To Fly in Open or Not - Is Ganking/Griefing Really That Bad?

[Spacecat]

If your bag is interdicting people at random, and blowing them up for the lolz... Sorry...!

I actually have no problem with this, I just think there should be a real escalating consequence for multiple incidents of it.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

I actually have no problem with this, I just think there should be a real escalating consequence for multiple incidents of it.

This.

But the most important is that there should be meaningful GAMEPLAY consequences not just arbitrary punisments like bounties.

 

[SirOleg]

Back in a day when I played Elite I played on my iCutter running it through Engineers allover the bubble in open, seen lots of CMDRs and it was fine.
Mostly was like:
-hey cmdr o7 how was your day?
-hey yourself o7 not bad, you?
and so on. wasn't too bad I guess, met a lot good and fun ppl. not sure how it is today tho..

 

[Ralor]

The way the game was advertised and sold it attracted players that effectively can't be happy with the same game mode. Often the very feature that makes a mode interesting for one player makes it not worth playing for another. Mobius didn't became so large just because of players fleeing griefing, you know.

There have already been many posts previously that have covered this, and it's a better alternative to whats currently going. If you don't already know about the concord system in eve online, it functions well by using the system security levels as a working system that makes it very dangerous for wanted pilots or crinimals to enter or stay in high security space, but similarly doesn't extend into low or no security zones, where there is significant risk going there by yourself or with some serious muscle, as the wanted or criminal element can hang out and set up. It works well and something similar is needed on Elite. I'm not saying to copy paste into elite and get a lawsuit going, but a system where security levels mean something and are enforced well.

The arguments that it is a cutthroat galaxy and dangerous is not a reason for total anarchy, and makes no sense from a gameplay or a lore perspective. There should still be PVP and criminal elements in the game, sure, but not in high security or anywhere they fancy, in the same way that other pilots might who want to fly the straight and narrow need to be wary of the risk going into low security zones or anarchy systems, as they will be prime targets or pirates and PVP'ers. Is there a reason something like this should not be in the game? There is space for the different kinds of players and risks for both as well.

 

[NeilF]

How do you balance it to please both a player that wants the freedom to go anywhere and do anything without ever engaging in PvP and the player that wants to engage in PvP bounty hunting/piracy/etc?

The way the game was advertised and sold it attracted players that effectively can't be happy with the same game mode. Often the very feature that makes a mode interesting for one player makes it not worth playing for another. Mobius didn't became so large just because of players fleeing griefing, you know.

Particularly, the only way I will enter a game mode where other players are able to attack me is with a pair of combat logging devices (for redundancy), guaranteeing I will be able to escape PvP no matter what. BTW, this applies to Mobius too, since there is no way for players to actually disable PvP in a private group (Mobius can only ban the player after the PvP already took place).

Well, by sheer coincidence... The rest of the post of mine, that you didn't include in your quote, went on to cover that

While it would not be 100% the suggestion would be that at least all illegal Pilots Federation destruction would be heavily penalised, as such to make it something you wouldn't do, especially repeat offences... If you wanted to do PvP then undertake a task/missions offered by the game which would deliver orchestrated legal PvP on a plate to you.

 

[rxay579]

If you read the mobius rules: ...

Thanks for pointing that out, I had forgotten that bit about combat zones; I glossed over it as CZs didn't (and don't yet) hold interest for me but I shouldn't minimize any of the details.

Isn't another view, that mindless destruction for no ingame reason, most likely only done by a minority "at the expense" to the majority might be the unwanted (& pointless) elephant in the room, and the game needs to simply penalise that behaviour instead of needless permitting it?

Are the mechanics/gameplay really so utterly shallow in ED that somehow mindless/pointless destruction of one player by another is bringing some important element of gameplay? Because IMHO it's not. What possible vital mechanic is being served by CMDRs in dedicated combat ships interdicting other CMDRs who are most likely at the time not interested in PvP, yet alone capable of it, simply to blow them up (seemingly to enjoy their grief)?

We need the game to actually be improved such that it can actually offer PvP in interesting/easily accessible ways. Why is it I cannot undertake a task/mission to pit me (legally) against another CMDR (in a combat type scenario/reason)? Or indeed a Wing of CMDRs against another Wing of CMDRs? Doesn't that seem like an obviously glaring issue in a multiplayer space combat game? Consider what PvP could be if the game actually orchestrated it.... and now consider what PvP is... Randomly interdicting CMDRs and hoping for a fight... Really? After two years?

If the game simply offered legitimate interesting PvP mechanics/scenarios, illegal destruction could actually be heavily penalised like it needs to be.

Outcome? People who want to PvP can, more easily? Gankers are heavily penalised so that toxic behaviour is reduced. Win... Win...

All we need FD to do is actually finally push the game forwards in these areas.

I can agree with the majority of that. I think crimes against other Commanders should be bigger crimes than those against NPCs but how far and for which crimes, we'll all have a different opinions, leaving FDev with few good options. Any imbalance would have legitimate complaints. For instance, if killing clean Commanders was a massive offence (all else equal), PvP pirating would become a lot less practical as Commanders would know that a pirate would really not want to risk that last shot. How would one quantify "legal" or "illegal" ship destruction programmatically?
I think finding a solid balance that naturally punished griefing while allowing for hostile Commander interactions would improve the game a lot and would encourage more people to play in Open (it would for me) but I don't have the one true answer.

As for PvP missions, it's definitely an interesting idea, but seems like it would be an incredibly hard problem to solve. If a mission targets a specific Commander and they leave for a week, then it sucks to be you. If a mission targets any Commander and you can't find one within 100ly, then it sucks to be you. If you play at times when the majority of other players don't, it sucks to be you (see most "I can't play CQC" threads).
If FDev nails the targeting, they could themselves be enabling griefing; e.g. take a mid/low level mission below your grade (because everyone needs work/rep/mats) while flying a high level ship that targets a mid/low level Commander in a mid/low level ship and the game makes you into a jerk. Imagine a hypothetical bug that has every Commander within 30ly targeting one very unlucky Commander; yeah, I laughed at that idea until it I thought about it more.

Perhaps I'm not seeing the viable PvP mission options that you see.

*EDIT* Maybe careful instancing selection on the server side could keep highly imbalanced Commander conflicts from happening?

I would imagine that "managing" the gank threat involves a few things:

1: Situational awareness.
2: A ship that can stand up to an alpha attack from an engineered ship.
3: Knowledge/awareness of hot spots.

All things a normal person should be aware of if playing in Open. The game makes no effort to coddle players so why anyone thinks FDev would suddenly change their stance on coddling people because of a handful of griefers at hot spots is beyond me. The game has "Dangerous" in the title. No, I don't think rampant killing should go unpunished, but I also have noticed that a lot of people do absolutely nothing to prepare themselves or their ships for potential ganking.

You come off as someone who puts the onus on the assaulted rather than the assailant. I don't know if that was your intention, but that's how it reads to me.

I can't see this argument working without players staying in solo until they have mastered build strategy, gotten up to speed on current ship meta, become independently wealthy (in game), max engineered their ships, then peak into open to start real combat training.
Alternatively, a person would just keep getting beaten down until they got lucky enough to avoid competent conflict long enough to achieve a fighting chance.
I say this as I see no way that a CMDR with less than a massive time investment in grinding* a bankroll, developing/mimicking strategy, and grinding* the Engineers can stand up against opponents who have already made that investment.
* To me, it's only a grind if it is an unwelcome requirement. I thought I would hate it but it's been fun dropping in to a few engineers for some piddly upgrades for which I happen to have picked up materials; if I had to spend the next year in an Engineer upgrade deathmarch for the privilege of no longer being destroyed on sight, I'm pretty sure I'd actually quit the game.

*EDIT* Apologies for the salty rant, it doesn't appear to too constructive.

Back in a day when I played Elite I played on my iCutter running it through Engineers allover the bubble in open, seen lots of CMDRs and it was fine.
Mostly was like:
-hey cmdr o7 how was your day?
-hey yourself o7 not bad, you?
and so on. wasn't too bad I guess, met a lot good and fun ppl. not sure how it is today tho..

I play in Mobius, so I can't speak for Open.
Only three times have I spoken to another CMDR where they didn't immediately and unexpectedly disappear (I assume they logged out immediately but I don't know that). Once was meeting up in game with the friend who had introduced me to E. Another was a docked Python that I saw on the same landing pad in the same station as I came and went over the course of an hour or so. The third was a Commander blocking the only medium pad at an Outpost; they came back long enough to apologize for being AFK, then immediately logged out.
Only once have I spoken to a group (local broadcasts at a CG station in Mobius) as I tried to warn people of / find a Commander in a Federal Dropship/Gunship/Assault Ship that interdicted and destroyed a friend in a Type-7 (not a pirating mishap and sadly, he had no record of it); I got one or two responses along the lines of "Haven't seen it, but thanks for the warning".

 

[Maelkhor]

Is there a reason something like this should not be in the game? There is space for the different kinds of players and risks for both as well.

The only reason I see for this issue (and most others that have been sources of flame wars for nearly 2 years now) is that the "Game Designers" vision for ED in those aspect is narrower than what a significant part of the player base expected/still expect.
There is nothing wrong in the designer designing the way they design, their game, their vision.
But there is a ever growing deviation between what a many of us expect, what we claim is lacking/needs reword, and the current radio silence about the meaningfull direction the game is going (by meaningfull, I mean unrelated to laser colors or paint jobs).

For some ED is everything it promised to be, a complete game that can only get better, but already fine as it is.
For me (and others as I'm not the only one expressing this feeling here or outside the official forum bubble), ED is at best an alpha of what it should be.

 

[DarkWalker]

Well, by sheer coincidence... The rest of the post of mine, that you didn't include in your quote, went on to cover that

While it would not be 100% the suggestion would be that at least all illegal Pilots Federation destruction would be heavily penalised, as such to make it something you wouldn't do, especially repeat offences... If you wanted to do PvP then undertake a task/missions offered by the game which would deliver orchestrated legal PvP on a plate to you.

It doesn't cover that. Your proposal leaves unwanted PvP possible, even if rare. For many players that isn't acceptable at all.

You effectively can't have a single mode that will please everyone. PvP is too polarized a topic; on one hand you have players that don't want to ever be subject to random PvP, on the other hand you have players that consider random PvP to be the one worthwhile thing in the game. There doesn't seem to be any way to keep both sides happy if they are playing the same game mode.

Don't take me wrong, I don't have anything against providing more ways for consensual PvP to happen (well, unless choosing to never take part in it puts the player at a disadvantage, in which case I don't consider it consensual anymore). I just don't consider that enough to make Open worth playing for many of the PvE (and Solo) players.

 

[NeilF]

It doesn't cover that. Your proposal leaves unwanted PvP possible, even if rare. For many players that isn't acceptable at all.

You effectively can't have a single mode that will please everyone. PvP is too polarized a topic; on one hand you have players that don't want to ever be subject to random PvP, on the other hand you have players that consider random PvP to be the one worthwhile thing in the game. There doesn't seem to be any way to keep both sides happy if they are playing the same game mode.

Don't take me wrong, I don't have anything against providing more ways for consensual PvP to happen (well, unless choosing to never take part in it puts the player at a disadvantage, in which case I don't consider it consensual anymore). I just don't consider that enough to make Open worth playing for many of the PvE (and Solo) players.

It depends on your definition of "unwanted PvP is possible".

I'd suggest once FD implemented scenarios and gameplay that allowed people to finally sign up for more interesting combat, including (if they choose) PvP, then implement Crime and Punishment to heavily penalise illegal Pilots Federation destruction.

Now this wouldn't prevent "unwanted illegal PvP", but I'd suggest it would prevent repeat cases. ie: The penalties would be severe and should ramp up significantly, such that if someone does it over and over they're talking about game changing outcomes. In short, yes you're right it wouldn't prevent it, but it would I'd suggest hugely hugely reduce it! I'd suggest the outcome would be enough to in effect make "ganking" (mindless destruction) basically a non-issue.

 

[DarkWalker]

It depends on your definition of "unwanted PvP is possible".

I'd suggest once FD implemented scenarios and gameplay that allowed people to finally sign up for more interesting combat, including (if they choose) PvP, then implement Crime and Punishment to heavily penalise illegal Pilots Federation destruction.

Now this wouldn't prevent "unwanted illegal PvP", but I'd suggest it would prevent repeat cases. ie: The penalties would be severe and should ramp up significantly, such that if someone does it over and over they're talking about game changing outcomes. In short, yes you're right it wouldn't prevent it, but it would I'd suggest hugely hugely reduce it! I'd suggest the outcome would be enough to in effect make "ganking" (mindless destruction) basically a non-issue.

Hugely reduce isn't the same as eliminate. It's the reason I will not venture into Mobius without first priming my combat log methods; even outright banning from the group every player that ever forces others into PvP isn't enough to eliminate unwanted PvP inside the group.

Also, unwanted PvP isn't just griefing/ganking. Part of the player base also include PvP piracy, and even PvP bounty hunting when the bounty was acquired in PvE, among the unwanted PvP interactions. It's my case; due to certain aspects of my mindset, I consider meeting a respectful, but firm, PvP pirate to be actually worse than meeting a full blown griefer. Is your idea going to completely eliminate player piracy for the players that don't find it enjoyable, without restricting them to just the safest parts of the galaxy? If not, sorry, but I don't think it will be nearly enough for a good number of PvE players.

 

[V'larr]

the current radio silence

Dude, what?

You should check out elitedevtracker sometime...it's been pretty much anything BUT silence since at least 2.1's release, if not much earlier.

 

[Maelkhor]

Dude, what?

You should check out elitedevtracker sometime...it's been pretty much anything BUT silence since at least 2.1's release, if not much earlier.

That is a third party website tracking officials post on the forum, it is fun to see the vast majority concerns PS4 release, XBOX issues, or direct issues&bugs, it is far from being source for long term roadmap for the map, it is not a devlog, and the official devlogs one can find or receive by newsletter are very short term sighted.

There is no roadmap saves from "there will be new undisclosed things for Horizon, then new things for the next undisclosed season", oh there is multicrew, PS4 release, engine trail color, new bobbleheads...

But there is currently no way for us customers to know where the game is heading in the mid/long term in term of meaningfull gameplay element, that is what I meant by radio silence.
This would be fine if the game already had the minimal feature requirement to qualify as a complete game, which may be the case for you, but is subjectively not the case AFAIC, for many reason which are not the subject in this thread save the part where some argues that "PVP is meaningless pewpew right now".


Will there be real sandbox elements (player owned anything saves ships / guilds / economy etc.) ?
Or Will the game get story driven content (multi layered missions, other progression drive than raising anonymous subfaction reputation and grinding credits for ships and outfitting) ?
Will there be a C&P system? if no, why no open PVE mode?
Or will the game will stay as it is ie. an engine remarster of a thirthy years old game with a new (yet awesome, otherwhile I would not be discussing here, and would have uninstalled long ago) shiny space sim engine and the same oldschool gameplay depth?

If the direction is the last one , I'd like to know as soon as possible, to make a weighted decision between "wait and see"&"Uninstall and remember it as the best space sim engine"

 

[V'larr]

That is a third party website tracking officials post on the forum

Yeah. And it's been very busy. Anything but "radio silence"....

But there is currently no way for us customers to know where the game is heading in the mid/long term in term of meaningfull gameplay element

You've got to be kidding me.

The live streams? The point update beta? The dedicated part of the forums for said beta, including a changelog despite the fact that it's a beta where nothing is concrete yet? The two-dozen threads started by devs to discuss the changes being tried out during this beta (which they actually started around a week earlier in GD then cloned over to the new section of the forums)? The fairly straightforward graphics explaining what's coming in each major release? The weekly newsletters and emails?

Short of a Frontier game developer showing up to your house naked and screaming, I don't see how they can possibly do anything more to get your attention. The fault here is with you for not looking or listening.

Will there be real sandbox elements (player owned anything saves ships / guilds / economy etc.) ?

We already have 1, we have 2 to a *very* limited and backlogged extent, and the BGS counts as number 3...just hardly anybody knows how number 3 works (or if it even works right).

Will the game get story driven content

Heard of Colonia by any chance...? Perhaps you've been exploring and have been living under the rock of some moon far away from human space....

Will there be a C&P system?

Yes, they've said that, but you wouldn't know now would you?

 

[Maelkhor]

Yeah. And it's been very busy. Anything but "radio silence"....

You've got to be kidding me.

The live streams? The point update beta? The dedicated part of the forums for said beta, including a changelog despite the fact that it's a beta where nothing is concrete yet? The two-dozen threads started by devs to discuss the changes being tried out during this beta (which they actually started around a week earlier in GD then cloned over to the new section of the forums)? The fairly straightforward graphics explaining what's coming in each major release? The weekly newsletters and emails?

Short of a Frontier game developer showing up to your house naked and screaming, I don't see how they can possibly do anything more to get your attention. The fault here is with you for not looking or listening.

I think you don't get what I meant, all the things you've pointed means nothing meaningfull to me, it is white noise, all of this is just more grind, more station walking, more multicrew, more atmospheric planetary landing, more forum driven only lore&background, more bobbleheads, more paintjob, ie more elements. But what make a game is not just adding elements, it is the way the interact with each other to provide a meaningfull and fun experience.
Those criteria are of course subjective, and I am free to judge ED not providing a meaningfull gaming experience as it is for me, and nothing that was announced for now changed my POV about it. The game doesn't add anything new in term of gameplay that what was done 15 years ago, it is just "freelancer 2016", oh wait, freelancer had a storyline for players to follow, so no we are back to 198X space sim, I expect much more from THE 201X space sim sandbox.
(I don't care about the multiplayer aspect as it is, I only play solo/mobius as open is pointless for me in its current state)

We already have 1, we have 2 to a *very* limited and backlogged extent, and the BGS counts as number 3...just hardly anybody knows how number 3 works (or if it even works right).

The fact you see ED as a sandbox shows how much our POV are extremly divergent. It doesn't qualify as one for me, there is the box, their are toy to play in the box (ships), but there is only cement in it, again, my personal opinion, and you are free to disagree with it.
Don't invoke BGS please, I feel more empathy and interest for korean MMO NPCs than for any of the thousands subfactions, BGS is just another name for "dynamic mission grind minigames loot table" for me.

Heard of Colonia by any chance...? Perhaps you've been exploring and have been living under the rock of some moon far away from human space....

Forum driven lore? Emergent story line written by a tiny fraction of the most hardcore players? Retconed when necessary? That is modern art game design, I recon the originallity of the process, but I hardly buy it.

Our POV about the game current state and upcoming anounced elements are clearly different, you are entitled to your opinion as much as I am, I'm happy for you to be enjoying it is as much as you look like you do.

 

[V'larr]

I think you don't get what I meant, all the things you've pointed means nothing meaningfull to me, it is white noise

So it's not radio silence. It's that it's not what you, individually, want to hear.

The fact you see ED as a sandbox

Go play a shooter-on-rails like Call of Duty, or any generic linear RPG, and come back to Elite. The difference should be as apparent as the size of the Milky way. Plus, you're the one who brought up the term "sandbox", not me....

Don't invoke BGS please

So again, it's not that it's not in the game, it's that you don't personally like it and haven't tried trading, roleplaying, or getting creative with even just one of those minor factions.

Forum driven lore? Emergent story line written by a tiny fraction of the most hardcore players? Retconed when necessary? That is modern art game design, I recon the originallity of the process, but I hardly buy it.

It's just one example. You might also want/need to check out Drew Wagar's book and the unique way it's being written....