To Fly in Open or Not - Is Ganking/Griefing Really That Bad?
- Thread starter Exigeous
- Start date
In Short.
I couldn't give a wet kepper what 'stats' you care to throw at me [ignored] - IRRELEVANT.
I don't play in Open because 'ONCE' is enough of a lesson to learn that its a dumb thing to do, especially around CG's, RNGineers, Group Meeting points, or any event that is likely to attract a large number of people, especially noobie people like the ancient ruins site, crashed ships etc etc.
If I want social interaction I go into Mobius, If I want to play with a few friends I go into my PG, and if I want to play by myself then Solo.
Sorted. No a'holes to try and p me off, while thinking they are oh so damned c̶l̶e̶v̶e̶r stupid while doing it.
I couldn't give a wet kepper what 'stats' you care to throw at me [ignored] - IRRELEVANT.
I don't play in Open because 'ONCE' is enough of a lesson to learn that its a dumb thing to do, especially around CG's, RNGineers, Group Meeting points, or any event that is likely to attract a large number of people, especially noobie people like the ancient ruins site, crashed ships etc etc.
If I want social interaction I go into Mobius, If I want to play with a few friends I go into my PG, and if I want to play by myself then Solo.
Sorted. No a'holes to try and p me off, while thinking they are oh so damned c̶l̶e̶v̶e̶r stupid while doing it.
Last edited:
Sounds like Morbius is perfect for you!
I would add to your post - "If I fancy a bit of Player competition" I pop into CZs in Morbius.
One thing I generally do not get is why their is an obsession amongst those who play in open to get players to play in open. To be honest, 90% of the time its like solo. I can only assume it is for bad reasons.
Simon
Well now, we have a live one here.
Aside from what V'larr posted, which is a bit biased due to the subjective nature of the people making those posts. Here's an except from the Oxford Living Dictionary.
Sounds pretty cut and dry to me. The argument on this forum for the past two years has never been about whether or not griefing exists, it's been about how to put a stop to it and I've only stepped into the argument as I've seen more and more one sided proposals begin to take root and gain popularity, proposals which seek to strip the "griefing" player, under the current system architecture, of his or her ability to even play the game once they've taken out another player's ship "for no good reason". My goal has been to make people understand that, for a game to remain playable, viable even, to a growing fan base (At least one that I hope will continue to grow as more features are added) then you cannot alienate one single facet of that player base by penalizing their actions in such a way as to leave them stone broke and restricted to systems that offer literally nothing in terms of forward advancement.
Now, I agree with your sentiment about open and have often given the same argument. If you log in to open, you take the risk knowing full well what that may entail. However, this argument isn't about the general ability of player to kill another player in open, it's about the SLF ramming and suicidewinders that camp stations to score environment kills on unsuspecting players (of which my reply is often, "Well, you knew there was a speed limit. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes"). However, that activity falls under the definition I quoted for you above and is primarily the activity that people are complaining about/wary of.
If I lose my loot in the DZ, I am sad, but I run 4pc Banshee when I'm in the DZ so all that means is I'm out the 20 minutes it took to farm DZ5 & 6 and have to spend another 20 minutes looking for more (we all know the best/easiest loot is in the UG anyway). H1Z1 was a cheap, crappy ripoff of DayZ, which in and of itself was a promising albeit failed project. Rust was more trollworthy in the long run, Ark too if they could optimize the engine (no reason my 980 should chug on that game).
I'm no stranger to the pvp game, boy. Nor do I shy away from it. I will, however, sit here and debate talking points with the rest of the forum to keep them from potentially influencing this game in such a way so as to completely ruin pvp for the rest of us who aren't afraid to turn our guns on a hollow box. You, however, are basically anathema to the people on the forum by the way you're completely disregarding their issues in favor of flat out attacking their ability (or inability) to play the game as the way you think it was meant to be.
C'mon man. Grow up.
Obviously Aigaion doesn't understand what griefing is, but I feel like I should point out that many of the posts here I've seen recently are not attacking PVP itself, but only he griefing aspect. I'm all for keeping and developing PVP in this game, but it needs it's own place in the game. I have a question for the forum:
Who actually agrees that the current 'security' in place is sufficient? And why?
I'm seriously asking this because it feels as though it hasn't changed drastically since I started a couple years back, and FD haven't beefed it up nearly enough to stop griefing. There are plenty of low security and anarchy systems around and I think that is a good place to have PVP and piracy taking place. High and medium security systems however, should be a place to not worry as much about player and NPC pirates, for the very nature of the system security status. Else it will end up being Elite:Mobius. Am I missing something here or is there a good reason this has not been implemented?
Who actually agrees that the current 'security' in place is sufficient? And why?
I'm seriously asking this because it feels as though it hasn't changed drastically since I started a couple years back, and FD haven't beefed it up nearly enough to stop griefing. There are plenty of low security and anarchy systems around and I think that is a good place to have PVP and piracy taking place. High and medium security systems however, should be a place to not worry as much about player and NPC pirates, for the very nature of the system security status. Else it will end up being Elite:Mobius. Am I missing something here or is there a good reason this has not been implemented?
I honestly see no difference in security between Anarchy and SOL.
It might be that they patrol certain areas in greater force but what is lacking is response time.
In Sol and Achenar the response time should be INSTANT and they should arrive in force.
Hell, there should be police presence if you open your gunports close to any inhabited area (Imagine the force of a large railgun slug straight into a city from orbit...)
Im not saying that PVP players and criminals should be blown up instantly by superweapons but IF they attack someone they should be prepared to run for their lives AFTER they have killed someone AND count on being interdicted as long as they are in the system.
Security status and the local government should have a clear impact on security.
High security in a feudal dictatorship might not give three fiddy about someone blowing people up at the nav buoy but might have HEAVY security around stations and ports.
A low security but in a democratic alliance system might have slower response times but HAVE a response against ANY attack anywhere in the system.
Sol and Achenar should be like walking into the White House or the Kremlin, you DON'T try to do ANYTHING stupid in those systems.
Anarchy, that's where the wild west is, any ship looks at you even slightly wrong with it's sensor and it's a free for all.
- - - Updated - - -
Here we are in complete agreement.
Pvp has it's place but it should not be allowed to run rampant and ruin the experience for the non-pvp crowd and co-op centric Pvp players.
The ball is in Frontier Developments court to improve how systems security status, law enforcement and laws interact combined with better gameplay in lower security systems and improved piracy/criminal options.
I like that they WANT me in open but a few bad experiences have put me away from open.
It's a lot about time investment and earnings.
If I am running missions and have 20 million in mission material in the cargo AND an insurance cost of 3-5 millions I cannot really afford to spend two hours doing missions just to get interdicted and blown up for no more reason than someone want to get their rocks off at my expense AND it never impact them in any negative manner.
It's several hours WASTED when that happens.
Sure, if I was wanted, in an Anarchy system or in a pure combat ship then it's no problem OR if the guy is a pirate and actually TALK to me after interdiction. Hell, if he talks to me BEFORE interdiction I would probably follow him into a wake and try and deal peacefully with him.
I agree. In addition, a "murderer" tag should be attached to the griefer, so that they cannot combat log or leave and later return to the system without penalty. That tag should be in effect in any high or medium security system that is aligned with same factions as the system that the infraction occurred. The murderer should be interdicted and shot on sight at any such system. They should not be able to land at an allied station either. Of course the murderer tag would not apply in anarchy systems, if the target player is Wanted, or in a CZ, power play situations, etc.
Last edited:
Yes, landing at pirate stations in an anarchy system, available missions at such stations, and black market dealings should improve with a wanted/murderer tag.
Absolutely!
Development is the answer, and there's basically been none in this area for two years, hence why we're getting more and more in a pickle.
The game needs to offer legal PvP gameplay; Tasks that (if you take them) can pit you (and a group of CMDRs?) against another CMDR (or a group of CMDRs?). An obvious place for this is Powerplay, but I could imagine it being rebagded and used in different shapes and forms and different purposes. eg: CGs or pure PvE missions etc.
Once there is legal PvP easily accessible in the game, then finally this notion that simply interdicting other CMDRs to blow them up is in anyway productive/meaningful, so then heavily penalise it. So any illegal destruction of a Pilots Federation member is a significant issue and the game penalises it in such a way you really wouldn't want to do it very often.
I cannot understand how anyone thinks that PvP in the game is currently anything more than a "make do". There's little/no logic to it, and if the game were instead to finally progress it we could be playing a far far more interesting game from both a PvP and PvE point of view, and also a far less toxic game as mindless (illegal) destruction would be far far less common.
NOTE1: What sounds more interesting/productive? Randomly interdicting other CMDRs in the hope of a fight, or just to mindlessly blow them up. Or undertaking a PvP related task/mission where you (and a Wing of CMDRs?) are pitted against another CMDR (or Wing of CMDRs?) in some logical/interesting scenario. In Powerplay these could all be set around pivotal important battles, such as around a blockaded station (in a system) both powers are fighting over. CQC's development time should have been spent improving PvP in the core game IMHO!
NOTE2: PvP piracy is another whole discussion... It needs improving and depth added. But none the less, if you illegally destroy another CMDR is shuold be a serious matter!
Last edited:
Well, the entire "multiplayer" part with it's instanced non-central server solution IS a large band-aid.
Here's a thought though.
As it stands today it IS a band-aid but IF they add a central server, a proper crime and punishment and make a criminal profession a reality with GOOD options for all PVP and PVE players involved then we might start calling it an MMO.
Now it is just a single player game with limited PVP opportunity and a large baggage of issues with open gameplay.
Not to mention it was originally kickstarted as a single player game with co-op tacked on that would have an offline mode.
It's pretty clear that PVP/Co-Op is tacked on as an afterthough.
- - - Updated - - -
Yea, what really irks me is that Black Markets are available in the options menu on a station, like it's some kind of advertising.
- Require a criminal record to gain access to a CONTACT that knows the black market
- Require a certain criminal standing to affect the prices on the black market (this could be also be a Elite Trading part that shows ones ability to haggle)
- Allow career criminals to BUY from the black market (i mean, we can only sell, who the hell BUYS from the black market currently?)
No issues with any of this. I personally may never engage in this stuff, if it happens, but that's me. illegally destroying another CMDR (as in not wanted, not on mission, not powerplay), maybe the offender gets to cover the rebuy of the other player's ship, and any cargo they had (because that can cost a lot too). Sure would make interdicting and destroying a T9 really expensive. And if the offender does not have the cash on hand, then the victim gets compensation, and the offender goes back to a loaned sidewinder and 1,000 credits due to declaring bankruptcy.
If this sounds harsh to anyone, oh well. It is an idea that would work. Right now, the victim always pays more, this idea would turn that around. It would also make player pirates have to be smarter, having to disable ships instead of destroy them. If a player pirate needs a threat, well, get creative. I have thought of one threat that would work, but I am not going to just give it away.
Last edited:
I take a bit of issue simply with the penalty portion of it, if only because I'm more firmly of the belief (Read: My opinion) that the game should do more to make it harder for griefing to happen, rather than just monkey slap the people who do grief. Every conversation takes me back to EVE Online and Concord though. We need our security forces to be like Concord but it needs to be balanced properly (Something I'm not going to explain in this reply since it's too long) so that a griefer really has to work for that gank.
Of course, insurance/fines etc will need to be adjusted and I think the 1 million credit limit on collectible player bounties needs to be done away with completely (And replaced, again, with something like CCPs system).
I like this, except maybe the criminal record part.
Imagine, if we could trade credits between one another, meeting with a pirate/fence in boundary space to pass goods to him/her. They pay on the spot and then go sell the goods at a black market of their own for profit.
[video=youtube;dTAAsCNK7RA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTAAsCNK7RA[/video]
There are genuine reasons, you (and others who wanted instant magic buttons) just don't wish to acknowledge them.
As for whether we'll see ingame approximations of ship ferries or what-have-you - never say never!
___
Circling back on topic, interesting in that in the Q&A they mentioned crime & punishment (or Karma?); looks like that's the direction they will be heading, at least for the near future. Hopefully it will be on-target and manage to avoid adversely affecting innocent folks.
Here is the point as I see it. Supporting the idea that some things are just too high risk to do in open indicates that you have a preference for the risk you are willing to take. Different people will have their own "it's obvious that you should go solo for X" reasons. Some people will stand by the idea that everything should always be played in Open. And so on for the whole spectrum of ideas.
I stay in Mobius and extremely rarely play in open because I don't ever want that risk or exposure to such negative people (griefers). Mobius is my open world with limits that I accept (commanders are special and require unassailable respect) while Open is just pure chaos. I'd personally like somewhere in between but I'm not sure there is a way to achieve that. I imagine that I may go into open at some point to compete in combat with other players (AFAIK, even that is frowned on in Mobius), but that would be under terms of engagement, not random assault against the unprepared.
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 glarring 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.
Last edited:
If you read the mobius rules:
Inside Conflict Zones the following rules apply:
It is not allowed to attack a neutral player (a player not having chosen a faction)
It is not allowed to attack another player while being neutral (not having chosen a faction oneself)
It is not allowed to attack another player on the own chosen faction
Only if both players have activly chosen opposing factions may they engage in combat
It is not allowed to exit and enter a warzone in rapid succession for the sole purpose of targeting other players. Only if the wrong faction was chosen by mistake or by mutual agreement of the present players (For example in order for everybody to join the same faction).
The above rules ensure, that players wishing no PvP at all can safely enter warzones as spectator or to decide actions later, without being forced into an unwanted fight.
The thing many miss about PvE modes in most MMOs is that they aren't about eliminating PvP; rather, they are about giving players full control over when and how they engage in PvP. Mobius works the same way.
Well, its what mobius tries to do. It is difficult for a private group to actually be effective because it is kind of based on the honor system. If Fdev were to create a PvE mode themselves, using the mobius rules as a guideline, they could make the game code enforce the rules in real time. Mobius, at best, can ban a player after they have been reported. Fdev could create a solution that would work in real time. But they haven't because....reasons.