The infrastructure and networking of ED just will not facilitate a model like EvE sadly. Not ideally wishing to dwell on the EvE comparison, and with an understanding the two games are necessarily distinct (and so they ought to be), there are a number of points in which EvE-Online has excelled and done things "right" - in terms of functionality and fitness for purpose. Specifically with regards to PC v PC, EvE online does not dictate a playstyle. The player individual freedom is fully realised. This benefits the PCvPC advocacy as well as delineating clearly for the 'carebear' mentality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Secondly, EvE encourages and in some ways necessitates cooperative play. The interaction whether antagonistic or supportive is absolutely unavoidable and is a major proportion of the essence of gameplay at all levels. The mention of 'all levels' is also critical and whilst less PCvPC relatd, is perhaps EvE's greatest success - that the gameplay, challenge and in-world ambition is scaled. The scalability is possible challenge is measured against the combination of ship, loadout, skillbooks and the combinations of players available. It's a well understood staple in MMO games to require certain specialties (i.e. Tank, DD etc.) in combination for a "quest".. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Elite lacks all of these factors. Sure one could loadout a given ship for a task, but let's face it, where PvP comes in, there's very little variety in terms of maximising. There is a concept of "best option", which is restrictive, naive and unimaginative and largely highlights a serious flaw in the freeform intention._At heart, PC v PC is working, though. Especially popualr trade routes, publicised streaming and CG's tend to serve the PCvPC enthusiasm and bring more into participation - sadly, it's just rather empty.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .There remains the contrary 'carebear' mentality of some who play in Open but resent the opportunities presented by challenges from others - those others typically being forced into this as the only available avenue for PC v PC conflict interaction, since there is no structure nor support to encourage the less incentivised into embracing the conflict model. Otherwise, the only options are to organise (I'm reminded of football hooliganism) Pc v PC combat via external solutions and then those involved can dogfight in the agreed space, the multiplayer and instancing limitations notwithstanding. This is bland and whilst provides some distraction from the PCvNPC (PvE) or grind monotony, it feels too artificial and inorganic. Almost as a substitute for CQC/Arena - when really, that is a model best left to die. The casual pilots that welcome and enjoy unpredictable potentials of interaction with other players, for whom an exciting PCvPC bout can end with a cheerful "thanks for the good fight!" but do not seek to spend efforts pre-arranging organised bouts or competitions and still try to maintain some 'immersion over game' where possible are left with nothing - those who seek top interact with more different player types rather than the familiar PCvPC veterans as usual are also left wanting. Only the 'carebear' types that refuse to play in Private, yet explode vociferously when "unsolicited" comflict occurs seem to e served - this is detrimental. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The game, its systems, the development and the philosophy/conceptualisation behind the implementations leading to its direction, with regards to player character interactions needs to be INCLUSIVE rather than EXCLUSIVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Proposals such as the one above merely attempt to redefine a PCvPC club, with the same members and the same problems.Traders need to be incentivised to take risks bringing cargo into hotspots, multiplayer organisation and networking needs to support an ability to form effective wings both for antagonists and ideally, vigilante bounty hunters too - funnny how I see many posts where individuals cry because they were ganked by a group - they wouldn’t be ganked by a solo pilot. Surely then, the response would be to organise a wing for justice/revenge. Why is it the players who work hard to organise, bond and work within the community towards a common goal are 'demonised', whilst those who wish to play essentially isolated and unwelcoming of interaction with others (unless it's as a chat interface or when it hypocritically suits them in ganking say, a Thargoid) are so convinced of their righteousness?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The mentality needs to be that player interaction is a ‘good thing’, and for a MMO ought to be a core principle.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sadly, Braben wanted to make Elite (1984) but with modern tech and with other players, but just as the interaction with other ships in Elite was limited, so too is player interaction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .They created CQXC arena, but that was awful - Why separate PCvPC conflict from the main game? If they didn't want pilot federation pilots shooting each other, they could simply prevent such in the codebase and invent some inworld explanation that involved some magic technology inherent in the guns of PF ships – it’s no different from how miraculously every single ship can be instantly ID’d and criminality detected yet there’s no blackmarket operation for mechnics to pull out the detection and anonymise criminal ships – a respray if you will.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .They tried PP but that failed because it was overly confusing at launch and the RP-fuel reasons paled compared to the bare grind mechanical rewards which son turned out to be not largely worth it compared to other options. Nobody really cared for the factionalism aspect. Finally, they tried multicrew - a way to sit there bored less whilst someone else did the exciting stuff (like discos, bugs and no real rewards for either) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FDev have constantly been trying to wobble on a tightrope between 'game' and 'simulation', and seem unable to make a real choice when it is required - as a result, the essence of the 'game (simulation)' is so undefined that there is a divide in playability and how to actually engage with the product.
