Modes Restrict or remove PvE from the game, making Open a nicer place

[Robert Maynard]

Exactly.
Then, you still agree to have an additional way of influencing BGS/PP through PvP?

Subject to assurances that unintended consequences would be fixed in a timely manner (i.e. like the Security Vessel destruction method of Faction influence tanking that will hopefully be fixed in the Q1 update - except quicker than that), why not.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

The weird thing is, the first time I heard the 'get good' phrase was from a player who'd been flying an unshielded type 6 in open bemoaning being ganked by a pirate who theyd refused to surrender cargo.

I offered a decent amount of advice on evasion, loadouts and that in the end its sometimes better to surrender a bit of cargo than lose it all.

The response?

"HOW DARE YOU TELL ME TO GIT GUD"

I think that was the last time for a long period I tried to offer any help.

Nice story chap, how does this have to do with the OP?

 

[Theodrid]

Sorry, I misunderstood you then.

I get what you mean from a conversational point of view, and I don't object. Hell, I don't know the legitimacy of it - for all I know it might have been a publicity stunt - but if the recent vid was something to go off, an SDC member got kicked and shamed for combat logging. I've personally lost my own crap at two PP factions that tried to involve me in a PvP war. Hell, I'll let you know if I find any examples, but I've posted on threads for gank videos before firstly telling people to stop losing their minds over it, but secondarily asserting that the kill in the video was frankly beyond uninspiring.

I'll always be reasonable as I can, and generally require provocation to go into full-on facetious plank mode. But it's hard to give an inch when PvP doesn't have an inch to give

Aww, have some rep you old grouch, and though the game doesn't provide that inch for the players the players can still do so on these boards.

 

[Jockey79]

Sorry mate but even Sandro said it lol.

PP consists of a number of pre-existing activities; the only "new content" is the conflict between the powers.

I think you misunderstood what Sandro said;

"opportunities for PvP" is not the same as "intended for PvP"

Those 2 things mean completely different things.

And PP does indeed add "opportunities" for those playing it in Open mode.

 

[StiTch]

And PP does indeed add "opportunities" for those playing it in Open mode.

If you kept up with PP you might realise it kind of doesn't...*chuckles*

PP is currently a plague of 5cists and BGS work. Incidentally the only time it does seem conducive to PP is when it has nothing to do with PP itself - i.e. you see someone at a CG with an opposing faction name on their ship.

PP itself, as in the actual competition between powers, is dictated entirely from the shadows - "shadows" being multiple things here, before we go down the "stop hating on PG folks" road.

It's a shame given the content in PP is nothing new. There's nothing special or exciting or rewarding to it other than PSMs, which require literally nearly zero engagement. Other than that, it's rebadged CZs/delivery missions etc. with no money to give you at the end of the activity; its main purpose was the competition between powers, which has stagnated as a direct result of becoming a war from the shadows.

 

[EvE4evah]

Subject to assurances that unintended consequences would be fixed in a timely manner (i.e. like the Security Vessel destruction method of Faction influence tanking that will hopefully be fixed in the Q1 update - except quicker than that), why not.

\o/

Big Yay!!!!!

 

[Robert Maynard]

\o/

Big Yay!!!!!

I wouldn't get too excited - I'm just one player of many.

 

[EvE4evah]

I wouldn't get too excited - I'm just one player of many.

You're an important voice alright.

 

[Jockey79]

If you kept up with PP you might realise it kind of doesn't...*chuckles*

Yea, I know - I had trouble keeping a straight face typing that
But "on paper" it does, it's just in practice it failed to meet expectations.

Same goes for CQC. On paper it seems like a great idea - in practice, the way it was implemented sucks.

Perhaps PP should be moved out of the main game, into another thing like CQC - some open only other mode thingy.
That way, the rest of us can play normal Elite and ignore PP and those who want to do it, can select it on the main menu like we do CQC and go do it with everyone else who wants it.

 

[StiTch]

Thats either silly or malicious. You are not locked away from PvP or Exploration but if you want to Lock (see that word there? That indicates a restriction.) PP from PG/Solo you are restricting it. I am not against PvP at all I am not against PvE at all but I am against locking content away by Locking (that word again) content to any specific mode

The specific proposal was that one objective is locked to Open, and another to PG/Solo.

And that's okay; it's asinine to believe the same content or objectives have to cater to all players at once. Players have different needs, so...cater to them needs?

It seems selfish to instead object to a group getting content simply because it'd mean them having content. You cannot enjoy all aspects of the game at once anyway - last I checked, canyon racers don't complain they can't do trading at the same time...

Yea, I know - I had trouble keeping a straight face typing that

But "on paper" it does, it's just in practice it failed to meet expectations.

Same goes for CQC. On paper it seems like a great idea - in practice, the way it was implemented sucks.

While I object to notions CQC should be the substitute for PvP in ED, it's a classic example of something that could be turned around with a little effort. A few NPCs spawn to fill out a group, and matchmaking is accessible within ED itself.

Perhaps PP should be moved out of the main game, into another thing like CQC - some open only other mode thingy.
That way, the rest of us can play normal Elite and ignore PP and those who want to do it, can select it on the main menu like we do CQC and go do it with everyone else who wants it.

I don't think it even requires that. As above, a bit of content that lets both sides of the fence engage would be just fine. At the end of the day it doesn't have to be the endgame for PvP content; a simple small trial of any PvP content would be a huuuuge step.

Something should preferably be done about the 5cists, but that's a different debate. 5cists employ a tactic that really is pretty much objectively pathetic, but unlike playing the BGS from PG,...well, let's just remember it happens in real life. It's obviously an (unfortunate) result of competition between parties, and interfering with it would be as artificial as anything else - so the solution, if any, would have to be carefully constructed.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Thats either silly or malicious. You are not locked away from PvP or Exploration but if you want to Lock (see that word there? That indicates a restriction.) PP from PG/Solo you are restricting it. I am not against PvP at all I am not against PvE at all but I am against locking content away by Locking (that word again) content to any specific mode

PP is dead anyway, why not make it open only to revive it, what is the point of having PP wars in SOLO, you are fighting for territory control, and doing it in SOLO??? You fighting with yourself basically? this it the most bizarre design, its so funny its actually sad, this whole feature is just a reflection of the content this game provides.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You cannot enjoy all aspects of the game at once anyway - last I checked, canyon racers don't complain they can't do trading at the same time...

Indeed not - however if content is behind a PvP-gate then it may be that one won't enjoy it at all (as PvP is rather a marmite preference).

 

[Robert Maynard]

PP is dead anyway, why not make it open only to revive it, what is the point of having PP wars in SOLO, you are fighting for territory control, and doing it in SOLO??? You fighting with yourself basically? this it the most bizarre design, its so funny its actually sad, this whole feature is just a reflection of the content this game provides.

Same with the BGS, Factions, etc. - all designed to be affected from all game modes so that players who eschew PvP can still participate - and it's all indirect PvP - so not "fighting with yourself", no.

 

[EvE4evah]

Thats either silly or malicious. You are not locked away from PvP or Exploration but if you want to Lock (see that word there? That indicates a restriction.) PP from PG/Solo you are restricting it. I am not against PvP at all I am not against PvE at all but I am against locking content away by Locking (that word again) content to any specific mode

Read the last comments again, please…

 

[EvE4evah]

I'm not supporting locking any existent stuff …

Let people influence BGS and PP from S/PG

And

Give additional ways to influence them with PvP.

 

[StiTch]

Indeed not - however if content is behind a PvP-gate then it may be that one won't enjoy it at all (as PvP is rather a marmite preference).

...so according to you, absolutely all players categorically enjoy trading?

 

[Jockey79]

PP is dead anyway, why not make it open only to revive it, what is the point of having PP wars in SOLO, you are fighting for territory control, and doing it in SOLO??? You fighting with yourself basically? this it the most bizarre design, its so funny its actually sad, this whole feature is just a reflection of the content this game provides.

How is PP dead?
One minute we are getting complaints no one is doing PP, then we are getting complaints because people in Solo are doing it - please pick one.

I'll tell you what, you can have PP locked to open, but PvP must be locked to Solo - okay?
Seems fair to me.

 

[Sylveria]

it's asinine to believe the same content or objectives have to cater to all players at once.

Apparently, FDev disagrees with you, hence the "mode" system and content applied equally through all three modes. Which is why PP/BGS is not restricted to Open only, nor will it ever be.

It seems selfish to instead object to a group getting content simply because it'd mean them having content.

Seems selfish that one group wants exclusive content over another, too. But hey, let's not let facts stop us here, right?

 

[ALGOMATIC]

How is PP dead?
One minute we are getting complaints no one is doing PP, then we are getting complaints because people in Solo are doing it - please pick one.

I'll tell you what, you can have PP locked to open, but PvP must be locked to Solo - okay?
Seems fair to me.

its still dead and the vast majority uses it for modules, while the ones who do use it, suffer from solo undermining.

 

[Jockey79]

...so according to you, absolutely all players categorically enjoy trading?

No one is forced to trade,
No one is forced to explorer,
No one is forced to fight.

Locking any content to PvP (or open), you're forcing people to fight when they don't want to fight.