Unleashed the "Kraken".
WHY!?
- Thread starter Commander Holroyd
- Start date
There's a rule regarding naming and shaming, if the individual wants to identify themselves that's upto them but functionally it was no different to seal clubbing.
This example, taken at face value, has the aggressor leveraging a clear advantage against their targets, but doesn't imply much about their motives. If all that's required for ganking is attacking with an advantage, then there are a huge number of scenarios that qualify.
I'm not sure what activity could completely preclude defensive capabilities, but such a scenario sounds like a perfect time to attack one's enemies, assuming one intends to prevail against them with as little personal risk as possible, which is simply prudent. Likewise, the relative lack of communication before the attack doesn't seem particularly relevant either; undoing one's self in the exposition, or allowing distractions and stall tactics to slow one down (making it that much likely for hostile reinforcements to arrive or one's prey to scatter), is counterproductive to any attack/ambush. The statement made after the attack does suggest they were aware of the presence of others, which implies their limited attack was selective, or that they were attempting contextual/in-character intimidation of any survivor's spectators.
I've been under the impression that the ostensible problem with 'seal clubbing' wasn't a mechanical or functional difference, but that the 'seals' tend to be extremely new players who probably couldn't have made many enemies, and who wouldn't have the ability to do much harm to one's designs, even inadvertently. CMDRs who have been around for a while (or who have linked themselves to those who have and are now acting as force multipliers for them), who have interacted with people, formed alliances, joined groups, organized themselves for the purpose of achieving in-game goals, who have influence on the setting, etc and so forth, are going to have made enemies, intentionally or not, knowingly or not. When they get attacked in a disadvantageous position it can often be a very different context than the random targeting of new CMDRs just because they happen to be CMDRs, even if the attacks look identical when taken out of that context.
My CMDR has made a huge number of enemies over the years; he doesn't, and should not, get a free pass just because he's not directly and actively working against someone's goals at one particular moment. Attacking him when he's least ready, and keeping him guessing about one's motivations for as long as possible, is just sound tactics. Blowing up everyone he's with is also wise, because there is a high probability they have convergent goals, or are assisting my CMDR in a more direct way.
Again, if all that's required for 'ganking' is attacking with a significant advantage, then yes, the scenario you describe is ganking. However, this broad a definition of ganking confuses things by co-opting negative connotations more appropriately reserved for terms like 'griefing' or harassment.
The Cmdr has in this thread claimed that they do communicate their purposes prior to making such an attack. Had such actually been the case it would have provided a comprehensible context for the events.
Without that it's indistinguishable from seal clubbing and thus has to be treated as such given the available evidence.
There's nothing to indicate the Cmdr was aware of my presence and the statement made after the fact seemed addressed to the void, though it may have been to Cmdrs in PGs and thus not instanced with us.
Your attempts to assign a motive rely on a series of irrational assumptions which could not be inferred from what was observed, and if the motive they indicated earlier in this thread is to believed, wrong.
Without that it's indistinguishable from seal clubbing and thus has to be treated as such given the available evidence.
There's nothing to indicate the Cmdr was aware of my presence and the statement made after the fact seemed addressed to the void, though it may have been to Cmdrs in PGs and thus not instanced with us.
Your attempts to assign a motive rely on a series of irrational assumptions which could not be inferred from what was observed, and if the motive they indicated earlier in this thread is to believed, wrong.
Last edited:
As I mentioned before – and which should be crystal clear to anyone who takes the few seconds to think it through – the entire problem stems from the fact that there is no way to clearly define a category known as 'ganker' seeing as it will instantly begin to stretch into infinity and ultimately encompass everyone who happens to open fire on someone who doesn't want to be opened fire on.
I don't like how things are going? You're a ganker. I didn't feel like combat? You're a ganker. You rationalise someone's action? You're a secret ganker. The danger of such impossible categories, again, is that everyone you don't like or understand can just be labelled as populist, enemy of the people, and eventually it becomes true.
This in turn bloats into a legend that Elite in the Open is basically just gankers, which pre-conditions almost everyone engaged by anyone else to run and avoid any contact or just automatically block people who try to interact, because surely they are gankers, which, in turn, makes people who try to play as the galaxy's bad boys more and more frustrated until, ironically, they get so trigger happy just to annoy those who complain that the causal loop closes and voila: behold a ganker.
I don't like people who are s for the sake of it. But in an online game everyone, necessarily, must be given some benefit of doubt and ultimately treated the same way as npcs and scripted events - as part of the game's natural constitution. You don't have to understand it. I don't have to understand how mindless hauling of make-believe units of nothing in straight line from point A to point B constitutes entertainment in and of itself. I'm not going to attack people who like it as intentionally ruining the game for me. They are part of the makeup of its world. That's the point.
I don't like how things are going? You're a ganker. I didn't feel like combat? You're a ganker. You rationalise someone's action? You're a secret ganker. The danger of such impossible categories, again, is that everyone you don't like or understand can just be labelled as populist, enemy of the people, and eventually it becomes true.
This in turn bloats into a legend that Elite in the Open is basically just gankers, which pre-conditions almost everyone engaged by anyone else to run and avoid any contact or just automatically block people who try to interact, because surely they are gankers, which, in turn, makes people who try to play as the galaxy's bad boys more and more frustrated until, ironically, they get so trigger happy just to annoy those who complain that the causal loop closes and voila: behold a ganker.
I don't like people who are s for the sake of it. But in an online game everyone, necessarily, must be given some benefit of doubt and ultimately treated the same way as npcs and scripted events - as part of the game's natural constitution. You don't have to understand it. I don't have to understand how mindless hauling of make-believe units of nothing in straight line from point A to point B constitutes entertainment in and of itself. I'm not going to attack people who like it as intentionally ruining the game for me. They are part of the makeup of its world. That's the point.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Players choose to play how they play - they do not have control of how others perceive their gameplay choices.
If how they choose to play in some way annoys other players then it is perhaps unsurprising when their gameplay is not celebrated.
If those wannabe "bad boys" become frustrated because players don't react well to their chosen play-style then tough. No-one needs to tolerate player behaviours which they don't find to be fun. If the wannabe "bad boys" then turn to ganking then it can be argued that they were already on the path to it, given their apparent desire for conflict with other players.
Why should those who don't bother to take the time to consider whether their chosen targets will enjoy an interaction forced upon them be given any consideration by those they choose to attack?
If how they choose to play in some way annoys other players then it is perhaps unsurprising when their gameplay is not celebrated.
If those wannabe "bad boys" become frustrated because players don't react well to their chosen play-style then tough. No-one needs to tolerate player behaviours which they don't find to be fun. If the wannabe "bad boys" then turn to ganking then it can be argued that they were already on the path to it, given their apparent desire for conflict with other players.
Why should those who don't bother to take the time to consider whether their chosen targets will enjoy an interaction forced upon them be given any consideration by those they choose to attack?
I'll leave you to your thoughts now, Robert.
If you don't know the difference between a ganker and PvP'er, then why are you here?
Everyone knows what ganking is, except you it seems, who want to make up vague definitions, and then argue about them with others, who never once put forth or agreed to your made up definitions.
You're trying to prove a negative by aserting an absence of evidence is somehow evidence of absence. As if not boldly proclaiming one's motive allows you to interject your own. That's a pretty glaring logical fallacy.
You have chosen to assume the worst. I choose to give people the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I think I have the more rational and utilitarian approach here; instead of becoming frustrated or disappointed when a CMDR I don't recognize behaves in an unexpected or hostile manner, it's just another gameplay opportunity, an obstacle to overcome, or, should I feel intrigued enough, a mystery to solve. I get all of the benefits of Open and very few of the suposed downsides (aside from landing pad contention, of course) that those who see gankers lurking in every FDL-shaped shadow seem to obsess over.
Speaking of irrational assumptions, you're still aserting that the CMDR in your account wasn't aware of your presence when, fact of the matter is, you simply cannot be in the same instance as another CMDR without the game revealing your presence to them. They might not be aware of your exact location, but they know someone is there, and probably who. If you're instanced with someone, you significantly inflate their client's bandwidth figures and will usually show up on their contact list. Beyond that there are numerous visual signs, and usually sensor cues, that reveal others are about. Unresolved sensor contacts will give away the position of even very cold ships within ~5km at the least and usually much more (8-9km is about as close as I expect to get to someone without the direction to my ship being revealed by sensors, even if I know I cannot be targeted until sub-1km). Exhaust trails and weapons fire can be seen dozens of km off. SRV lamps are usually rendered around ~30km away. Even suit shields can be seen from large distances, especially in low light. Any experienced player will generally be aware any time someone besides them is still in the instance they occupy, especially if they are looking for, or anticipating, any kind of trouble. If you observed this attack, you were almost certainly observed.
The only behaviors we can opt out of are those that require direct instancing.
There are all sorts of things reflected in the BGS or influenced by other indirect mechanisms--all these absurd PMFs plastered across the bubble being a prime example--that are ultimately dictated by player behavior, that I don't find to be fun. And I know I'm not alone here.
This is a loaded, and completely nonsensical, question. If I dismiss the fallacious implications, there isn't anything left, neither an honest query, nor even a coherent piece of rhetoric.
No, you are evidently assuming that everyone uses your particular definition, which is a flatly insane presumption to make.
If there is anything that this thread should have made clear by now, it's that not everyone has the same ideas about what constitutes 'ganking'. I suggest you read the posts in this thread that are not authored by me, before acusing me of being some unique outlier here.
Confirmation bias would be understandable were this thread more one-sided, with no other posters overtly questioning anyone's interpretations or definitions, but is inexcusable in the presence of multiple posters doing just that.
For example, I did not author these posts:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed, however those that can be opted out of are likely to be the most important ones, for some players.
That's due to the nature of the shared galaxy, i.e. we all both experience and affect it. That we may not consider PMFs' names to be in keeping with the setting is down to Frontier's choice to, for a time, both offer the ability for player groups to have a player named Faction inserted into the game and also to approve the names of the aforementioned Factions.
If it wasn't PMFs it would be NPC factions that would proliferate as players got behind them using exactly the same tools as for PMFs.
at least with the NPC factions I don't need to worry about visiting a military dictatorship called the NOSCOPE GAMER CLAN or some patter like that
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Quite,
If you used the known definition, most of this thread makes sense.
Providing comments from people who support ganking and are only here trying to muddy the water like you, doesn't really boost your argument.
And which known definition is that?
If you had everyone in this thread define 'ganker' and then reveal all those definitions at once, I'd be very surprise if any of them were identical.
These needlessly specious responses where you claim people have said things they've never said or did things they haven't done is really starting to get old.
Are you going to deliberately misinterpret every statement that doesn't agree with yours?
Pointing out multiple specific examples of individuals who do not seem to share your personal definition of something is about as convincing a rebuttal of your assertion that I am the only one who doesn't agree with your definition of something as there could be. There isn't really even any room for interpretation here; you could write this out in simple boolean logic and have a quick proof that your claim was impossible.
In fact, he's not a fan of Thargoids and most likely has not killed a single Medusa since he can't and covers himself with the idea (it's not clear who he's trying to fool) that he's not interested.
You have a wonderful blacklist mechanism, just add this player to it and that's it.
I 'support' dealing with what I find, rather than removing it for 'because reasons'. Some players will not be friendly or want what you want- and for most of the game* its fine to select the mode that suits you. However given that the PvE of ED is highly regimented, not to mention for the most part not scaled to player facing engineering, the random element is welcome.
*Powerplay being the exception
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Maybe to those who subscribe to out of game rules that no other player needs to take any notice of...
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
How is your bureau of pre-gank going
?Unlike the rest of the game Powerplay relies on the threat of violence (since its 11 powers in a tug of war) to define it. Without either players or powerful NPCs it is meaningless. Hence, open mode can have more of an effect on outcomes than the 'core' of the game and that the silly term 'ganker' has no meaning, given that killing is part of Powerplay.