Modes PvE stealing from PvP? I can't see that!

[BarFly]

Hello,

i often read about inbalance because of PvE (Group or Solo playing) has to much influence into PvP (Open mode). Lately in the PvE<-->PvP Rift thread.
I don't see anything that Group or Solo takes away from PvP. How are the pure Open players affected?
Maybe i oversee something, but can somebody tell me in which way is playing in Solo or Group is unbalancing the game for the people which play in Open?
Ok, i know grinding up and coming rich into the Open play*, but what else?


* There are so many stories about that kind of people and how they loose their precious Cutters/Anacondas/Corvettes

 

[jonluv]

It is’t how can it?

Should read” it isn’t —- how can it?”

 

[Bigmaec]

You can manipulate the background simulation in safety in solo/pg without anybody being able to stop you doing that.

There's a whole subforum for the BGS https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php/240-The-BGS

Powerplay the same.

 

[BarFly]

Hello,

You can manipulate the background simulation in safety in solo/pg without anybody being able to stop you doing that.
There's a whole subforum for the BGS https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php/240-The-BGS
Powerplay the same.

You can? I know this.
But what is the (negative) effect for the player in Open? That's what i'm asking for, a lot of people keep on telling that about the BGS...
Is the Open player getting less money, does he have lesser materials/data, does he have fewer missions, harder PvE opponents etc.?

 

[Jane Turner]

You can manipulate the background simulation in safety in solo/pg without anybody being able to stop you doing that.

There's a whole subforum for the BGS https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php/240-The-BGS

Powerplay the same.

I think the BGS argument is a massive red herring. There is more of a case to argue for Power Play, but even there the effects of PvP are pretty trivial.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Hello,

i often read about inbalance because of PvE (Group or Solo playing) has to much influence into PvP (Open mode). Lately in the PvE<-->PvP Rift thread.
I don't see anything that Group or Solo takes away from PvP. How are the pure Open players affected?
Maybe i oversee something, but can somebody tell me in which way is playing in Solo or Group is unbalancing the game for the people which play in Open?
Ok, i know grinding up and coming rich into the Open play*, but what else?


* There are so many stories about that kind of people and how they loose their precious Cutters/Anacondas/Corvettes

Fatal Flaw in Thinking: Open mode <> PvP

I see this so often. Open mode is not PvP Exclusive. Yes, most PvP DOES happen in Open mode, but it can happen in Private Groups as well. Only Solo is exclusively PvE, because you can't PvP yourself.

What you mostly hear about are people in Other Than Open mode doing things like completely circumventing some little gang's blockade of a station by playing in some other mode where they cannot see or interact with each other, making the blockade completely worthless, as those in Other That Open modes can go about their business, carrying out missions and delivering Power Play items to change the influence of factions.

Imagine, you are the leader of the Brotherhood of Men faction, headquartered in OICU812, where the NPC-controlled representation of your faction reigns supreme. Your rivals, the Sisterhood of Women decide they cannot abide you there any longer, and begin working for another faction in "your" system, lowering your faction's standings. Of course, you work to maintain them, fire on any ship of the Sisterhood you see - except you nearly never see any, because you play in Open and they play in a Private Group.

This is what 99.98% of the fuss is about.

Frankly, it's just plain stupid - there are more star systems than people, so squabbling over space in space.. well...

 

[Jockey79]

..I don't see anything that Group or Solo takes away from PvP. How are the pure Open players affected?....

Less people to shoot at or have shooting at you.
Fewer social interactions.
Less of an MMO feel.

Unless you are at CGs or some hot spots, the universe in Open is quite empty.
More people in Open, the better the chances of seeing others out and about away form hot spot areas.

 

[Mouse]

Fatal Flaw in Thinking: Open mode <> PvP

I see this so often. Open mode is not PvP Exclusive. Yes, most PvP DOES happen in Open mode, but it can happen in Private Groups as well. Only Solo is exclusively PvE, because you can't PvP yourself.

What you mostly hear about are people in Other Than Open mode doing things like completely circumventing some little gang's blockade of a station by playing in some other mode where they cannot see or interact with each other, making the blockade completely worthless, as those in Other That Open modes can go about their business, carrying out missions and delivering Power Play items to change the influence of factions.

Imagine, you are the leader of the Brotherhood of Men faction, headquartered in OICU812, where the NPC-controlled representation of your faction reigns supreme. Your rivals, the Sisterhood of Women decide they cannot abide you there any longer, and begin working for another faction in "your" system, lowering your faction's standings. Of course, you work to maintain them, fire on any ship of the Sisterhood you see - except you nearly never see any, because you play in Open and they play in a Private Group.

This is what 99.98% of the fuss is about.

Frankly, it's just plain stupid - there are more star systems than people, so squabbling over space in space.. well...

https://media3.giphy.com/media/3o752egnDdZSuNbUBO/giphy.gif

Funny thing is, is that if the Brotherhood wants to resist they can still do that. They can defend effectively in Open, but they refuse to ploay the game and instead demand any action be PVP oriented and then complain when they loose the system.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You can manipulate the background simulation in safety in solo/pg without anybody being able to stop you doing that.

Its all a red herring anyway.

If we assume equal sides (because if sides are not equal then the bigger and more experienced team will win regardless of modes), if you plan on trying to stop somone with PvP then you have to be watiching for them, which means you are not doing BGS work, you are sitting in SC patroling, watching for those hollow targets.

If you do kill the target, ok, you slow them down, but meh, its a bit of time and credits (and credits are easy these days). They can have another go. If they are facing frequent rebuys, they can fly small fast ships. Run courier missions or similar, stuff that doesn't require a big ship.

Get through just once, you are already ahead in BGS terms of the guy trying to stop you with PvP.

PvPer then takes time out to run missions, they are no longer patrolling and can't stop you. It becomes pure PvE again.

If the PvPer is patrolling their own system, and they are not an anarchy, let them kill you. The more they kill you, the more they push their own faction into lockdown. Run courier missions in in a small fast ship. If they kill you, you win, if they don't, you win.

It would be great to do an experiment to show this, with two equal groups in terms of time/resources/etc battling for a system, one pure PvE, one PvP oriented, both working in Open. Unfortunately it would require too much trust on part of both group to ensure everyone was playing fair (eg: not calling in friends to work the BGS).

If your group is actually more capable of winning with PvP as part of your activities, your group can win the BGS war anyway without the PvP. If you are losing a BGS war, its not the fault of modes, its the fault of your group - either not enough players, not enough time put in, or not enough knowledge of the BGS.

 

[Iskariot]

PvE stealing from PvP? I can't see that!

i often read about inbalance because of PvE (Group or Solo playing) has to much influence into PvP (Open mode). Lately in the PvE<-->PvP Rift thread.
I don't see anything that Group or Solo takes away from PvP. How are the pure Open players affected?
Maybe i oversee something, but can somebody tell me in which way is playing in Solo or Group is unbalancing the game for the people which play in Open?
Ok, i know grinding up and coming rich into the Open play*, but what else?
* There are so many stories about that kind of people and how they loose their precious Cutters/Anacondas/Corvettes

Of course the modes influence each other, but in general it is multiplayer/pvp that is negatively influencing the development of the game in general.
If this was a SP game we could have easily had npc crew, winging up with npc, escort mechanics and missions, and the whole balancing thing would be a non issue, and adding a personal story campaign would have been a no brainer. And that is just for starters...

PvP/multiplayer is definitely holding this Elite game back.

PvE should be prioritized because everybody, including those in Open, do PvE most of the time. PvE actions in the game dwarf PvP actions.
PvE mechanics are important to everybody, while PvP/multiplayer mechanics are only important to a minor part of the community.


Having said that, I accept the fact that many people like PVP/multiplayer stuff and I am not saying that adding PvP/multiplayer to Elite was the wrong thing to do.
If it was up to me I would definitely not have done that, but it is not up to me.

 

[KillaALF]

Of course the modes influence each other, but in general it is multiplayer/pvp that is negatively influencing the development of the game in general.
If this was a SP game we could have easily had npc crew, winging up with npc, escort mechanics and missions, and the whole balancing thing would be a non issue, and adding a personal story campaign would have been a no brainer. And that is just for starters...

PvP/multiplayer is definitely holding this Elite game back.

PvE should be prioritized because everybody, including those in Open, do PvE most of the time. PvE actions in the game dwarf PvP actions.
PvE mechanics are important to everybody, while PvP/multiplayer mechanics are only important to a part of the community.


Having said that I accept the fact that many people like PVP/multiplayer stuff and I am not saying that adding PvP/multiplayer to Elite was the wrong thing to do.
If it was up to me I would definitely not have done that, but it is not up to me.

Amen to that!

 

[Sylveria]

Catering to PvP has always not only held this game back, it's been wasting valuable resources that could have truly accelerated this game "Beyond" any other.

FD has spent much of their valuable time and finances trying to cater to those who will never be satisfied- it's a shame.

Removing the PvP variables and options and implementing cooperative game play is the only true solution.

Call Of Duty in Space is a temporary solution... and PvE players are much less "fickle" than PvP players who constantly want the Mambo bar to be raised ever higher.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Call Of Duty in Space is a temporary solution... and PvE players are much less "fickle" than PvP players who constantly want the Mambo bar to be raised ever higher.

I think you are overgeneralizing there, but in principle i agree. Seen it time and again with PvP games. Game A is the current big thing, then game B comes out and becomes the new big thing. Very few reatain relevance for more than a few years. TF2 did well, but as i understand that's been on the decline for a good while, and its only because its F2P that it probably remains relevant.

 

[Sylveria]

I think you are overgeneralizing there, but in principle i agree. Seen it time and again with PvP games. Game A is the current big thing, then game B comes out and becomes the new big thing. Very few reatain relevance for more than a few years. TF2 did well, but as i understand that's been on the decline for a good while, and its only because its F2P that it probably remains relevant.

Overgeneralization, yes- for emphasis. Indeed, for PvP players it's always about other people... so when others go elsewhere, they follow. For PvE players, it's about the game environment itself- so becoming entrenched in the game is much more likely. (almost too obvious to point this out, but it's a fact that most overlook in the whole PvE vs PvP debate) PvE players in general also tend to be much less "demanding", because there's very little to be competitive about.

The real question is: Why should FD constantly try and hit a moving target when they can aim for a stationary one that will yield an amount they can rely on?

Hell, even EVE has gone F2P because CCP realizes it's a limited scope.

And, F2P games are only the "thing" right now because "it's all been done before"... very few games out there can introduce original ideas or environments. So most will be destined for the F2P pile eventually as players move from game to game.

I give FD props for trying to sate the appetites of some, but surely they realize by now that it's a truly limited path and there's really not much residual income to be had. Their best bet at this point is to stop trying to hit the moving target.

 

[Warm Considering]

Hello,

i often read about inbalance because of PvE (Group or Solo playing) has to much influence into PvP (Open mode). Lately in the PvE<-->PvP Rift thread.
I don't see anything that Group or Solo takes away from PvP. How are the pure Open players affected?
Maybe i oversee something, but can somebody tell me in which way is playing in Solo or Group is unbalancing the game for the people which play in Open?
Ok, i know grinding up and coming rich into the Open play*, but what else?


* There are so many stories about that kind of people and how they loose their precious Cutters/Anacondas/Corvettes

Important distinction: Open is not PvP mode. Open is merely a game mode where you may interact with other players on a peer to peer basis. Open is no guarantee you will run into any specific player, or that you will need to deal with PvP. PvP is an activity that usually takes place in Open. It is a choice, not a necessity.

When it comes to the BGS and PowerPlay, Open is just another mode. All players, in all modes, are interacting with the same background simulation. There are players who resent this because they feel very strongly that they should be able to forcibly interfere with another player's activities on the BGS. Solo undermining, they call it. It's pejorative, and a little narrow minded if you ask me, because the best way to counter a player's influence on the BGS isn't to blow them up, but to act on the BGS against them directly. In other words, sure, there is such a thing as "Solo undermining," but there is also "Solo fortification." If you, throughout the course of your engagement with the BGS and PowerPlay, find yourself on the losing side of a fight for influence over a system, do not assume that it is you against an army of Solo players, because it's not. You are never alone when it comes to the BGS. There are Solo players working with you as well. It takes more effort to coordinate with them, but they are there, fighting on your side.

Solo is not a mode available to certain people. It's available to everyone.

 

[Jockey79]

Hell, even EVE has gone F2P because CCP realizes it's a limited scope.

And, F2P games are only the "thing" right now because "it's all been done before"... very few games out there can introduce original ideas or environments. So most will be destined for the F2P pile eventually as players move from game to game.

I give FD props for trying to sate the appetites of some, but surely they realize by now that it's a truly limited path and there's really not much residual income to be had. Their best bet at this point is to stop trying to hit the moving target.

WoW does up to level 20 free now and is removing its PvP servers for a Opt in / PvP flag system.

So when one of the greats has had to bow down and add free play and limited PvP - what does that say about the direction of gaming.

 

[Eidolon]

I don't think PvE is stealing anything from PvP.
Quite the opposite. I have long held the belief that Elite should be a solo or co-op only game. The Dev time and money wasted on endless balancing and multiplayer MMO style features is frankly criminal.
When I joined the forum in premium beta we were expecting the CoD crowd. They arrived and tried immediately to rid us of the mode system and commenced to whinge about every little aspect of the game that didn't seem to offer more of what they were used to in other titles.
There is only one way forward for the devs now I feel, truly.
The removal of the PvP aspects of the game.

Then Elite Dangerous could still be the game we always wanted.

 

[BarFly]

Hello,

I don't think PvE is stealing anything from PvP.
Quite the opposite. I have long held the belief that Elite should be a solo or co-op only game. The Dev time and money wasted on endless balancing and multiplayer MMO style features is frankly criminal.

I have no problem with the Open mode and it is ok, that Elite is also the home of PvP including the effort of balancing etc..
Many of them will leave anyways, as soon as SC comes - i do think Elite will last that 5 years till then.

When I joined the forum in premium beta we were expecting the CoD crowd. They arrived and tried immediately to rid us of the mode system and commenced to whinge about every little aspect of the game that didn't seem to offer more of what they were used to in other titles.

In this case i like to mention 'Jumpgate' which also had that problem of the PvP and Ganking and Griefing and telling me: ' without me, your game would be boring etc.'.
NetDevil listened to them, trading and producing stuff became meaningless, the traders and miners left the game (it is no fun to get shot down quite often), the game lost the majority of its players base and the game died.

T

here is only one way forward for the devs now I feel, truly.
The removal of the PvP aspects of the game.

I don't think so. The C & P system is not really good, but it is a start.
The Galaxy is really big, there is room enough for a lot of play styles. And with the upcoming threat, there will be no more fooling around. Even the PvP fraction will be involved into the fight for the humans. Thats what i think is the goal of FD.

Then Elite Dangerous could still be the game we always wanted.

I have to correct:
Not we - you
Even if we are not far apart!
In my humble opinion, it is close to the game i always wanted

 

[Faded Glory]

I don't think so. The C & P system is not really good, but it is a start.

The C&P system is pretty indicative of how multiplayer is having a less than positive effect on the game.

FD don't want to make killing other players against the rules, even if there's no reason for it other than role-play (the player is not wanted and not a pledged enemy), so they are trying to dissuade such actions by creating a complex, unnecessary and potentially punishing set of rules that is impacting areas of the game where it very much shouldn't.

Players don't (at least I don't) play computer games to be punished when they aren't breaking any in-game rules. Yes, we want consequences for actions in game, but they should be fun and challenging, not get in the way of actually playing the game.

(It's worth noting I think that in a previous version of the game, FE2, one could murder with relative impunity, one could photograph enemy bases and even destroy them with nuclear weapons, and not even get a fine. The fact that in ED if you happen to shoot a clean ship anywhere in the galaxy the crime is miraculously reported is I imagin down to the fact that players can shoot other players, and FD knew that they would. If we were just shooting NPC's why would anybody care? )

The Galaxy is really big, there is room enough for a lot of play styles.

Absolutely there's enough room for all play-styles. The argument that players in solo / pg have an unfair advantage over those in open is rubbish. As others have already said, if players are spending their time flying aimlessly around hoping to stop other players by shooting them, then they aren't supporting their own factions, and that's ignoring the inconvenient truth that the networking / instancing setup of the game simply doesn't support that confrontational player on player game-play. It can be had, but it's purely optional, and in itself is I suspect the least efficient way of affecting the BGS.

 

[Havvk]

Funny thing is, is that if the Brotherhood wants to resist they can still do that. They can defend effectively in Open, but they refuse to ploay the game and instead demand any action be PVP oriented and then complain when they loose the system.

This