Modes A territorial game for PvPers?

[Agony_Aunt]

One thing keeps coming up is how there is no real PvP territorial game.

The BGS isn't it. PvP has barely any impact on the BGS, and usually only a negative impact.

Powerplay isn't really it either. While PvP has a part to play, its by and large a minority part.

Some people try and present solutions though that take things away from players that they currently enjoy, rather than looking for solutions that will give them what they want without impacting on others.

A long time ago I wrote a long post about how PP should be tied to the BGS, making it a single system, but that was never going to happen anyway once it was released. Perhaps others also hoped that they would have been a single system.

So what it means is we already have two largely disconnected territorial games, with admittedly some crossover.

With that in mind, would it then really hurt to add another territorial game which is only weakly linked with the others, but this one focused on PvP?

To be honest, i'm kind of fed up with FD making changes to deal with or please the PvPers. Attemps have had mixed results and mixed reactions, and ultimately, for the best possible PvP experience in ED, the whole game would need to be rebuilt from the ground up, with a strong focus on PvP. Too late for that really, and also not what people were sold.

Still, let's assume FD have the time and resources to do this sort of thing without too much impact on doing other things for the majority of the playerbase.

So, a week or two ago in a post i mooted the possibility of some sort of PvP territorial game, where PvE has zero effect. Let's call it Clash of Clans... erm... ok, could be some trademark dispute there, but let's roll with it. In CoC you can only affect your Clan's territory through PvP actions. You mark a system as being home for your clan, others do the same. By killing opposing clan members, you grow your territory or shrink theirs (depending on in which territory the kill is made - maybe partial effects on both). Of course, there would need to be some sort of system of rewards and whatnot as well for winning and controlling systems, maybe someone can think of something appropriate. Maybe ranks in Fed/Empire could be an option for Clans aligned to those.

Those who are looking for a meaningful PvP experience then could gain something, without making changes that would negatively affect the PvEers working the BGS or PP.

 

[Raino]

Some people try and present solutions though that take things away from players that they currently enjoy, rather than looking for solutions that will give them what they want without impacting on others.

as usual, the easier way

but ok, and yes something like hmmm

one more SuperPower? - group of single "clans"?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

as usual, the easier way

but ok, and yes something like hmmm

one more SuperPower? - group of single "clans"?

Where would that superpower go though? Would be hard to place one without overlaying them on existing systems people claim, unless it was a new bubble or something.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I still like my idea of splitting influence into civilian and military influence and using mega ships to increase military influence by show of force. If military influence exceeds civilian influence, it's under martial law, and the one with the highest military influence gets control. If the civilian influence is larger than military influence, the military doesn't have the presence to control a system and the one with the highest civilian influence gets control.

That way, every one in every mode interacts with each other, but their playing styles aren't limited. Also the often heard complaint you cannot defend your system against actions you can't see stops being an issue if you maintain a large military presence.

 

[Lestenio]

I don't mind the idea of FD adding more PvP specific content. But... Content that appeals to a specific audience should be paid for.

2 seasons in and I am disappointed with the various updates that came as part of a season I paid for but have no use for.

 

[Mouse]

I still think that you could have combat zones that are PVP zones and can influence..

 

[Roybe]

My thinking on the territorial PVP/bubble idea is the necessity for some part of the BGS be used by PVP for system tracking. Without some kind of BGS connection, the option would be no better than CQC...a great idea for equilibrated PVP...but not something that PVP players embraced.

First, the devs did attach PP to the BGS...but it really broke the BGS. Player activities towards the BGS were overwhelmed by the PowerPlay crowds...and all that occurred was the thrashing of factions (player and NPC) through positions. Quite frustrating!

With that in mind, yes, there can be overlays of the BGS...but it appears they are problematic.

Second, all these 'galactic movement' engines, are always 'global' to the galaxy...so having a simulation be non-global is an interesting issue.

I can see it being done...and this would be a request that is doable under the FDev 'vision' of the game.

Once an area has been fenced off (using the current permit system), Fdev creates some kind of new station type that identifies these systems to receive only PVP missions from the mission system. These new missions reward only PVP, that can be accepted in any 'mode'...but only succeed when the necessary number of commanders are killed. This would allow players to either play in Private Groups or Open. Obviously, solo players would have to meet up with friends...or go into Open.

Of course, the main issue with this would be the system is cheatable...i.e. a group could in any mode, just shoot each other to game the system.

To prevent this, is probably difficult. If the kills required another group to be attacked to receive credit for the mission...groups can work to together to game the system...and this would remove the idea of 'lone wolf' players trying to be spoilers/antagonists....there is an argument for groups to work together in Private...killing each other to shift balance in their areas...fifth columning, if you will, so maybe not that strong of a problem?


This system would be very different from what most PVP players have seen in other games (no King of the Hill, Red Rover, etc.) ...it still would be an influence based game...as everything in the game is designed for that style of gameplay...but the 'grind' becomes against other PVP players, rather than NPC's.

All of this does not change the ability of anyone to play as they want with the rest of the community...but it might give the PVP players something that would be closer to the experience they desire.

Suggestion for placement, would be 'core-ward', making for closer jumps, for fighters with lower range?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I still like my idea of splitting influence into civilian and military influence and using mega ships to increase military influence by show of force. If military influence exceeds civilian influence, it's under martial law, and the one with the highest military influence gets control. If the civilian influence is larger than military influence, the military doesn't have the presence to control a system and the one with the highest civilian influence gets control.

That way, every one in every mode interacts with each other, but their playing styles aren't limited. Also the often heard complaint you cannot defend your system against actions you can't see stops being an issue if you maintain a large military presence.

Interesting idea.

 

[lokvette]

I dont pvp in this game but have done so for many years in others, but why oh why isnt/wasnt powerplay made for pvp, as in if you want thsi sector your going to have to fight for it. Its one of those things that should off could off in ED, it looks and when you first get into it it feels great and then you think hang on I can do all of this in solo and not see a sole let alone worry about anything happening. Hands up I dont know that much about it as I diddnt do it for long but as said you look at it on the map and think ohh then when you get into it its meh.

In ED im a pve player dont think ill ever pvp, ED isnt that sort of game for me, but thisi is the one and only time Id advocate for somthing to be open only.

 

[Raino]

Where would that superpower go though? Would be hard to place one without overlaying them on existing systems people claim, unless it was a new bubble or something.

mostly just around the bubble? some single systems inside?

 

[Sylveria]

PP is what the "territorial game for PvPers" really should have been, however- it's not likely to drastically change in the way that some want it to.

That said, I'd be totally for a separate solution introduced that would give those who have the hankering for "power and control" to actually implement it.

TBH at this point I'm really thinking FD would be better served in the long run by letting those who bought the game with the wrong expectations just leave and be done with it. There's a time where once you've tried to satisfy a customer you have to realize they may never be satisfied. FD has spent much time and money trying to develop alternatives and gotten nothing but vitriol in return for their efforts, so perhaps they need to focus on the more successful elements of this game and stop trying to satisfy a minority few.

I've often tried to concede with some suggestions for improving Open play for some who want "more" out of the game, only to realize that most of them just have an "all or nothing" (zero-sum) approach to changes, which personally turns me completely off to the idea of compromise. It seems they don't understand that the game was made for many different sorts of people and game play styles, and FD isn't just going to re-code the entire game specifically tailored to their desires and needs.

The game stands on its own merits, as it has since release. If some people can't understand it won't ever be the game they expected and look elsewhere for what they desire, then that's on them completely. ED isn't "going" anywhere- naysayers have claimed that since before release unless these features were implemented it would be a total flop and FD is still selling copies many years later.

 

[Rhino Hammer]

PP is what the "territorial game for PvPers" really should have been, however- it's not likely to drastically change in the way that some want it to.

That said, I'd be totally for a separate solution introduced that would give those who have the hankering for "power and control" to actually implement it.

TBH at this point I'm really thinking FD would be better served in the long run by letting those who bought the game with the wrong expectations just leave and be done with it. There's a time where once you've tried to satisfy a customer you have to realize they may never be satisfied. FD has spent much time and money trying to develop alternatives and gotten nothing but vitriol in return for their efforts, so perhaps they need to focus on the more successful elements of this game and stop trying to satisfy a minority few.

I've often tried to concede with some suggestions for improving Open play for some who want "more" out of the game, only to realize that most of them just have an "all or nothing" (zero-sum) approach to changes, which personally turns me completely off to the idea of compromise. It seems they don't understand that the game was made for many different sorts of people and game play styles, and FD isn't just going to re-code the entire game specifically tailored to their desires and needs.

The game stands on its own merits, as it has since release. If some people can't understand it won't ever be the game they expected and look elsewhere for what they desire, then that's on them completely. ED isn't "going" anywhere- naysayers have claimed that since before release unless these features were implemented it would be a total flop and FD is still selling copies many years later.

There is no compromising for some people. Their mindset is to take from the “undeserving plebs” and give to those that “truly got gud”.

You have to remind yourself of the mentality. Recruiting to your faction across platforms to play in Open is viable and expected. Suggesting they recruit across modes for their faction for the same purpose is heresy!

There is a lot of passion in the Open only crowd, but not a lot of logic.

 

[StiTch]

So basically, what PP was meant to be before it got assaulted by the "how dare PvP be allowed content11!" crowd.

It is worth noting the subject of improvement should technically be for Open as opposed to PvP per se, because Open content is the gateway to meaningful PvP; there is already lots of opportunity for mindless pew-pew. But either way, people will hear any suggestion for an Open or PvP improvement and be triggered by it. That simple.

To be honest, i'm kind of fed up with FD making changes to deal with or please the PvPers.

And I am fed up with people thinking FD please PvPers at all. We give the only organised and objective feedback around balancing, but that has nothing to do with pleasing PvPers.

Other than that, name one piece of positive PvP content or concession FD have given us. The constant attention around PvP and murder is typically FD trying to placate the PvP witch hunters, and results in "productive" PvP outlets being strangled to death. Where are the PvP piracy improvements? Who is making PP more positive for PvP?

If I didn't know you better I would have seen this comment and written off the entire post as laughable trolling.

 

[Sylveria]

Other than that, name one piece of positive PvP content or concession FD have given us.

Non-consensual PvP in Open? The ability to engage any target at will?

I'd say that's a pretty HUGE concession.

 

[StiTch]

Non-consensual PvP in Open? The ability to engage any target at will?

I'd say that's a pretty HUGE concession.

No more a concession than saying that PvE is "allowed" to operate within Open. The opportunity to engage targets non consensually was always within the design scope, as was PvE. To boot, you have PG and Solo to go to if you don't like it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There is no compromising for some people. Their mindset is to take from the “undeserving plebs” and give to those that “truly got gud”.

You have to remind yourself of the mentality. Recruiting to your faction across platforms to play in Open is viable and expected. Suggesting they recruit across modes for their faction for the same purpose is heresy!

There is a lot of passion in the Open only crowd, but not a lot of logic.

The thing with that is, Open only vs Equal modes has been a discussion that has been going on for years. Arguing in those threads is about rehashing old arguments. Everyone is entrenched in their position for so long no one is willing to entertain new ideas. I feel this section of the forum is the wrong section to ask for creative ideas for meaningful PvP context. The PvP section houses quite a few creative PvPers who have not been infected by taking part in that discussion. Perhaps it would be better suited there.

 

[Sylveria]

No more a concession than saying that PvE is "allowed" to operate within Open. The opportunity to engage targets non consensually was always within the design scope, as was PvE. To boot, you have PG and Solo to go to if you don't like it.

Except, PvE isn't "allowed" to operate within Open- it's an essential part of the game that everyone must partake. Like it or not, the game is built upon PvE at its core.

If you question that as a principle, please tell me how you're supposed to participate in PvP only without ever engaging in PvE. With a free Sidewinder and stock modules?

Seriously- trying to twist the perception isn't going to help the argument. It's been tried before, many times... and we have "Hotel California" as a result.

 

[Sylveria]

As PvE implies combat...

Where does PvE imply combat? If you do passenger missions, it's PvE. If you mine, it's PvE... etc.

 

[Eidolon]

Hmm... No.
Elite just isn't a PvP game. Elite is a PvE single player or Coop game.
I think the devs time would be better spent concentrating on the majority of PvE players and their content instead.
Something I would likely use, instead of powerplay or CQC or some theoretical territory mode.

 

[Mouse]

And I am fed up with people thinking FD please PvPers at all. We give the only organised and objective feedback around balancing, but that has nothing to do with pleasing PvPers.

I am fed up with certain pvpers thinking that they are "god's gift to any game" and that only their feedback is organized and objective around balancing.