Or maybe they should change the 5 year old deisgn that damages any content they try to create, when the foundation is broken, there is no point building a house on top of it, it will fall.
Modes Elite Dangerous PvE vs PvP and who needs a Solo play if you had PvE server
- Thread starter digitalblade
- Start date
Or maybe they should change the 5 year old deisgn that damages any content they try to create, when the foundation is broken, there is no point building a house on top of it, it will fall.
Pretty sure they should play to their strengths and what the majority of players would appear to enjoy.
Needs of the many v the needs of the few and all that.
That the house has several rooms instead of one big one is not a design flaw, it doesn't make it a bad house. Just not one you want.
Come on...I'm not even sure what you're getting at here, but whatever side of the fence you stand on, Algomatic has a point: it's safe to say that ED is constructed poorly as a multiplayer game, from content to networking.
It's no player base's fault, nor is it combat's fault. FD attempted to cater to two different player bases with the same solution, and it hasn't worked - with consequences that ultimately tick players off on either side. I've said it many times before that objectively speaking, the only way to achieve any level of resolution is cater to both groups in a fair way - but the player bases themselves aren't ready for that, let alone FD recognising it and making changes off the back of it.
I presume not all solo players want offline. Some might enjoy the shared BGS work without other players around, PvE or PvP players.
That's a matter of subjective opinion. I think they have made a pretty good multiplayer game and I think the modes were a great idea. Some content i think could be different, but there again, everybody and their dog has their own opinion about every feature, so FD cannot cater to everyone anyway. Its insane to try.
Last edited:
Without backing from both types of player the game may never have been made, hence it's dual nature due to the paying customer base. The issues only arise when people can't accept that the game caters to all and that this means other people get content and can make choices too.
You can either view it as broken or as the best of both worlds.
I'm not talking about the modes or how the game is accessed, I'm talking about the game itself.
A multiplayer game ideally ties the players together in some way; i.e. it isn't just solo players doing their thing in the vicinity of other solo players, which is effectively the pit ED has fallen into.
The most multiplayer aspect of the game is the BGS and was a huge selling point for ED, but with no accountability or continuity it loses relevance heavily; for almost all players, I suspect you could replace the BGS with a fake substitute that generates its own data and they wouldn't be the wiser.
On top of the unaccountable BGS mechanics there is no real multiplayer content - you can smoosh together a few players with the label of "wing", you can jump in another player's fighter...so what? Where is the actual multiplayer content: the missions; the need for roles; the kind of enemies that would challenge a wing?
All of this of course topped with a P2P network architecture, which doesn't connect people properly.
It's not "open play only!" sentiment; remembering that PG too can accept multiplayer, I'm simply observing that ED is inherently attempting to be a multiplayer game, but in practice plays out like a solo game that smooshes people into playing it together.
Alas, I cannot give you rep this soon.
The "PvP" community does not seem to understand that if you treat other players like crap, then, if given a choice, they won't want to play with you. If they're NOT given a choice, then they'll stop playing the game altogether. This phenomenon has been understood for nearly 30 years now, so I doubt it'll change anytime soon.
That's actually quite similar to one of the main gripes about ED PVE, ie what should I do now.
Perhaps as with PVE you are expected to set your own goals, post a challenge, lay claim to a system (not Zarek Nulls if you value your life) take the battle to the enemy whoever you decide that is. Whenever I'm in the mood I fling pew at noob killers, I go find them and I get blown up or I blow them up or I send them packing, I don't expect them to come to me and I don't expect FDEV to facilitate it. I decide to do it, find them and have at it.
I can't understand the prevalence of "there is no PVP" threads coupled with a total lack of people trying to actually get any PVP going.
Now this we agree on. But i suspect we have different ideas on who is uncaterable....
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
1) Not all players want to make themselves obvious targets for PvP;
2) Multi-crew combat may not be the type of multi-player content that many players are looking for.
He certainly has an opinion.
It certainly ticks off players whose preferred play-style requires other players as opposition. Ones opinion on whether it has worked, or not, rather depends on ones views on whether direct PvP should be a mandatory part of the game.
First define fair, in this context, please - given that players would seem to have very different views with regard to direct PvP.
Powerplay failed due to the lack of variety in gaining merits, and because Frontier didn't integrate it into the main game. Players had to choose between playing the game, or playing Powerplay. Because Frontier chose to tie merits to AB cargo runs and combat farming only, players who didn't enjoy either of those activities simply kept playing the main game.
As for Multi-Crew, between the lack of non-combat utility, the inability to serially crew a ship, no NPC crew members, and *groan* "telepresence," is it any wonder why it isn't popular? It targeted a niche audience, rather than the broader player base.
Do you actually have any substance to this argument or is "people don't like unconsensual PvP" about the crux of it again? I made it abundantly clear my last post was not about PvP/PvE but multiplayer, across all game modes, PG included. Hell, even solo included. Time and time again these debates boil down to "I don't like gankors" regardless of the topic; it is no wonder we haven't progressed anywhere
Holy crud a rare piece of insight. Someone has recognised that PP is simply regurgitated activities we already have; to fill in the blanks, it is because PP was supposed to be about the greater purpose. The activities were supposed to be there to affect the power struggle. Without coherence through accountability or consequnce, PP is just the same grind we already have for no real reason. Oh wait, we get modules from it
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Do you actually have any substance to this argument or is "people don't like unconsensual PvP" about the crux of it again? I made it abundantly clear my last post was not about PvP/PvE but multiplayer, across all game modes, PG included. Hell, even solo included. Time and time again these debates boil down to "I don't like gankors" regardless of the topic; it is no wonder we haven't prpgressed anywhere
The fact that direct PvP is entirely optional in this game - while every player both experiences and affects the single shared galaxy state, PowerPlay, Factions, CGs, etc. - is a core design decision.
So the fact that some players don't like being engaged in PvP is a significant part of the discussion - especially as there are some who consider that players should not be able to play the game in any other mode than Open.
In summary, "I don't like gankors" is a perfectly valid observation in relation to the discussion - and this game allows players to play the game, either alone or with selected others, without needing to interact with the aforementioned "gankors".
What sort of progress would you expect in a debate that would seem to involve participants with diametrically opposing views?
Defining "fair" would seem to be a good place to start....
Manufactured content by itself typically is PvE; it's a bit of a no-brainer that without other players, PvP can't happen. But it doesn't mean that content is created labelled as either PvE or PvP and has to be one or the other: if you are competing against another player, that is PvP.
The construction of PP is very much conducive to PvP mechanics. There's a PvE aspect but let's be honest: it features no new content. It ties together existing mechanics to allow a paramilitary competition to occur between powers, driven by players. Whether you progress your power by pushing leaflets or killing you are still competing with other players, which is the sole reason for PP.
So PP being PvE content....sure, if you consider it so because it features PvE activities. But the activity on the whole is sheer PvP as you're competing with factions driven by other players; it just isn't directly confrontational via your ship, you're playing the BGS against each other.
So in summary, the BGS can be PvP, and PP is about as PvP as it gets. Unfortunately the continuity of it is dissolved by PG/Solo play, and is what actually gets debated...good to make matters clear, aye?
Erm, thank you for the well thought out and written reply. But my post was more to do with another poster making spurious claims over what Power Play is "supposed to be".
That is why I copied almost word for word the opening part, but swapped out his "PvP" for "PvE". - I was making the point that he isn't the only person who can just make stuff up online.
I will however address the points you've made, you were good enough to make them so it's only fair I respond.
I agree Power Play is both PvP and PvE. Just like the rest of the game is both PvE and PvP.
I also agree they just used 2 basic mechanics that were already in game to fuel PP, which is a shame as it was a perfect time to introduce something new.
Using take A to B and go splat NPCs was indeed a very short sighted way to bring out content and call it "new".
Now I've always said that CMDRs not being worth equal merits to the NPCs is wrong, for something that could have been a focus for PvP'ers - they most certainly fornicated the pooch on that one. I get it can be exploited, but I'm sure something like monitoring who is killing who and how often they could deal with exploiters. Or limit how many times a day a person is worth merits when killed.
I have no issue with content being added to the game - as long as it's done so all modes can access it.
PP can be tweaked to aid PvP'ers in a few ways, and I'll be happy to tal kabout it.
But that isn't what we see here in these threads. It's always veiled attempts to remove content or lock content to force people in to open mode.
Unfortunately when it is the ONLY observation some can make, these conversations wear thin.
Mining too is optional, as is smuggling - it is the soul of "blaze your own trail" - and yet I don't repeat constantly that as mining is optional, we should pay no heed to it.
To answer your question fair would be improvements that work for solo and multiplayer style players. For instance, Ziggy's suggestion that PP has open only events and seperate BGS driven events is awesome; ignoring either entirely would hurt the power and yet noone is forced to either.
I have made plenty of reasonable suggestions in the past as it goes for improving continuity but I am bored of constructing coherent points to be answered by a flock of parrots that have learned a single phrase, but will chant it as though their lives depend on it.
Here is why PP failed:
Copy pasta from reddit from an actual PP player:
Aaaah the lure of Powerplay. If only "duking it out" means actual space combat.
After 42 weeks enlisted in the Federation Navy, I've hung my uniformed. Never again. I listed for the PvP, not space trucking in Solo mode.
Disclaimer: 90% of what I opted to do when listed was undermining, which is combat, in the hopes that SOMEHOW, somewhere, someone would show up in Open Play too and we can "duke it out".
Out of nearly 40 weeks active undermining, I encountered real life Commanders from the opposing faction no more than 10 times, and maybe 3 - 4 times a fight actually happen.
The rest of the time?
"Oh.... I didn't realize I'm in Open mode." - logout.....
I just listed to princess Smurfette for 4 weeks to get the shields while I'm on a trip to Sag A. I got my shield last week so I've ditched her in the gutter. Got my rails and pacifiers. Next Grom maybe? or APA?
FDEV should take note.
Last edited by a moderator:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Thinner still when some others cast aspersions with regard to the fortitude of those that choose not to play in Open and tell them that their chosen game mode should have no effect on the BGS, PowerPlay, Factions, etc..
Mining does not directly affect other players. It's a past-time that can be engaged in in any game mode.
.... and players don't get interrupted from what they were otherwise doing to be forced to mine.
Improvements that work for all players would be ideal. Proposals often suggest gating content to Open however - which isn't something that Frontier have done for any permanent game content.
Depends on the people and the group. I enjoy playing with my group, even when we are not online at the same time or on different platforms. But when we do link up, its great fun.
Not sure what your issue is here. Don't you have friends (and enemies) you play with (and against)?
That's not a PP player. That is someone who is doing PP simply to get a benefit. Next time try quoting someone who is dedicated to a power. There ARE PvPers who dedicate themselves to a power. Archon Fury i think is quite famous for this.
Last edited by a moderator: