That's why I've always been willing to try the equivalent of Open mode in previous MMOs like Elite Dangerous. They're like the No Man's Sky of survival games. On paper, No Man's Sky should be a game I enjoy. In reality, there's a number of factors, mostly minor, that combined sucked the fun out of it. On paper, PvE games that feature open-PvP should be an experience I enjoy.
In reality, the behavior of a small segment of the playerbase sucked the fun out of those games, to the point where I'd rather deal with all the irritations that come with turning on a PvP switch than have to put up with them. Based on comments from the Dev Teams of those other games, over 95% of the player-base made the same choice I did. Which is why, following Frontier's statement that a
significant majority of players willingly choose Open in this game is so astonishing, to the point where I felt compelled to test that statement, and much to my surprise I found it to be true.
Right now, this game in general, and PowerPlay in particular, has a "What's the point?" problem when it comes to
initiating PvP for me. I'm not a combat-oriented player. I never have been. I played a
shopkeeper in one game, though that did require going out to hunt game. I will do combat from time to time, but I need to be
tempted into doing that, rather than it being my default choice. So besides
that particular source of friction against initiating PvP, there's three other sources of friction:
Specialized Builds - Frontier really dropped the ball when it came to ship design in this game. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a ship not specialized in PvP to ever win against one that is specialized in it. Furthermore, it's also difficult for a ship not specialized for combat in general to win against a specialized combat ship. Making
all defensive modules be optional ones, rather than their own type of module, means a specialized combat ship can dedicate all the optional modules used to run missions or transportation towards hit point inflation.
Inadequate Reward - One of the side effects of hit point inflation is the increase in time to kill. If PvP combat between similar builds, for example takes ten minutes to finish, then that reward needs to be worth
at least ten minutes worth of PvE activity. Given that the chances are good that PvE activity
guarantees results, while the outcome is likely to be in doubt with PvP, the reward needs to partially compensate for
that potential loss as well.
Unequal Distribution of Risk - And that's the final variable in the equation. I know what I'm carrying in terms of risk, so I'm extremely unlikely to initiate combat against a combat ship, whether equipped for PvE or PvP, because they won't be carrying the same amount of risk I am. The
only time I'm likely to be in a position to
intiate such an intercept is when they're enroute
to a combat zone, not on the way back
from a combat zone. Thus they won't be carrying
anything worth destroying. And if
they're the one doing the intercepting, I'm not going to be fighting back, because again they're not carrying anything
worth destroying.
Which is why, unless the most effective way to earn merits turns out to be mission running, then it's highly unlikely for me to ever
willingly initiate PvP combat, or fight back for that matter. There's just no point. And if my old BGS 1.0 strategy is any indication, I represent the norm, not the exception, among the playerbase, even though my attitude toward PvP in general is the exception among players like me.
And if the most effective way to earn merits
does turn out to be mission running, then perhaps we'll see some fun.
