Why PVP is Dead or Dying. PVE is now KING!

[Oogie Boogie]

.... 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.

Other games have similar issues and solved it particular to their needs. So this is an excellent thought and need some deeper adaptation for Elite. But I was just thinking - somebody is undermining my home system in open to deliver some stuff. I am interdicting him in SC, then a pop-up windows shows on his screen "Do you accept the interdiction - YES/NO". If he then declines the interdiction and fly towards the station, I think this image would totally kill me! Then better I don't see him at all.

 

[DaveB]

Majinvash, forget other players. YOU have been around long enough (I think the time you pirated me was within a month of launch but it was certainly long enough ago that I can't swear to the accuracy of my memory) that you most certainly knew how the mode mechanics worked off the bat. And yet YOU are urging a fundamental departure from how you had to have known the game worked right from day one. You're a great guy, a skilled pilot and a decent player but seriously, bro... Given that, the fact that you are arguing to so fundamentally change the game from how it was always intended to be simply doesn't feel "genuine" - like you're trying to twist it into being "better for you" as opposed to simply "better"

I maintain all the respect you've earned from me, but carrying on like this on the forum is giving it a bit of a beating.

 

[frostypaw]

Other games have similar issues and solved it particular to their needs. So this is an excellent thought and need some deeper adaptation for Elite. But I was just thinking - somebody is undermining my home system in open to deliver some stuff. I am interdicting him in SC, then a pop-up windows shows on his screen "Do you accept the interdiction - YES/NO". If he then declines the interdiction and fly towards the station, I think this image would totally kill me! Then better I don't see him at all.

And at some point presumably you will have to stop playing, then they can carry on all night

Better yet to accept the whole universe shouldn't revolve around our actions, but we should still get to nudge things a bit.

 

[Majinvash]

Easiest answer is a pure PVE server (with no ability at all to shoot another Cmdr in any game state) and Open.

FD have shown they can have two galaxy's running happily at the same time with two separate save files, independent of each other.
(By allowing everyone to play in that Open beta test a few months back.)

Instancing and anything else aside, it would sort a bunch of its player bases complaints. It would cost FD more but long term, happy customers tend to stay.
Oh and cross platform would be great too.

But Solo and Private ruin this concept.

Private mostly, as it creates endless possible galaxies.. Solo could just have its own one.

MM-NO!

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[Majinvash]

Majinvash, forget other players. YOU have been around long enough (I think the time you pirated me was within a month of launch but it was certainly long enough ago that I can't swear to the accuracy of my memory) that you most certainly knew how the mode mechanics worked off the bat. And yet YOU are urging a fundamental departure from how you had to have known the game worked right from day one. You're a great guy, a skilled pilot and a decent player but seriously, bro... Given that, the fact that you are arguing to so fundamentally change the game from how it was always intended to be simply doesn't feel "genuine" - like you're trying to twist it into being "better for you" as opposed to simply "better"

I maintain all the respect you've earned from me, but carrying on like this on the forum is giving it a bit of a beating.

Thanks for the kind words.

But it took me months to realise how the BGS worked and never occurred to me until I was fully engrossed in the game how it could be exploited from the shadows.

Yes I would have pirated you and many many others, this is because back then everyone played in Open and everyone was working towards bigger ships.
I expect early days I pirated you in my Asp, maybe my clipper.
It was only later that everyone dropped into their own groups and solo modes to start to farm credits and CG's etc.
The forum wars started and the community split started to show.

So no, I didn't realise until too late about how broken this game concept was and its only gotten worse.
I based buying this game of what I knew of my love of ED back in the 80s and the shared galaxy, interact with others players advertising bit and a few videos which all showed PVP. Straight off the bat, I knew I wanted to be a pirate.

My narrative has never changed on any of my posts. I have made many posts about HOW to make it harder for pirates and what it would take to make me consider my ways.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[Robert Maynard]

Easiest answer is a pure PVE server (with no ability at all to shoot another Cmdr in any game state) and Open.

FD have shown they can have two galaxy's running happily at the same time with two separate save files, independent of each other.
(By allowing everyone to play in that Open beta test a few months back.)

Instancing and anything else aside, it would sort a bunch of its player bases complaints. It would cost FD more but long term, happy customers tend to stay.
Oh and cross platform would be great too.

But Solo and Private ruin this concept.

Private mostly, as it creates endless possible galaxies.. Solo could just have its own one.

MM-NO!

We have known since the first Beta (after the game went live) that Frontier are capable of running more than one galaxy state - however there is no real requirement for curation of the Beta galaxy as it is doomed to vanish at the end of Beta testing.

While an Open-PvE game mode may satisfy some players, there would still be a need for Solo and Private Groups.

There'd be no need for separate galaxy states for the game modes in the event that an Open-PvE game mode were added - the game has been sold with the promise of an evolving galaxy for every player.

Basically, Open-PvE would not add to server related costs. Game modes are but settings on the matchmaking server after all....

The demands for a separate galaxy state generally come from players in Open who want to directly oppose other players. It would be an Open-PvP mode that would require a separate galaxy state if that wish were to be fulfilled. Presumably players using a separate galaxy state would be required to be locked in to the game mode that it served - as the galaxies would quickly diverge and there is the possibility of, among other things, trading without moving by buying commodity cheap in one galaxy and selling it in the other - without leaving the station (but with changing game mode).

 

[Leo Sagan]

Obvious solution: give rail guns more ammo.

Nef, buff, nerf, buff, nerf, buff.
So much fun ....

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

the entire matchmaking options (which lets face it that is what it is, the "modes" is a misnomer really, works perfectly well as it is, so long as you are prepared to acced that direct player conflict is an optional extra in the game and not what the game is primarily balanced for.

The main PvP in the game is actually indirect and that seems to be by design.

if you can accept that then the matchmaking works fine, with no need at all for indestructable players you can see but not shoot etc etc etc.

Other than short term testing a save reset and then 2 separate galaxies is unlikely to happen. it works in beta because the "story" is irrelavent in the beta but the work to do this permanently would be huge (imagine FD create a CG where is 1 side wins 1 thing happens and another side wins another happens.

and what if in the 2 modes the result is different? that means 2 story archs to maintiain.... FD have not really done much with that yet but i believe they have talked about making CGs which do affect the narrative at some point.

Also, why shouldnt friends be able to play with each other but outside of the public game just to do their own thing? Remember the game has a 7 age rating.

I maybe fine letting my 7 year old fly about with some of his friends but at the same time not want him going online with randoms... (and hell to be honest I am not sure i would want to inflict a 7 year old on you guys in open either).

finally, the whole locked in mode falls apart when you are on xbox. would you really expect players to delete their save when xbox gold runs out, and then delete again if they get another sub at some point in the future?.

none of the above stops ED being an MMO. its just not centred around direct player conflict. I get it is a marmite thing, but that is where doing some homework comes in.

A player who loves burnout would presumably not buy iracing and expect other players to accept ramming as a sensible play style.........


edit
====
all above being said..... in principle so long as i could swap out of a PvE server and into open when i want to (ie depending on who i want to play with) I personally could live with a separated PvE server and accept that some of the "story" would be disjointed when out of my main choice.

so long as bank balance and progress is carried over.... and the selling from one server to another could be fixed by simply having to sell everything before mode swapping.

The above i do not see happening, but I am just saying i could live with it, so long as not locked in for ever.

 

[Bokugo]

Most major issues regarding the "meta" all revolve around stacking certain internal modules. Chaff, SCB, HRP, Heat sinks. Once you're able to be in essentially a buffed state the entire fight, it all comes down to who has the most internals the majority of the time. Stacking internals and lack of proper counters are really what's hurting pvp. The instancing doesn't help either.

 

[frostypaw]

Easiest answer is a pure PVE server (with no ability at all to shoot another Cmdr in any game state) and Open.

The easiest answer is that you lot learn to play with everyone else rather than insist the whole game gets reshaped and designed so you can run an empire like you want.

The whole "no ability at all to shoot another cmdr" is just in there to make it more ridiculous - I don't think ANYONE has a problem with cmdrs shooting others it's how they do it and the exploit ridden unfair and ridiculous way it's gone about that ruins immersion and any impression of a survivable and real galaxy. People ramming in docks or mass ganking newbies or taking out fairly defenceless people making public streams - this is going too far.

These events shouldn't even be possible - the lack of law and order, ability to use exploits to make ridiculous money and easy-peasy respawn mechanic are the only reasons some people get away with treating it like an arcade game while the others play the game as sold. Why should anyone go to massive extra expense to let that continue? The money is better spent fixing the systems that allow it to happen in the first place

 

[Majinvash]

The whole "no ability at all to shoot another cmdr" is just in there to make it more ridiculous - I don't think ANYONE has a problem with cmdrs shooting others e

I feel Mobius would disagree with that statement.
Most of their players want pure PVE and they get heated conversations over their players PVP'ing in CZs, which is part of their rule book.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[frostypaw]

I feel Mobius would disagree with that statement.
Most of their players want pure PVE and get they get heated conversations over their players PVP'ing in CZs, which is part of their rule book.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

Their experience is rather flavoured by people being perhaps overly aggressive - you may be aware of such incidences?

If PvP was indeed 'rare and meaningful' and not some showing off 'look at just how much practise i've had fighting i'm going to wipe you out' then people would have a better impression of it, but it's gone wrong because of how some play and they have spoilt it for all the PvP people who Would play fair and join in - sad really.

 

[xondk]

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.

I must admit I don't feel I am playing the same game as you, the only thing frontier changed in my book from original promise was single player offline mode, and their reason for such seems quite sound, so I am fine with that. Other then that they have kept exactly what they wrote they would?

And honestly if people don't at least do a little research into the games they buy, and then get disappointed because it wasn't what they expected....that's on them, they aren't a bad person or such, but it most certainly isn't the developers fault, but yeah it is taboo it seems to make a mistake, so people blame the developers rather then admitting, hey, I bought something I shouldn't have.

 

[Derath]

And honestly if people don't at least do a little research into the games they buy, and then get disappointed because it wasn't what they expected....that's on them, they aren't a bad person or such, but it most certainly isn't the developers fault, but yeah it is taboo it seems to make a mistake, so people blame the developers rather then admitting, hey, I bought something I shouldn't have.

There isn't a game made that doesn't lie about parts of it, everyones a victim of marketing at some point and in the case of ED its an issue of interpretation. I certainly didn't make a mistake buying the game i've had great enjoyment out of it, but i also learned a great deal about what happens if you allow flip flopping between modes which almost made it an interesting experience in itself.

Doubt that will come to anything I'm no developer lol but it might if i come across a game that suggests it will do so in the future.

Edit: I mean citing what they say and then translating that into results only works as a measuring stick if its reliable, you can't say its 100% by focusing on one issue its a culmination of everything they put together. I don't think FD have done badly in that regard but i don't think their record is impeccable either so the idea that if you feel mislead by what you read about the game its your fault is just a little dubious.

I mean they did write mmo on it which they get about 0% for in terms of how much its like the actual description lol

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

thinking about it... rather than a pve server..... if it is true that the silent majority all want players in open pvping when ever possible actually if there was to be a separate server, a PvE one is not the way to go (tho a pure PvE matchmaking in the current server would be great)

but actually better to have a "open LOCKED" server where all players go in from scratch and are then locked in for ever.

Any new changes imo need to be additive not subtractive and imo IF it were to happen that frontier were to run multiple BGSs (again i do not see this ever happening) but for the sake of discussion if they did, then it should be an "open locked" imo.

give it a 6 month trial and see how many players are truly interested in it.

 

[Majinvash]

Their experience is rather flavoured by people being perhaps overly aggressive - you may be aware of such incidences?

If PvP was indeed 'rare and meaningful' and not some showing off 'look at just how much practise i've had fighting i'm going to wipe you out' then people would have a better impression of it, but it's gone wrong because of how some play and they have spoilt it for all the PvP people who Would play fair and join in - sad really.

Your jaded view of PVP aside. Many PVE players feel that even the slightest whiff of non-consensual player interaction counts as griefing.

So no, rare and meaningful would not cover it for these folks.

Have you I shot at you recently?

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[frostypaw]

Your jaded view of PVP aside. Many PVE players feel that even the slightest whiff of non-consensual player interaction counts as griefing.

So no, rare and meaningful would not cover it for these folks.

Have you I shot at you recently?

That's because their only experiences of PvP have been people griefing.

I quite like PvP stuff, but in a PvP focused game. Here it's too easy for someone cheating their arses off with a ship capable of nothing but fighting to try and take me out and keep doing it again and again even if I keep killing them - makes the rest of the game ridiculous.

And no wasn't you I don't think, much as I'll lock horns with you I don't imagine you're a full rail guns the second folk drop out guy - I'm not grumpy because he killed me as he didn't, it's just the willfull shatternig of hard-won suspension of disbelief that I get grumpy about and the attempts to force it on people. Even with a locked Open only game all it takes is for someone to go crazy with missions while you're in bed while everyone avoids your system during your waking hours and it all falls apart - just gotta accept we're just a handful of pilots not the people running these empires.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Easiest answer is a pure PVE server (with no ability at all to shoot another Cmdr in any game state) and Open.

Not likely to happen.

Spinning up new servers, cloning Live (for Beta usage), then destroying the servers post Beta will have a finite cost that FD no doubt absorb.

To spin up a complete new set of servers and have them run independently is not likely to happen for a simple reason of cost & resources. Double the back end means more servers (cost); more admin staff for running servers (cost); more admin staff for running 2 story lines (when the servers diverge due to people acting differently in game).

Who is going to fund this ?

• FD ?! Answer is "unlikely" - why should they when everything is running quite nicely now
• You and your PvP crew ? Introduce a subscription to join the OPEN server [as you called it] - are there even enough players would would support such a model ?
• PvE crowd ? (Would that even be fair when the complaints are not coming from them ? )

 

[Majinvash]

Not likely to happen.

Spinning up new servers, cloning Live (for Beta usage), then destroying the servers post Beta will have a finite cost that FD no doubt absorb.

To spin up a complete new set of servers and have them run independently is not likely to happen for a simple reason of cost & resources. Double the back end means more servers (cost); more admin staff for running servers (cost); more admin staff for running 2 story lines (when the servers diverge due to people acting differently in game).

Who is going to fund this ?

• FD ?! Answer is "unlikely" - why should they when everything is running quite nicely now
• You and your PvP crew ? Introduce a subscription to join the OPEN server [as you called it] - are there even enough players would would support such a model ?
• PvE crowd ? (Would that even be fair when the complaints are not coming from them ? )

While I agree on the cost, I think customer retention could pay for it.

I have worked in sales long enough to know that its cheaper to retain, than it is to attract.

I have bought 6 different skin packs and the bobble letters ( So I can write naught words during Twitch. )

It is unlikely I will be buying the next expansion and from the huge list of players that I never see any more on my friends list, I doubt they will be. ( Talking hundreds of players who I have not seen play this year )

If FD produced a product that I wanted, I would have no issue paying for it.
I cannot see I would be alone.

I currently blindly pay for netflix, spotify, crunchyroll monthly etc.

The world has moved to a service based economy for many products.

Again, FD screwed itself in the kickstarter by saying it wouldn't ever be subscription.

Not knowing exactly how many players of ED actually play on a day to day / monthly basis, everyone is guessing at a lot.

Could Open pay for Open, dunno. Will FD lose people to NMS and eventually SC, yep.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[babelfisch]

While I agree on the cost, I think customer retention could pay for it.

I have worked in sales long enough to know that its cheaper to retain, than it is to attract.

I have bought 6 different skin packs and the bobble letters ( So I can write naught words during Twitch. )

It is unlikely I will be buying the next expansion and from the huge list of players that I never see any more on my friends list, I doubt they will be. ( Talking hundreds of players who I have not seen play this year )

If FD produced a product that I wanted, I would have no issue paying for it.
I cannot see I would be alone.

I currently blindly pay for netflix, spotify, crunchyroll monthly etc.

The world has moved to a service based economy for many products.

Again, FD screwed itself in the kickstarter by saying it wouldn't ever be subscription.

Not knowing exactly how many players of ED actually play on a day to day / monthly basis, everyone is guessing at a lot.

Could Open pay for Open, dunno. Will FD lose people to NMS and eventually SC, yep.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

Maybe they lost a few players because because of the shared galaxy. However I think they would loose more players if they remove the shared galaxy. Anyway an open only galaxy wouldn't solve your problems because of time zones, instancing and network settings.