Seriously, what's the point in open play?

[Robert Maynard]

Well stated. I mean, you're right; by virtue of playing this game, we're willing participants in a system that allows players to affect competative outcomes without resistance.

We are indeed.

I am, however, critical of this approach.

Noted.

I don't mind avoidance of PvP if you're going about personal or group business in Solo or a PG such as exploring, logistics, PvE combat, Thargoid hunting, mining, etc. I do that all the time.

Whether players mind, or not, is of no particular moment - we all follow the same game rules.

I am, however, critical of avoiding PvP in conflict scenarios. Not because it frustrates PvPers, but because PvP should be unavoidable when you are fighting someone over something.

Whether PvP should, or should not, be avoidable is a matter of opinion - the fact of the matter is that it is in this game, much to the chagrin of some players who want to force other players to play in ways they would not choose to.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Whether PvP should, or should not, be avoidable is a matter of opinion - the fact of the matter is that it is in this game, much to the chagrin of some players who want to force other players to play in ways they would not choose to.

The "force" works two-way: the other player is forced to play in ways they would not choose to as well.

So the above point is totally worthless.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't understand... any competitive activity requires PvP on various extent (even selling explo data to push the faction X against Y is "PvP").

You should be more precise: I think you mean as what is not required is shooting another CMDR with ships or on foot.

Whether selling explodata to, trading with, etc. a faction in a syustem might be regarded as PvP, or not, would require each player to know whether any of the factions in a system were actively player supported. As players affect, but don't control, factions any BGS interactions can be considered to be indirect-PvP at most, or simply "playing the game".

Noted. More care will be taken to prepend "itsi-" to PvP when referring to in-the-same-instance PvP.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The "force" works two-way: the other player is forced to play in ways they would not choose to as well.

So the above point is totally worthless.

From the perspective of players who don't accept that they can't force players to engage them in PvP when affecting mode shared game features, certainly. However no-one is forcing those disatisfied with their lack of ability to force players to engage in PvP to engage in the game features that don't require PvP.

 

[Shabine]

Whether PvP should, or should not, be avoidable is a matter of opinion - the fact of the matter is that it is in this game, much to the chagrin of some players who want to force other players to play in ways they would not choose to.

I suppose a better title for this thread would be "Seriously, what's the point of PvP?"

As far as I can tell, there really isn't any.

The "force" works two-way: the other player is forced to play in ways they would not choose to as well.

So the above point is totally worthless.

I've banged that drum, but it doesn't work. The general consensus is that PvPers are the bottom rung of ED society, and they'll take what they can get. Apart from that, they can go to hell, because this game ensures that their entire playstyle - while totally viable - is something the rest of us should be able to shun and avoid, regardless of the situation.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I suppose a better title for this thread would be "Seriously, what's the point of PvP?"

As far as I can tell, there really isn't any.

The point of itsi-PvP is that it is there for those who wish to engage in it.

The simplest explanation as to why it exists is because players have been able to shoot at anything they instance with from the outset - for as long as players have been able to choose not to play among those who want to shoot at them.

 

[Shabine]

it is there for those who wish to engage in it.

But to what end that only PvP can accomplish?

None at all.

The simplest explanation as to why it exists is because players have been able to shoot at anything they instance with from the outset - for as long as players have been able to choose not to play among those who want to shoot at them.

So it's merely a byproduct of an open world ruleset with no intrinsic value, because it can't be used to achieve anything exclusively by virtue of what it is.

That's what I'm criticizing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But to what end that only PvP can accomplish?

None at all.

So it's merely a byproduct of an open world ruleset with no intrinsic value, because it can't be used to achieve anything exclusively by virtue of what it is.

That's what I'm criticizing.

It's not a PvP-dominant game, by design.

.... and Frontier learned early that players can't be trusted to earn game rewards designed for contested player interactions as some players were quick to exploit those interactions uncontested.

 

[Shabine]

It's not a PvP-dominant game, by design.

.... and Frontier learned early that players can't be trusted to earn game rewards designed for contested player interactions as some players were quick to exploit those interactions uncontested.

It's a PvP-pointless game by design. They didn't even bother to give gankers a cool criminal lifestyle that forced them to the outskirts of civilization, and they deployed competative systems that allow players to circumvent actual competition. This is what I mean by "milktoast". It's the least commital of all potential approaches, and it's fairly disappointing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's a PvP-pointless game by design.

Which seems to be a consequence of all players affecting the single galaxy state, regardless of game mode, and other players being an optional extra - which were both made clear in the earliest published game design information which the game is based on.

They didn't even bother to give gankers a cool criminal lifestyle that forced them to the outskirts of civilization, and they deployed competative systems that allow players to circumvent actual competition.

Given the in-game antics of some members of the that subset of the community, it's probably not a complete surprise that rewarding them does not seem to be a priority.

While players seeking a PvP feature started with supporting NPC factions in the early days after game release, at that point Frontier had been selling copies of the game (either directly or through pledges) for about two years - and not all of those purchasers would have taken kindly to effectively PvP-gating aspects of the released game, especially after the cancellation of Offline Mode (with one given reason for the cancellation being that the static offline galaxy would not offer the game experience that Frontier wanted to deliver, i.e. all players affecting the shared galaxy).

This is what I mean by "milktoast". It's the least commital of all potential approaches, and it's fairly disappointing.

It's pretty clear that in-the-same-instance PvP is an optional extra that no player needs to engage in while affecting any mode shared game feature - however that's not the clarity that some PvP proponents seem to want.

 

[Darrack]

We always seem to get back to this Hotel California Open only BGs/PP rubbish, its a non starter, a red common fish, its just smoke and mirrors.
I did many cycles of PP in Open, Fortifying many, many systems, destroying system resistance forces at violent protests etc without ever coming across another commander, i may as well have been in Solo.

The game is what the individual wants it to be, fly in Open and you're assuming you can stop me from trucking my Dissidents back to Polevnic because you know my flight route, you know the systems ive selected to concentrate on and the method i use to evade interdiction, yeah righto chances are you will never ever see me unless you camp Tanner's.

If you fly Solo or PG you're basically saying that in your (my) Universe im too smart for you and you will never cross my path.

I agree that for larger scale battles the chances of a meeting are increased, but theres no guarentee you will be instanced with your foe, especially if your on a block list.

Regardless of which world you fly in the actual (proven) reality is that for the activity's i do in PP both Open and Solo have the same outcomes.


O7

 

[TiberiusDuval]

It's a PvP-pointless game by design. They didn't even bother to give gankers a cool criminal lifestyle that forced them to the outskirts of civilization, and they deployed competative systems that allow players to circumvent actual competition. This is what I mean by "milktoast". It's the least commital of all potential approaches, and it's fairly disappointing.

Actual competition? It seems to me that to our PVP brethren there is only one way to "compete", and it is by shooting other competitors. But well you can have "competitive" without shooting anybody.

 

[Riverside]

If you fly Solo or PG you're basically saying that in your (my) Universe im too smart for you and you will never cross my path.

It can 'basically' be interpreted in other, less biased ways. If someone is not interested in meeting others solo is great. If someone only wants to play with people they know or like minded players private groups are great for that. If you are 'too smart to get caught' the place for those arrogant fools is open where they can test their hypothesis.

I do agree that the general play experience is essentially the same no matter the mode but it does depend on where you go. I built & engineered a couple of ships recently, buying the gear at founders then hopping around a few engineers. I did it in solo. I had a quick look at the D-2 message stuff too, again in solo because it meant I could take my time to look around without disturbing anyone elses instance & there was some chatter in system chat among Cmdrs doing similar things too.

But if you're 'too smart to get caught' but you're not in open where you can be caught? Pff

 

[Shabine]

Actual competition? It seems to me that to our PVP brethren there is only one way to "compete", and it is by shooting other competitors. But well you can have "competitive" without shooting anybody.

We're just thinking about this two different ways.

Conflicts usually require, you know... conflict of some kind... in order to be considered conflicts. If I can beat you without ever seeing you, and without you being able to prevent me from achieving my goals within the scope of applicable operations, that's not really a conflict. At all. I have no clue what you want to call it, but I call it absolute nonsense. And I don't even participate in all this, so I have no horse in the race. I just think it's hilarious that there are people who play this game who think they've actually achieved something by winning battles without being in Open. It's pretty craven. Like I've said, I don't care if people use Solo or PG to avoid PvP... but using them to win battles against people who are actually prepared to put their ships on the line is, well, cowardly.

I recognize that the systems allows for this. I recognize that some people aren't up for fighting. But those people really should be prevented from working against those who are genuinely up for a fight; the people who are willing to engineer their ships, sharpen their combat capabilities, and go down in flames if and when the battle turns against them. Those people are, if nothing else, honorable enough to risk something. Sadly, ED isn't designed to accommodate their lack of aversion to risk.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

We're just thinking about this two different ways.

Conflicts usually require, you know... conflict of some kind... in order to be considered conflicts. If I can beat you without ever seeing you, and without you being able to prevent me from achieving my goals within the scope of applicable operations, that's not really a conflict. At all. I have no clue what you want to call it, but I call it absolute nonsense. And I don't even participate in all this, so I have no horse in the race. I just think it's hilarious that there are people who play this game who think they've actually achieved something by winning battles without being in Open. It's pretty craven. Like I've said, I don't care if people use Solo or PG to avoid PvP... but using them to win battles against people who are actually prepared to put their ships on the line is, well, cowardly.

I recognize that the systems allows for this. I recognize that some people aren't up for fighting. But those people really should be prevented from working against those who are genuinely up for a fight; the people who are willing to engineer their ships, sharpen their combat capabilities, and go down in flames if and when the battle turns against them. Those people are, if nothing else, honorable enough to risk something. Sadly, ED isn't designed to accommodate their lack of aversion to risk.

Well I disagree. If lets say I make difference in outcome by hauling stuff from place a to b, perhaps more efficient way against that is hauling more stuff for faction one supports. Instead of blasting away whoever tries to haul stuff to system. Dunno seems kind of WILD idea.

Basically those wanting use direct PVP in BGS have chosen WRONG TOOL for WRONG FIGHT.

 

[Shabine]

Well I disagree. If lets say I make difference in outcome by hauling stuff from place a to b, perhaps more efficient way against that is hauling more stuff for faction one supports. Instead of blasting away whoever tries to haul stuff to system.

Once again, you're talking about what this game allows you to do. Sure you can do it this way, but it's the craven way. It's what I would expect from someone who simply can't be bothered to risk anything, or overcome anything, in order to achieve their goals.

I recognize that ED allows people to do this. Equally, I'm allowed to make judgements about their character, and to state my opinion that ED bends over backward in order to accommodate people who are deeply averse to any sort of risk or collective effort.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Basically those wanting use direct PVP in BGS have chosen WRONG TOOL for WRONG FIGHT.

Especially if they're supporting a controlling faction. "Defending" a controlling faction via PvP is functionally identical to attacking a controlling faction via PvP. And while the kind of tactics that can be used against a "defending" PvPer aren't as effective as they used to be, you can still arrange things so that a PvPer will do far more damage to their own faction than you could ever do to it on your own.

 

[Shabine]

Especially if they're supporting a controlling faction. "Defending" a controlling faction via PvP is functionally identical to attacking a controlling faction via PvP. And while the kind of tactics that can be used against a "defending" PvPer aren't as effective as they used to be, you can still arrange things so that a PvPer will do far more damage to their own faction than you could ever do to it on your own.

Assuming you're 100% correct, this again proves the point that PvP has no "home" in ED, because it was never given one - a domain in which it can thrive. Look at CQC. MUSKETEER proved that dedication and skill can put you so far at the top that nobody can even claim to closely rival you. And this one completely PvP feature was so broken, so unloved, and so forgotten by Frontier, that it was never allowed to evolve beyond its pitiful primordial state.

So PvP remains a byproduct of the open world. Even in a faction-based conflict, which is a scenario in which one group of supporting players triumph over another, it isn't only optional... it isn't even optimal. There is no better case for simply replacing Open's current rules with a strictly PvE one. The only thing worse than removing PvP from the game completely is allowing it to wallow in relative uselessness. Sure some PvP groups make the best of it, but it's kind of a joke, and the system's orphans often end up taking the form of gankers who simply exploit ED's lack of a reasonable crime and punishment system.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Once again, you're talking about what this game allows you to do. Sure you can do it this way, but it's the craven way. It's what I would expect from someone who simply can't be bothered to risk anything, or overcome anything, in order to achieve their goals.

I recognize that ED allows people to do this. Equally, I'm allowed to make judgements about their character, and to state my opinion that ED bends over backward in order to accommodate people who are deeply averse to any sort of risk or collective effort.

Whats the risk anyways if you have proper ship and proper way to operate it? Only thing that gets added is tediousness seeing who will be bored first. PVP'er or the other guy.
I don't consider skipping ganking minigame part as "craven".

Anyways most BGS IS after all kind of filling up various "buckets", and shooty shooting everything that moves simply will not work as solution. You might actually need to play PVE part of game, instead of ganking everyone coming to "your" system. Especially because you cannot shoot them all. Because of modes, you getting blocked and so on.

 

[Shabine]

Whats the risk anyways if you have proper ship and proper way to operate it? Only thing that gets added is tediousness seeing who will be bored first. PVP'er or the other guy.

I suppose the risk is not accomplishing your goal because someone stood in your way.

I don't consider skipping ganking minigame part as "craven".

Neither do I. But in that case, we're not talking about you winning a conflict by avoiding the ganker. It's different when you're participating in a battle that affects the outcome of a conflict and secures victory against other players, and they are unable to hinder you in any way. That's the part I think is broken, not avoiding the ganker.

It's weird. ED is such a mishmash of hybrid systems that it's kinda difficult to explain what well-constructed alternatives to its systems might actually be.