Turning The Wheel thread

 

[ethelred]

It's an impasse then.

We inhabit the game space, the game space defines the rules.

If it's not a cheat, then it's allowed.

If you don't like it, blame the game.

Edit:-

Game rules are objective, they are the same for everyone.

Your (non-specific) ideas or feelings are subjective, as this thread has shown.

The objective rules don't care about your subjective ideas.

Further edit:-

Only FDEV can change the objective rules, so blame the game, not the player.

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

Are we there yet?

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Rules of game are like laws of physics in real world. Everything allowed by that ruleset is not lawfull or in good taste. And insisting that rude behauviour towards unwanting recipient is ok, and NOT rude as it is allowed by rules is somewhat childish.

 

[Havvk]

First off....-Snip-

All of it, I agree.

 

[Brrokk]

...
If it's not a cheat, then it's allowed.
...

I agree with what you say.
The funny bit, though, is when some argue that that applies to ganking but not menu logging, or vice versa.

 

[Riverside]

I agree with what you say.
The funny bit, though, is when some argue that that applies to ganking but not menu logging, or vice versa.

Frankly I think using discord or any other method of communication outside the game is cheating, copying the work of other players to fast-track through what are intended to be challenging puzzles for the players to solve, and wing beacons & nav lock are all exploits. Cynically refreshing instances, relogging, trade and exploration tools external to the game, all are cheating as far as I am concerned.

Of course I also understand that I draw my line in a different place to others, so while I do not do these things I must accept that others will use those exploits to gain an advantage. And sometimes I'll just google the answer too

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

In other words why choose game with rather toxic subset of gamer community? YAY, hooray for brave picnic wasps. And of course responsibility lies only on part of attacked, not on attackers.

hmmmm, this is the main fallacy of your arument Phisto, you + many "blame" others just as much. "They don't play with good enough builds, they don't have enough skills".....It goes both ways the "blame" game.

Do you guys like suffering the effects of FDEV's ill concieved game design? Because that's what it sounds like to me. Like Ethelred said, the objectively reality of Open Play doesn't care about your feelings. It is what it is. Adapt to it, or go pound sand.

Or as I've said multiple times in this thread now: choose your mode, adapt accordingly. You can't control what others do, only how you deal with it.

If you're just going to reject this as mere "blaming" then I'll leave you to your filth.

 

[Klarg]

In other words why choose game with rather toxic subset of gamer community? YAY, hooray for brave picnic wasps. And of course responsibility lies only on part of attacked, not on attackers.

I don't see what is "toxic" about blowing up a ship in open, even one on a charity mission. I have been blown up many times and whilst it is somewhat annoying, it is hardly toxic given that one of the points in the game is to blow ships up. If I was to conduct a stream in Call of Duty and then complain that people keep shooting me in the face nobody would listen or care because that game explicitly carries the risk of your character being shot in the face. Elite in Open carries with it the risk I will be blown to pieces and if it happens (and it frequently does) then 100% of the responsibility lies with me and only me.

edit:spelling

 

[Klarg]

Frankly I think using discord or any other method of communication outside the game is cheating, copying the work of other players to fast-track through what are intended to be challenging puzzles for the players to solve, and wing beacons & nav lock are all exploits. Cynically refreshing instances, relogging, trade and exploration tools external to the game, all are cheating as far as I am concerned.

Of course I also understand that I draw my line in a different place to others, so while I do not do these things I must accept that others will use those exploits to gain an advantage. And sometimes I'll just google the answer too

I agree with most of that. I still use external tools (for trade mainly, or to find that thing I want) but it feels wrong.

 

[Uncle ToyBox]

I'm still relatively new to the game and haven't done any PVP or even any combat at this point. For me, the big appeal to the game is the exploration of the galaxy and sharing in the communal discovery of the galaxy.
One thing that playing in the open affords me is the comfort of the Fuel Rats. I needed them once when I was first learning the mechanics of the game and would have lost a lot of exploration data if it hadn't been for them.
The idea of coming back into the system with two or three weeks of exploration data and getting ganked upon arrival actually terrifies me. At the same time, I don't want to give up the comfort of knowing the Fuel Rats are available or the fun of visiting a remote fleet carrier.

I've also had the pleasure of bumping into a fellow explorer on one jump and getting to chat with them about points of interest in the region. Just because I'm playing in the open, doesn't mean I want to fight.