Simple Solution to Gankers versus Carebears

The whole debate with lots of salt on both sides is a result of bad game design by Frontier.

Design Flaw 1: You can either have a battle ship or a paper cut. There is nothing inbetween. You have an explorer, trader or miner ship, and meet a battleship in PvP: There is no GitGud possible, ever. You can't win against a tank in a shoebox.

Design Flaw 2: You want realistically dangerous? So give it to the gankers, too. Play a psychopathic serial killer all the way you want - but be prepared to be killed at sight in civilised systems and have a billion-Credit bounty on your head in anarchies - which also other players can get.

Remove these two design flaws and the whole debate is over, on both sides.
 
This is also not a design flaw, it's a mode choice error by individuals.

I'd go as far and say the mode choice is genius, enables everyone to play as he/she likes.
Trouble only starts if you chose the wrong mode.
It's not a mode choice error, when coop players want to meet random people and instead get matched with grindlord leet PvP-minded ones. The game was marketed like this to meet a wider audience, doesn't work out like imagined. That's the gist of it.
 
The main error is people confounding ganking with any sort of competitive pvp.

It's not. People ganking will come here and tell it's their way of roleplaying Darth Vadder, their game choice.

Since the dawn of time there will always be at least one player at the dnd table who wants to play a chaotic evil antipal and kill the group. It's just a matter of keeping the nerd occupied.

And Fdev isn't the best of gamemasters.
 
The player has agency over which mode to play in, and the choice to meet 'any' player or 'chosen' - or even none at all!
Unless you are on the top of the dog-pile you won't have a ship to take on a player who has, but that is how this game is, there is no 'matchmaking' by the servers just you and whoever else happens to be out there.

There will always be, in our multi-player game, those who build 'meta' and seek out anyone in their space to fight, regardless of that player's ability or build, accepting that as fact should determine your mode choice.

Me, in Colonia, I play in open and build to run away :) In the bubble, PG is very nice, thank you!
 
Your design flaw 1 isn't a design flaw.

You can build traders or explorers capable of survival in open very well.
It's the extremely one-sided min-max builds that are in danger of getting steamrolled,
the 84.3 LY Condas and the 3D shielded Asps.

Flaw 2 I concede.
No, stop saying it is my fault my explonda gets wacked! People should respect my desire to literally remove even the stock defences my ship came with! FD should balance the game better so that even flying in the slowest clunkiest ship with all defences removed never is risky! Just give me godmode already, then all salt will stop on both sides!

Or at least I will have what I want, which is to be honest the only thing I care about. :)
 
Design Flaw 1: You can either have a battle ship or a paper cut. There is nothing inbetween.
Not really true. There's plenty in between. The problem is when you want something that's absolutely perfect at doing one thing only.
You can have pretty solid trading ship that will survive most if not all ganker attacks, but it will not have max cargo space or jump range.

The problem with gankers is... well, ganking. It's hard to actually fight 2 or 3 ships outfitted to quickly kill you. You can prepare and survive, but frankly it's as boring as being killed in paper build.
Gankers are just boring, unimaginative bunch of jerks.
 
Mode choice (with "block") is the best answer with the game as it is.

I think we see that there are two classes of people dissatisfied with it:
(1) Those who say "No-one should affect the galaxy unless they are a possible PvP opponent for me".
(2) Those who say "Why should the most social mode, Open, belong to 'gankers'?"

I see no way for FD to square this circle. They could satisfy (1) with "Open-only" or (2) with "Open-PvE", but never satisfy both.
 
Your design flaw 1 isn't a design flaw.

You can build traders or explorers capable of survival in open very well.
It's the extremely one-sided min-max builds that are in danger of getting steamrolled,
the 84.3 LY Condas and the 3D shielded Asps.

Flaw 2 I concede.
Flaw 1 is a design flaw caused by very bad balancing.
Assuming 2 players of equal skills, both flying ships built for PvP, the player in the unengineered ship doesn't have a chance against the player in the fully engineered ship. At least that's my impression.
 
Flaw 1 is a design flaw caused by very bad balancing.
Assuming 2 players of equal skills, both flying ships built for PvP, the player in the unengineered ship doesn't have a chance against the player in the fully engineered ship. At least that's my impression.
How is that a design flaw? The vast majority of MMOs will see the lvl99 character with Uber gear beat the lvl1 char with a rusty dagger. That is how games work. You can not like it, but calling it a flaw is weird.

what IMHO is a flaw is that the 'classes' are unbalanced. A trade ship loaded with turrets should be some kind of threat to a pirate. But with a decent combat ship you can just completely ignore them, and that is not okay.
 
Mode choice (with "block") is the best answer with the game as it is.

I think we see that there are two classes of people dissatisfied with it:
(1) Those who say "No-one should affect the galaxy unless they are a possible PvP opponent for me".
(2) Those who say "Why should the most social mode, Open, belong to 'gankers'?"

I see no way for FD to square this circle. They could satisfy (1) with "Open-only" or (2) with "Open-PvE", but never satisfy both.
Why not? It's a very simple solution as you correctly noticed it yourself:
  • Open-PvE
  • Open-PvP
PvE people are second-class citizens, forced to use PGs limited to 20,000 members.
 
Top Bottom