WHY!?

[Morbad]

What I am talking about is how some of those looking to disrupt the play of others talk about how the game is meant to be dangerous, when they, themselves, are in the safest bracket of players.

I'm not quite sure who you could be referring to.

There are people in this thread who, for whatever reason, are highly critical of the contradiction they perceive among those they view as being risk-adverse while simultaneously insisting on engaging in combat activities in Open. Most of them aren't PvP gankers and aren't looking to disrupt the play of others. Not that most of those looking to disrupt the play of others, in an AX context, would resort to such inefficient means as PvP ganking.

I'm also doubtful of the assertion that taking a PvP gankmobile into a malestrom is a particularly 'safe' CMDR activity.

Malestroms offer fairly unique PvP opportunities that were bound to attract those looking to fight other CMDRs...any other CMDRs. One of the main mechanical issues with combat in this game is that, due to the ability to high-wake at will, safety is only eight seconds away for anyone who isn't an abject novice. Disengaging is too easy and fights mostly end the moment one side realizes they're in a disadvantgeous position, or worse turns into a revolving door of opponents who can leave and reenter ad infinitum. A ~100km radius permanent masslock zone is many a PvPer's wetdream because it's one of the only places in the entire game that offers the possibility of tension or deciveness in semi-organic engagements. PvPers, even most gankers, who are in a malestrom are there because it forces them to win or lose without the FSD. I'm sure the concentration of targets is appealing as well, but that doesn't make it safer than doing just about anything else, anywhere else.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I'm not quite sure who you could be referring to.

There are people in this thread who, for whatever reason, are highly critical of the contradiction they perceive among those they view as being risk-adverse while simultaneously insisting on engaging in combat activities in Open. Most of them aren't PvP gankers and aren't looking to disrupt the play of others. Not that most of those looking to disrupt the play of others, in an AX context, would resort to such inefficient means as PvP ganking.

I'm also doubtful of the assertion that taking a PvP gankmobile into a malestrom is a particularly 'safe' CMDR activity.

Malestroms offer fairly unique PvP opportunities that were bound to attract those looking to fight other CMDRs...any other CMDRs. One of the main mechanical issues with combat in this game is that, due to the ability to high-wake at will, safety is only eight seconds away for anyone who isn't an abject novice. Disengaging is too easy and fights mostly end the moment one side realizes they're in a disadvantgeous position, or worse turns into a revolving door of opponents who can leave and reenter ad infinitum. A ~100km radius permanent masslock zone is many a PvPer's wetdream because it's one of the only places in the entire game that offers the possibility of tension or deciveness in semi-organic engagements. PvPers, even most gankers, who are in a malestrom are there because it forces them to win or lose without the FSD. I'm sure the concentration of targets is appealing as well, but that doesn't make it safer than doing just about anything else, anywhere else.

Don't the gankers usually interdict outside the malestrom?

 

[Morbad]

Don't the gankers usually interdict outside the malestrom?

I don't know.

I imagine some would, but AX ships with thousands of hull integrity and heatsink launchers are going to high-wake, probably before taking much damage, most of the time. I'd also imagine that most people wholly uninterested in engaging hostile CMDRs on their way to a malestrom would get close in another mode, then switch to Open.

 

[aristide torchia]

I'm not quite sure who you could be referring to.

There are people in this thread who, for whatever reason, are highly critical of the contradiction they perceive among those they view as being risk-adverse while simultaneously insisting on engaging in combat activities in Open. Most of them aren't PvP gankers and aren't looking to disrupt the play of others. Not that most of those looking to disrupt the play of others, in an AX context, would resort to such inefficient means as PvP ganking.

I'm also doubtful of the assertion that taking a PvP gankmobile into a malestrom is a particularly 'safe' CMDR activity.

Malestroms offer fairly unique PvP opportunities that were bound to attract those looking to fight other CMDRs...any other CMDRs. One of the main mechanical issues with combat in this game is that, due to the ability to high-wake at will, safety is only eight seconds away for anyone who isn't an abject novice. Disengaging is too easy and fights mostly end the moment one side realizes they're in a disadvantgeous position, or worse turns into a revolving door of opponents who can leave and reenter ad infinitum. A ~100km radius permanent masslock zone is many a PvPer's wetdream because it's one of the only places in the entire game that offers the possibility of tension or deciveness in semi-organic engagements. PvPers, even most gankers, who are in a malestrom are there because it forces them to win or lose without the FSD. I'm sure the concentration of targets is appealing as well, but that doesn't make it safer than doing just about anything else, anywhere else.

No game without meaningful decisions. No meaningful decisions without meaningful stakes.

Where everything is optional and stake-less, everything becomes meaningless.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I don't know.

I imagine some would, but AX ships with thousands of hull integrity and heatsink launchers are going to high-wake, probably before taking much damage, most of the time. I'd also imagine that most people wholly uninterested in engaging hostile CMDRs on their way to a malestrom would get close in another mode, then switch to Open.

Switching modes all the time seems like a pain. I don't think most people's issues would be the damage with so much HP, just the delay and having to high wake away and try again. It could get tiresome.

No game without meaningful decisions. No meaningful decisions without meaningful stakes.

Where everything is optional and stake-less, everything becomes meaningless.

For you, perhaps. I'm currently playing a lot of Manor Lords, in easy mode, with no enemy. Just enjoying it a peaceful city builder game, trying out different methods of developing the town and stuff. Pretty meaningless, but enjoyable for me.

I mean, isn't playing computer games in general meaningless? Or do you attribute meaning to PvP? Are games, in your opinion, only meaningful if they have multiplayer and PvP? Do you not play single player games?

 

[Robert Maynard]

No game without meaningful decisions. No meaningful decisions without meaningful stakes.

Where everything is optional and stake-less, everything becomes meaningless.

What do those who preferentially target other players, that some seem consider to be so beneficial to the game that players should accept them as an essential part of their gameplay, put at stake?

 

[Morbad]

Where everything is optional and stake-less, everything becomes meaningless.

We're all setting our own arbitrary success/failure conditions, with the game offering almost no objective feedback. It's a 'cutthroat galaxy' framed as some sort of dystopia...where none of our characters are ever at risk of serious setbacks.

It's not what I'd prefer, but Frontier apparently thinks this is the path of least resistance that will appease the greatest number of Arx customers for the lowest effort. They're probably right.

I mean, isn't playing computer games in general meaningless?

Compared to what?

We live, we die. In between I'm mostly just trying to stay as comfortable and as entertained as possible for as long as possible, without making the world any worse than I need to in the process.

Are games, in your opinion, only meaningful if they have multiplayer and PvP? Do you not play single player games?

Games are defined by their constraints. We can pick just the right mix of constraints in single player games for our tastes, but if our tastes ever favor the social aspects that only multiplayer experiences can provide, we need to compromise on a set of shared constraints. A game that tries to cater to too many disparate tastes doesn't tend to be optimal for anyone.

The problem with Elite: Dangerous, other than it has a functional monopoly on a very niche genre, is that the marketing is misleading.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Regarding Titans I always do that in Solo due to the vents issue.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Compared to what?

The long dark teatime of the soul.

 

[aristide torchia]

I mean, isn't playing computer games in general meaningless? Or do you attribute meaning to PvP? Are games, in your opinion, only meaningful if they have multiplayer and PvP? Do you not play single player games?

Aside from Elite, I have only ever played single player games.

Among these, only ever ones designed upon mechanical dynamics that force me into making interesting decisions with almost every move.
Looking Glass Studios' classic immersive sims, Fallout 1, Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri, X-Com, Faster than Light, Satellite Reign, Into the Breach, Cogmind, Rain World are all good examples of well-designed games spanning across different genres.

All of these set up mechanical foundation upon which your every decision as a player collapses you into a particular path of consequences, where planning and improvisation in equal measure leads to unique experiences equally in victory and in defeat. Cmdr Isinona is the best example of an imaginative player I have ever seen, gracious in victory and defeat alike, playful without grinding, playing his cards as they are dealt.

It's not about PvP, competition or griefing. It's about an ability to dance along the experience instead of being rigid.

 

[aristide torchia]

They're probably right.

They are right indeed, even as their never-ending troubles come from ignoring the fact that in trying to appeal to everyone they appeal quite to no one. It's the modern AAA conundrum where game mechanics are dictated by marketing teams, PR and statistical calculations.

And I do share your sentiment.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Aside from Elite, I have only ever played single player games.

Among these, only ever ones designed upon mechanical dynamics that force me into making interesting decisions with almost every move.
Looking Glass Studios' classic immersive sims, Fallout 1, Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri, X-Com, Faster than Light, Satellite Reign, Into the Breach, Cogmind, Rain World are all good examples of well-designed games spanning across different genres.

All of these set up mechanical foundation upon which your every decision as a player collapses you into a particular path of consequences, where planning and improvisation in equal measure leads to unique experiences equally in victory and in defeat. Cmdr Isinona is the best example of an imaginative player I have ever seen, gracious in victory and defeat alike, playful without grinding, playing his cards as they are dealt.

It's not about PvP, competition or griefing. It's about an ability to dance along the experience instead of being rigid.

In ED you also have choices and consequences to those choices.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Mobius is fairly empty.

Consider that, in comparison to the number of copies of the game out there, the membership limit of Private Groups is pitiful, i.e. 20,000 vs. over 12,500,000. Then there's the fact that the original Mobius PG was full to capacity years ago (from memory it was split into two PGs c.2016 (if not before)) - and inactive CMDRs are likely to, by now, occupy many of the available places on the membership.

Some PvPers just don't get that they are considered a nuisance, or an impediment to fun. It's like going to a bar with that one "friend" that manages to get you all tossed out for fighting with a waitress.

Yet some of those PvPers are often forthcoming regarding how other players should change the way they play to accommodate those who preferentially target players without, apparently, for a moment considering that maybe they should be the ones to change the way they choose to play.

.... and if they don't want to change the way they choose to play, why should anyone else?

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

In the end this is why the modes exist, why blocking exists, and none of those are going away.

 

[aristide torchia]

In ED you also have choices and consequences to those choices.

We are turning circles now. No point continuing.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

We are turning circles now. No point continuing.

Well, we are disagreeing, but I agree.

So, where do you stand on Stilton cheese?

 

[Rubbernuke]

So, where do you stand on Stilton cheese?

 

[Felix DiCestria]

So, where do you stand on Stilton cheese?

I try not to, it's squishy between my toes.

 

[aristide torchia]

Well, we are disagreeing, but I agree.

So, where do you stand on Stilton cheese?

I'm afraid to stand on it. You can get blocked and cancelled by stilton cheese these days.

 

[HEKURA]

You probably still haven't.
It was just you were there and

also they knew their ship would be relatively safe from most weapons their victims would have equipped.

It seems like the game is designed that way... They can kill you easily, with no consequences, and because your weapons and equipment are for goids.

the game is designed for them.

This is the real reason why different equipment and weapons for goids.