"victims" (ugh, I wish we found a better term for it)
"Sheep" is a term for it (and "wolves" for the attackers), one that was even used by MMO devs when talking about player interaction, though I don't know if it's negatively seen now.
Out of interest, how many of you guys lobbying for open to be removed regularly play in open? It seems a lot of you avoid it completely... So I have to wonder why you want it removed so much? Surely your PvE groups and solo mode cater to your needs well enough?
I don't want Open removed. At most, I want the groups promoted to the same menu level as Open and Solo — so it becomes clearer in the UI that Open and Solo are no more or less valid than any group.
And, of course, I want a PvE-only group that is officially advertised, preferably through its own fixed place in the menu, and that doesn't require a player to manually approve all requests for joining.
Well that is difficult, hence why I suggested the bonus.. having said that some traders do enjoy the risk. You know the ones, they thank you for robbing them...
I believe a blanket reduction of the losses when being pirated or killed by Players would be far more effective in getting players into Open than any kind of bonus. It would send the right signal — that players can have fun in running against player pirates without big setbacks. And it's nothing new, many games reduce or eliminate the death penalty in PvP situations, including WoW (and even ED in CQC).
I would support it — as long as the reduction is for being pirated or killed by a player, regardless of whether in Open or Group mode.
I don't kill players unless they try and run, ignore my comms or attack me.... I take it that qualifies me as a 'ganker' in your Utopian vision of the universe?
My understanding is that the term "ganking" has evolved with time. Right now it doesn't just refer to attacking with a group against a solo target; it has evolved to include initiating an attack against a target specifically chosen for being less capable than the attacker.
So, yeah, going by that definition your whole play style is to gank, as your objective isn't to get into fair fights but rather to pick targets from whom you can extort credits without a chance of them fighting back, and blow them to smithereens if they don't comply.
Keep in mind that ganking isn't the same as griefing. Ganking is accepted, or even expected, in many games; griefing, on the other hand, tends to be shunned upon in most games (except a few oddballs like EVE, though even that has a few lines that if crossed will bring swift punishment by the devs).
Is it fun when an NPC kills you? Or when you lose or die in any other game?
In this game, not really, because of the death penalty. Having to grind things back kills the enjoyment.
But, in other games with little to no death penalty, sure. If I'm not dying every few minutes, then I tend to consider the game as too easy to properly entertain me. I prefer games that force me to improve, to be on my toes. It's why when I play the Arkham games I handicap myself as if my character didn't have a life bar, for example, because otherwise they are too easy for me.
The same for PvP. Like I said in the past, the kind of PvP I like is the kind where I have about an even chance of losing or prevailing. The "blink and you are dead" kind. If I'm not being killed in about half my PvP engagements, then that game's PvP is no fun for me.
You are right, its a game. I dont see the difference between getting blown up by an NPC (they dont let you go after you drop cargo, I do!) and being stopped by another player.
Which is a point of view I can't conceive. For me, being killed by a NPC isn't even in the same planet as being killed by a player, much less in the same ballpark.
I want the game to be as hard as the devs can make it — but only as long as all PvP is initiated by mutual consent.
