*plonk*
- Status
*plonk*
Have your own discussion with me. Jason is just playing ForumPvP as usual.
"is not designed around PvP" != "PvP is a mere accidental outcome" in any way shape or form and you will not be able to show any situation or usage where it is so. Squirm all you like, it'll only make you look less reliable.
You have zero proof that the game is designed around PvP - every situation you brought up was successfully refuted.
Can I check - are you an adult? I'm realising that there are times I'm expecting people to argue above their weight and it might simply be unfair
Forum PvP is how I get my hands on the players who won't come play with me in Open
I'm glad you can find someone random to kill.....but you still have to PVE to make more credits...if not now...sometime down the road...
So, how are you engineering your ship through PvP?
How is he funding his ship.
Quince apparently.
But remember folks - exploits in no way enable unbalanced PvP. Shoot'em'up for them, loss of weeks/months of work for you.
Cheers FDev. They should have been taking back all the exploited funds every time.
Engineering is "cancer for PVP" so he flies a stock sidewinder.
E rated, stock is OP
PvP is not popular in Elite Dangerous because it's plays like Civilization games : A peaceful game you can play while drinking, smoking, eating...etc.
It's not supposed to be a skilled game like FPS. It's in the old style play of games.
But of course if you consider current games, ED should defenetly have a PvP and MMO part of the game, but it is really something that needs to be developped.
They needs to make a better wing mission system with gold rush so piracy is interesting and we can start to have a real game.
It's not supposed to be a skilled game like FPS. It's in the old style play of games.
But of course if you consider current games, ED should defenetly have a PvP and MMO part of the game, but it is really something that needs to be developped.
They needs to make a better wing mission system with gold rush so piracy is interesting and we can start to have a real game.
I disagree - I believe developers should stay true to their original vision for any given game and not divert too far from it to please certain segments of a given community.
FD seem to be managing to do that while making some concessions to the newer generation of gamers (which includes some older gamers who have bought into the current brands of fragfest coolaid). I believe FD are well aware of the fine line they are dancing and need to try not to steer too far down the mass-consumer MMO route IMO.
Counterstrike was released 18 years ago.
Battlefield 1942 was released 16 years ago.
The first Call of Duty was released 15 years ago.
Having fun shooting at other players online is hardly "new".
Mixing PvP and PvE gameplay in a persistent Open world environment mostly is... those particular games are specifically targeted at PvP as was some older PvP-focused (where multiplayer aspect is concerned) games (Quake Arena, Unreal Tournament) that I have enjoyed, ED is not.
You can try and claim there is little difference in PvP attitudes and behaviours now to those of 20+yrs ago but you would be wrong IMO/IME - things have gotten ALOT worse (esp. over the past 15 years or so) and mostly due to a growth in ganker/griefer mentalities and certain overly-liberal/apologist attitudes over them.
I accept that PvP is part of ED and do not specifically object to it, but there are limits to what is (and perhaps should be) considered acceptable behaviour in game. ED is not a fragfest title and IMO should never have parts of the Open world that are specifically targeted at exclusive (or even mostly exclusive) Open World PvP either.
If there were PvP Death Match like POIs (with local re-spawning bases, opt-ins and perhaps varying participation limits - e.g. unrestricted, no engineering, specific ship class exclusions/requirements, module quantity restrictions) based around CZ mechanics then that would not be too problematic IMO, but there should not be any areas in the general Open World where habitual ganking or griefing type behaviours is deemed acceptable and part of the course.
Another option might be to add station based PvP/PvE challenge boards which anyone could participate in regardless of the mode they are playing in, melding both mechanics with seamlessly with game lore would be the challenge that FD would have to deal with.
The C&P system changes in 3.0 may help mitigate ganking a bit and anarchy/lawless areas will always carry a bit of a safety warning but there are still limits to PvP gameplay that are in alignment with the general spirit of ED - that does not include fragfest type gaming in the Open World.
Last edited:
Thats like... just your opinion.
I see ED as wild west lawless anarchy where the strong survive and the weak...cry on the forums. Even Sandro suggested kindly thats its about damn time to git gud.
Not really - FD basically supports the anti-griefing and more general anti-harassment stance - 3.0 C&P changes at least partially address ganking concerns in law enforced space, and then there is DB-OBE's original statement(s) about PvP intended to be "rare and meaningful" in ED main environment.
Last edited:
Nothing personal, but only es and bullied in school/molested individuals attacks and kills helpless or ill prepared people.
PS:
In the Wild West, bandits were hanged for their crimes.
There is planetary size difference between saying something and actually doing it. All they can do - allow private group moderators to restrict access to their group for any reason they want. They dont even ban people who join Mobius for PvP-mayhem, all punishment is just Group Blacklist. I see here only some emotional support to PvE players, so they wont scream everytime on forums when something bad happens. Dev feel your pain and support you with their heartsNot really - FD basically supports the anti-griefing and more general anti-harassment stance - 3.0 C&P changes at least partially address ganking concerns in law enforced space, and then there is DB-OBE's original statement(s) about PvP intended to be "rare and meaningful" in ED main environment.
When they actually start to ban people for PvP, griefing, ganking, station blockade, then people can call it "Support". But then they'll have to deal with those people on forums, like we have right now with PvEers. ATM i dont know anyone who was banned for it, at least i cant find any threads on this forum. Only reason they have full rights to banhammer someone - if player is complete inadequate, who talk some rubbish in global chat. No way they will punish people for using in-game mechanics they created. They dont do anything with people who use "re-logs" to farm billions, so why they would punish gankers or griefers?
Yeah. Father kicked us really hard 40 years ago, so now we kill helpless people in video-game. And you said right. WILD. WEST. Go find us and hang :]
Last edited:
It's really two different questions, isn't?
1. Why don't more players actively seek out and participate in PvP?
2. Why do so many of those that don't actively participate, dislike to be attacked by other players?
In reality the disharmony in both cases have their roots in the design philosophy, where every player is allowed to be a special nugget space hero(not everyone wants to be one, but everyone can).
If the game had a more survivalist approach where the range of NPC were much greater, hostile player encounters would not feel like a different game.
The focus on massacre type game play in most combat scenarios, requires the game to be balanced in favor of the player. By giving players these abilities, FD creates a master race in the game.
Members of the master race grow accustomed to their privileges and their relative comfort. If we get attacked by other nuggets with equal or greater abilities, it feels like a different game.
The unfamiliar is uncomfortable.
The fact that PvP feels like a different game is probably also a major factor in why most active PvPers focus only on that. They play a different game.
It's rare to hear stories of players that transit seamlessly between PvE content and PvP. Isinona's videos are rare examples, but even they seem to drift more and more away from PvP.
The extreme nature of player builds, makes natural 'non meta' PvP less and less viable. Even for one of the games most skillful.
1. Why don't more players actively seek out and participate in PvP?
2. Why do so many of those that don't actively participate, dislike to be attacked by other players?
In reality the disharmony in both cases have their roots in the design philosophy, where every player is allowed to be a special nugget space hero(not everyone wants to be one, but everyone can).
If the game had a more survivalist approach where the range of NPC were much greater, hostile player encounters would not feel like a different game.
The focus on massacre type game play in most combat scenarios, requires the game to be balanced in favor of the player. By giving players these abilities, FD creates a master race in the game.
Members of the master race grow accustomed to their privileges and their relative comfort. If we get attacked by other nuggets with equal or greater abilities, it feels like a different game.
The unfamiliar is uncomfortable.
The fact that PvP feels like a different game is probably also a major factor in why most active PvPers focus only on that. They play a different game.
It's rare to hear stories of players that transit seamlessly between PvE content and PvP. Isinona's videos are rare examples, but even they seem to drift more and more away from PvP.
The extreme nature of player builds, makes natural 'non meta' PvP less and less viable. Even for one of the games most skillful.
One of possible problems - unbelieveable gap between players and AI-pilots. If you compare difficulty level with gaming standarts, it is below "Normal" level of difficulty. Sometimes i think it is below "easy". I am playing with my neighbour right now, he's diehard fan of flying simulators, it's only genre he play actually, we both started to play IL-2 shturmovik years ago, but he dont like to fight with other pilots, he prefer AI, because he like "combat feeling", not something competitive versus others pilots. In Elite we both play PvP when we have time, because NPCs just wont provide any resistance. It will be real surprise if NPC use silent running few times per fight. I am not talking about any FA Off stuff or meaningfull using of modules. If you're lucky enough, you can fly on sidewinder and destroy NPC-Anacondas if you're lucky enough and have patience to waste hour of pew-pew-pew.
Thats why PvP feels like another world for some people. They fight versus NPC here, and then they meet another commander, who actually fight back, use silent running and FA off for maneuvers, that dont fly straightforward like magnet for torpedos and rails. Because NPC have zero AI usually. Only way they can destroy you - when you attack some oversized wing. But even here you can go through if you have engineered ship.
Not really - FD basically supports the anti-griefing and more general anti-harassment stance - 3.0 C&P changes at least partially address ganking concerns in law enforced space, and then there is DB-OBE's original statement(s) about PvP intended to be "rare and meaningful" in ED main environment.
No, 3.0 C&P partially address seal clubbing not ganking because ganking is not an issue but a legitimate PvP activity.
Regarding what DB said and knowing that a minority of players are involved in PvP activities (despite representing, by multiplayer design, the majority of players) it seems to be "rare" (as intended). Is it meaningful though ???
Last edited:
LOL - luckily by reputation and avatar taking this seriously wasn't a risk.
No.
The people taking part in it proactively typically have tonnes of rebuys - it's just a shoot'em'up.
- Status