Yup they are. and they are as small a component of the playerbase as every other bunch of players that want the game changed to suit them. It will happen when pigs fly in supercruise. I appreciate where you're coming from, Majin, but this isnt going to ever be a PvP centered game.
Why PVP is Dead or Dying. PVE is now KING!
- Thread starter Hatchepsut
- Start date
Yup they are. and they are as small a component of the playerbase as every other bunch of players that want the game changed to suit them. It will happen when pigs fly in supercruise. I appreciate where you're coming from, Majin, but this isnt going to ever be a PvP centered game.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There are some members of the community for whom it would appear that nothing less than removing Solo and Private Groups from the game would be acceptable.
The fact that one side keeps proposing changes that suit their play-style but that seem to go against Frontier's vision for the game is not so much burying heads in sand - it would seem to be more like attempting to push water uphill.
Given that opinions on the topic are subjective, they naturally vary - some players want fundamental changes - others are content with the game design in relation to the contentious features.
Every PvP player who bought the game did so with the knowledge (or the possibility of acquiring such knowledge) that the game has three game modes, mode mobility and a single shared galaxy state - this fundamental design information was published well over three years ago. That players of different play-styles have chosen to join the community is great - that a subset of those players want the game changed to suit their play-style (at the expense of the freedoms of other players), not so much.
This would be a much more effective demonstration of who was the better pilot
PvP should happen, but it's all a bit broken by space pirate romanticism that's given free reign by the lack of any from of law+order. The pirates are fabulously wealthy more like spoilt diplomat kids racing around being 'terrerists' than actual pirates - I suspect the whole pirate activity would be much much more fun for them too if they genuinely spent much more time running and having to be quick before the feds arrive and they weren't able to carry on doing lucrative normal people missions so that they *had* to make the victims give up their cargo so they could make enough money to keep going. You wouldn't see as many hull-tanks if piracy incidents brought a heavily armed and quick response all set up to take on the pirate-meta-build, and you can bet that'd get the pulses racing
Majinvash
Banned
I have said on multiple occasions that I have no inherent issue with solo or private.
The issue I and many others have is the unbalance and that one mode can effect others. This is something that could be addressed and HAS been mentioned by FDEV.
This unbalance and effect is something, that even if you read the material before buying the game would be hard to understand until you are a few weeks into it. Without reading EVERY thing about a game before buying it, the advertised tag lines are fairly missleading ( It does mention solo after in a "want to know more box" but this would have gotten a lot of players to bite )
Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous' vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy.
I imagine this will become even more of an issue when the player powers are a thing.
Majinvash
The Voice of Open
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Again, the single shared galaxy state has been a published part of the game design since the outset - from the Kickstarter FAQ to Ashley's FAQ thread -
From reading Zac's thread, "Player Power" would seem to be a misnomer - we are being offered the chance for one player sponsored Minor Faction to make the ascent to Powerhood - at which point it would very much seem that the new Power will be handed over to the community at large to support, oppose or ignore.
Last edited:
The trouble is if you go on at the right times everyone is in bed and it's pretty much like Solo in Open
Try getting a CQC match around teatime. It may seem unfair but it's an unavoidable reality that we're not in-game all the time and still traffic and trade and crime must continue without us - we're a few thousand pilots in a civilisation of many trillions. The really weird and unnatural thing would be if it did all have to be done via PvP and we had to hang around for a few days while Cmdr Bob is away on business before we can continue
Until they've got a million pilots toing and froing all day every day with all the social structure that will bring with it there just isn't a way to argue it really. The game is eventually against the environment - we should all be part of that by playing our part, but currently it can't work because sheer logistics mean for now enforcement/consequence all have to be programmed in - coming Soontm
PvP conflict doesn't necessarily mean Player kills Player. In regards to the BGS and factions it's more like Player vs Environment vs Player. Killing another player doesn't affect the BGS at all, while killing NPCs influences the BGS. Of course you can try to stop another players influence by killing him but he will just respawn. At the same time you are occupied with defending your system / faction against other players so you can't influence the BGS as well. Anyway as pointed out in several other threads limiting BGS influence to open doesn't change anything other than annoying PvE players. We would still have different timezones, instancing and the possibilty to block other players via network settings. You don't win a war by killing players, you win it by playing the BGS.
PS
Just for the record, I didn't say that PvP isn't part of the game (it's an option) it's just not a core feature.
Last edited:
Majinvash
Banned
You are entirely missing the point I am trying to politely make.
If you look at ED's million plus copies sold.
How many do you think have read the kick-starter or all the reposted quotes from Dev updates or watched Braben waffle on about his vision on youtube
VS
The people who saw a space game advertised. Jumped on the website site, read the advertised tag lines and watched a few cinematic videos before buying.
Saying they are wrong because the marketing was misleading or that they didn't spend weeks researching their £40 investment, is all good and all.
Doesn't affect the on going issues, all drilling down to the same complaints.
As I said, both sides can bury their heads in the sand.
If FD wants to keep the second type of players, they need to address their concerns.
Majinvash
The Voice of Open
Ah, well then the answer is probabyl much easier. Join one of the many PvP oriented clans as a freelancer and learn from them.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
What Frontier know is that every player has bought the game with these features in place - whether or not they read the published information on the game.
What they do not know is what proportion of those players would be happy with the type of changes proposed - while there are complaints on the forum, the forum neither requires the user to own the game to be able to post nor has all players registered. So, while complaints are made, there are obviously differing opinions around the contentious game features - who should Frontier listen to?
Frontier probably have sufficient information from the in-game analytics to be able to roughly categorise players. - from that they may determine what, if any, changes require to be made. It basically comes down to the size of any group that may be upset by change - Frontier will probably not seek to upset the majority of players, after all.
There's also the possibility that Frontier would approach the issue from a different perspective - leave the contentious game features as they are (for all of the players who are content with the status quo) and add a locked-in game mode with its own galaxy state for that mode (although, presumably, shared between different platforms). This would obviously add costs in development, deployment, running costs of servers and curation of a divergent galaxy.
Please point me to any source or marketing information that would make a potential buyer believe that this is a game where you are able to force someone else into PvP against their will. The existence of the three modes, in their current form, does not contradict the marketing presentation of the game. I would argue that it even complements it, because it provides an extra angle to the freedom that is so often emphasized to the premise: play alone, play with others, whatever you prefer, all is valid.
Most players are bad don't give in, come up with a strategy and stick with it. If you need any advice on load-outs or general PvP viability just PM me, or one of the many players willing to help out on the forums were not generally a nasty bunch.
Never like to see a player accept it and lie down, destroy them all!!
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
It says its an mmo? Which follows a very predictable setup (one this game doesn't follow
)Like its automatic if you have any experience of an mmo, you think well pve server, pvp server, i'll choose the one that excites me. It never occured to me when I bought the game i'd be able to flip-flop at will because it has no comparison point in my gaming history.
I've played a great many multiplayer games and the only close comparison i can come to is action rpgs like diablo 2, where you can move your character been open .net and single player, however even that has multiplayer only servers (closed battle.net) because single player was full of cheaters/dupers/exploiters etc lol
Last edited:
Majinvash
Banned
Most players are bad don't give in, come up with a strategy and stick with it. If you need any advice on load-outs or general PvP viability just PM me, or one of the many players willing to help out on the forums were not generally a nasty bunch.
Never like to see a player accept it and lie down, destroy them all!!
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
It says its an mmo? Which follows a very predictable setup (one this game doesn't follow
Like its automatic if you have any experience of an mmo, you think well pve server, pvp server, i'll choose the one that excites me. It never occured to me when I bought the game i'd be able to flip-flop at will because it has no comparison point in my gaming history.
I've played a great many multiplayer games and the only close comparison i can come to is action rpgs like diablo 2, where you can move your character been open .net and single player, however even that has multiplayer only servers (closed battle.net) because single player was full of cheaters/dupers/exploiters etc lol
What he said.
Majinvash
The Voice of Open
It says its an mmo? Which follows a very predictable setup (one this game doesn't follow
A few more predictable setups for MMOs:
- ingame item shop
- shortcut bar at bottom screen with poorly made comic graphics
- passive combat system
- a hud that looks more like a browser than a game
- ...
In my opinion every MMO sucks since every game follows WoW. When broadband and high performance computers became available to everyone I hoped that we will get some great games, instead we got thousand copies of the same stupid concept. I am happy that FDEV follows a different approach, in my opinion they are quite avant-garde in this regard. Some people might be disappointed but they can play one of the other games which are just what they are asking for and follow a predictable setup.
PS
/rant
Last edited:
Oh I completely agree, WoW was the best and worst thing for MMOs but were talking about server setups here and first impressions / logical assumptions.
I played mmos before item shops became a thing, I've always turned the action bar off because it is offensive and the HUD is made for a multiplayer experience in a social game, the one in ED isn't any different lol it takes up most of the screen with lots of info i'd turn off if i could. It doesn't change that while everything in your list certainly seems to be the way MMOs operate now, they still also have servers like i suggested
Last edited:
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
remember David Braben himself said he does NOT consider ED to be an MMO in the traditional sense as it does not follow the usual rules, however I guess after seeing warthunder and WOT marketed as MMOs that they would be daft NOT to sell it as one.
as for marketing.... there are a number of trailers which bear no resemblance to the real game, and their are others which are accurate, however NONE of them state that the ships you fight against HAVE to be other meat sacks from what i remember.
as for marketing.... there are a number of trailers which bear no resemblance to the real game, and their are others which are accurate, however NONE of them state that the ships you fight against HAVE to be other meat sacks from what i remember.
Last edited:
Honestly: Who uses trailers as a purchase argument?
All they are good for is for appeasing shareholders and for reinforcing your purchase decision.
If you decide to buy because of a trailer, you must be a total victim to all kinds of marketing ploys. Watch some "Honest Ads" on YouTube to get an idea.
All they are good for is for appeasing shareholders and for reinforcing your purchase decision.
If you decide to buy because of a trailer, you must be a total victim to all kinds of marketing ploys. Watch some "Honest Ads" on YouTube to get an idea.
I'd love to see some actual figures from FD about how many players generally play open / private / solo.
I suspect that most actually stick to open and never have a single pvp encounter. I've played in open since gamma and only had a handful of pvp encounters (none of which I started and all of which I considered "meaningful"! lol).
I agree with most of the OP, and also with Gluttonyfang's often posted opinion that Robigo largely killed piracy. However I do think that piracy is still quite healthy around CGs, so long as they are actually set up to allow stolen or transferred goods to contribute to the goal. Mining CGs in particular are always very badly set up, as they not only prevent pirates joining in meaningfully, they also restrict co-operative play between miners (due to transferred goods not counting).
So long as the CG is set up correctly though, with an active blackmarket at the station (that contributes to the CG), then there are plenty of pvp pirates stealing cargo, pvp-murderers killing anything that moves (usually with at least a thin role-play reason for a "blockade" or whatever), pvp bounty hunters taking on the pirates and killers and pvp player groups with ties to the revelant major factions either protecting traders or blockading the system.
Then there are plenty of traders / smugglers / miners who enjoy open, trying to get to the CG station in one piece - when interdicted some will always try to run, some will always high-wake, some will stop depending on the kind of message the pirate sends (and yes some cheaters will always combat log).
I don't really do pvp (I'm normally shielded, but unarmed), but I love CGs in open because of the pvp - I love the pirates who are still there, and I love the pvp groups who join in, whether it's SDC railgunning everyone, or 13th Legion / Iridium Wing / whoever trying to keep them at bay.
The pvp stealth meta builds are certainly around being used by the dedicated pvp players / groups, but there's still cutters and clippers, condas and cobras about stealing your cargo.
Away from specific places like CGs / Erevate / Leesti / PP / organised pvp battles most players in open will never have a single pvp encounter, so the pvp meta won't matter to them.
I suspect that most actually stick to open and never have a single pvp encounter. I've played in open since gamma and only had a handful of pvp encounters (none of which I started and all of which I considered "meaningful"! lol).
I agree with most of the OP, and also with Gluttonyfang's often posted opinion that Robigo largely killed piracy. However I do think that piracy is still quite healthy around CGs, so long as they are actually set up to allow stolen or transferred goods to contribute to the goal. Mining CGs in particular are always very badly set up, as they not only prevent pirates joining in meaningfully, they also restrict co-operative play between miners (due to transferred goods not counting).
So long as the CG is set up correctly though, with an active blackmarket at the station (that contributes to the CG), then there are plenty of pvp pirates stealing cargo, pvp-murderers killing anything that moves (usually with at least a thin role-play reason for a "blockade" or whatever), pvp bounty hunters taking on the pirates and killers and pvp player groups with ties to the revelant major factions either protecting traders or blockading the system.
Then there are plenty of traders / smugglers / miners who enjoy open, trying to get to the CG station in one piece - when interdicted some will always try to run, some will always high-wake, some will stop depending on the kind of message the pirate sends (and yes some cheaters will always combat log).
I don't really do pvp (I'm normally shielded, but unarmed), but I love CGs in open because of the pvp - I love the pirates who are still there, and I love the pvp groups who join in, whether it's SDC railgunning everyone, or 13th Legion / Iridium Wing / whoever trying to keep them at bay.
The pvp stealth meta builds are certainly around being used by the dedicated pvp players / groups, but there's still cutters and clippers, condas and cobras about stealing your cargo.
Away from specific places like CGs / Erevate / Leesti / PP / organised pvp battles most players in open will never have a single pvp encounter, so the pvp meta won't matter to them.
Last edited:
perhaps the answer is the way world of warcraft does it. you have a status option for yourself and it affects what colour your ship icon and name becomes in chat. the options would be PvE, or PvP. when a PvP player sees another commander and tries to open fire or challenges them, if the victim or challenged commander is set to PvP it just happens as now. but if they are set to PvE they get a window come up in centre screen showing the challenger and whether they are part of a wing saying <so-and-so> wishes to challenge you to PvP Yes/No.
if they select no then they automute the challenger (and his wing) for 10 minutes, so they dont get lots of challenges harrassing them or attempting to make them select yes by mistake.
if a PvE player enters a PvP capable zone like a combat zone, there are a couple of ways to deal with it; you can either have them immediately have auto changed to PvP until they leave the zone again. you could have different types of CZ where you can enter as PvE but challenging another commander will set you to PvP until you leave the CZ if they accept, and others where you HAVE to set to PvP to enter.
once someone toggles to PvP in open play they would have to wait 10 minutes to toggle PvE again. this would help prevent people trying to go PvE toggle to prevent themselves losing or dying.
unless that system is brought in where i can choose to be PvE all the time then i will still want solo mode. note that groups could still exist in this only open universe under this system but the roles they assume might change. it might also be better for the major/minor faction thing. groups could organise massive battles in space against factions from opposing groups and players like me who have no wish to be involved in PvP can still run supplies to stations used by the groups to repair and supply, and witness massive dogfights even bigger than a CZ.
if they select no then they automute the challenger (and his wing) for 10 minutes, so they dont get lots of challenges harrassing them or attempting to make them select yes by mistake.
if a PvE player enters a PvP capable zone like a combat zone, there are a couple of ways to deal with it; you can either have them immediately have auto changed to PvP until they leave the zone again. you could have different types of CZ where you can enter as PvE but challenging another commander will set you to PvP until you leave the CZ if they accept, and others where you HAVE to set to PvP to enter.
once someone toggles to PvP in open play they would have to wait 10 minutes to toggle PvE again. this would help prevent people trying to go PvE toggle to prevent themselves losing or dying.
unless that system is brought in where i can choose to be PvE all the time then i will still want solo mode. note that groups could still exist in this only open universe under this system but the roles they assume might change. it might also be better for the major/minor faction thing. groups could organise massive battles in space against factions from opposing groups and players like me who have no wish to be involved in PvP can still run supplies to stations used by the groups to repair and supply, and witness massive dogfights even bigger than a CZ.