Solution for Ganking

[Morbad]

At last I know I’m not alone feeling this way!

There are always a few thousand other freaks out there.

Let's just say I want to avoid meeting you in game. But of course, if you don't want to, there is nothing I will do.

Since I'm not a video game character, you'd likely only be able to meet my CMDR in game.

Regardless, my CMDR's handle is not at all hard to find, but I'm disinclined to make it easier for someone who is suggesting they'll use it damage instancing in response to a perceived slight on a forum.

LOL, this is so true.

"Don't like it? Go play in Solo!"

"Waaa! People play in solo! Its not fair!"

We do, but we then get complaints about it and requests to change the game in favour of those flying in open.

We are always in the wrong.

You guys say this as if there is a contradiction somewhere, rather than just a variety of opinions. Rarely does any given individual hold both of these views.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You guys say this as if there is a contradiction somewhere, rather than just a variety of opinions. Rarely does any given individual hold both of these views.

Both you and me have been on this forum long enough to see the same individuals say exactly those things.

 

[galahad2069]

We do, but we then get complaints about it and requests to change the game in favour of those flying in open.

Playing in Solo is totally fine.

There are certain game loops like powerplay combat where Open only would absolutely make sense and you might get complaints specifically because of those game loops, but playing in Solo never gets any complaints generally.

No one wants to force anyone to have to wait 30 minutes for a landing pad in a player hotspot in Open.
No one wants to force you to unlock Guardian modules in Open where it will not even really work if there are other people around.
And contrary to the popular belief in this thread, zero gankers are complaining because they cannot reach you in Solo. Why would they complain? There literally never has been a shortage of targets in Open.

 

[Morbad]

Both you and me have been on this forum long enough to see the same individuals say exactly those things.

I can't think of anyone specifically holding both of these positions.

Regardless, if I did see someone making statements that seemed to represent concurrent views of seemingly contradictory things, I'd assume it was a situation where it was not a binary choice between these two things, but a ranked choice between less good and worse.

For example, I don't want to lose any fingers at all (they are very useful, even the pinkies), but if it's the choice between the amputation of frostbitten digits or dying of sepsis, missing fingers is the better option. Likewise, someone whose ideal version of Elite: Dangerous is an Open-only game, might consider it underhanded to be able to contribute to the game's setting without the risks implicit in open, but may still consider switching modes far less damaging than leveraging block.

In either case, it's not a contradiction, it's just more nuanced than painting broad strokes, while ignoring context, would imply.

 

[GJ51]

Meh

All goes back to the original decision to merge progress from mode to mode rather than keeping the progress in each mode separate.

All arguments fell on deaf ears

Solo/Group

Open

Iron Man

Would have been a hoot

 

[SteveWW57]

Meh

All goes back to the original decision to merge progress from mode to mode rather than keeping the progress in each mode separate.

All arguments fell on deaf ears

This is what I like to call the two universe solution. Have a solo/PG 'verse and an open 'verse, which are not linked. BGS/PP etc changes in one do not affect the other. As to CMDRs being able to switch between the two, I suppose that could be allowed. Would only split the player base though.

 

[Morbad]

Meh

All goes back to the original decision to merge progress from mode to mode rather than keeping the progress in each mode separate.

All arguments fell on deaf ears

Solo/Group

Open

Iron Man

Would have been a hoot

Would only split the player base though.

The overriding reason for the lack of an offline game (other than DRM) and the mode system is that Frontier didn't (and still doesn't) have a system to create BGS activity without enough player input. The setting would seem very stagnant if the population was broken up too much without some BGS automation.

 

[Darkfyre99]

As I keep saying, I’m already not going to encounter 99% of the playerbase simply due to lack of overlap geographically and temporally. The difference between that and 99.2% is so minuscule that it scarcely matters to me. Except that difference seems to do a pretty good job at minimizing the number of players in Open who are simply not fun to play with.

And that is a huge benefit in my eyes.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I can't think of anyone specifically holding both of these positions.

Regardless, if I did see someone making statements that seemed to represent concurrent views of seemingly contradictory things, I'd assume it was a situation where it was not a binary choice between these two things, but a ranked choice between less good and worse.

For example, I don't want to lose any fingers at all (they are very useful, even the pinkies), but if it's the choice between the amputation of frostbitten digits or dying of sepsis, missing fingers is the better option. Likewise, someone whose ideal version of Elite: Dangerous is an Open-only game, might consider it underhanded to be able to contribute to the game's setting without the risks implicit in open, but may still consider switching modes far less damaging than leveraging block.

In either case, it's not a contradiction, it's just more nuanced than painting broad strokes, while ignoring context, would imply.

I think we will have to disagree on this.

I've seen this sort of behaviour across many games and there is always a certain type of individual that will do this.

But even if we say, ok, it is different people, then what is the person to do? Go solo? Well, if they do, others will complain. There is a cadre of players, who will berate people no matter what they do, unless they do what they want them to do.

 

[Morbad]

I've seen this sort of behaviour across many games and there is always a certain type of individual that will do this.

Forum goers?

But even if we say, ok, it is different people, then what is the person to do?

Whatever they want, which is what they're ultimately going to do anyway. Fussing about it neither helps them nor will appease anyone who may have a problem with the choice.

 

[GJ51]

The overriding reason for the lack of an offline game (other than DRM) and the mode system is that Frontier didn't (and still doesn't) have a system to create BGS activity without enough player input. The setting would seem very stagnant if the population was broken up too much without some BGS automation.

Considering that we now have Legacy League, Console players, and Live...

It seems to be a bit moot

Most of the complaints I see are that the BGS can be distorted by not playing in Open with no way to counter it. I play in Open 99% of the time and accept the point of those who are interested in the BGS that object to it being affected by players in Solo/Group.

I don't care much about BGS other than gaining my reputation in a system with the local factions. Is this really an unrealistic ask of FD to address the problem and create a better BGS system with mode separation?

 

[Brrokk]

...
All goes back to the original decision to merge progress from mode to mode rather than keeping the progress in each mode separate.
...

Great decision; good game design, given that P2P was going to be used.

 

[Morbad]

Considering that we now have Legacy League, Console players, and Live...

It seems to be a bit moot

The Legacy BGS is shared with all remaining console players and moves rather glacially. The only other BGS is 4.0/Live. Since console and Legacy are just there for the sake of whatever revenue can still be extracted with the game on life support, I think the point still applies.

Is this really an unrealistic ask of FD to address the problem and create a better BGS system with mode separation?

Evidently it is. The game has always been a mess of bugs and placeholders. Now they're busy focusing on their Thargoid narrative and selling ships for Arx. 'Fixing' the modes probably doesn't even register.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

Dude. That is semantics. Whether you call it "killing" or "losing your ship explosively", it's what bothers people.

Welcome to the semantics game. There's a certain kind of player and/or forum PvPer that will invalidate any negative feelings of players who are being destroyed in-game who make the mistake of using the term "kill" with something along the lines of "aaaaakshuallly you can't be killed, so go home with your feelings". As if we're all stupid it's going to be argued that a player can't be killed, and because we respawn the CMDRs can't be killed, trying to make those who use the phrase killed as a catch all for whatever happens to our CMDRs look like illiterate idiots.

Because playing against players is a different, but not necessarily more difficult, experience compared to playing against NPCs. Tactics that work against players don’t necessarily work against NPCs, and vice versa. I find it makes the game more interesting, and thus more fun.

I take issue with that "players are different" argument, because when push comes to shove, an unexperienced trader CMDR isn't going to be much different than an NPC - if they meet a wing of Frag Python 2s, they are as quickly history in that instance as an NPCs. They might get more salty than NPCs afterwards, though.

As a hauler in Open, I use the exact same build in Open that I would use in Solo/PG. The same armor and shields I use to safely Buckyball my takeoffs and landings can be used to kill a lone pirate or survive long enough to escape from a hostile player … assuming I don’t do something as foolish as fly slowly in a straight line away from them!

I’ve participated in numerous trade CGs in Open, and have yet to be killed. It’s how I’ve come to my impression of gankers: they are so bad at PvP that they need the active cooperation of their target to make the kill. If you don’t follow their “script” (AKA common forum “wisdom”) then they’re not much of a threat,

I'm not argue against the validity of your experience, and who knows what kind of gankers you have met. I also agree that for a large portion of the gankers (those who I call amateur gankers who usually also run away quickly at the first sign of actual resistance and danger) very little compromise might have to be made. But, with the gankers I know and who usually create the largest amount of salt on reddit and other platforms, @Agony_Aunt makes a very good point. The above mentioned wing of Frag boats deletes the average non-combat trained player faster than they can call for their Mother unless you're in an equally competend shield tank, and even then it will be a close call. Frag Mambas and their derivates are devastating. Pair that with one of them bringing a grom bomb, and the average player will switch to solo faster than an amateur ganker can combat log.

 

[Morbad]

Welcome to the semantics game.

Often, when someone uses the word semantics in a seemingly accusatory sense, I get major Princess Bride vibes:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk


Why do people so often dismiss the meaning of words when trying to communicate with them? Not a rhetorical question, if that's unclear.

There's a certain kind of player and/or forum PvPer that will invalidate any negative feelings of players who are being destroyed in-game who make the mistake of using the term "kill" with something along the lines of "aaaaakshuallly you can't be killed, so go home with your feelings". As if we're all stupid it's going to be argued that a player can't be killed, and because we respawn the CMDRs can't be killed, trying to make those who use the phrase killed as a catch all for whatever happens to our CMDRs look like illiterate idiots.

Death and related terminology normally has connotations of finality; it's one of the things that makes it so serious. When someone emphasizes a CMDR being 'killed' in the context of what bothers people or inspires negative feelings, it often comes off as completely disproportionate to the actual consequence of a 'kill" in this game. The term 'kill', in the original context it was used in here, feels like a dysphemism to me.

We're all entitled to our feelings, but if one is going to push the idea of some kind of consensus or broad truth on a matter, it's hard to dismiss the semantics of the terminology used.

I take issue with that "players are different" argument, because when push comes to shove, an unexperienced trader CMDR isn't going to be much different than an NPC - if they meet a wing of Frag Python 2s, they are as quickly history in that instance as an NPCs.

The nature of a challenge matters as much as the magnitude. NPCs in this game, of any difficulty, are very formulaic and very predictable.

Even inexperienced player characters won't go down exactly the same way, and more importantly, they're persistent. They might remember. And they can learn. It's also often difficult tell how experienced someone is without seeing them in action first, so even if one is trying for inexperienced types, they might be surprised from time to time.

They might get more salty than NPCs afterwards, though.

If NPCs had the same personal escape system as CMDRs, and enough persistence for it to be relevant, I'm sure they be scripted to follow their 'killers' around and annoy the snot out of them.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

I am not going to play the "I know words better than you" game with you. Fact is the term "kill" has been used in games for decades for the demise, destruction or otherwise removing a character from a game session, even if only temporarily. Doing the "akshually you don't get killed" isn't helpful at best, and purposefully distracting from the issue at hand (namely the reaction of the "killed" player) at worst.

 

[Neilski]

Well, yes, but its nothing special. I'm sure others could find ways to improve it.

Thanks! (I had misunderstood and thought your build could somehow do 1300 dps sustained. In hindsight I guess that's probably impossible anyway.)

But even if we say, ok, it is different people, then what is the person to do? Go solo? Well, if they do, others will complain. There is a cadre of players, who will berate people no matter what they do, unless they do what they want them to do.

Well, that one's actually a trivial question as far as I'm concerned.
If you aren't enjoying Open (for any reason linked to the behaviour of other players) then you should go Solo/PG.
In my view, most people on the forum would recommend and support that approach.
In my view, a really tiny minority would choose to berate people for leaving Open and (more importantly) those that do make that choice are self-evidently the type of people whose views should be ignored (and are best avoided in any gaming situation). (NB: people who merely say that it's a bad idea and try to coax people back into Open and perhaps educate them about how to enjoy Open are clearly not in this category.)

 

[Miscellaneous]

This whole discussion is deliberately and effectively derailed out to 8 pages of old griefs, Eeyore angles, and spinoff discussions

I think generally most people would like to play in the open but they also do not want to lose credits for being mindlessly ganked. Most ganking is just for the fun of it so I have a idea for a solution.
Create a module that changes the ship's signature to mimic an npc, giving the player a solid square instead of a hollow square on the radar. Gankers would have to scan your ship in order to see that "Cmdr" in the name. That would at least give players who just are trying to get in and out of a system a better chance of survival. This or have the system authority react much quicker and deadlier when wanted player is interdicting another.

I think Omnipol should hunt them down and revoke their pilot's license until they lose the notoriety

And the loss of the pilot license can remove their ship's special ability to distinguish the CMDRs until they can re-apply by retaking the pilot cert training. to regain such privileged information!

They would still pick you out pretty fast for the human-like behaviors though even without their license, I'm afraid. But that might make things somewhat more interesting

Like, if I went to an unfamiliar metropolis or something here Earthside, I'd be rather liable to increase my chances of getting mugged or pickpocketed for example. So we take your idea to the real world and remove the muggers' tourist-finding magic electric wand (that makes tourists glow pink). But the mugger would still spot the marks who aren't going with the flow

 

[Screemonster]

Indeed.

Around 99% of the last week PvP kills are all marked by some poweplay affiliation.

"No faction" kills are totally unrelevant.

Reminded of that thread a while back where people were discussing the idea of an automatic pvp flag that allowed certain "obvious and intended" activities through, such as wanted ships, ships that fired on another player first, powerplay enemies, and conflict zones. The kinds of situations where the game would be extremely obviously degraded by throwing "nyaa nyaa I'm indestructible because I pressed the no pvp button even though I'm extremely obviously a valid and intended target as per the design of the game" mechanics into the mix. (solo and private, while obviously rendering you immune to direct attack, also prevent you from doing so right there under their noses where they have to look at you)

I wonder how such a mechanic would go down now.

 

[Riverside]

Interesting read, some really good build & tactics advice in this thread.

To the suggestion in the OP no thanks, it would only make it harder for the Cmdr not wishing to be attacked to evade those attackers. It is not difficult to differentiate between NPCs & other players, there have been times where game bugs have made Cmdrs show as solid & NPCs show as hollow & it is only momentarily confusing even when one isn't expecting it. If the game included that option the 'gankers' would adapt more quickly than those hoping to hide amongst the NPCs.

The game already offers ways to tailor your experience & those you meet in the game, I'd suggest one of the Mobius PvE private groups might suit you.

I don't actively seek out adversarial interactions with other Cmdrs but it is just part of the multi-player experience IMO that not everyone you meet will be friendly or care about your welfare. If I'm not in the mood for risking rebuy I don't go to those hotspot systems where it's likely, or if I really want to go anyway I just go in solo (or a private group in theory, I'm not subscribed to any any more).