The fallacy of how PvP can protect your system from being undermined.

[goemon]

but then observing the type of player who seems to yell the loudest regarding PvP's place in game IS the proto-typical griefer/ganker

at least my picture is mainly build by na'qans cold running squadron, and the recent pvp league (which was also covered in the newsletter)

If a solo group is undermining my faction, I am FORCED to do PVE only, if I want to react on that.
As a PVP clan, PVE only is not what you are looking for.
Again: I could absolutely live with an universe, where PVE is still a part - the main part - for defending your faction. But not being able to even do a small tiny bit of PVP to defend your faction, as a PVP clan, will umtimately lead to PVP clans having no factions. If that is what you are going for - go ahead

even pve centric groups suffer from that - if bounty hunting or combat zones or smughling missions needed, you'll have much more activity, then when it is about "trading the boom away".

i personally think, that in many cases it is wise, as did the code after introduction of minor factions, simply to look at it as a recognition of your group, and not take care about influence/expansion.

or win all stations in system, loose the main station, and enjoy a comfy home.

many groups, not only pvp groups have thay bias, that they have to decide between bgs and their main activity. there is nothing wrong in doing what is most fun for you!

 

[GilliganTX]

It seems we will never know.
A whole PVP clan trying to catch as many underminers as possible would have been a fun thing I guess.
Have you already tried to undermine a system that was at least in some way protected by 50-100 Commanders at the same time?
Me neither. So no one knows, how much this would influence the solo players.
Of course, you could buy a Cobra and run all the time. But even then, you are at least forced to run in a Cobra.
And even Cobras can get in quite some trouble, if chased by some Clippers by the way.
And if you lost your ship multiple times, you may reconsider taking part in this undermining. And you may tell your mates about it... and they may reconsider it too...

The fact that PvP could deter players from undermining has been covered. It is still not an effective COUNTER. They are different terms and have different meanings.

Stopping players from undermining you is not the same thing as countering their actions. Countering their actions requires PvE tasks.

 

[Roybe]

And please don't get me wrong over and over... I am not telling, that a PVP Clan solely wants to do PVP.
Its just, that it does not want to do solely PVE. But for defending your faction, thats whats needed.
And as part of a PVP Clan and part of a minor faction - thats what needs to be changed, from a PVP clan perspective.

When you avail yourself of an exclusively PVE part of the game, why should there be any other expectation that PVE will be the only way to win the day?

 

[Sandmann]

I was here from prior to beta...and did not realize this until the Lugh War. Although many who were there, fighting for either side, would love to see this type of campaign occur again..this was not a Direct PVP brawl...as many thought it would be (myself included!). This was a massive PvE grind fest that nearly burned out those that were invested in it.

It showcased the idea of the game fantastically, however. If you want to influence a system...you have to PvE....PVP, although fun, slowed down the accumulation of the things that truly mattered...war bonds, weapons trading, and the PVE piracy of barrels of intelligence.

Yeah I remember you being around basically forever - certainly before me at any rate (and I'm premium beta) - so for you to not have realised the extent of it way back then just emphasises how poorly the nature of the game was communicated. Then again communication has ALWAYS been one of FDev's failures really, we've ALWAYS had to push and dig to get even grains of truth out of those "in the know". I'm sure they have their reasons for the culture of silence, but it really doesn't help from this end of things.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

When you avail yourself of an exclusively PVE part of the game, why should there be any other expectation that PVE will be the only way to win the day?

^^^ this. It's like buying fish & chips then complaining it "tastes fishy". "Well, that IS what you bought sir."

 

[GilliganTX]

at least my picture is mainly build by na'qans cold running squadron, and the recent pvp league (which was also covered in the newsletter)

And my picture is primarily the guys in my wing who go out RP hunting for imperials and the like. Good guys, no ganking or griefing, and a sense of fair play. That didn't used to be the case, as all but one of my early player-interactions involved my cobra being exploded by clippers and such. I didn't mean to imply that was the only POV that could be formed regarding "PvPers."

However I do feel that Code/SDC are the most vocal PvP group, and I also think that their effect on the way that many players (and potentialy the developers) view the PvP community at large has been largely negative.


However that is off topic and I'll leave it at that.




NOTE: I hate relegating groups of players into "PvP" or "PvE" boxes, as many people I fly with, myself included, greatly enjoy and engage in both.

 

[xondk]

<It'll really cook people's noodles when they realize that once they worked to turn their player group into a Power...they basically lose control of that Power to the locusts and the devs!>

Well that is what a power is, anyone can join them.....

Though powers having requirements would make a bit more sense.

 

[Mystify]

When you avail yourself of an exclusively PVE part of the game, why should there be any other expectation that PVE will be the only way to win the day?

Thats why I ask for making it not an exclusively PVE part, which it would not be, if we could use it for PVP too.
All your arguments about how much the deterrence would not work are assumptions. We would need to try it out to actually see.

 

[Asp Explorer]

It's all moot anyway. The only true way to play Elite is PVB.

Player vs Beer

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

And egos are invested in it. The solo/pg/open system is a complete debacle and simply holds back what the game could really become. With the greatest respect to developers these things are a bad system and whilst I don't like doing so we have to point the finger at David Braben. As game director he is ultimately responsible.

I'd like ED to be a great game and deliver upon its potential but the game is and has been severely shackled by an ideology and mindset at FD HQ. Its the senior folk at FD who have to answer to all of this. What is clear to my eye is that its not the ability of the staff but the hinderence of senior players who appear to have an ideological stance towards games.

The phrase chickens coming home to roost is likely an apt description of poor choices made for the game. My interest is the game being a great one but we are never going to get their if we continue to stunt whats possible with a heavily contrived and scripted treadmil system for game play.

Lets be brutally honest, the game might have sold 1.5 million copies but I get the impression its never going to get much higher. And thats all down to how restricted the gameplay really is. The game could be epic but its never going to be when all it amounts to is a heavily contrived, scripted, and controlled treadmil. The PvE game is dull and boring. It might suit you but its killing the games future imo.

Whilst I've never had a problem with the pricing of the game I think a look at the steam reviews should be enlightening enough. You may wish and be happy for the game to be niche but it doesn't serve the company's bottom line. Things need to change and the game and certain players need to grow up a little.

Wow arrogant much? Has it occurred to you that the issues many have with the game is nothing to do with PvP or pve? All I hear from people in cqc is not enough play it. Then arrogance that players who are not interested in PvP and are killing the game boggles me.

I could be just as bad and say the twits in open insisting on PvP are killing the game and we would be better off without them but then I would be no better than you

You claim you were hyped for the game sold to you and yet the 3 modes are one of the areas almost working as promised. It is mostly the PvE content that is lacking from the ddf and dev dairies and this is the content I feel will ensure the longevity of the game not nonsense like banning everyone from the bgs other than special snowflakes in open

 

[Marcus Tullius]

Come on guys, as a PvE player and probably the most peaceful person in ED I can say: the strongest and most vocal supporters of PvE will pray for PvP if their interests are threatened by someone else in *shadow* mode.

 

[goemon]

It seems we will never know.
A whole PVP clan trying to catch as many underminers as possible would have been a fun thing I guess.
Have you already tried to undermine a system that was at least in some way protected by 50-100 Commanders at the same time?
Me neither. So no one knows, how much this would influence the solo players.
Of course, you could buy a Cobra and run all the time. But even then, you are at least forced to run in a Cobra.
And even Cobras can get in quite some trouble, if chased by some Clippers by the way.
And if you lost your ship multiple times, you may reconsider taking part in this undermining. And you may tell your mates about it... and they may reconsider it too...

i have done several times what comes close to it: blockade running in open, like triadius blockade in eleu.

you missed the main argument: the joke is, by interdicting me and shooting me, you are hurting your controlling factions influence. so, your 100 players are actually working against their objectives.

anyway, it would be fun!

 

[Roybe]

Thats why I ask for making it not an exclusively PVE part.

Time will tell...but until PVP has some effect on the BGS (a PVE only endeavour mind you), the only way to 'control' a system is to knock heads with the PVE people in PVE.

 

[GilliganTX]

Thats why I ask for making it not an exclusively PVE part, which it would not be, if we could use it for PVP too.
All your arguments about how much the deterrence would not work are assumptions. We would need to try it out to actually see.

Because that's how it was designed. If it's not an aspect of the game you were interested in, you should not have applied for the group in game.

You can maintain a player group outside of the BGS, many groups with out in-game factions do this.


Asking for a faction in-game, then complaining that the only way to maintain/expand that player group is via PvE actives is like petitioning for a skate-park in your town, then complaining you can't surf there.

 

[Roybe]

Well that is what a power is, anyone can join them.....

Though powers having requirements would make a bit more sense.

You and I know this to be factual...but there are many folks who think that becoming a Power would be some wonderful thing that their group would have some control over.

 

[Sandmann]

Thats why I ask for making it not an exclusively PVE part, which it would not be, if we could use it for PVP too.
All your arguments about how much the deterrence would not work are assumptions. We would need to try it out to actually see.

There IS a combat component in wars/civil wars with the "conflict zones", but even then it's not STRICTLY PvP combat. I think you've failed to understand what you're asking for though - the BGS is basically a simulation of the economic and political influences in the civilised bits of the galaxy. It operates by assigning influence values to various missions and to combat bonds under very strictly controlled circumstances to avoid people "gaming" it. It's extremely difficult to quantify influence values for PvP combat however, and even more difficult to do so without "gaming". You'd have to assign a faction to EVERY player, and there'd be very little way to prevent people from abusing/exploiting it.

At the end of the day I think you need to accept that the combat & flight simulations are there to support combat (PvP and otherwise), and that the BGS is there to support politico-economic gaming.

 

[the100thmonkey]

We make the content!!!

You'll be arguing that random PvP is "emergent content" next...

You don't make my content. I've never watched an ED stream, have no interest in watching people PvP for no reason, and really coudn't care less about watching other people play a game I own myself and could spend the time playing myself.

My content comes from the people I play with, the objectives we set ourselves and the relationships we create, collegiate or antagonistic.

Aunty is exactly right - if you want to play the game with your "own" faction, you either commit to the BGS or go home. So many players want the game to reflect their skillsets. Perhaps there's a chance to expand your skillset here - why not be the best - best at both PvP pew pew and PvE domination of space? "I don't like it" is often a fig leaf for "I'm not very good at it."

BGS play against other groups is sometimes like playing a military FPS where you know the ins and outs of a full assault kit against the guy who has 50,000 kills with a pistol because he only ever plays pistol-and-knife servers. Sure, he's great with the pistol, but he still dies to you a laughable amount of times because he's not using the full kit to its full capability. Other times it's a humbling experience.

You don't make the content, you make your content. You're missing out.

We're a BGS-focussed group and we play in open, by the way.

 

[Sandmann]

You and I know this to be factual...but there are many folks who think that becoming a Power would be some wonderful thing that their group would have some control over.

Part of this is (again) down to poor communication and misdirection/misinterpretation though. The player factions were partly a response to the constant demand for guilds etc. FDev saw it as a way to give players some feeling of belonging without stepping over the line of letting them control territory and changing the flavour of the game. It's hardly surprising that many players who felt like they'd had a "win" in their fight for a guild expected to be able to defend it/play it/use it the way they use guilds/clans/corps in other games. Just as in the early days, if they'd done their digging they'd have realised that it wasn't what they thought, but many players just jumped on board and expected it to live up to their desires, and are now dissatisfied and feel cheated coz it doesnt.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Maybe something could be done within the new crime and punishment work. You are after all undermining the ruling faction, perhaps that faction should have some teeth for people who it deems "enemy". It would add some actual risk for everyone if you had to do your work under the watch of the ruling faction and face the possible consequences of being found to be a "terrorist" attempting a coup. Just a thought

Yeah, this came up a bit in Maj's thread where he asked what it would take for non-Open players to return. It might attract some people. Personally i'd be quite happy with there being some way of identifying someone who is working against a faction. For example, you are working for an opposing faction, you aren't doing anything bad against the ruling faction per se, but its hurting their influence. What you are doing is not exactly circumspect, you are after all taking missions from a public bulletin board (old joke about DOES ANYONE WANT TO BUY ILLEGAL GOODS?), so it could hurt your reputation more with the ruling faction that you are trying to undermine, eventually making them hostile to you.

This would affect the PvE players as well, providing an extra challenge. Won't get most of us out of group/solo, but at least make us work a bit harder to do the undermining as it were, especially if we have to try and dock at a station that is hostile to us (although really, that shouldn't even be allowed to happen! Another one for the crime and punishment thread... but there again, if you can't dock, it would make undermining nigh on impossible... needs extra thinking about).

Anyway, interesting idea.

 

[Roybe]

Part of this is (again) down to poor communication and misdirection/misinterpretation though. The player factions were partly a response to the constant demand for guilds etc. FDev saw it as a way to give players some feeling of belonging without stepping over the line of letting them control territory and changing the flavour of the game. It's hardly surprising that many players who felt like they'd had a "win" in their fight for a guild expected to be able to defend it/play it/use it the way they use guilds/clans/corps in other games. Just as in the early days, if they'd done their digging they'd have realised that it wasn't what they thought, but many players just jumped on board and expected it to live up to their desires, and are now dissatisfied and feel cheated coz it doesnt.

^^^^Truth!

 

[Robert Maynard]

And egos are invested in it. The solo/pg/open system is a complete debacle and simply holds back what the game could really become. With the greatest respect to developers these things are a bad system and whilst I don't like doing so we have to point the finger at David Braben. As game director he is ultimately responsible.

That Frontier designed and pitched the game with these features in place - and that they haven't changed them (in the face of repeated criticism from a subset of the player base) - possibly, yes. Whether Solo / Private Groups / Open, shared galaxy state and mode mobility are a "complete debacle" or specific game features that players backed / bought the game for is subjective and therefore a matter of opinion.

I'd like ED to be a great game and deliver upon its potential but the game is and has been severely shackled by an ideology and mindset at FD HQ. Its the senior folk at FD who have to answer to all of this. What is clear to my eye is that its not the ability of the staff but the hinderence of senior players who appear to have an ideological stance towards games.

I want E: D to be a great game too - from my perspective it seems to be coming along nicely. Again, a subjective opinion regarding whether the game is "severely shackled by an ideology and mindset" (or not).

The phrase chickens coming home to roost is likely an apt description of poor choices made for the game. My interest is the game being a great one but we are never going to get their if we continue to stunt whats possible with a heavily contrived and scripted treadmil system for game play.

It rather depends on one's definition of "great" - not all players consider the same things to be great - or "fun" for that matter.

Lets be brutally honest, the game might have sold 1.5 million copies but I get the impression its never going to get much higher. And thats all down to how restricted the gameplay really is. The game could be epic but its never going to be when all it amounts to is a heavily contrived, scripted, and controlled treadmil. The PvE game is dull and boring. It might suit you but its killing the games future imo.

Future trade updates from Frontier will inform us how well (or not) the game is selling. Again, whether the game ends up being "epic" is subjective as each player probably has a slightly different opinion as to what constitutes an epic game.

Whilst I've never had a problem with the pricing of the game I think a look at the steam reviews should be enlightening enough. You may wish and be happy for the game to be niche but it doesn't serve the company's bottom line. Things need to change and the game and certain players need to grow up a little.

It is for Frontier to advertise and sell their game - 1.4M franchise sales at last report.