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

[Hajile]

the problem with this is realism...

you can't really believe that pirates wouldn't have rigged up some ECM/EMP/space worm that will kill a FSD.

pirates need something like that to exist... then me in my FAS will have something to hunt. Robert it is an Eco system and right now it is more like a fish tank... I want more predators in my game because I like shooting people who are bad. but there is no money in being BAD.

what kinda crazy world is it when a person can make more money legitimately than he can by screwing over hard working traders.

 

[Cosmos]

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.

I've said this before but I think the PvE/PvP categorisation of players is a false dichotomy. Whatever a persons paritcular play style I don't think there can be any doubt that the solo/pg/open debacle is problematic for players and gameplay particuarly in a game marketed as an mmo and was once claimed to be the greatest sandbox ever created. You keep refering to 'by design' and yet the design is incoherent at best and FD have made some rather odd choices. I mean look at PP. What a joke that is, some abstract meta game that has no bearing on anything else.

If nothing else one has to ask what the point of Open actually is when the game is quite clearly that of a singleplayer experience with other features tacked on rather than integrated into the experience. There are no missions or situations where we require one anothers help, the PvE BGS and BOTS (not calling them AI or NPCs anymore because they aren't) are lackluster, repetitve and predictable. Fighting them is like playing world of warcraft and levelling by killing level 1 boars which endlessly spawn. So if I prefer to engage with a player I hope you will understand.

I just don't think its a satisfactory system to have these three game modes and in part I find its a good way to mask some of the failings of the game. There's absolutely no reason why there couldn't be safer areas in the game and more dangerous ones as found in the likes of EvE. Indeed, there is all that space out there and no one can do anything with it other than fog horn scan exploration.

The game has recieved a lot of criticism, you know the mile wide inch deep point, and I just can't see FD being able to fully embellish that with content they create. I do think FD and others are in denial about the state of the game and what it would take to resolve these issues. Its the difference between ED being okay and being a stellar epic masterpiece. I'd much prefer it to be the latter.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The funny thing is Pkers are getting exactly what they want if we do that.

You're right - as has been pointed out when players (who prefer live prey) have suggested that players get geared for combat and go after the PKers. Which is probably why most traders don't bother doing it either.

 

[Faded Glory]

An eco-system would imply a natural balance, i.e.:

Too many predators = too much predation = not enough prey to sustain the predators;

Predators kill to eat (in general, I know that there are a few exceptions), not for sport.

When a predator dies, it's dead.

This is a game where any player can choose any role - regardless of the relative populations of each role - and is immortal. Nothing any super-predators can do will provide more than a momentary pause in the predation.

If every trader moves to S/PG to avoid player piracy - that would seem to suggest that the eco-system in this game is balanced around what players are prepared to endure rather than what other players choose to do to them.

Even if there were an eco-system, it wouldn't work well with the networking architecture. If FD were inclined to offer an 'Open Only' mode with a separate BGS, there would immediately be complaints that it was impossible to find the 'bad guy' to hunt down, that it's not fair that you cannot see everybody working against you...

While I have some sympathy with those who desire a confrontational game, saying the modes are messing it up is surely a red herring. What is being asked for is a different game, designed around player confrontation, which this one is not. I'm sure if FD feel there would be a demand for such a game, they would make it.

 

[Cosmos]

You're right - as has been pointed out when players (who prefer live prey) have suggested that players get geared for combat and go after the PKers. Which is probably why most traders don't bother doing it either.

I object to the term PKer. It seems like a loaded term and I don't see anything wrong with attacking other players. It is as you say 'by design'

Here is some food for thought though. Why do people only seem to identify themselves with a particuar role? Trader, Bounty Hunter, Pirate, Explorer, etc..? I think its part of the problem. I just play the game and have in the past done all roles and chop and change as I go along..

But remember this? Did David create this issue himself?
[video=youtube_share;XGHM6wu1WY4]https://youtu.be/XGHM6wu1WY4[/video]

 

[Nodor]

CQC is a mode designed for pvp players, so that's nice. But the thread above is rife with reasons why my friends and I will never venture into open mode.

The rewards for non-consensual PvP are almost all provided to the attacker. Currently, the best outcome for the player being attacked is that they get away. Solo or Private group provides that "best outcome" 100% of the time. If you want more opportunities for Piracy or ambushes, there needs to be in game systems/rewards for the player being attacked - and a much higher potential for losses for the attacker.

I will provide an example, but the example is exaggerated for effect and is not representative of what numbers would result in game balance.

For instance, if an attacked player (in a cargo ship in open) gets away from a player that interdicts them, if they were able to report a crime and get a 500,000 bounty paid to them upon the death (or fine payment) of the attacking player, there would be a lot of people transporting goods in open as there would be a potential upside to being attacked and getting that payout.

If you want players to engage in activities they need to have access to rewards that are better or on par with the risks they take for engaging in those activities. At the moment, PvP is dead because one side is perceived to get most of the benefit (Outside of CQC of course.)

 

[Julio Montega]

CQC is a mode designed for pvp players, so that's nice. But the thread above is rife with reasons why my friends and I will never venture into open mode.

The rewards for non-consensual PvP are almost all provided to the attacker. Currently, the best outcome for the player being attacked is that they get away. Solo or Private group provides that "best outcome" 100% of the time. If you want more opportunities for Piracy or ambushes, there needs to be in game systems/rewards for the player being attacked - and a much higher potential for losses for the attacker.

I will provide an example, but the example is exaggerated for effect and is not representative of what numbers would result in game balance.

For instance, if an attacked player (in a cargo ship in open) gets away from a player that interdicts them, if they were able to report a crime and get a 500,000 bounty paid to them upon the death (or fine payment) of the attacking player, there would be a lot of people transporting goods in open as there would be a potential upside to being attacked and getting that payout.

If you want players to engage in activities they need to have access to rewards that are better or on par with the risks they take for engaging in those activities. At the moment, PvP is dead because one side is perceived to get most of the benefit (Outside of CQC of course.)

Why would any government reward you monetarily for forwarding a harassment/assault report?
Work on crime and punishment is needed, and i see the rewards for traders on bigger profits per ton delivered,
because of hazardous systems currently having a high demand on goods.

A higher bounty on the players attacking however is essential,
this will breathe life into player bounty hunting and even reward the
courageous trader standing up to an attacker and defeating him.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Whatever a persons paritcular play style I don't think there can be any doubt that the solo/pg/open debacle is problematic for players

I don't call it a debacle, it was a major selling point for me. So I cast doubt on your statement, and would correct it to problematic for some, dare i even say a minority, of players.

Its certainly not a problem for those who prefer solo or group, and i'm fairly confident its not a serious problem for most Open players. Its mainly those who seek constant pew-pew or treat the game as some sort of competition that seem to be most against it.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

There was a Solo/Group/Open debacle? What happend?

 

[Majinvash]

Even if there were an eco-system, it wouldn't work well with the networking architecture. If FD were inclined to offer an 'Open Only' mode with a separate BGS, there would immediately be complaints that it was impossible to find the 'bad guy' to hunt down, that it's not fair that you cannot see everybody working against you...

While I have some sympathy with those who desire a confrontational game, saying the modes are messing it up is surely a red herring. What is being asked for is a different game, designed around player confrontation, which this one is not. I'm sure if FD feel there would be a demand for such a game, they would make it.

There is so much missing from the game that destroys this eco system being achievable, blaming instancing and networking is actually the least of it.

The entire lack of crime, punishment and risk of actually being a criminal is none existent.

There is almost NO risk of dying unless you are incredibly unlucky or afk.

Simple in game things such as galaxy wide player bounties and missions to hunt down criminal players would be a ( I would expect ) fairly simple thing to add ( they used to exist to a degree Top 5 most wanted etc ) . NPC's helping you. "Hey I heard you were looking for Majinvash, I hear he's in Cemiess"
But not going into all that because its been done to death already.

But hey i'm sure its part of Brabens 10year plan..... many of us are hoping something like that comes in the next patch.

There used to be far far more traders than there was pirates in open. And we got harassed by decent protection teams CS, EIC, Dark Echo, Triadius. This lasted for about 6months from game release and mostly died around Powerplay being released.

Robert .... I cant even.. Your replies.. while many are completely out of context, your clever use of picking those lines is breath taking...

HRP are not and will never be a trader item. FD just gave traders flying coffins, even full HRP they would be cake to break.
If anything they were designed for PVP players or PVE bounty hunters, to change the meta of "SCB Spam, oh wait shields are dropping, time to highwake."

An experience smuggler would not use HRP for the following reasons

Reduced Jump Range
Reduced Cargo space to stack missions.( You have already lost a big one for that 4A fuel scoop. )
A smuggler does not stay around to fight, if you stay around you have a greater chance of being scanned by a random npc or modules shot out ( NPC's cheat )
Reduced speed to escape said scan
Reduced maneuverability on what will already be a stripped down ship for greater jump range, to avoid scan or get into the letter box quickly
Wouldn't add enough damage resistance to balance out the above.
Silent running doesn't really work against NPC's anyway, its more a placebo.

If you built a HRP Smuggler you would doing it because you want to reduce your profits and make life even more grindy.

If you want help with playing in open, I am available to mentor.
Maybe you can show me all the valuable PVE content I am apparently missing in return?

My 65million an hour Smuggler

http://coriolis.io/outfit/asp/02A5A5A4D4D5D5C19-19---0200--05042t02020101.AwRj4jRZYo==.Aw18WQ==

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[yodajedifishmaster]

someone mentioned 'safe areas such as in EVE'. correct me if i am wrong but wasnt there an infamous attack on such an area by a massed group of thousands of players recently? did they also aim to disrupt the economy of said safe area also? i am sure i read interviews with the leaders of the groups saying who was tasked with what. i do remember one group of them was tasked with killing players who came to defend the area, and another specifically to kill traders or other players who were there just to do normal business. eve online attacked by alliance of players. goonswarm. i think thats the one.

thats kind of what is killing pvp in elite on smaller scale. so safe areas 'like in eve' wont make the problem go away; they will just make the problem a massive one, when all those pkers gang together for a mass raid on safe areas - to kill people who thought they were safe, and didnt have to pvp, and wouldnt have a chance even in a pvp build ship against overwhelming numbers.

 

[Robert Maynard]

HRP are not and will never be a trader item. FD just gave traders flying coffins, even full HRP they would be cake to break.
If anything they were designed for PVP players or PVE bounty hunters, to change the meta of "SCB Spam, oh wait shields are dropping, time to highwake."

An experience smuggler would not use HRP for the following reasons

Reduced Jump Range
Reduced Cargo space to stack missions.( You have already lost a big one for that 4A fuel scoop. )
A smuggler does not stay around to fight, if you stay around you have a greater chance of being scanned by a random npc or modules shot out ( NPC's cheat )
Reduced speed to escape said scan
Reduced maneuverability on what will already be a stripped down ship for greater jump range, to avoid scan or get into the letter box quickly
Wouldn't add enough damage resistance to balance out the above.
Silent running doesn't really work against NPC's anyway, its more a placebo.

If you built a HRP Smuggler you would doing it because you want to reduce your profits and make life even more grindy.

It rather depends on whether the player is min/max-ing. Min/max tends to grind - grind tends to repetition and ennui and a potential reduction in enjoyment from gameplay.... While it might be sub-optimal, there's no rule to dictate how a ship should be equipped - it's up to the player, after all.

If you want help with playing in open, I am available to mentor.

I'm doing fine in Open - thanks for the offer though....

Maybe you can show me all the valuable PVE content I am apparently missing in return?

I doubt that you'd find it as compelling as PvP. That's the beauty of the game - there's no "right" way to play it - everyone just gets on with what they want to (unless what they want to do requires other players that might not want to take part, of course).

 

[frostypaw]

My 65million an hour Smuggler

http://coriolis.io/outfit/asp/02A5A5A4D4D5D5C19-19---0200--05042t02020101.AwRj4jRZYo==.Aw18WQ==

You fight in that? Bold

I actually agree with a lot of what you've said. The sad stuff comes from people abusing the lack of that and then decrying the people who don't want to take part. Sometimes we have to accept that this is a vast product in development and play along, not against

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
There is so much missing from the game that destroys this eco system being achievable, blaming instancing and networking is actually the least of it.

The entire lack of crime, punishment and risk of actually being a criminal is none existent.

There is almost NO risk of dying unless you are incredibly unlucky or afk.

Simple in game things such as galaxy wide player bounties and missions to hunt down criminal players would be a ( I would expect ) fairly simple thing to add ( they used to exist to a degree Top 5 most wanted etc ) . NPC's helping you. "Hey I heard you were looking for Majinvash, I hear he's in Cemiess"
But not going into all that because its been done to death already.

But hey i'm sure its part of Brabens 10year plan..... many of us are hoping something like that comes in the next patch.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

Maybe, but frankly, IMO the fact that you can never be guaranteed to be in an instance with another player is pretty much a fundamental block to any kind of multi-player gameplay. <shrug> If someone wants to spend a few hours of gameplay hunting for a player who they may not even be able to see, then I guess that's fine.

As for crime and punishment being out of whack... Maybe, but since crime is pretty central to the way FD seem to want us to play the game, a harsh punishment system is unlikely to be something that they will want to implement. Get your players (customers) to do stuff like assassinations, smuggling and other mayhem (kill traders and civilians, not to mention system authority), then punish them severely for doing it, for playing the game. Hmmm, I'm not convinced.

I'm not saying your ideas are bad (and galaxy wide bounties for certain crimes might be a step in the right direction), but I'm not sure they will resolve the issue of some players just wanting to destroy other players for fun. It's either against the rules, or it isn't, and trying to punish them in-game for playing the game as allowed I just don't ever see working.

 

[Nodor]

Why would any government reward you monetarily for forwarding a harassment/assault report?
Work on crime and punishment is needed, and i see the rewards for traders on bigger profits per ton delivered,
because of hazardous systems currently having a high demand on goods.

A higher bounty on the players attacking however is essential,
this will breathe life into player bounty hunting and even reward the
courageous trader standing up to an attacker and defeating him.

Let's assume a type 9 trader with a 496 slot cargo hold and a load of slaves. 100 million ship cost with 5 million rebuy and 7.5 million cargo loss upon death.
Compare that to a combat FDL, with a 150 million cost with a 7.5 million rebuy.

Assuming the FDL has a 95% chance to not be blown up, they have a 5% chance of losing 7.5 million per encounter. In other words, they risk 375,000 in each engagement.

Assuming the Type 9 transport has a 75% chance to be blown up and a 20% chance to escape, they are being forced to risk 9,375,000 per encounter.

This is a game, not real life. So what, in game, benefit does the trader get for assuming that extra 9 million in risk? If the PvP community wants trader targets, the game has to reward them for being there and reward them handsomely until everyone complains about how lucrative trading is.

 

[Derath]

This is a game, not real life. So what, in game, benefit does the trader get for assuming that extra 9 million in risk? If the PvP community wants trader targets, the game has to reward them for being there and reward them handsomely until everyone complains about how lucrative trading is.

your right about this and it was the mainstay before everything else got buffed, its kinda fallen down now too and if you dare suggest a bonus for trading in open you'll get such a storm you wouldn't believe it

So were probably stuck as is, im hoping they make the AI/NPC stuff better because not having to focus on players would be the best option IMO

 

[Robert Maynard]

I've said this before but I think the PvE/PvP categorisation of players is a false dichotomy. Whatever a persons paritcular play style I don't think there can be any doubt that the solo/pg/open debacle is problematic for players and gameplay particuarly in a game marketed as an mmo and was once claimed to be the greatest sandbox ever created. You keep refering to 'by design' and yet the design is incoherent at best and FD have made some rather odd choices. I mean look at PP. What a joke that is, some abstract meta game that has no bearing on anything else.

As I remember from the very early days of the Kickstarter and subsequently in the DDF, some players quickly realised that the three game modes and mode mobility would allow other players to choose not to play with players of a particular play-style. That's about the time that the first of the "Open vs Solo vs Private Groups" threads (of which there have been many) appeared on the forums.

While the game is, amongst other things, marketed as an MMO, it is also advertised as Single-Player (Solo) and Co-op (Private Groups). A link to the "greatest sandbox" quote would be appreciated.

The fundamental design concepts of the game seem to revolve around the players themselves - specifically the choices available to them. Frontier decided that every player should experience and affect a single shared galaxy state. They also decided that players would be able to choose how many other players they play the game directly with - and provided the three game modes (actually matchmaking settings).

Powerplay does seem to be an addition to the game that seems to, on the one hand, seek to encourage players to partake in co-operative play and conflict while, on the other, has been implemented for all game modes.

If nothing else one has to ask what the point of Open actually is when the game is quite clearly that of a singleplayer experience with other features tacked on rather than integrated into the experience. There are no missions or situations where we require one anothers help, the PvE BGS and BOTS (not calling them AI or NPCs anymore because they aren't) are lackluster, repetitve and predictable. Fighting them is like playing world of warcraft and levelling by killing level 1 boars which endlessly spawn. So if I prefer to engage with a player I hope you will understand.

Not everyone is as disenchanted with computer controlled combatants. Some players obviously prefer to engage other players - whether that is reciprocated is anyone's guess.

I just don't think its a satisfactory system to have these three game modes and in part I find its a good way to mask some of the failings of the game. There's absolutely no reason why there couldn't be safer areas in the game and more dangerous ones as found in the likes of EvE. Indeed, there is all that space out there and no one can do anything with it other than fog horn scan exploration.

Of course system security should be increased to make Crime and Punishment consequences meaningful - consequences for illegal destruction of members of the Piots' Federation are sorely lacking.

That said, there's no need to tinker with other features just because C&P is improved.

The game has recieved a lot of criticism, you know the mile wide inch deep point, and I just can't see FD being able to fully embellish that with content they create. I do think FD and others are in denial about the state of the game and what it would take to resolve these issues. Its the difference between ED being okay and being a stellar epic masterpiece. I'd much prefer it to be the latter.

The difficulty there is: who should Frontier listen to? There are many proposals made on the forums as to how the game could be improved for the OP of the threads that contain them. The fact that proposals rarely go unopposed would suggest that there are differing opinions as to what would constitute an improvement.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I object to the term PKer. It seems like a loaded term and I don't see anything wrong with attacking other players. It is as you say 'by design'

It's a simple contraction of the term player-killer. Descriptive. Accurate (ish - commanders never die - they simply return to the their last port of call in the escape pod). There's always room for suggestions for new terms.

The game allows players to attack other players - by design. At the same time the game allows players who do not want to be attacked by other players to choose a game mode where they can either be totally sure or fairly sure that they will not be attacked by another player (subject to careful vetting of the membership of a Private Group) - by design.

Here is some food for thought though. Why do people only seem to identify themselves with a particuar role? Trader, Bounty Hunter, Pirate, Explorer, etc..? I think its part of the problem. I just play the game and have in the past done all roles and chop and change as I go along..

Some people would seem to identify with, and stick with, a particular role - for others, changing role is as simple as setting a different course or re-equipping their ship or taking a different ship out of storage.

 

[Cosmos]

Spoiler

As I remember from the very early days of the Kickstarter and subsequently in the DDF, some players quickly realised that the three game modes and mode mobility would allow other players to choose not to play with players of a particular play-style. That's about the time that the first of the "Open vs Solo vs Private Groups" threads (of which there have been many) appeared on the forums.

While the game is, amongst other things, marketed as an MMO, it is also advertised as Single-Player (Solo) and Co-op (Private Groups). A link to the "greatest sandbox" quote would be appreciated.

The fundamental design concepts of the game seem to revolve around the players themselves - specifically the choices available to them. Frontier decided that every player should experience and affect a single shared galaxy state. They also decided that players would be able to choose how many other players they play the game directly with - and provided the three game modes (actually matchmaking settings).

Powerplay does seem to be an addition to the game that seems to, on the one hand, seek to encourage players to partake in co-operative play and conflict while, on the other, has been implemented for all game modes.



Not everyone is as disenchanted with computer controlled combatants. Some players obviously prefer to engage other players - whether that is reciprocated is anyone's guess.



Of course system security should be increased to make Crime and Punishment consequences meaningful - consequences for illegal destruction of members of the Piots' Federation are sorely lacking.

That said, there's no need to tinker with other features just because C&P is improved.



The difficulty there is: who should Frontier listen to? There are many proposals made on the forums as to how the game could be improved for the OP of the threads that contain them. The fact that proposals rarely go unopposed would suggest that there are differing opinions as to what would constitute an

improvement.

Its not personal, I hope you understand, but whilst I've heard the arguments I just cant get my head around your own pov and those who share it.

I want to play a game that epic, dynamic and has great player spontaneous moments. I wished and still think ED could be that but for the restrictions and opt outs. In the absence of the game I'd like to see I'd accept an awesome PvE gameplay experience. Can you urge FD to make that? Because for the time being I find the game has fallen flat and I'm bored of it. As a 1984'er the game isn't meeting my expectations.

I have a quesion: Did you guys ever play the original Elite?

 

[twelvebore]

I want to play a game that epic, dynamic and has great player spontaneous moments.

Don't take this as a "go play EVE" snipe, but have you ever played EVE? Genuine question. If you have, what doesn't it deliver that you want? If you haven't, why not?

I have a quesion: Did you guys ever play the original Elite?

I did, and I don't remember any PvP in it.