PvP Why PvP is not popular in Elite Dangerous?

[Sylveria]

Would be easier to just say that folk should forget player factions owning stuff.

They won't. Nor will they stop asking for a player-based economy. Nor will they stop asking for the mode system to be removed. Nor will they stop thinking indirect actions should be have the option to be countered directly, etc.

They'll continue to be ignored by FDEV because that's not what the game was designed or intended for. And they'll eventually move on, or continue to waste valuable time they could be doing other more productive things with in the meantime. They're certainly not going to "kill" the game with the torches and pitchforks mob mentality, people will continue to buy and enjoy the game for what it is, rather than what it isn't.

 

[Mohrgan]

The reason to argue via analogies is because you seem to have an issue empathizing with points of view you with which you don't initially agree. To the point where you can't see obvious parallels that would otherwise help you to understand the dilemma and frustration of open players.

Here is the crux which you are not getting:

For Open players their BGS group or PP faction is as much theirs as their ships are theirs. An attack on these in game assets is taken the same way you would perceive an attack on your ship filled with thousands of hours of Exploration data. This is because these factions are in fact imbued with the sweat of thousands of hours of dozens, hundreds, and even thousands of CMDRs each. The total time invested is much more than any single ship or player can claim.

When two groups interact with each other to compete to destroy or defend the above, the only ones risking their historical time investment in the game are the defenders.

If you don't see how this interaction is currently utterly twisted by the ability to attack without any similar risk for the attacker, not even discovering who the attacker might be, then you must have zero empathy for the massive time investment of the defending BGS/PP player.

There is no such thing as a PVE counter attack. There is only PVE attack and PVE defense. As long as this remains the case, then Solo/PG attackers will always hold the high ground, and this is what is fundamentally flawed about allowing Solo/PG to influence the Galaxy map for everyone else.

This issue can be fixed in other ways besides forcing everyone to play in Open. But those ways would be very complex and require that something like player squadrons exist as a buffer for player anonymity. I really hope that's a big part of where Frontier is going with this whole "Squadrons" update.

Take the dubious advantage of Solo/PG and use it against them. It's available to everyone. Your choice to play in Open only is not some license to insist I, or anyone else, should have to live up to your personal gamer ethics. Just as it's part of the rules that a squishy T-6 is fair prey in open, so to do the rules allow for use of any of the modes.

No one ever acknowledges that the whole: "If I can't see you in open, it's not fair" business is dashed by the effects of Cross-platform play, and instancing. You want to shoot player ships, so you trump up any kind of justification to make it easier on you. That's not a good enough reason to shaft something like half of the player base. Your E|D Fantasies don't take precedence over mine, because you overvalue open play.

Constant harping on the Modes is one more reason PvP isn't as well received as it could be. These misguided, arrogant attempts at redefining what the game is, puts off players like me. I value PvP, but not at the expense of the built in choices that helped sell this game to a bunch of players.

 

[Roybe]

The reason to argue via analogies is because you seem to have an issue empathizing with points of view you with which you don't initially agree. To the point where you can't see obvious parallels that would otherwise help you to understand the dilemma and frustration of open players.

Here is the crux which you are not getting:

For Open players their BGS group or PP faction is as much theirs as their ships are theirs. An attack on these in game assets is taken the same way you would perceive an attack on your ship filled with thousands of hours of Exploration data. This is because these factions are in fact imbued with the sweat of thousands of hours of dozens, hundreds, and even thousands of CMDRs each. The total time invested is much more than any single ship or player can claim.

When two groups interact with each other to compete to destroy or defend the above, the only ones risking their historical time investment in the game are the defenders.

If you don't see how this interaction is currently utterly twisted by the ability to attack without any similar risk for the attacker, not even discovering who the attacker might be, then you must have zero empathy for the massive time investment of the defending BGS/PP player.

There is no such thing as a PVE counter attack. There is only PVE attack and PVE defense. As long as this remains the case, then Solo/PG attackers will always hold the high ground, and this is what is fundamentally flawed about allowing Solo/PG to influence the Galaxy map for everyone else.

This issue can be fixed in other ways besides forcing everyone to play in Open. But those ways would be very complex and require that something like player squadrons exist as a buffer for player anonymity. I really hope that's a big part of where Frontier is going with this whole "Squadrons" update.

..and I see this differently.

In life there are always two fronts to any war. The public face..and the 'fifth column'...the 'top secret' machinations behind the war. The modes allow for this in depth diplomatic play to occur.

Faction A wants influence in Faction C's system. A could enlist B to publicly fight against C...or privately do the same thing. Faction B has an axe to grind...but doesn't want the expense of fighting C directly...so they hook up with A..do the deed..and B goes on their merry way.

Having been involved with the BGS since its release, I understand people desires for certain things (blockades, ownership, etc). But, unfortunately for them, this game is designed explicitly to prevent that type of play. The game is built on only attacking each other, moving PVE tokens around to get better advantage for your group.

I agree with folks that the desired gameplay would be interesting...but the devs have laid a very specific plank into their design...there will be no executive control, in this game. All that will occur is influence shifts.

 

[Roybe]

You said "counter-sniping" was possible. Sniping is a form of attack. Defending your system isn't not an "attack". This isn't just semantics. These words have meanings. If the attacker doesn't present any target whatsoever, not even a CMDR name on a local news list, then "attacking" them is impossible. They risk nothing, not even identification. That's not "asymmetric". That is literally a 1-sided encounter. There is no parallel for this kind of action in PVP because it is functionally impossible to kill someone anonymously, at the very least, your attacker is ALWAYS identified when you die.

And here is the difference between E: D and every other game out there.

Because there is no 'counter sniping'....'ownership' is only maintained through constant vigilance of your systems numbers, and the constant upkeep needed to hold the system in the name you desire.

If someone snipes you...it's no different than the game of king of the hill....it doesn't matter who tries to take you off the top...anyone 'not you' is an enemy. To repel them you have to out 'token' them.

 

[sovapid]

For Open players their BGS group or PP faction is as much theirs as their ships are theirs. An attack on these in game assets is taken the same way you would perceive an attack on your ship filled with thousands of hours of Exploration data. This is because these factions are in fact imbued with the sweat of thousands of hours of dozens, hundreds, and even thousands of CMDRs each. The total time invested is much more than any single ship or player can claim.

When two groups interact with each other to compete to destroy or defend the above, the only ones risking their historical time investment in the game are the defenders.

If you don't see how this interaction is currently utterly twisted by the ability to attack without any similar risk for the attacker, not even discovering who the attacker might be, then you must have zero empathy for the massive time investment of the defending BGS/PP player.

There is no such thing as a PVE counter attack. There is only PVE attack and PVE defense. As long as this remains the case, then Solo/PG attackers will always hold the high ground, and this is what is fundamentally flawed about allowing Solo/PG to influence the Galaxy map for everyone else.

This issue can be fixed in other ways besides forcing everyone to play in Open. But those ways would be very complex and require that something like player squadrons exist as a buffer for player anonymity. I really hope that's a big part of where Frontier is going with this whole "Squadrons" update.

I'd say for the most part what you are saying is true, but a couple months back Privateer's Alliance (PA) got into a BGS war with Mobius (the actual player group, not the whole private group that people play in) in Colonia. Having never been involved in one, it sounded like it had the promise to be an interesting undertaking. Both sides knew it was happening, all the PA ships flew with PA tags so we would be obvious to other players. Through various discords/inara, we knew who most of the Mobius players were.

Not surprisingly, the only players we would run into in open were other PA ships (for the most part). Pop into the Mobius private group and we would see the Mobius players going about doing whatever their "war" activities were. The only time I ran into a Mobius player in open, was sitting in stations. They never moved and were essentially just blocking landing pads, the medium pad on outposts. All's far in love and war I guess.

And I fully understand PVP isn't the end all be all for BGS war stuff. But if I'm in a PVP capable ship, in a Mobius controlled system killing cops to reduce influence, and I run into an enemy running missions, killing them is going to be helpful. It would also have made it more interesting for when I'm running missions in my Asp to actually run into another player intent on stopping me.

The whole experience was completely unrewarding and was the thing that got me to stop playing Elite for a while (3.0 looks like it might get me back). Being in a war to some invisible hand is beyond me for a game mechanic, but I get that is how it is designed.

I also have hopes, albeit low, for Frontier to add some meaningful PVP mechanic.

Oh, and Mobius won the war

 

[Roybe]

I'd say for the most part what you are saying is true, but a couple months back Privateer's Alliance (PA) got into a BGS war with Mobius (the actual player group, not the whole private group that people play in) in Colonia. Having never been involved in one, it sounded like it had the promise to be an interesting undertaking. Both sides knew it was happening, all the PA ships flew with PA tags so we would be obvious to other players. Through various discords/inara, we knew who most of the Mobius players were.

Not surprisingly, the only players we would run into in open were other PA ships (for the most part). Pop into the Mobius private group and we would see the Mobius players going about doing whatever their "war" activities were. The only time I ran into a Mobius player in open, was sitting in stations. They never moved and were essentially just blocking landing pads, the medium pad on outposts. All's far in love and war I guess.

And I fully understand PVP isn't the end all be all for BGS war stuff. But if I'm in a PVP capable ship, in a Mobius controlled system killing cops to reduce influence, and I run into an enemy running missions, killing them is going to be helpful. It would also have made it more interesting for when I'm running missions in my Asp to actually run into another player intent on stopping me.

The whole experience was completely unrewarding and was the thing that got me to stop playing Elite for a while (3.0 looks like it might get me back). Being in a war to some invisible hand is beyond me for a game mechanic, but I get that is how it is designed.

I also have hopes, albeit low, for Frontier to add some meaningful PVP mechanic.

Oh, and Mobius won the war

And people say there is no way to blockade a system!

 

[Ziljan]

..and I see this differently.

In life there are always two fronts to any war. The public face..and the 'fifth column'...the 'top secret' machinations behind the war. The modes allow for this in depth diplomatic play to occur.

Faction A wants influence in Faction C's system. A could enlist B to publicly fight against C...or privately do the same thing. Faction B has an axe to grind...but doesn't want the expense of fighting C directly...so they hook up with A..do the deed..and B goes on their merry way.

Having been involved with the BGS since its release, I understand people desires for certain things (blockades, ownership, etc). But, unfortunately for them, this game is designed explicitly to prevent that type of play. The game is built on only attacking each other, moving PVE tokens around to get better advantage for your group.

I agree with folks that the desired gameplay would be interesting...but the devs have laid a very specific plank into their design...there will be no executive control, in this game. All that will occur is influence shifts.

The addition of Squadrons and fleet carriers seems to indicate that Frontier is admitting that soulless influence %s is not compelling enough to keep players engaged, and they seem to be moving in the direction of player ownership and executive control.

And here is the difference between E: D and every other game out there.

Because there is no 'counter sniping'....'ownership' is only maintained through constant vigilance of your systems numbers, and the constant upkeep needed to hold the system in the name you desire.

If someone snipes you...it's no different than the game of king of the hill....it doesn't matter who tries to take you off the top...anyone 'not you' is an enemy. To repel them you have to out 'token' them.

Interesting analogy. If your comparison is accurate then the ultimate winner is the Keyser Söze figure who kills any ties to the land and devotes their career to wanton destruction and puppeteering, caring for nothing and no one and by the ensuing chaos they sow, they can only win and never lose. This kind of terrorism is the gameplay that Frontier is currently encouraging by giving anonymous attackers the upper hand. Unless I've wildly overestimated Frontier's motives, I don't think that's quite the design ethos they were going for.

 

[frostypaw]

The whole experience was completely unrewarding and was the thing that got me to stop playing Elite for a while (3.0 looks like it might get me back). Being in a war to some invisible hand is beyond me for a game mechanic, but I get that is how it is designed.

Trying to play tennis with a golf club and golf balls on a golf course is frustrating - it's again down to accepting what the game is and what it is not. It is not a faction warfare game.

Play golf.

 

[sovapid]

Trying to play tennis with a golf club and golf balls on a golf course is frustrating - it's again down to accepting what the game is and what it is not. It is not a faction warfare game.

Play golf.

I understand how it works, and I've accepted that the game mechanic is not fun or interesting.

It is like playing a game of "watching paint dry" or "digging a hole, filling it back in, and then digging again".

 

[GJ51]

The entire problem is the approach that FD took from the beginning in making a "unified" BGS instead of making each mode a separate universe.

Early on I advocated that each mode should basically constitute a separate CMDR for each player that had no affect on the other modes whereby your progress in one mode had no historical correlation to any other mode you played.

Thus, your rank, asset totals, etc would essentially be isolated in terms of progress for your game play in each mode.

What we currently experience is a consequence of a poor decision by FD early on despite pleadings to re-consider before 1.0

The horse has been out of the barn far to long to get him back now.

It is what it is and we just have to accept it as separating the modes at this point would be a rather tilted advantage for the earliest players.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I understand how it works, and I've accepted that the game mechanic is not fun or interesting.

It is like playing a game of "watching paint dry" or "digging a hole, filling it back in, and then digging again".

If so why did you buy it?

 

[Roybe]

The addition of Squadrons and fleet carriers seems to indicate that Frontier is admitting that soulless influence %s is not compelling enough to keep players engaged, and they seem to be moving in the direction of player ownership and executive control.



Interesting analogy. If your comparison is accurate then the ultimate winner is the Keyser Söze figure who kills any ties to the land and devotes their career to wanton destruction and puppeteering, caring for nothing and no one and by the ensuing chaos they sow, they can only win and never lose. This kind of terrorism is the gameplay that Frontier is currently encouraging by giving anonymous attackers the upper hand. Unless I've wildly overestimated Frontier's motives, I don't think that's quite the design ethos they were going for.

Can you explain to me how you jump from Squadrons to executive control? This is something I still do not see, even with everyone telling me it is so.

As far as the design ethos, if that is not what they are doing...they are failing exemplarily well. It is way more interesting that shooting someone in the face.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The reason to argue via analogies is because you seem to have an issue empathizing with points of view you with which you don't initially agree. To the point where you can't see obvious parallels that would otherwise help you to understand the dilemma and frustration of open players.

Here is the crux which you are not getting:

For Open players their BGS group or PP faction is as much theirs as their ships are theirs. An attack on these in game assets is taken the same way you would perceive an attack on your ship filled with thousands of hours of Exploration data. This is because these factions are in fact imbued with the sweat of thousands of hours of dozens, hundreds, and even thousands of CMDRs each. The total time invested is much more than any single ship or player can claim.

When two groups interact with each other to compete to destroy or defend the above, the only ones risking their historical time investment in the game are the defenders.

If you don't see how this interaction is currently utterly twisted by the ability to attack without any similar risk for the attacker, not even discovering who the attacker might be, then you must have zero empathy for the massive time investment of the defending BGS/PP player.

There is no such thing as a PVE counter attack. There is only PVE attack and PVE defense. As long as this remains the case, then Solo/PG attackers will always hold the high ground, and this is what is fundamentally flawed about allowing Solo/PG to influence the Galaxy map for everyone else.

This issue can be fixed in other ways besides forcing everyone to play in Open. But those ways would be very complex and require that something like player squadrons exist as a buffer for player anonymity. I really hope that's a big part of where Frontier is going with this whole "Squadrons" update.

Do you disagree with: "Influencing the BGS can be countered by influencing the BGS"?

Analogies can be used to illustrate the argument, not to replace it.

 

[frostypaw]

The entire problem is the approach that FD took from the beginning in making a "unified" BGS instead of making each mode a separate universe.

Not at all. You've summed up here exactly why they cannot and should not do this.

Once those modes are separated the storylines would diverge requiring three separate stories at different paces with different modes getting different outcomes to events/CG's/thargoid attacks etc - it utterly breaks the game.

Of course the faction-war folk don't really care about that stuff - it's all frippery to them making up for the lack of proper faction wars which is all they really wanted.

But that's not the game - it's not space-gang-war - it's Elite with a long storyline, proper lore and aliens etc.

The entire problem is that people bought this game wanting a faction war game when it's not that. FDev have done exactly the right thing by not caving into these demands and having to throw away everything that makes this game more than space-clan-battles. Play golf.

 

[Frank]

edit.. deleted sorry bad morning i seem to be having a pop at everyone today and its not cricket. need more coffee

---

i know it is not elite and is not what many are after for pvp in elite

but as an aside, i am surprised at the lack of interest in CQC

i think is decent enough but no one plays it.

I really do a lot of navel gazing about CQCC. I don't know why I don't play it myself. I'm not the spring chicken I was a few decades back and so I don't expect to do well in it, but I do enjoy it when I do imbibe.

I guess my answer to why I don't play it is that I have goals I want to achieve in the main game, and that's my priority when I don my VR headset.

CQCC is the PVP I'm interested in. I like the level(ish) playing field. I take no pleasure from clubbing seal cubs, and conversely don't enjoy being the seal when those blows are falling on my head. It is a shame that nobody plays it because nobody plays it.

 

[halo jones 101]

Not at all. You've summed up here exactly why they cannot and should not do this.

Once those modes are separated the storylines would diverge requiring three separate stories at different paces with different modes getting different outcomes to events/CG's/thargoid attacks etc - it utterly breaks the game.

Of course the faction-war folk don't really care about that stuff - it's all frippery to them making up for the lack of proper faction wars which is all they really wanted.

But that's not the game - it's not space-gang-war - it's Elite with a long storyline, proper lore and aliens etc.

The entire problem is that people bought this game wanting a faction war game when it's not that. FDev have done exactly the right thing by not caving into these demands and having to throw away everything that makes this game more than space-clan-battles. Play golf.

This is a fact that a minority in my mind seem to wish away. Only 'Frontier' has the numbers to be able to definitively state the size of the player base and of who does what amongst the players and if PvP was a majority activity for the majority of the player base, then perhaps by now 'Frontier' would have abandoned the future development investment and let it fade away. Maintaining the server costs money. Elite dangerous if they dropped it tomorrow is money made and then focus on just Planet Coaster which has been profitable and the the future Jurrasic IP, is also likly to be profitable. While I believe they have pandered somewhat to a small Squeaky Wheels element, I don't think DB intension is to just have the universe he has brought to being just be a shoot-em up.

PVP hold no attraction or interest to me and I suspect many others, nor does being someone else's content, however it is there for those who want it and that's fine, as i don't have to engage in open and thus expose myself to be engaged, if i don't wish too, private groups means that I can choose to play with others should I wish. While I appreciate that there are some issues with powerplay and the game modes the reality is that we as individuals and even groups have only limited in game influence, unlike the EVE universe. Only 'Frontier' has the numbers to be able to definitively state the size of the player base and of who does what amongst the players.

That said exploration and mining do need some love, and developing atmospheric flight needs to be advanced, the reality is that they are hard areas to develop meaningfully in a short period. While i think they must do better I also brought this game for the long haul.

Regardless my thoughts will not change the mind of those who are only invested in PvP or those who play in open and then on occasional find themselves as emergent gameplay complaints.

 

[Ziljan]

Do you disagree with: "Influencing the BGS can be countered by influencing the BGS"?

Do you disagree with "BGS attackers risk nothing, and BGS defenders risk everything"?

 

[Riverside]

And people say there is no way to blockade a system!

By pad blocking? Just drop to solo & get to the pad before the NPC.

 

[Roybe]

Not at all. You've summed up here exactly why they cannot and should not do this.

Once those modes are separated the storylines would diverge requiring three separate stories at different paces with different modes getting different outcomes to events/CG's/thargoid attacks etc - it utterly breaks the game.

Of course the faction-war folk don't really care about that stuff - it's all frippery to them making up for the lack of proper faction wars which is all they really wanted.

But that's not the game - it's not space-gang-war - it's Elite with a long storyline, proper lore and aliens etc.

The entire problem is that people bought this game wanting a faction war game when it's not that. FDev have done exactly the right thing by not caving into these demands and having to throw away everything that makes this game more than space-clan-battles. Play golf.

But all that is doable in the game...you just can never lock down any of that stuff. It will always be able to be changed.

 

[frostypaw]

But all that is doable in the game...you just can never lock down any of that stuff. It will always be able to be changed.

It's not though. Show me how to sign up to a faction in a game, show me how my faction membership is displayed. Show me places I will be attacked because of the faction I'm part of.

None of it's in game - it's out-of-game fantasy empire building. Sure we can play pretend but it's not there. Powerplay etc are meant to provide broadstroke versions of this so people can engage that way - but as is being painfully discovered the empire builders aren't really interested unless it's THEIR empire.

Screw 'em. They'll only destroy the rest of the game to get what they want as they've aptly demonstrated many times. Far better off saying "No. It's not that type of game" and letting them go find one they can play like that rather than sacrificing everything to the whims of PvP.