The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[TiberiusDuval]

Silly me, and I thought it was the wonderful roleplay you I-let-you-only-attack-me-if-your-reason-is-of-my-liking advocates so often proclaim.
Look how tough I am for playing Elite in Open, I only blocked 500 gankers, pirates and everyone not properly o7ing me...

Never intentionally blocked a pirate Unintentionally, well no comms attack, that may happen...

 

[Rubbernuke]

How do you do this properly? Wing Nav-Lock is broken.

You don't need that, just having one person interdicting pirates and letting the trader through is enough. Or that when around stations you can scout undesirables.

Powerplay has been coping for years and doing exactly these things, some Fed Imp ding dongs have been epic with this sort of thing.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's an activity that players can choose to engage in, yes. It's also an interaction that the target can choose to leave at any time.

Why should cargo be left behind, given that none is left when the pirate destroys the target nor does the target drop materials?

How do you know the pirate will destroy the target?

Why should the player vanishify a whole ship and cargo when they lose the interaction, and the pirate gets nothing for winning it? What impetus is there to fight, or form alternate strategies to cope / escape etc?

The player who menu logs lost that encounter, there has to be an incentive to either fly properly in open and follow through the interaction otherwise there is no point to any piracy NPC or player alike.

 

[Darrack]

But its still valid and legitimate, while the trader can escape punishment free for bailing out.

If a trader bails on the instance, why not leave the cargo behind since otherwise whats the point?

And whats the punishment for the Pirate who fails to interdict? walk the plank?

O7

 

[Rubbernuke]

And whats the punishment for the Pirate who fails to interdict? walk the plank?

O7

Um....they lost the interdiction and the chance to pirate. Unless I'm mistaken the pirate loop is find target > interdict (if in SC) > hatch break > scoop > run.

 

[Darrack]

Um....they lost the interdiction and the chance to pirate. Unless I'm mistaken the pirate loop is find target > interdict (if in SC) > hatch break > scoop > run.

That's my point there is no risk for the pirate, the trader on the other hand has everything to lose, don't blame them for logging and blocking.

O7

 

[Rubbernuke]

That's my point there is no risk for the pirate, the trader on the other hand has everything to lose, don't blame them for logging and blocking.

O7

The pirate risks not getting anything, while the trader gains by doing what they are doing by default.

You lost the interdiction, and gave up the rest. You literally exited the game to escape rather than play it and engage with it. What about NPC piracy, which is exactly the same- is that optional as well?

You also forget that a pirate has to collect the cargo and then escape to a place to sell it, and that others might attack them along with security.

 

[Bigmaec]

That's my point there is no risk for the pirate, the trader on the other hand has everything to lose, don't blame them for logging and blocking.

O7

A pirate vessel is a glorified trader, losing slots for hatch breakers, cargo, collectors, fsd interrupt missiles.
In my above video I would've had a good chance to blow up that Clipper with my armed Corvette (Miner), a trader is even less restricted.
I simply chose not to to not risk 300 tons of LTDs. And the pirate is always at risk from gankers, and lawful PvPers.
You just have no plan about all of this, no offense.

 

[Morbad]

The irony is that Open needs more constraints (calm yourself Robert! Think of puppies or kittens ) to really make it function in a logical way and people take better care of themselves- that and form more structures that protect each other (such as squadrons, closer wings and so on) thus making groups advantageous.

People think it's a lack of barriers that give them options, but meaningful choice, and all the gameplay dependent on it, really comes from internally consistent constraint.

Not much of that to be had when everyone can play by their own individual set of rules.

That piracy is role play does not change the fact that it is parasitic, i.e. the pirate wants something from the target that they are not entitled to.

The gameplay such interaction provides is not inherent parasitic (everyone, except the most oblivious, playing in Open does so with the tacit understanding that they may encounter CMDRs that are hostile to theirs and if this was not desirable, or at least acceptable, they would not choose this mode) and everyone is entitled to whatever gameplay they can extract within the context of the rules.

The in-character interaction is parasitic, because it cannot be any other way. It's part of the setting, the experience, and even if one excludes every CMDR you encounter (which still leaves one with at least fifteen seconds to get podded, unless one actually breaks the rules to sever connection sooner), sooner or later an NPC will try to take one's cargo.

And whats the punishment for the Pirate who fails to interdict?

A long cooldown, where they are a sitting duck for those dropping into their low wakes...actually, that happens even if they succeed.

An old, but still valid, example (fast forward to 2:50 or so if you like):

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=512bytyifhw


My CMDR despised pirates, as he would often trade rares and dodging pirates made that a chore (for him...I enjoy the evasion gameplay immensely as a player), so in his off-time, he got in his FDL and shot them up. Piracy is a high-risk, low reward, occupation...to the point that it's outright immersion defying in the current game, for reasons Bigmaec has already elaborated on.

That's my point there is no risk for the pirate, the trader on the other hand has everything to lose, don't blame them for logging and blocking.

A silly assertion. The pirate has just as much to lose as the trader, and draws far more hostile attention. Every time a pirate attacks someone they are at the same risk of losing a rebuy and/or cargo as their target. A pirate vessel is just a trade ship with even less space for defensive equipment.

An example I usually cite with respect to the old 2.1 heat meta, but it was also a piracy attempt, and it's the pirate python that ends up losing cargo (at 4:34), not my CMDR:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ0Q-oZnXoY


My CMDR has been the target of pirates hundreds of times, has lost cargo once, has lost a ship to them never, and has shot down several dozen. At one point, that did constitute risk.

 

[Robert Maynard]

How do you know the pirate will destroy the target?

There's nothing stopping them doing so.

Why should the player vanishify a whole ship and cargo when they lose the interaction, and the pirate gets nothing for winning it? What impetus is there to fight, or form alternate strategies to cope / escape etc?

There's no need for impetus or to find strategies - as the desires of the attacker do not affect the choices available to the target.

The player who menu logs lost that encounter, there has to be an incentive to either fly properly in open and follow through the interaction otherwise there is no point to any piracy NPC or player alike.

Frontier choose not to penalise players who leave the game - and they have known for years that PvP piracy suffers from the ability of players to use menu exit at any time.

It's up to each player how they approach particular situations - and other players don't get to dictate to them how they do so.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It doesn't really matter what constitutes ganking, if ganking isn't against the rules. This is doubly true in the case of blocking and block lists, because there are no rules as to how that can be applied either. A list of CMDRs wearing Remlock underwear (all of them of course) is every bit as legitamate as a list of those arbitrarily deemed 'ganker'.

Neither ganking nor blocking (nor the use of menu exit) are against the rules of the game.

There are no rules as to what a player can choose to shoot at either - which may influence whether their targets choose to block them, actions having consequences and all that....

 

[Robert Maynard]

Weighted is a matter of design rather than it being impossible- I agree (and said similar things) that any bonus needs situational context but I can also say the reverse is true; if people are removing danger then why should they be blanket rewarded by an easier game? People here are using out of game / referrals to remove people before they even met them.

If FD choose to keep Powerplay as it is, this already gives you the framework for weighting- and you can look at the relative ships in cost (i.e. G5 FdL v stock Sidewinder as unequal and thus worth hardly anything against say two G5 Eagles on parity).

If the reward is proportional to risk then the player in the G5 FdL would get less than the player in the stock Sidewinder for the same action.

 

[Morbad]

Neither ganking nor blocking (nor the use of menu exit) are against the rules of the game.

There are no rules as to what a player can choose to shoot at either - which may influence whether their targets choose to block them, actions having consequences and all that....

Already addressed in the post you quoted.

 

[Riverside]

Already addressed in the post you quoted.

Quick addendum to that, 'ganking' is an in-character action (it may have out of game motivation), blocking is not, it's an action the player takes. Of course I have to acknowledge many don't make that distinction but it's something that doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Quick addendum to that, 'ganking' is an in-character action (it may have out of game motivation), blocking is not, it's an action the player takes. Of course I have to acknowledge many don't make that distinction but it's something that doesn't sit well with me.

Which seems to be trying to suggest that the player at the controls, who may be pretending to be the character that they have chosen to be, is not in control of the actions taken in-game when ganking.

It's not so much a distinction as an attempt at deflection.

 

[Chaparral]

There is no way to distinguish a pirate from a lulz pk ganker in game.

There is no meaningful consequence for pk behavior in game.

There is no positive credit or game progression incentive to be a pirate target in game.

Players employ the uncounterable snare, cripple, burst gearing to erase non equivalently geared players in game.

I have encountered exactly ZERO pirates in this game asking for cargo.

I have encountered dozens upon dozens of lulz pk gankers in game - blasting on landing pads, blasting leaving from landing pads, blasting in Deciat, blasting at barnacle sites, blasting at Guardian sites, blasting in SC, blasting in the middle of Xeno combat, blasting during trade CGs, blasting mat farming, blasting during mining - every conceivable asymmetric target weak attacker strong opportunity.

Dealing with actual pirates would be fun. (I even produced a guide on how to pirate NPC miners in game.)

Dealing with lulz pk gankers is not.

Bad C&P design killed the opportunity for pvp piracy to work in this game.

 

[Bigmaec]

There is no way to distinguish a pirate from a lulz pk ganker in game.

May I introduce you to the concept of scanning for modules?
You might see a difference between pirate and PvP vessels.
Maybe.

 

[Rubbernuke]

There's nothing stopping them doing so.

But you are assuming, not actually reacting to real actions.

There's no need for impetus or to find strategies - as the desires of the attacker do not affect the choices available to the target.

Frontier choose not to penalise players who leave the game - and they have known for years that PvP piracy suffers from the ability of players to use menu exit at any time.

Which IMO is wrong- as pointed out in my other replies there is no consequences to the person interdicted. Its led to a situation where nothing actually matters and the game is much less consistent for it.

It's up to each player how they approach particular situations - and other players don't get to dictate to them how they do so.

Well in Open thats not really the case, at least at the conceptual level. Your actions are reactions to others along with NPCs based on the underlying BGS.

If you fly into a trade CG in Open loaded with diamonds pirates should dictate how you behave, otherwise every situation is the same because all actions are the same.

 

[Rubbernuke]

May I introduce you to the concept of scanning for modules?
You might see a difference between pirate and PvP vessels.
Maybe.

You mean you can see inside the ships?

Next you will tell me by flying in SC cautiously you will spot and evade trouble (instead of flying AFK with automation and getting dropped).

 

[Robert Maynard]

But you are assuming, not actually reacting to real actions.

Players can lie when communicating - so the player who claims to be a pirate may not be telling the truth, i.e. they're just spinning the target along before popping them.

Which IMO is wrong- as pointed out in my other replies there is no consequences to the person interdicted. Its led to a situation where nothing actually matters and the game is much less consistent for it.

It's certainly not as punishing as some players want it to be.

Well in Open thats not really the case, at least at the conceptual level. Your actions are reactions to others along with NPCs based on the underlying BGS.

Concept is not necessarily the same as "how it's played".

If you fly into a trade CG in Open loaded with diamonds pirates should dictate how you behave, otherwise every situation is the same because all actions are the same.

Should according to who?