Yes PVP is unfair.
- Thread starter _Dastardly_
- Start date
My sig link "Wall of Information" has quite a bit of information regarding modes / bgs.
The various threads / blog etc if you look through will show you FD want only 1 active BGS (it was the excuse for dropping Single Offline)
The thing about playing in an open mode is that, other than griefing or ganking, PVP also happens when there are more legit... or shall we say, compelling.... reasons as to why you may be targeted and engaged/destroyed by another player.
It could be because they are in PP and have political motives in blockading or flipping a certain station by preventing trade or access to it.
You can try to circumvent it in solo, or small groups. But in an Open PVE you can basically turn things on the head without risk because the two large scale game modes are linked. Mobius is a large scale group that works the same way, perhaps then why some players do not like the reason behind a shared universe but instanced in little pieces. But because it's not official, players can't say that FD is allowing this kind of play to sabotage whatever efforts they put into manipulating the universe.
In the end, nothing of what you do matters because invisible enemies in other instances are always working against you and there's nothing you can do about it.
I can get with an Open PVE if it were in a separate game universe. Link Solo/Group with Open PVE, and let Open stand on its own.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Uh yes, already answered that above.
Last edited:
You assume that PVPers do not want to affect the BGS. You're wrong.
There are many reasons for PVP. War and control is one of them.
Ganking and murder are a minority.
Most fights in MMOs take place because of power, territory and control.
If a group wanted to flip a station, they would destabilize it by blockading it. That would mean destroying not only sys authority ships, but also any and all trading ships, NPC or Players who attempted to dock there.
Look at the game universe, look at the lore. It's Fed vs Empire vs Alliance. It's war out there.
What do you PVE guys contribute to the lore of the 3 factions other than carrying cargo and smuggling? Exploring is a personal activity and does not affect the story.
The other major activity is WAR.
NPCs are a walkover. I could take out an NPC Fed Corvette in my Vulture, and then knock out his wing of 2 Eagles with no shield loss. But I won't be able to survive a single player Python or Anaconda, much less a Corvette. In PVE, you guys would make turkeys of the "opposition". Only in PVP can war be meaningful.
So PVP gets a static universe? Uh no.
But what if the reverse were true?
Last edited:
This is probably true. However, my real point is that since the devs did not provide a PvE mode, it is completely unfair to a single player to be responsible for providing this opportunity. If I could get someone to provide a necessary function to my business for free, I certainly would take them up on it. However, there are some legal issues of having someone work for me for no pay. Even if there are no legal issues, I do not think it is proper for a single player to be responsible for providing a de facto service that the devs should have created. To prevent this, the group sizes should be limited. Even MMO's have guild size limits. Whether these limits are similar to 4-8 people per group or 500 per group. It is a far cry from nearly 20k, and no limit in sight.
Crime and punishment will never prevent the criminal from creating crime in a game. All this does is make the anti-crime people feel better. The criminal will just be proud of the size of the fine and enjoy the extra difficulty to playing in a limited situation. The criminals win...and the non-criminals lose.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Except this is impossible in this game..PvE is the only way to move the yardsticks. There can be no way for PvP to do otherwise because of the neccessity of equality between the modes and platforms.
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
If it's a single player game for you, play in Solo. What are you even doing in this thread, if you're not interested in the multiplayer aspect of the game?
Destroying enough NPC Sys authority, destroy enough NPC (or player) traders around a station, intentionally grabbing up a faction's missions and then abandoning it.
These do have an effect too. Of course the PVE traders/smugglers have an effect in solo/group. But you could do all of that in Open too.
Additionally, since Mobius is simply a group, there are no in game mechanics in place to ensure that the particular rules of the group are observed (PvE except in CZ's), relying instead simply on the goodwill of all players who apply to join, and then retroactively banning any who choose to break those rules.
That's all PvE stuff, there are never enough players anywhere to ever drive the BGS.
This is the essence of the problem...as far as PvE vs PvP goesin this game.
Yes this is an indirect form of PvP...and this how the game is designed...anyone anywhere can PvP in this manner and successfully change the galaxy around them. Direct, shoot someone in the face PvP...has very little effect...mainly because you do not have enough players to kill in the numbers needed to do anything...and there is hardly any support for killing PC's to move the BGS.
Last edited:
To be fair, Open PvP proponents often comment (sometimes unfavorably) on Solo and Group modes when they clearly have no interest in playing those modes.
it is rareley you see open players complain about solo or group.
unless its about something like power play.
really PP should be open only..
if we want to take a place over and we know that the other faction will be sending fortification packages to stop us. then we should be able to shoot them before they deliver them..
If they are in solo or mobius you cant stop them. this makes fortification process a non fail mission.
all you have to do is get to 100% and that's it. its fortified. it is not a matter of who gets the target 1st. its not a matter of who gets the most.. all you have to do to fortify is achieve the 100% mark. (usually about 8k fortification packages or so)
if it was confined to open only, then you could try and stop them getting through with blockades. and others would be stopping your blockades to try and get the packages through..
but like i said as it is right now.. Its a non fail situation.. you decided to keep that area, so you fortify it in solo and its no risk at all.
so the only thing fortification is really used for now is merit farming.
So there is a reason to it because allowing PP to be played in solo or group instead of only in open broke it.
But there is nothing that happens in open that could ruin a solo players experience of the game.
unless its about something like power play.
really PP should be open only..
if we want to take a place over and we know that the other faction will be sending fortification packages to stop us. then we should be able to shoot them before they deliver them..
If they are in solo or mobius you cant stop them. this makes fortification process a non fail mission.
all you have to do is get to 100% and that's it. its fortified. it is not a matter of who gets the target 1st. its not a matter of who gets the most.. all you have to do to fortify is achieve the 100% mark. (usually about 8k fortification packages or so)
if it was confined to open only, then you could try and stop them getting through with blockades. and others would be stopping your blockades to try and get the packages through..
but like i said as it is right now.. Its a non fail situation.. you decided to keep that area, so you fortify it in solo and its no risk at all.
so the only thing fortification is really used for now is merit farming.
So there is a reason to it because allowing PP to be played in solo or group instead of only in open broke it.
But there is nothing that happens in open that could ruin a solo players experience of the game.
Last edited:
I'm interested in the multiplayer*, but only as long as no PvP ever finds me. I didn't mention the game being sold as a single-player due to a lack of interest in multiplayer, but rather because it carries a strong assumption that players will be able to be self-sufficient, which means I should never actually need to ask for help. But, when it comes to the multiplayer aspect, I have zero interest in any kind of player conflict, and I only do PvP where everyone has previously agreed to fight (which means that it's more like a friendly sparring match, without actual player conflict).
In any case, you asked why players don't just wing up. Well, that is one reason, I never ask for help in a game, and I doubt I'm the only one.
(* Though, admittedly, if the game had the promised offline mode, I would be there and likely wouldn't bother with online at all. Being able to pause, mod the game, rollback my save (or keep multiple ones), and otherwise take full control over the experience is worth far more for me than multiplayer could ever be.)
And if the player owning Mobius quits, another active player can simply reorganize the group anyway.
That's the sad part about instancing and P2P connections. You get a half-baked persistent universe.
You can do stuff, but you can't fully defend your stuff, or block opponents from messing with your stuff.
Maybe the game should be divided into two Universes.
Static mode for solo/groups for players who're only interested in personal profits and just flying around. Instancing only.
Open persistent mode for players who're interested in playing the BGS. Single persistent universe server.
Last edited:
If the other players are in the same platform as you (PC or XBox, and quite likely PS4 in the future).
If the other players are online at the same time as you.
If the other players are geographically close to you (I doubt someone in the US can blockade a group from Russia, for example, as their mutual latency should be higher than the matchmaking allows).
If neither you nor the other players have networking issues that prevent the P2P architecture from working correctly.
If there aren't enough players there that the game creates more instances anyway.
Sincerely, given the amount of "ifs," I would be surprised if a blockade could stop even 10% of the players that do play in Open. The platform difference alone means that roughly half the players are forever beyond your reach. The game was never designed to allow blockades to be effective. And I would have to find the quotes, but I believe it was intentional, even; I don't think the devs want players to be able to exclude others from any content, any part of the galaxy.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Yep. Which means that no one can ever hinder me, or block me from going anywhere I want or doing any content in the game. Isn't it great?
Yep. Which means that no one can ever hinder me, or block me from going anywhere I want or doing any content in the game. Isn't it great?
I know, right?
FD should be making "Offline" play for ppl like you. You'll really like it there.
But too bad they didn't follow through on their original premise.
Well, with the caveat that I don't play PP, it has been much discussed how instancing would effectively prevent players in Open from blockading a system / station. FD have also indicated that they don't want to see players blockading areas of the game (I'm afraid I don't have a link to that, it was quite a while ago.)
It could be argued that non-consensual PvP negatively affects some players, forcing them to play in Solo when they would like co-op player interaction, but cannot be assured of that without accepting that they are valid targets to be shot at against their wishes.
You forgot one..
If i was the only one blockading.
then most of your points would be valid.
Last edited:
Actually dxm55, that's not the point that I was making regarding Mobius. The fact is, there is nothing preventing a player shooting another while in Mobius, just the acceptance by anyone who joins that they will abide by the rules. It would be preferable if there were a PvE group where the game made player on player fire cause no damage.
The reason they didn't offer offline at the start, and one of the reasons they in the end removed offline before launch, is exactly because they want even those that don't want to ever meet another soul to contribute to the shared galaxy simulation. Also, given the way Frontier wants to advance the narrative, weaving both the input of players and content they create and adapt according to how the players are shaping the galaxy, I doubt they will ever create a second galaxy simulation.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
So, can you get a blockade running across all continents, at all times of the day, on both platforms? Recruiting and coordinating players that are actually unable to ever meet, or talk, in game?
Good luck. And, for what is worth, even if you managed that, chances are good your group still wouldn't see everyone.
Last edited:
And this is where the problem is. It's an inconsistent mish-mash of ideas that is messy.
You can't have conflicts of interests without conflicts.
What we have is effectively people in parallel worlds affecting the same world.
It would have been better if they had just completely excluded Powerplay, and made the entire game economy static/scripted.
It becomes a simple space trading game between 3 factions. And nobody would care about instancing because they can't influence the game universe, and in turn no one is influencing against them in some other instances. No complaints to be made.
But once player factions come into the mix, it just doesn't gel with the instancing system.
Last edited: