PvP Why PvP is not popular in Elite Dangerous?

[Stigbob]

Amen to that. I keep trying to explain to them the problem isn't PvP - it's this ultra-toxic attitude that nobody seems to be willing to face up to. I wouldn't want to have anything to do with these people, their behaviour is repellent in game and out of game.

The whole idea that PvP is an "endgame" activity is very wrong IMHO. It being all that's left that you're interested in absolutely does not make it an endgame activity, just the end of that person's interest. With no leaderboard or high score table to dominate though the players whose mentality is limited to seeking "I am better than you" have to find ways to try and make that so.

That's just it people bang on about Mobius being somewhere to hide, it's not that at all it's just got an absolutely fantastic list of banned players. All as a result of the groups efforts at kicking them out. The no PVP rule is a bit meh, but if you don't fancy running into people going out of their way to be as unpleasant as they can it's the mode you want.

That's why open PVE will never really be needed, Mobius does it better than FDEV ever could because open PVE would have free access for all.

 

[cmdr underhill]

I think it's at least partly due to the power discrepancy between players and NPCs.

PvP and PvE are not exclusive activities, someone doing a CG, there's a reasonable chance of some PvP occurring.

The trouble is for a typical PvE player NPCs are a walkover, players are not pushed, then inevitably when they're interdicted by another player it is a bit of a shock, and often they'll be lucky not to lose their ship.

Then it's back to playing vs weak NPCs for another 100 hours.

The game really doesn't put your typical player in a position where a PvP encounter is anything but an unwanted experience.


Then of course you add in the exploits being used by selected PvPers which after 4 months Frontier still haven't fixed, why would you.

Yes, it would be such an improvement if NPC abilities and ranks actually meant things. Hell if you can't make NPC hard enough to qualify as "Elite" you can certainly cap their ranks at a reasonable place (not that actual combat ability has anything to do with combat ranks anyway....). At the very least it would make Elite ranks a little more prestigious if Elite NPCs aren't 30% of NPCs (number is pulled out of my ---).

What I'm really surprised by is that Starfighter Inc's first kickstarter failed, since this is basically focused on exactly the PvP style that dominates discussion in Elite: Dangerous. Customizable ships, social MMO environment, combat focus. Good thing they decided to keep working at it after the first kickstarter.

Though I suppose, even if most of the murderhobos leave Elite for Starfighter Inc, we'll still be left with a few salt farming griefers to figure out how to deal with.

*sigh* what it really comes down to is Elite: Dangerous is the only AAA space sim/shooter game available today, so everyone with interest is here and it's nigh impossible to please everyone.

And more uniquely, Elite: Dangerous has the only Milky Way simulation outside of professional cosmologists and astrophysicists (though Dr. Anthony Ross is a professional, kudos to your work doc!). This is the place you come to if you wanna see what some aspect of our galaxy is probably like. Pew pew does very little to add to the galaxy sim. Respect to Space Engine, but I'm going to say ED's sim is more in-depth.

As for OP Nutter: I think it's only unpopular because FD have had significant difficulty balancing the game for everyone. PvPers often go for high action "twitch" gameplay, and since FDev is often slow to change and sometimes unresponsive, they run out of patience and look elsewhere for their gameplay. To be fair, we don't have any numbers, so what "minority" means to FD may be significantly different from what we think. Remember that minority technically means <49%.

IMO it is a misconception to think there is an end-game in Elite: Dangerous. You can't "win the game" and there is no "end of level boss" to defeat. Building yourself a God Ship only means you have a God Ship. Building an Exploration Ship only means you have an Exploration Ship. Gaining billions of credits only means you have billions of credits. A rabid PvP'er who indiscriminately blows up every other player ship they can encounter, isn't "winning the game" nor are they "playing the end game" - that is only in their mind. It is not in everyone else's mind. A subjective experience, in other words. It doesn't matter if you destroy 1000's of other player ships - you'll never get that You have won the game message because there is none. The ED Galaxy trundles on as before.

So we are not all end-gamers, as there is no such thing as an end game. The phrase "end game" is meaningless in Elite: Dangerous.

Regards o7

Amen to that! +rep Genar-Hofoen!

 

[ALGOMATIC]

That PvPers abuse/hammer everything forcing FD to rebalance doesn't prove that the game is built around PvP - if anything it demonstrates the opposite was done but then PvPers forced the universe to rotate around them again.

This doesnt make any sense if pvpiers are such a minority.
Maybe they are not such a minorty after all if their calls for game balance is well received and implemented by FDEV.
FDev invests its time and resources to make sure that the PvP mechanics work well and balance is maintained, it wouldn't be the case if it was used by a "minorty" of users.

The argument that said balance was made for PVE falls short because PVE balance died long ago when engineers came out.

I am not saying the game revolves around PvP, but combat being the most invested feature and PvP falls within this most complete and rich in development game mechanics.

 

[Stigbob]

This doesnt make any sense if pvpiers are such a minority.
Maybe they are not such a minorty after all if their calls for game balance is well received and implemented by FDEV.
FDev invests its time and resources to make sure that the PvP mechanics work well and balance is maintained, it wouldn't be the case if it was used by a "minorty" of users.

The argument that said balance was made for PVE falls short because PVE balance died long ago when engineers came out.

I am not saying the game revolves around PvP, but combat being the most invested feature and PvP falls within this most complete and rich in development game mechanics.

There's no question at all about PVP being unpopular and pro PVP players being in a minority, the devs have said it (and they'd know).

However the dev's have also said they want to encourage players back into open (again this goes towards proving open/PVP is unpopular or why would they say it) and what many people complain about being an issue in open is (or was) total lack of consequences for random space murder. They've made efforts to fix that, which may or not work or have the desired effect. We'll need to wait and see.

 

[frostypaw]

This doesnt make any sense if pvpiers are such a minority.

This is fallacious - that's not how it works. That renders the rest of what you said there nonsense, and snide nonsense at that.

The evidence so far goes very much against you. How long did the Spicybois effort have to go on? If PvPers were highly numerous and FDev balanced the game primarily around PvP then that initiative never would have had to exist - but it did. SDC had to shove the issue down everyone's throats to get it changed.

That pretty much proves what you're saying is wrong. The balance was made for PvE, it was only adjusted for PvP due to a sustained effort by PvPers to make it an issue for everyone.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

This is fallacious - that's not how it works. That renders the rest of what you said there nonsense, and snide nonsense at that.

The evidence so far goes very much against you. How long did the Spicybois effort have to go on? If PvPers were highly numerous and FDev balanced the game primarily around PvP then that initiative never would have had to exist - but it did. SDC had to shove the issue down everyone's throats to get it changed.

That pretty much proves what you're saying is wrong. The balance was made for PvE, it was only adjusted for PvP due to a sustained effort by PvPers to make it an issue for everyone.

And?

They made a mistake with those weapons rendering them OP and if not for PvP noone would notice proving that PVE balance doesn't exist in this game. God modded engineered turret boats can just plow through NPCs, what balance is there in PVE?

If not for PvP keeping combat balance in order this game would end up being arcade sci fi superman mode.

 

[Mohrgan]

And?

They made a mistake with those weapons rendering them OP and if not for PvP noone would notice proving that PVE balance doesn't exist in this game. God modded engineered turret boats can just plow through NPCs, what balance is there in PVE?

If not for PvP keeping combat balance in order this game would end up being arcade sci fi superman mode.

Basically because NPC's can't complain. PvP does and should have a voice in combat balance, but as seen by the many requested changes being bypassed, FD considers both sides of the argument where changes are concerned. It is completely biased to suppose that combat is entirely balanced on PvP. Just consider all of the PvP requested changes that haven't gone through. i.e. Shield/Booster nerf, Gimballed firing arc nerf, Menu Log timer, ect.

 

[Lee Archer]

Historical flight sim combat has no grind, even free to play war blunder puts you in 3-4 premium vehicles for $50.
DCS, IL2...
Engineering 2 reset may help-somehow.
Jousting, shield strength are problematic...

 

[missmartian]

PvP is incredibly popular, it just depends on what you class it as. One faction of players vs another faction of players using the BGS to fight for control over a system. They're technically fighting each other so wouldn't that count as PvP?

The players who support Yuri Grom have steamrolled player groups and expanded their powerplay zone despite opposition, isn't that classed as PvP as in some cases there were hundreds if not thousands of players taking part?

 

[frostypaw]

If not for PvP keeping combat balance in order this game would end up being arcade sci fi superman mode.

That's comical from a community known for smashing newbie sidewinders out of the sky with uber engineered FDLs and more. Absolutely comical.

 

[lenna]

They're technically fighting each other so wouldn't that count as PvP?

Not really, the term PvP in games is typically reserved for "direct" PvP interactions of some form or another. Working the BGS is just playing the game, while players may have competing agendas while PvEing the BGS there is not just players at work in that environment but NPCs too. Individual players are just another cog in the machine where the BGS is concerned.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

If not for PvP keeping combat balance in order this game would end up being arcade sci fi superman mode.

As much as i enjoy the Cobra Mk3, i don't think it would ever qualify as superman mode.

 

[Stigbob]

I guess that's why I've never received an account notice for any of the two thousand or so times I've killed a player ship. Despite being reported numerous times (if threats from disgruntled players are to be believed). The irony here being that these threats are usually laced with expletives, and are therefore in violation of section 7.3.1, and rule #1 of the "Code of Conduct".

But I make it a point to never get salty in-game if I can help it (think Wheaton's Law here, but specifically applied to comms).

7.3.1 of the EULA deals strictly with player communication. Other prohibited in-game behavior is expanded on by 7.3.3, but if you'll notice, even the code of conduct places its primary emphasis on communication.

It's simple, despite your insistence to the contrary.

And while not entirely germane to the OP, it's where the discussion went.

I'd apply Wheatons law a little more broadly to be honest. People have complained about being punished (or threatened with punishment) for station ramming, stream sniping, ban evasion and mode invasion irrespective of what the EULA and TOS supposedly says.

But then video game EULA's and TOS's don't really count for very much.

 

[lenna]

I guess that's why I've never received an account notice for any of the two thousand or so times I've killed a player ship.

Ganking is not griefing, kill the same player enough times in a short enough space of time then you will most likely be found guilty of griefing. Depending on the exact circumstances. There may be some exceptions to this rule of thumb.

If a victim of genuine griefing breaches the EULA with expletives after being subjected to true "griefing", they may get a warning as it was an aggravated breech but it would not be unreasonable for both parties to be punished in that case.

Ganking is not explicitly prohibited BUT you put yourself at legitimate risk of being guilty of "griefing" if you do not use common sense. Largely mindless Kill-On-Sight behaviours are particularly vulnerable to genuine accusations of griefing.

However, the main point is ganking and griefing behaviours will put at least some people off PvP.

 

[Riverside]

I'd apply Wheatons law a little more broadly to be honest.

Some people like to play more roughly than others, jocks vs dweebs kind of thing. Most of us sit between the extremes but the game caters for us all (as much as it can).

There is a minimum standard of meekness, it's not an easy game to just pick up & start playing after all, and there is a maximum tolerance for hostile play, which may well be below that of other games that allow for PvP interactions.

I like that it caters for as broad a spectrum as it does, it means I get to meet players that I might not see in a more focused game.

 

[Stigbob]

Some people like to play more roughly than others, jocks vs dweebs kind of thing. Most of us sit between the extremes but the game caters for us all (as much as it can).

There is a minimum standard of meekness, it's not an easy game to just pick up & start playing after all, and there is a maximum tolerance for hostile play, which may well be below that of other games that allow for PvP interactions.

I like that it caters for as broad a spectrum as it does, it means I get to meet players that I might not see in a more focused game.

The brilliance of the modes shining through once again.

 

[Goose4291]

The common theme being that they were edge cases that helped define the current rules. Although I don't recall anyone being punished or threatened for just station ramming. Everything I remember involved one exploit or another. Mode invasion you've just got wrong though. They've said repeatedly that it's up to the individuals to police their own groups, although going back after being kicked can be considered harassment. And I'm not even touching stream sniping. It's all been talked to death.



"Largely mindless Kill-On-Sight behaviour" is what I do.

There is no magic number of kills that makes you a griefer.

The context is what's important.

You can kill 200 players in a day and never receive a warning.

Most of.those.fringe cases and the 'context' involved was as I.recall due to the victims being Frontiers preferred streamers/groups.

It always seems like the game is geared at the preferred playerbase while we fight for.scraps.under the table.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

You are allowed to kill the same cmdr over and over, we put people back into sidewinders, while streaming. Today our group sniped an iron man streamer and he reset his save.

Keep fantasizing but this game will never be the carebear space truck simulator that you all want.

 

[Riverside]

It always seems like the game is geared at the preferred playerbase while we fight for.scraps.under the table.

This exact sentence could have been said by an explorer. More cynically it could be said by a skimmer killing min/maxer right now. It's just a matter of perspective, and some confirmation bias.

My only real gripe with the game (and it's not a massive deal) is that I bought a £120 lifetime pass & I'm a little concerned that the trend is towards free upgrades, making my extra cash feel wasted. Your sentence could apply to that too.

PvP'ers are no more left out in the cold than any other demographic.

 

[Goose4291]

This exact sentence could have been said by an explorer. More cynically it could be said by a skimmer killing min/maxer right now. It's just a matter of perspective, and some confirmation bias.

My only real gripe with the game (and it's not a massive deal) is that I bought a £120 lifetime pass & I'm a little concerned that the trend is towards free upgrades, making my extra cash feel wasted. Your sentence could apply to that too.

PvP'ers are no more left out in the cold than any other demographic.

I agree fully but we're talking about how this nonsense relates to pvp here.

In other words, the 'its okay to kill the same person over and over, until.you do it to kateclick, at which point frontier community management start threatening shadowbans' kind of debacles