PvP Why PvP is not popular in Elite Dangerous?

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Does this mean you've realised it's not a PvP game too now?

It's possible but even if powerplay was Open only instancing issues and other design choices mean there's no way to make the hole square like the peg.

Accept what we can't change.

Nope. I accept the fact Fdev balances the game around PVP and the modes has taken meaningful PVP away.

Where is it and whats it for.

All modules, ships, and BGS stuff has been based off player interactions. Fdev continues to balance the game around that fact. And not private and solo engagements.

So yeah, there will be changes to reflect this sooner or later. And I am betting its going to happen around the time fleets arrive.

I promise its not going to stay the same. Especially after all this time when they added pvp elements to the game and they simply did not work because of objectives being taken elsewhere.

 

[xondk]

2. Solo mode kills PvP. That is regardless if solo mode is "right or wrong". I don't want to go there. But I think it is undisputed that Solo kills PvP.
3. Combat logging. Even if you want to engage a cmdr, first thing popping in the mind must be .. "even if I end up winning he might combat log". Again, the target might not do so, but the thought is there.

and finally,

1. When you engage a commander you have more to lose and less to gain compared to engaging an NPC.
There are few in game things to actually motivate you to attack another cmdr. I mean, what...he has a meagre bounty? No . I can find an npc with less skill and worse ship with a higher bounty. The only thing to gain is the satisfaction you killed something harder than an npc. At the same time chances you will get killed are higher. And if you get killed you will lose your insurance cost.

sorry but this seems odd.

1: considering the attacker is basically the deciding factor here and the trend seems to be to attack those where very little is risked (or at least the problematic 'pvp' is about that), yeah, attacker isn't really 'risking' much. And yeah, there aren't things 'motivating' PvP, because Elite is not based around PvP, it is not a PvP game, it is a PvE game, where you 'can' attack others, but the game itself does not care, the only value is the one that the fighters find from fighting other players, to the game itself npcs and players doesn't really matter. Heck with 3.0 we are getting the first ever separation of players and npc's when it comes to showing trade routes, allowing to see npc or player routes.
2: ....no, you are effectively saying "those not wanting to participate in PvP are killing PvP"? and no that's not how it works, you can't lose what never was there, and forcing people will just make them leave entirely?
3: don't go after people that tend to do that, the trend seems to be situations again where attacker chooses a weak target, and in that case, what else can they do, they clearly aren't enjoying being at the mercy of someone who enjoys overpowering others? in real PvP where both parties are involved and there's actually a risk of losing to both? yeah I don't think those people combat log, and if they do........yeah, dunno.

 

[xondk]

Nope. I accept the fact Fdev balances the game around PVP and the modes has taken meaningful PVP away.

Where is it and whats it for.

All modules, ships, and BGS stuff has been based off player interactions. Fdev continues to balance the game around that fact. And not private and solo engagements.

So yeah, there will be changes to reflect this sooner or later. And I am betting its going to happen around the time fleets arrive.

I promise its not going to stay the same. Especially after all this time when they added pvp elements to the game and they simply did not work because of objectives being taken elsewhere.

Certain PvP groups would strongly disagree with you that the game is 'balanced' around PvP, or at all.

But you are wrong when it comes to your claim that Fdev balances the game around PvP.
The game needs to be balanced regardless of PvP, because again, the game sees no difference between players and npc's and thus to avoid a situation where everyone uses one type of weapon, frontier balances the game, NOT with PvP specifically in mind, but simply with combat against any and all other ships in mind, not PvP specifically, because again, the game sees no difference, and PvE also needs balance.

And yes, of course frontier has stepped in when an insane combo has been found, but if it had not been revealed against other players, they likely would as well, just 'eventually' but if misused against other players, then they need to react sooner. See for example how they step down on the various credit "schemes" found to be too much.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Certain PvP groups would strongly disagree with you that the game is 'balanced' around PvP, or at all.

But you are wrong when it comes to your claim that Fdev balances the game around PvP.
The game needs to be balanced regardless of PvP, because again, the game sees no difference between players and npc's and thus to avoid a situation where everyone uses one type of weapon, frontier balances the game, NOT with PvP specifically in mind, but simply with combat against any and all other ships in mind, not PvP specifically, because again, the game sees no difference, and PvE also needs balance.

And yes, of course frontier has stepped in when an insane combo has been found, but if it had not been revealed against other players, they likely would as well, just 'eventually' but if misused against other players, then they need to react sooner.

Sorry man Im not wrong. All modules ships and BGS influences are based off player interaction. Its all governed around it. Plain and simple.

 

[Red Anders]

-For PP combat a PvP kill gets you one merit. A NPC gets you 30.

See, that alone prompts such epic levels of wt actual f from me as to almost defy belief.

Reversing that* would provide an actual incentive to seek out PVP and is actually what you would expect in a sensible game structure; the very easy, low-risk option provides a way for safe and careful grinders to hit their target, albeit a relatively time consuming one, whilst there's a far more risky option which allows much faster progress. I'm really at a loss to understand what informed design decisions like that - why does the far more difficult option not even offer just the same reward but a hugely reduced one?

I'm not even getting into the fact that the primary method by which control of the galaxy and its resources is played out in the 3300s is supposedly delivering leaflets. The pen may be mightier than the sword but I think things have been taken to extremes here lol.

*A straight reversal would be too much but a bias of anything between 5:1 and 10:1 in favour of player kills would be far more realistic.

Does this mean you've realised it's not a PvP game too now?

It's possible but even if powerplay was Open only instancing issues and other design choices mean there's no way to make the hole square like the peg.

Accept what we can't change.

That is also fair comment. Really it all comes back to the P2P model, that's the rock on which pretty much every good idea to improve the PVP side of things founders.

 

[xondk]

Sorry man Im not wrong. All modules ships and BGS influences are based off player interaction. Its all governed around it. Plain and simple.

"plain and simple" .....ok you are basing this of...what?
You do realise, all these modules and BGS influences, and yes the competition is of course player interaction based, but these need to be balanced to be 'fun' because it isn't fun if doing thing x is much better then y, why would you ever do x? its based around a level playing field in general, and not with PvP directly in mind, why? because they do not need to do so, because to the game once its balanced for fun with PvE these things will transfer directly to PvP, because the game sees no difference, firing weapon a against player or npc will be same result.

 

[xondk]

See, that alone prompts such epic levels of wt actual f from me as to almost defy belief.

Reversing that* would provide an actual incentive to seek out PVP and is actually what you would expect in a sensible game structure; the very easy, low-risk option provides a way for safe and careful grinders to hit their target, albeit a rfelatively time consuming one, whilst there's a far more risky option which allows much faster progress. I'm really at a loss to understand what informed design decisions like that - why does the far more difficult option not even offer just the same reward but a hugely reduced one?

*A straight reversal would be too much but a bias of anything between 5:1 and 10:1 in favour of player kills would be far more realistic.

you might in a high player count system meet enough players to work that, but it simply isn't practical to PvP even with those stats, heck not even if it was 30:1 with PvP, it would be significantly easier to find 30 and more npc's then several players to repetitively kill, and would take longer and be more troublesome.

 

[govny]

because most ED players hate PvP?
Who bought ED for PvP has clearly bought the wrong game.

 

[xondk]

because most ED players hate PvP?

I really doubt that, they mate hate those that cause grief by only targeting the weakest they can and never really search for a challenge, sure.

But actual PvP? doubt people are upset that people fight against each other for the challenge.

 

[Darty]

Let's face it - the solution is the obvious one. Powerplay should have been open-only.

Trouble is, if this was six months before powerplay was introduced then yeah, I'd be here arguing that it should be open only. Unfortunately I wasn't even playing the game then. Now, there's no way that they could change it to be open-only because there would be an outcry and even attempts to provide benefits to engaging in powerplay activity in open, or the suggestion that it should, or could, be like that have prompted much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the past.

I've always thought way too much is made of the 'modes are equal' meaning 'everything must be in all modes'. Conceptually I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of some content being specifically designed to be played in a PVP-friendly environment, as long as there is also content which is specifically designed to be played in a PVE environment. There's no lack of equality there whatsoever because the issue isn't one of equality to begin with, it's just 'some stuff' and 'some other, different stuff'.

However I don't expect it will be too long before someone (or several someones) reads that and illustrates just how much of a minority that opinion places me in

As someone who participates in powerplay frequently, I do think it would be better as an open only thing, but I think the entire PP system would need an overhaul as well as many aspects of PVP in order for it to work as an open only thing.

 

[Manticore]

Choosing to play alone cut your experience and experience to other people with you.

So what?

If people choose to play alone it's their choice within the game mechanic(s) provided.

 

[Han_Zen]

Certain PvP groups would strongly disagree with you that the game is 'balanced' around PvP, or at all.

But you are wrong when it comes to your claim that Fdev balances the game around PvP.
The game needs to be balanced regardless of PvP, because again, the game sees no difference between players and npc's and thus to avoid a situation where everyone uses one type of weapon, frontier balances the game, NOT with PvP specifically in mind, but simply with combat against any and all other ships in mind, not PvP specifically, because again, the game sees no difference, and PvE also needs balance.

And yes, of course frontier has stepped in when an insane combo has been found, but if it had not been revealed against other players, they likely would as well, just 'eventually' but if misused against other players, then they need to react sooner. See for example how they step down on the various credit "schemes" found to be too much.

PvE combat is the single strongest factor in ship balance. That is why silly strong builds are allowed. Dominating hordes of NPCs is the target for most equipment added and mods implemented.

1vs1 PvP is near pointless with these ships. It takes 30min and ends one party juming out.

The only thing that works well in PvP, is killing non combat ships.
Piracy works better in PvE, bouny hunting works better in PvE and duelling lasts to long to be fun.

PvP is taken in to consideration, when balancing. Then most balance is dropped, because it may lead to some big ship getting a repair bill in CZ.

 

[Darty]

See, that alone prompts such epic levels of wt actual f from me as to almost defy belief.

Reversing that* would provide an actual incentive to seek out PVP and is actually what you would expect in a sensible game structure; the very easy, low-risk option provides a way for safe and careful grinders to hit their target, albeit a relatively time consuming one, whilst there's a far more risky option which allows much faster progress. I'm really at a loss to understand what informed design decisions like that - why does the far more difficult option not even offer just the same reward but a hugely reduced one?

I'm not even getting into the fact that the primary method by which control of the galaxy and its resources is played out in the 3300s is supposedly delivering leaflets. The pen may be mightier than the sword but I think things have been taken to extremes here lol.

*A straight reversal would be too much but a bias of anything between 5:1 and 10:1 in favour of player kills would be far more realistic.



That is also fair comment. Really it all comes back to the P2P model, that's the rock on which pretty much every good idea to improve the PVP side of things founders.

One problem with that idea is that 5th columning (whether from module shopping or having a bot run an account) is already a plague in PP. If you could get large numbers of merits from killing players, people would just endlessly farm their alt-accounts/friends who were "allied" with the target power. A potential alternative would be rewarding players with a portion of the merits their opponent was carrying, whether it be in combat bonds or haulage, when they make a kill. This would make it harder to farm alt accounts, but would still give players a large reward for killing other players.

 

[KillZoneGB]

We the east india company don't do pvp, we are to busy counting our credits.

 

[jasonbirder]

Players refuse to take responsibility for their own safety, so they die (predictably) to players that are trying to disrupt events, then come here to cry about how unfair it is and that everyone is a griefer.

Players conducting peaceful activities in prosperous, stable systems SHOULDN'T have to consider their own safety...because in any "Internally Consistent" Sci-Fi universe there would be little/no danger in those systems (anymore than I need to worry about getting car-jacked tonight as I head out onto the M6) They don't feel threatened by NPCs...because they act in an "Internally Consistent" way...attacking PCs with cargo/bounties/missions...rather than just randomly "because they're PCs"

If, instead, they would just look at the mistakes they made that led to their death, it would never happen to them again. The game design incentivizes poorly fit exploration/trade ships because NPCs are not a legitimate threat to anyone but newbies.

Essentially you're saying...even if your activities take place in prosperous, stable systems with active security forces...the only build you can choose is a highly engineered PVP build (likely unsuitable for the myriad activities Elite Players enjoy...Mining/Trade/Exploration/Mission Running/Surface Prospecting etc...outfit for any of those activities and you'll be sub-optimal for combat...and therefor a victim) NPCs aren't a legitimate threat to anyone...WHO isn't conducting an activity that puts a target on themselves...with bounties/opposed missions etc...Which makes sense doesn't it...Thats WHY (in any internally consistent Universe you'd be attacked) NOT simply because you're a hollow instead of a solid marker on someones sensors...Be honest how many of the players who moan about being ganked WOULD BE ATTACKED if they weren't recognisable as PCs? (Yes...that's right...when was the last time YOU attacked an NPC Asp with no bounty, no cargo and no powerplay affiliation...in normal space NOT a CZ/CNB/Anarchy System/RES Site...

This leads to complacency which gets rocked once a decent player shows up.

It doesn't lead to complacency...as an expectation that the elite Universe is consistent IE I'll be attacked if I give other a REASON to attack me...rather than I'll be attacked because I'm a PC not an NPC..because YOU KNOW...Salt

 

[Bryan K]

I really doubt that, they mate hate those that cause grief by only targeting the weakest they can and never really search for a challenge, sure.

But actual PvP? doubt people are upset that people fight against each other for the challenge.

Personally I find it a little unpleasantly brutish, like wrestling, but that’s just me. That, said, as long as nobody shoots at me, I’m cool with it. Unfortunately, it only takes one ganker to ruin the experience.

Here’s what I don’t get: there are upstanding PvPers out there with no opponents, and there are gankers seal-clubbing Haulers at CGs. So... why aren’t there more PvP groups dedicated to dealing with gankers? Right now I can only think of one. If the PvP community policed itself a little more, it would go a long way towards easing hostilities.

 

[Mohrgan]

Here’s what I don’t get: there are upstanding PvPers out there with no opponents, and there are gankers seal-clubbing Haulers at CGs. So... why aren’t there more PvP groups dedicated to dealing with gankers? Right now I can only think of one. If the PvP community policed itself a little more, it would go a long way towards easing hostilities.

One reason is, that Gankers/Seal Clubbers don't stick around in the face of a real threat. Up to and including combat logging. When I patrolled a newbie system, it was all too common that a ganker, when spotted would just blink out of sight, until the coast was clear. It's frustrating for the good guys. The only consolation is the time the gankers spent in their 'time-out'.

 

[Bryan K]

One reason is, that Gankers/Seal Clubbers don't stick around in the face of a real threat. Up to and including combat logging. When I patrolled a newbie system, it was all too common that a ganker, when spotted would just blink out of sight, until the coast was clear. It's frustrating for the good guys. The only consolation is the time the gankers spent in their 'time-out'.

The only way I can think of to curb attacks from CLogging gankers would be to block them and have the “good guys” broadcast their CMDR names and links to video evidence in as many instances as possible so others can do the same. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s the only one I can think of that doesn’t directly break the EULA.

 

[Mohrgan]

The only way I can think of to curb attacks from CLogging gankers would be to block them and have the “good guys” broadcast their CMDR names and links to video evidence in as many instances as possible so others can do the same. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s the only one I can think of that doesn’t directly break the EULA.

Oh, yeah. The Player Group leadership had a KoS website thing. As ridiculous as that sounds. It made no difference. No shame, no trouble.

 

[GODofDUTY83]

Engineers.
Plain and simple.