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

[Deadspin]

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.

Because it doesn't fit with their idea of what the game is supposed to be?

I agree, pointless killing is no fun, but FDev gave players all the tools they need to avoid it. Lets not place any more blame than is required on their shoulders. (The required blame relating to the C&P system)

 

[lefty1117]

FD gave players tools to avoid it by going into Solo or private group, but there are no tools to "manage" it - by that I mean, there's no global chat system to call out gankers in-game, no real way to chase them down even with the instancing, there's a no-naming policy on the forums, there's no way to create a bounty on someone specifically in-game. Other games provide these kind of tools so that the community itself can respond to these kind of people. Not so in Elite.

 

[Deadspin]

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.

 

[Maelkhor]

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.

The game also has "Elite" in the title, so to enforce the elitness, I propose that each month, only the TOP 5% of the player base (criterias to be determined) can keep playing the game, the 95% peasant left are perma banned, or forced to fly in E rated sidewinders

/s

-- Update --

Or maybe have the game wipe your entire hard drive when you lose your ship, that would be "Dangerous".

There is no objective sense to extract from the title of the game, you interpret it as being an adjective for the gameplay direction itslef, whereas some people may interpret it as being related to the lore of the game. The latter case being widely used as a trope, the former being pedant at best. The game could be easy as a pie and still happens in a dangerous world as far as gaming is concerned.

 

[thirstyfish]

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.

It's not about coddling the players. And really? You go with the titular argument? It's about allowing players to have some measure of control over when they get involved in PvP combat. It's about having some measure of choice. In video games, having greater control and choices tends to be a good thing. The ability to choose is at the heart of this game.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
2: A ship that can stand up to an alpha attack from an engineered ship.
…

Quite easy to write and not that easy to accomplish. A lot of ships are just deathtraps against engineered max combat ships. With modules for module protection things will get even worse making more ships not suited for such encounters.

In the end we will have to use Anacondas to deliver 8t of mission cargo because all other slots are filled up with special modules needed to survive. Yes, highly exaggerated

The other combat balancing things won't change that much.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

The game also has "Elite" in the title, so to enforce the elitness, I propose that each month, only the TOP 5% of the player base (criterias to be determined) can keep playing the game, the 95% peasant left are perma banned, or forced to fly in E rated sidewinders

/s

Or even better, in order for your combat elite rating to increase you may only attack ships that are:

- Heavier
- Faster
- Better
- Have better engineer mods
- Less cargo space than your own
- Have more shields and armour

I mean, how can one call oneself a "real" PVP'er and "ELITE" space pilot if one is only attacking ship that are smaller, weaker and less designed for combat that ones own.

And no, I will not use a /S for it because anyone can reach "elite" combat status by shooting fish in a barrel but it really say nothing about how GOOD a player really is in a REAL fight.

 

[Gunnet]

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.

The game coddles bad PvP players by enabling them to attack players in non-combat ships without consequence rather than having to take the risk of facing other PvP players.

As for the title containing the word "dangerous", please consider taking a few minutes to listen to David Braben himself explaining what it actually means.

 

[DarkWalker]

It's not about coddling the players. And really? You go with the titular argument? It's about allowing players to have some measure of control over when they get involved in PvP combat. It's about having some measure of choice. In video games, having greater control and choices tends to be a good thing. The ability to choose is at the heart of this game.

Very much. The first thing Frontier ever said about ED's multiplayer capability was how every player would be able to choose who they play with; so, by their own words, I'm supposed to be able to simply never allow griefers, or even PvPers, to play with me.

 

[NeilF]

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.

Let's be as candid about this entire matter, as that's the only way to get to the nub of it:-
1) The PvP mechanics in ED are vapid to the extent of being non-existent. Which leads to...
2) ED has to allow CMDRs to interdict other CMDRs and attack them, because in truth there's little else to do as regards PvP. Which leads to...
3) A majority of players, who at the time are probably not interested in PvP, yet alone outfitted for it, are at risk of being interdicted by a minority of players in dedicated PvP engineered ships, just to destroy them. Which leads to...
4) Every thread about pointless destruction and ganking we have on the forum...


FD need to actually move the core gameplay forwards so there IS orchestrated purposeful PvP gameplay. So if you want to fight other CMDRs you can easily do it, legally! Then mindless pointless illegal destruction can be heavily penalised as it needs to be - It serves no purpose other than to give a toxic minority kicks. If there's PvP gameplay easily accessible go and utlitise that instead of randomly destroying CMDRs who cannot even put up a fight. Nothing will change until this sort of stuff is done IMHO.

 

[Comrade Error]

Let's be be candid about this entire matter, as that's the only way to get to the nub of it:-
1) The PvP mechanics in ED are vapid to the extent of being non-existent. Which leads to...
2) ED has to allow CMDRs to interdict other CMDRs and attack them, because in truth there's little else to do as regards PvP. Which leads to...
3) A majority of players, who at the time are probably not interested in PvP, yet alone outfitted for it, are at risk of being interdicted by a minority of players in dedicated PvP engineered ships, just to destroy them. Which leads to...
4) Every thread about pointless destruction and ganking we have on the forum...


FD need to actually move the core gameplay forwards so there IS orchestrated purposeful PvP gameplay. So if you want to fight other CMDRs you can easily do it, legally! Then mindless pointless illegal destruction can be heavily penalised as it needs to be - It serves no purpose other than to give a toxic minority kicks. If there's PvP gameplay easily accessible go and utlitise that instead of randomly destroying CMDRs who cannot even put up a fight. Nothing will change until this sort of stuff is done IMHO.

Pretty much agree but it sounds like you think people won't do something else when given the opportunity? Might not be the case and I might be a bit nitpicky but I'm fairly sure when a good portion of the PvP aspects of the game actually work as actual playstyles a lot of people if not most PvPers or gankers will jump onto that and not look back.

Personally it sounds like a whole carrot cake would hanging in front of us.

 

[NeilF]

Pretty much agree but it sounds like you think people won't do something else when given the opportunity? Might not be the case and I might be a bit nitpicky but I'm fairly sure when a good portion of the PvP aspects of the game actually work as actual playstyles a lot of people if not most PvPers or gankers will jump onto that and not look back.

Personally it sounds like a whole carrot cake would hanging in front of us.

Well, IMHO, if people want to fly in a high spec combat ship, and be able to (illegally) interdict other CMDRs at random who are not in such craft, don't want to PvP at the time, and in truth can't offer any competition, sorry, that's not a mechanics I'd want the game to endorse. It's just for no ingame purpose and too toxic in nature/outcome.

If the game was to (instead) actively offer PvP - so should you want to PvP you legally and easily can, then use that route - there you go! But if you're still an individual who gets a kick out of interdicting CMDRs just to get kicks out of their grief, then significant penalties for such illegal activity should be there to put you off.



Until FD finally put some effort into offering orchestrated interesting (consensual) PvP scenarios/mechanics, we're all just wasting our time discussing ganking and combat logging. Because neither can be addressed:-
- Mindless/pointless interdiction/destruction is pretty much (sadly) PvP as it stands in ED at the moment.
- Combat logging is the only means of "voting against" this aspect of the vapid PvP gameplay and non-exsitent Crime and Punishment mechanics.

 

[DarkWalker]

Until FD finally put some effort into offering orchestrated interesting (consensual) PvP scenarios/mechanics, we're all just wasting our time discussing ganking and combat logging.

IMHO the game does have two big issues in trying to implement this: travel time and death penalty. Travel time tends to be anathema to multiplayer activities that require a certain concentration of players in the same place (and ED's game area is simply too huge for such a concentration to happen naturally in most places); harsh death penalties tend to force devs to make PvP very rare, otherwise the amount of loss-induced frustration gets out of control.

Due to that, I believe improving CQC might be the best bang for the buck here. CQC removes those issues already; if it's improved with AIs for when there aren't enough players, rewards usable in the rest of the game equivalent to what players would obtain by spending the same amount of time mission-running (for example), some extra for-fun modes (such as a rewards-less mode where you could bring your own ship and stage fights without worrying about repairs or rebuy), etc, I believe it could help keep PvPers happy while Frontier figures out the future of PvP in ED.

Another idea would be allowing players to sign up for law enforcement. You know those ships that spawn when a crime is reported? When the crime is committed in a PvP encounter, let other players pilot those ships. Using a CQC-like mode to allow such players to spawn wherever needed and gain some rewards from it (and some rules to prevent law enforcement from siding with the criminal), Frontier could both increase the amount of PvP happening and better protect players that are currently the preferred targets. Players that signed as law enforcement could also be spawned to interdict wanted players in high security systems.

 

[Deadspin]

The game also has "Elite" in the title, so to enforce the elitness, I propose that each month, only the TOP 5% of the player base (criterias to be determined) can keep playing the game, the 95% peasant left are perma banned, or forced to fly in E rated sidewinders

Or maybe have the game wipe your entire hard drive when you lose your ship, that would be "Dangerous".

There is no objective sense to extract from the title of the game, you interpret it as being an adjective for the gameplay direction itslef, whereas some people may interpret it as being related to the lore of the game. The latter case being widely used as a trope, the former being pedant at best. The game could be easy as a pie and still happens in a dangerous world as far as gaming is concerned.

How childish of you.

It's not about coddling the players. And really? You go with the titular argument? It's about allowing players to have some measure of control over when they get involved in PvP combat. It's about having some measure of choice. In video games, having greater control and choices tends to be a good thing. The ability to choose is at the heart of this game.

You can choose! When you click "Start" you are given the following options.

• Open
• Private Group
• Solo

Look at that! Choice!

The game coddles bad PvP players by enabling them to attack players in non-combat ships without consequence rather than having to take the risk of facing other PvP players.

As for the title containing the word "dangerous", please consider taking a few minutes to listen to David Braben himself explaining what it actually means.

I'm well aware of DBs words on the matter. Do I need to quote the advertising literature at you next? "Cut throat galaxy" perhaps?

Very much. The first thing Frontier ever said about ED's multiplayer capability was how every player would be able to choose who they play with; so, by their own words, I'm supposed to be able to simply never allow griefers, or even PvPers, to play with me.

Look above this reply.

Let's be be candid about this entire matter, as that's the only way to get to the nub of it:-
1) The PvP mechanics in ED are vapid to the extent of being non-existent. Which leads to...
2) ED has to allow CMDRs to interdict other CMDRs and attack them, because in truth there's little else to do as regards PvP. Which leads to...
3) A majority of players, who at the time are probably not interested in PvP, yet alone outfitted for it, are at risk of being interdicted by a minority of players in dedicated PvP engineered ships, just to destroy them. Which leads to...
4) Every thread about pointless destruction and ganking we have on the forum...


FD need to actually move the core gameplay forwards so there IS orchestrated purposeful PvP gameplay. So if you want to fight other CMDRs you can easily do it, legally! Then mindless pointless illegal destruction can be heavily penalised as it needs to be - It serves no purpose other than to give a toxic minority kicks. If there's PvP gameplay easily accessible go and utlitise that instead of randomly destroying CMDRs who cannot even put up a fight. Nothing will change until this sort of stuff is done IMHO.

If you are a regular on these forums or on Reddit and you've still lost a ship to a gank or am ambush suicide, I have literally zero pity for you. PvP serves a purpose, it's just not your purpose, so you are left flailing in misery over a style of gameplay you simply can't fathom.

If your answer to ganking/griefing/pvp is to "punish it into the dirt" or "push it over into the corner where it won't bother me" then, quite frankly, your answer is asinine. Frontier will eventually get around to working out their C&P system. Until then, fly safe, fly smart, fly solo/pg.

 

[thirstyfish]

How childish of you.



You can choose! When you click "Start" you are given the following options.

• Open
• Private Group
• Solo

Look at that! Choice!



I'm well aware of DBs words on the matter. Do I need to quote the advertising literature at you next? "Cut throat galaxy" perhaps?



Look above this reply.



If you are a regular on these forums or on Reddit and you've still lost a ship to a gank or am ambush suicide, I have literally zero pity for you. PvP serves a purpose, it's just not your purpose, so you are left flailing in misery over a style of gameplay you simply can't fathom.

If your answer to ganking/griefing/pvp is to "punish it into the dirt" or "push it over into the corner where it won't bother me" then, quite frankly, your answer is asinine. Frontier will eventually get around to working out their C&P system. Until then, fly safe, fly smart, fly solo/pg.

More choice is better. Private groups/solo mode are not viable alternatives for players who want interaction with other players, but don't want PvP. Don't say mobius, because I already have the shortcomings of that memorized. So, no, not really a choice.

 

[DarkWalker]

Do I need to quote the advertising literature at you next? "Cut throat galaxy" perhaps?

Which says nothing about PvP. That specific phrase applies to each and every Elite game until now, of which only ED is even multiplayer.

If your answer to ganking/griefing/pvp is to "punish it into the dirt" or "push it over into the corner where it won't bother me" then, quite frankly, your answer is asinine. Frontier will eventually get around to working out their C&P system. Until then, fly safe, fly smart, fly solo/pg.

Or just combat log to avoid PvP. Which is what I support until Frontier adds an Open PvE mode.

 

[Gunnet]

I'm well aware of DBs words on the matter. Do I need to quote the advertising literature at you next? "Cut throat galaxy" perhaps?

I thought it was more polite to assume that you didn't realise what the title means than to assume that you were ignoring what it means to support your position.

 

[NeilF]

More choice is better. Private groups/solo mode are not viable alternatives for players who want interaction with other players, but don't want PvP. Don't say mobius, because I already have the shortcomings of that memorized. So, no, not really a choice.

In an ideal situation, if OPEN could be offered/balanced in such a way as nigh on everyone was happy in it, wouldn't that be best?

So why not try to get towards that situtation? And how could we do that? As I've previously suggestion:-
1) FD finally start introducing some more involved gameplay and give us some solid interesting combat scenarios/mechanics which would improve the game in many areas. From solo, to open. From missions to powerplay. From PvE to PvP.
2) Those mechanics allow people interested in PvP to participate in it legally, for a reason, and and outcome. Mission/tasks could offer scenario for CMDRs vs NPC to a Wing of CMDRs vs a Wing of CMDRs.
3) Once legal PvP is easily accessible and orchestrated in the game, illegal destruction of Pilots Federation member is heavily penalised such that it would deter the mindless destruction which makes up so much of the (supposed?) PvP we currently have.

Where would that leave us?

Pros:-
1) Across the game players have access to more varied gameplay, from PvE to PvP.
2) PvP is generally easier to find and more consensual... Want it? Do an appropriate missions/task and there it is! Logical, rewarding legal PvP!
3) Mindless destruction would reduce significantly due to Crime and Punishment hitting hard!

Cons:-
1) If your bag is interdicting people at random, and blowing them up for the lolz... Sorry...


Personally those seem like 4 pros to me!

 

[thirstyfish]

In an ideal situation, if OPEN could be offered/balanced in such a way as nigh on everyone was happy in it, wouldn't that be best?

So why not try to get towards that situtation? And how could we do that? As I've previously suggestion:-
1) FD finally start introducing some more involved gameplay and give us some solid interesting combat scenarios/mechanics which would improve the game in many areas. From solo, to open. From missions to powerplay. From PvE to PvP.
2) Those mechanics allow people interested in PvP to participate in it legally, for a reason, and and outcome. Mission/tasks could offer scenario for CMDRs vs NPC to a Wing of CMDRs vs a Wing of CMDRs.
3) Once legal PvP is easily accessible and orchestrated in the game, illegal destruction of Pilots Federation member is heavily penalised such that it would deter the mindless destruction which makes up so much of the (supposed?) PvP we currently have.

Where would that leave us?

Pros:-
1) Across the game players have access to more varied gameplay, from PvE to PvP.
2) PvP is generally easier to find and more consensual... Want it? Do an appropriate missions/task and there it is! Logical, rewarding legal PvP!
3) Mindless destruction would reduce significantly due to Crime and Punishment hitting hard!

Cons:-
1) If your bag is interdicting people at random, and blowing them up for the lolz... Sorry...


Personally those seem like 4 pros to me!

The problem is that Fdev doesn't have the...heuvos...(that works right?) to actually do that. They are much more content to give us paint jobs, ship kits, weapon colors, and bobbleheads and call it "content" (heavy sarcasm quotes are heavy). They decide to attempt to "fix" fixed weapons, while ignoring just how stupid engineers is. I would gladly give up ship launched fighters and everything related to passengers if it meant that engineers would actually make sense and would actually be tolerable and much less grindy. If I wanted to grind for rare drops, I would go play warframe. While it can be somewhat grindy to get credits at time, at least I know of many ways to spice things up. I would also gladly give up the prospect of multicrew for making engineers tolerable. Not to mention that multicrew sounds like it would be pretty pointless any way. I get the idea that a multicrew ship would be able to take one a wing of single pilot ships, but how? and what ships would qualify? Willing to bet you need a T9, conda, cutter, corvette, or beluga (you know the largest and most expensive ships in the game). I own none of those ships, and likely won't own one for a while. As a result, multicrew means nothing to me and is just another "feature" that I won't be able/willing to use. Just like ship transfer and powerplay.

Whew, that was...salty.

 

[DarkWalker]

In an ideal situation, if OPEN could be offered/balanced in such a way as nigh on everyone was happy in it, wouldn't that be best?

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).