![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
i have noticed the PvPers are finally starting to stir in the poll........almost at 20% now.
The unavoidable poll: PvP vs PvE!
- Thread starter Arubeto
- Start date
When the sheep have the power to choose if they become wolf bait or not it becomes a pertinant question for hungry wolves. Sheep get by just fine without wolves, but the opposite just aint so.
Except in "real life" there are laws against the wolves and harsh consequences for breaking them, while in Elite the wolves are given free reign to be as bad as they want to without impunity.
Huge difference there, and a large reason for the 4 to 1 poll results against PvP in Elite, as well as the migration of players to solo and private modes.
Also, in real life we don't have to be afraid, pardon me, very afraid of Anorak wearing Ronin Wolves flying in on silent wings.
That would scare the bejeebus out of me.
That would scare the bejeebus out of me.
To be honest, the forums here are quite a melding pot. According to some moderators, it's hell on earth when things break out.
A lot of the PvP population here either: doesn't post and lurks, posts and gets glomped by a bunch of PvE based posts, posts threads that are knowingly going to get a rise out of people, or is just PvE vs PvP / PvP vs PvE jabbing.
How's that PvP subforum coming along?
Most of the players have a gut feeling about the result, but to see it so clear is still a surprise!
Eventhough it's a poll, eventhough the population of this forum is not representative of the whole, and even if you apply big margins of error, one thing does become apparent.
Both are important. So lets not argue and bicker about who shoots who.
Both are important. So lets not argue and bicker about who shoots who.
Last edited:
PVE all the way.
As a EVE player I've dealt with PVP and they are very inconsistent ....Logged off ...bathroom break...question our plans orders...want to do something else...having problems logging on..problems with their computer....need to learn a skill...not prepared.....ETC.....!
When it works, PVP is awesome...but the majority of the time it's a pain.
PVE...Don't have to worry about the NPC taking a bathroom break or getting bored and wanting to do something else.
NPC's are on demand. very nice.
As a EVE player I've dealt with PVP and they are very inconsistent ....Logged off ...bathroom break...question our plans orders...want to do something else...having problems logging on..problems with their computer....need to learn a skill...not prepared.....ETC.....!
When it works, PVP is awesome...but the majority of the time it's a pain.
PVE...Don't have to worry about the NPC taking a bathroom break or getting bored and wanting to do something else.
NPC's are on demand. very nice.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Already made a reply to that:
Plus the idea of "wolves" aren't just a representation of criminality, it's the idea that they sit on the upper end of a society's hierarchy and having a say in what direction the society moves.
Additionally, we live in a world where criminality is determined a posteriori, hardly a proper check for criminality of anyone.
Last edited:
But this is just a fancy way of saying you are selfish and want to do what you want to do no matter who it hurts or inconveniences. That's not strength, that's childish.
You seem to believe that because you enjoy and actively hurt other people you are somehow more important than them? This explains a lot about your thoughts and desires, nothing positive unfortunately.
For the record I am actually FOR PvP in the game, but as Elite sits now it is not implemented in a satisfactory way to make it a fun gameplay mechanic for mostly anyone other than the griefers, or the "wolves" as you put it. Laws (and punishment) in society create order so that people can feel safe and go about their lives, without it you would have chaos and society would break down. That is what we are seeing in Elite right now, players are flocking to solo and PG's because open does not have laws with consequences for "criminal" behavior. Thus players don't feel safe in open, it's not fair nor balanced as the player killers have all of the advantages and none of the risks. This poll is simply showing how this lack of rules makes people feel about PvP in the game.
I'd honestly love for open to be the only mode in Elite, AS LONG AS a system was in place to severely punish and hampen player killers in the game (players who aren't wanted). I'm talking huge fines that aren't easy to erase, stations banning murderers and firing on sight, easy and useful tools for bounty hunters to actively pursue the murderers and enforce the law, etc. Pirates would only be labeled as wanted for firing on innocents, but if the pirate killed his prey then they get the murderer tag with all of the penalties that go along with it. Now THAT sounds like a PvP environment I could enjoy playing in!
Unfortunately, Elite is nowhere near that balanced.
Last edited:
If you're being "hurt" by the actions of another in a video game I've got news for you, the problem isn't in the game.
With that being said, how do you balance out station banning and KOS npc mechanics and keep both players happy? Sure, that sounds perfect for the average joe not out to enjoy some player on player violence but what about the people who enjoy it? What about the people who run the leagues and participate in them? What about the groups practicing on each other so that they can be better prepared the next time they encounter an opposing player force? What about accidental grazing in CZs or RES?
How do you balance it all out? Do you have any idea?
We can create a high-tier NPC response, ban people from stations, cater to the calls for justice from the PvE crowd all day but where is the balance?
Using your basic rules concept: You're a player flying for Hudson. You enter into the system I support on a mission to help prop up Hudson expansion efforts. My faction is opposing/undermining said efforts. I kill you. Should I now be banned from my home station for killing an unwanted player in cold blood? I could run you off, sure, but that's not nearly enough punishment to keep you from coming back. So you lose a few million credits (maybe), I lose my home system even though I'm playing the game the way it was meant to be played, per FDev statement.
With that being said, how do you balance out station banning and KOS npc mechanics and keep both players happy? Sure, that sounds perfect for the average joe not out to enjoy some player on player violence but what about the people who enjoy it? What about the people who run the leagues and participate in them? What about the groups practicing on each other so that they can be better prepared the next time they encounter an opposing player force? What about accidental grazing in CZs or RES?
How do you balance it all out? Do you have any idea?
We can create a high-tier NPC response, ban people from stations, cater to the calls for justice from the PvE crowd all day but where is the balance?
Using your basic rules concept: You're a player flying for Hudson. You enter into the system I support on a mission to help prop up Hudson expansion efforts. My faction is opposing/undermining said efforts. I kill you. Should I now be banned from my home station for killing an unwanted player in cold blood? I could run you off, sure, but that's not nearly enough punishment to keep you from coming back. So you lose a few million credits (maybe), I lose my home system even though I'm playing the game the way it was meant to be played, per FDev statement.
I would have preferred if there was only a PVE and co-op mode. Lucky Mobius exists.
Hi Deadspin,
In answer to your question should "should I be banned from my home station for killing an unwanted player in cold blood?". Gonna define cold blood as "they were clean".
Well the answer is no which is the case now.
Should your rep reduce with the faction controlling the system i.e yours, yes. And it does.
Should the influence of the controlling faction be reduced due to the death of a PC couted as a murder in the controlling faction area of control? Yes. And it does.
Should you obtain wanted status for at least a week and have trouble in the system equal to the security rating of the system? Yes and that is what the game is supposed to do 2.1 and beyond, with I suspect some leway for only a couple of kills.
Would you be better of heading in a straight lie until a USS appears and kill a couple of wanted ships? Yes you would and the game does that now.
1) The fact your are supporting the expansion should limit your style of play - you need every man. Much better off just killing some wanted NPCs and cashing in the bounties. Your approach is not very min/max.
2) Now then if you have control of the system and want to obtain an outpost to protect the control station, then you need to kill him several times over, plus every policeman that you see. Your still better of with the police though. It was the concern I had in Anlave opposing Contrail and trying to keep Koybashi out of their hands after Frontier pushed them back to 65% influence.
(1) is part of the reason the PvE crowd have a point when they mention that the game is more PvE centric than PvP centric. Personally I think they need to improve the mechanics to reward PvP actions in open. Such as doubling the influence gain for killing and handing in the bounty vouchers for killing a wanted player.
As for the leagues - if they take place in anarchy systems then their is no problem, as you cannot become wanted and murder does not exist. The Rep changes still occur though.
As for your last paragraph - well perform high influence missions and kill wanted, PvE is the name of the game not PvP. Unless there are a lot of view you simply need to be smarter than those attempting to influence your system.
Hope this answers your questions. Most of the answers are - avoid PvP for the BGS unless you know what your doing, which requires a lot of PvE research. After 14 months, I still call it wrong sometimes!
Simon
In answer to your question should "should I be banned from my home station for killing an unwanted player in cold blood?". Gonna define cold blood as "they were clean".
Well the answer is no which is the case now.
Should your rep reduce with the faction controlling the system i.e yours, yes. And it does.
Should the influence of the controlling faction be reduced due to the death of a PC couted as a murder in the controlling faction area of control? Yes. And it does.
Should you obtain wanted status for at least a week and have trouble in the system equal to the security rating of the system? Yes and that is what the game is supposed to do 2.1 and beyond, with I suspect some leway for only a couple of kills.
Would you be better of heading in a straight lie until a USS appears and kill a couple of wanted ships? Yes you would and the game does that now.
1) The fact your are supporting the expansion should limit your style of play - you need every man. Much better off just killing some wanted NPCs and cashing in the bounties. Your approach is not very min/max.
2) Now then if you have control of the system and want to obtain an outpost to protect the control station, then you need to kill him several times over, plus every policeman that you see. Your still better of with the police though. It was the concern I had in Anlave opposing Contrail and trying to keep Koybashi out of their hands after Frontier pushed them back to 65% influence.
(1) is part of the reason the PvE crowd have a point when they mention that the game is more PvE centric than PvP centric. Personally I think they need to improve the mechanics to reward PvP actions in open. Such as doubling the influence gain for killing and handing in the bounty vouchers for killing a wanted player.
As for the leagues - if they take place in anarchy systems then their is no problem, as you cannot become wanted and murder does not exist. The Rep changes still occur though.
As for your last paragraph - well perform high influence missions and kill wanted, PvE is the name of the game not PvP. Unless there are a lot of view you simply need to be smarter than those attempting to influence your system.
Hope this answers your questions. Most of the answers are - avoid PvP for the BGS unless you know what your doing, which requires a lot of PvE research. After 14 months, I still call it wrong sometimes!
Simon
Well, if you look at it that way, you have internalized the ideal of most human society, so I suppose I should congratulate society for that.
I am into academics, so I study what human condition is like, how it developed, and how it created society and how they are discontent with quite a lot of what is artificially brought into place. I can safely say that strength, at first was not the aptitude of how much one conforms to societal structure and ideals. And if everyone were to have an absolute or near absolute aptitude of conformity, the society will die from stagnation.
Strength comes in many forms, not only the type society approves. Those convinced by the society will advocate for its justice blindly, which enters the territory of faith.
Those with the memory of their humanity untouched by society reserves skepticism.
Those clinging onto the their humanity pure of the artificial civilization revolts.
You are playing your role, I am playing my role.
That seems like a far stretched argument. Considering we don't have an universal monarch, we can't determine anyone's worth accurately and it's a zero sum game. Your idea of positive seems quite attached to an underlying assumption that the direction humanity is advancing is intrinsically correct.
Funny enough, I have an underlying assumption of skepticism. But I understand your frustration and anger, since I am questioning the very foundation of many of your beliefs, I don't expect otherwise. But I prefer you keep the argument logical and less emotionally driven.
I don't recall calling "griefers" wolves, as I've already explained that the idea of "wolves" isn't exclusive to criminality.
Indeed, that is precisely what a society is for. But is this safety real or imaginary? The current society only takes action after violation of law occurs, everyone is susceptible to harm despite the current measures in place.
Well, that's why I wrote extensive proposals on how to improve the crime and punishment system and advocated for it, how childish of me.
On a serious note, the recent beta did increase the speed which police responds to crime, and if I'm not mistaken, I was the only one that extensively tested it and published the result.
Sounds identical to the proposal I put forth:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=235327
The beta was a step in that direction.
Last edited:
Totally nothing to do with wolves or how they live. That's just how you think of yourself. We are all equal here, except the mods of course
*kowtow*Those who live on the fringes of society rarely get any say whatsoever in how rules and society are set out. That's why they're on the fringes.
Totally nothing to do with wolves or how they live. That's just how you think of yourself. We are all equal here, except the mods of course
It's a pretty plain analogy to the hierarchical system of a society, any research into political science will get you a good idea of what it implies. (Except the extreme egalitarians that even Marx scolded at)
Hah... you have too much faith in your politicians, bureaucracy and government in general. Like I said, title of 'wolves' aren't exclusive to criminality.
I appreciate your input on the rest but this one line caught me and I feel I should have explained better.
Menge was the player supporting expansion, I was the player undermining it. This is strictly power play, not BGS, looking at the rules that he expressed should be in the game concerning player on player violence. My point was that Frontier has a long way to go in breaking down the mechanics to fully support the rules he calls for. If I am flying for the controlling (player) faction of a system, am allied with them etc and I shoot down a PC who is working for an expanding power, knowing full well that my faction does not support said power, is it still right for my faction to reward me with wanted status and a bounty? Is it still right for them to lose influence for protecting their system?
There's a lot of behind the scenes work that needs to be accomplished here for the effects to be properly balanced out, especially when it comes to discussing the rules changes required to give pve players more safety from other players in open space. That was my point.
Yes it's an artificial condition... and so what? Computers, air travel, modern medicine, and literacy are also all artificial but you don't rail against those, you're just using that as an excuse to justify playing at the expense of others' enjoyment. Society and civilisation ARE artificial, and they place the artificial constructs of law on their members to control the actions of the "wolves" through fear of consequences IN ORDER to make it livable for the "sheep"... and they do it by employing "guard dogs" and "shepherds". This is what's been missing in the game... consequences that still allow wolves to function while being serious enough to make them pause and consider if the potential gain is worth the likely negative consequence.
No. It's the shepherds and guard dogs that determine just how much oppourtunity the wolves have to hunt, and what percentage of the flock they're able to protect. The wolves sit on the edges of society just outside the light of the campfires sneaking in and taking advantage of lapses in security to prey upon the weak, NOT in the upper, decisive regions. It's only in the wild, untamed regions that the predators control the environment.
Problem is, from a game perspective, that the entire galaxy is acting like the untamed wilderness when there are clearly areas that should be acting like policed civilisations (it even states this in their descriptions when it describes their supposed security levels). When the actions of the wolves are appropriately tempered by the shepherds and guard dogs, THEN the game will be balanced but right now there's simply no reason to NOT be a wolf which means that the wolf packs are over crowded and the sheep have gotten sick of the abuse and have all buggered off to a wolf-free zone.