Of course nobody engages in PvP when there is no reason to do so, this entire system is meant to give you a reason to PvP.
I think the recent spikes in player activity would indicate otherwise.
We are chill too. Chill pirates.
You miss my point. And I reckon as soon as people have their modules and or realize the solo play efficacy, they'll drop down again.
I'm sure I am.
For some reason I think truckers and pirates are just not made to get along...
So engaging. So convincing.
For sure... their commitment will very likely dissapear like a drop of water in the sand.
Not too sure about that - as PvE players seem to enjoy the game just fine, as they aren't bothered by those who would like to engage them in PvP.
In essence it's not even mainly about PvP or PvE; moreso about being unable to hinder or affect people who are progressing in a system in solo or private play. It's just boring to compete without actually competing. No strategy and risk involved whatsoever.
.... which means that it is about PvP, i.e. the complaint of "being unable to hinder or affect people". That's a consequence of playing a game where PvP is an optional extra that no player needs to even tolerate much less engage in.
All players, regardless of their preference for PvP (or lack thereof) were awaiting the rework of the initially unnamed game feature for about two years - not just players who prefer PvP. That the base game feature that has been reworked does not require PvP, just as its earlier incarnation did not require PvP, is not particularly unexpected - as to do otherwise would be to take gameplay away from those who don't enjoy PvP.
Then, genuinely wondering, what is the point of the competition in star systems? If you regard indirect hindrance as PvP and thus also undesireable, what is the point of the entire feature? It amounts to nothing. The entire premise is about hindering and affecting the opposite faction while supporting your own?? I suggest more depth in competition, if not ShipvShip then other ways; but as it stands solo and private play severely hamper the depth of this feature and bring about that which you fear so much; taking away viable routes of gameplay for a broad range of people.
), and thats not okay, we cannot cater to those PvP'ers, man.
Competition in this game does not need to involve in-the-same-instance PvP - the whole game is effectively designed around indirect asynchronous competition, where all players affect game features even if they don't or can't (due to P2P connection quality issues) instance with each other.
Such as?
When catering to PvP players necessarily means effectively removing the ability for players in modes other than Open to affect a game feature, why should those PvP players be given something that is currently shared by all players at the cost of taking it away from players who have no interest in PvP?But no, we'll settle with trade rare commodities faster than our enemy to win gameplay; where hindering the opposition in any form is PvP (even though powerplay is about factions vying for power and hindering eachother
Okay. great feature.
Which is what I was getting at before getting instantly shot down above because it's ~spooky~ PvP. But as it stands now, no, the entire game is not designed around asychronous competition for the simple fact that there is no route by which you can hinder or decrease the efficacy of those players progressing systems in their closed safety bubble. The only viable and possible route you can take is earning merits faster; which at this point only amounts to a race to trade more rare goods than your enemy. So in essence the entire feature is designed around gathering generic unit x, hopefully faster than your enemy, ad infinitum. Being able to slow down, hinder, add difficulty, ... to the amount of generic unit x your opposition makes is sorely lacking in order to even imagine this feature being "designed around indirect asychronous competition". Designed around monotonous hauling gameplay that we've had before the feature is more apt.
Aye, dumb down a feature to obsoletion or make it interesting in order to cater to more people, not just scared risk averse players? Good question.
Indirect competition does not offer players engaged in it the ability to impede those they are opposing - the aim is to out-perform the opposition.
Reactivity from NPCs in affected systems would be good.
Quite obviously not all players want the same things.
I think they were mocking those "hiding in solo".
Hard disagree. Especially given the entire spirit of PP where it's superpowers fighting other powers for control over systems. Impeding and thwarting the opposition is the entire thing it's based around. I don't think I'd see Imps declaring a fair trade war with the Feds, right? Just imagine them flying side by side trying to "outperform" eachother. Exciting!
Competition takes many forms - combat in general and PvP specifically is but one of them (and largely optional in the case of the former, totally optional in the case of the latter).
The conflation between disinterest and "fear" of some kind, in relation to PvP, in a game that we all play in the safety and comfort of our chosen gaming environment with an immortal space pixie as an avatar, is common enough to be dismissed out of hand.
Life is full of disappointments.
Right, why water down to just one form of inefficient and unengaging "competition" and not allow for more depth to trickle in? Just give the feature to those only interested in trading I guess. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. With the above suggestions of indirect hindrance and slowing down with modifiers multiple forms of competition are more likely. But I say just be reasonable and make it OOPP.
I did not mention fear in said comment that you dismissed out of hand. Are you even paying attention? And either way, it's all tongue in cheek and in no way meant to be taken to heart. Can't get soft now.
You're telling me lel
