Not proper to you, perhaps... and that's fine, you can disagree- it's your right to do so.
Meanwhile, the game is what it is.
Want to go play WoW? Go play WoW.
- Status
Not proper to you, perhaps... and that's fine, you can disagree- it's your right to do so.
Meanwhile, the game is what it is.
Want to go play WoW? Go play WoW.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Im simply stating this is how they defined it for a part of the game thats adversarial. The PVP players control the Zones they FIGHT for. The PVEers get to reap the benefits if the PVPers win that zone. Encouraging people to fight if and when needed.
Nothing more.
This is how Player factions and Powerplay should be handled here in Elite.
And yes, I will be playing tons of WoW. My hope is they take this example and apply it to Elite During Squadrons. Otherwise there is no reason for me to continue to play in a procedural generated toxic environment. Knowing the dmg they are causing to their player base.
As stated in the link I have provided Sandro discussed two years ago. Where they acknowledged simple risk and reward in each mode.
By the way its not proper or fair to anyone. No matter what side of the fence you play on.
Last edited:
Your "mistake" here is to assume that Elite is some sort of competition.. it's not.
The only aspect of Elite which is competitive (aside from CQC) is PvP combat.
What one commander is rewarded in terms of credits, ranks, etc should not concern you (or anyone) at all. This is true, even for community goals. A player in solo might end up earning more than you and have an easier time of it but really, why do you care? It's not as if you will ever meet that player in PvP where their superior rewards might affect the outcome, right? Further, and importantly, PvP requires more than just CR rewards (and rank is totally irrelevant), it requires pilot skill which can only be (l)earned in combat against other players.
So, sure, one player might earn their ship and materials and engineering and do it all in solo. If they try to PvP at this point they will simply get rekt (as the "kids" say). So, all that solo play is irrelevant to the only aspect of Elite which is competitive.
Add to this, that players started playing the game at varying times and their progress will be further ahead by virtue of this alone and it should now be clear that another players progress is simply not relevant to you.
"Play it your way", play Elite how you want to, chose the challenge level you want and remember that the journey is the point, not the goal.
To be fair, even if every player who owns elite was online in open at the same time you'd still only see people around community goal systems, The galaxy is just too big, and there are a fair number of explorers out in the black.
Last edited:
Christ, what drama. "Cry exploit".
Fine. Nevermind me. Perish the thought people disagree or note loopholes. We can't have that on a discussion forum.
And if you'd read the post you quoted, you'll read why I'm opposed to incentives. But I'll not spell it out. That would be negativity.
Last edited:
But there are no rewards for controlling systems in ED. Well, except for RP rewards, seeing your faction in control.
The PvPers could go crazy working the BGS and there would still be no real reward for the PvEers to reap.... although not sure why it makes sense in ED for the PvPers to do the BGS work, surely it would make more sense for the PvEers to do the work and the PvPers to reap the rewards... if such existed, freeing up the PvPers from the doing the PvE BGS work. (or Powerplay work for that matter). Unless there could be (as i've suggested before) a new PvP only territorial game for the PvPers to take part in.
Hell, even Powerplay really doesn't give any rewards for players outside the PP modules (half of which are pants) beyond the satisfaction of controlling areas. Yeah, there are some benefits, depending on what you are doing, but otherwise, either rewards tend to be personal and not shared for other members, so don't affect the bigger picture, or global within the faction's region of control, so everyone can benefit even those who are not pledged.
Perhaps this is an area that can be improved upon, more territorial rewards for those pledged.... although imagine if pledging was a requirement for rewards, Li Yong would overnight become the most popular power
Anyway, i ramble.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
But there are no rewards for controlling systems in ED. Well, except for RP rewards, seeing your faction in control.
The PvPers could go crazy working the BGS and there would still be no real reward for the PvEers to reap.... although not sure why it makes sense in ED for the PvPers to do the BGS work, surely it would make more sense for the PvEers to do the work and the PvPers to reap the rewards... if such existed, freeing up the PvPers from the doing the PvE BGS work. (or Powerplay work for that matter). Unless there could be (as i've suggested before) a new PvP only territorial game for the PvPers to take part in.
Hell, even Powerplay really doesn't give any rewards for players outside the PP modules (half of which are pants) beyond the satisfaction of controlling areas. Yeah, there are some benefits, depending on what you are doing, but otherwise, either rewards tend to be personal and not shared for other members, so don't affect the bigger picture, or global within the faction's region of control, so everyone can benefit even those who are not pledged.
Perhaps this is an area that can be improved upon, more territorial rewards for those pledged.... although imagine if pledging was a requirement for rewards, Li Yong would overnight become the most popular power
Anyway, i ramble.
I agree with all of this. And maybe thats why we havnt seen change in this regard? There is nothing to really fight for besides expansion into other systems and stations.
All Ive been saying this whole time. As games continue to grow like WoW as I mentioned. Core changes have always been adjusted and tweaked. Battle for Azeroth shows this.
Back to the first time I came to these forums voicing my opinion on change. It took less than 10 seconds for you to send me to the hotel california thread. I just found it really odd in the design of the game not to reward PVP activities in it.
And I understand why people look at what we have because everything is control by PVE related content.
But then I got involved with a player faction. And owned systems. Fdev works with player factions and PMF's like crazy. As a matter of fact we have that community goal thats currently active for ours to boot! So thats pretty dang awesome.
There is stuff to fight for. There is attack and defend scenarios.
All Ive been saying is there is the chance to change and reward PVP in our current systems. Like buffs and debuffs in the way Boom and bust works. But with PVP related activities when you flip a system.
Im looking at what we have now, and what we could have with the current parts of the game. I simply cant apply another layer because who knows how that would work with the current systems since everything would need to be adjusted and tweaked when it comes to BGS player owned systems.
So I look at what we have now, what could be added and taken away.
Showing the need for change with everyone in mind. Believe it or not, I really am on every-ones side here.
Back to the world of warcraft thing. I know we have specific members in our group that dont want anything to do with PVP. And we have had escorts and security during our CG. Those guys asked for the PVPers help so they felt safe in open. They didnt want to use the other modes.
Its nice to feel needed as a PVPer, instead of a side show. And I think, again going back to those WoW videos.
Being able to fight for everyone involved so the PVEers can enjoy the buff too. WOuld be awesome. ANd if we need backup and are losing. Maybe some of the PVEers would get involved in PVP just to support and win that area of control.
Team work is all im asking for here. For everyone involved.
Its doesnt have to be toxic. It can be fun.
And thats why I harp on this so much. Its not about "Oh you just want to grief". If this was the case, I wouldnt be here fighting for it like I do.
I could go grief in the game right now, because basicially. Thats all there is.
Thats not fair to me. And thats not fair to the poor dude getting wrecked for no reason. Thats why I only Defend my systems if possible. Or I only fight other PVPers.
Does this make sense? And is this not enough grounds in asking for some sort of change here?
Because to me the Salt is not worth it. Its not fun.
Define PVP, Is all im asking for with the current features of the game.
Last edited:
Ok, so, why not look for a solution that doesn't take away from one group to please another? I agree, games can change as they grow, but it doesn't have to be a zero sum game.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
There is no way to do this, WIthout some limitations.
My first example kind of meets in the middle. And thats addressing the risk and reward per mode, As well as acknowledging it as we all do.
We know Open is more dangerous.
So reward open by changing nothing.
Reduce the amount of influence able to be taken and done within the other modes by 75%. Since there is obviously less risk involved.
Personal gain, such as materials and credits would stay the same per mission. But the Influence and impacts done within each mode would change.
People still get to participate in this case. Nothing gets taken away and they still get be a part of their group. But with the understand with the modes chosen and the risk involved. Their impact wouldnt be the same as someone taking the higher risk against someone like me.
No one is being punished or taken anything away from them. Its just acknowledging risk and reward.
Last edited:
That's the only way forward in my, and I suspect FDev's book. Q4 has a lot of elements that can be used to create this. If I were a PvPer, I'd rather have a shiny new mechanic that was designed with my preferred game style in mind than botching up some dusty old mechanic with a hacksaw.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
I mean I agree with this too. Im just looking at what we have now. Dont get me wrong. But PMF's would still be involved somehow with squadrons and owned player systems.
Providing a blanket bonus to Open play makes the assumption that Open is always more risky. That is not correct.
Are there differences to networking in WoW and Elite?
Open is barren for me on XBL. Even at the current CG. I’ve camped there. Jumped in and out of there. Empty. Quite literally no risk.
I have an acceptable connection, according to XBL. Do I deserve bonus rewards?
Honest questions.
Are there differences to networking in WoW and Elite?
Open is barren for me on XBL. Even at the current CG. I’ve camped there. Jumped in and out of there. Empty. Quite literally no risk.
I have an acceptable connection, according to XBL. Do I deserve bonus rewards?
Honest questions.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
The same would apply. Across all consoles yes. Open rewarded on every console.
Again, PMFs/Powerplay recruit all the time no matter what platform. All can be coordinated just the same.
PC players cant see you, but the recruited people on each console could respectively. Bringing meaning to risk and reward / pvp for all involved.
The separation with consoles is trivial in this case.
And if you do have a bad connection. No one would be mad at you for taking the lesser risk. Rather than getting combat log status if you were engaged with another player in open.
Are all player groups proportionately represented across all platforms?
Are PvE and PvP players represented proportionately across all platforms?
The point of updates is that content is added. So you don't have to be limited at what we have now. This is the time to look at what we (you, PvPers, players in open) could have in the future, instead of looking at the past. Q4 is in development, FDev does read forums. If you can get traction on a feature you would like to see added come up with creative ideas.
Suggestions were already made, but since I'm not a PvP player, I can't flesh those out with details. It's up to those who know what they want and have experience to do this.
I feel it's not impossible to keep the current system, with a layer added on which is geared towards PvP. Civilian influence coupled with Military influence for instance. Mega ships factoring in. Have different types of mega ships, if you can park a combat mega ship (which is visible to all) in a contested system, it might raise military influence. Get enough of that, and you might override civilian influence. But on the other hand, if a system is under military control, rising opposing civilian influence can spark rebellions that lessen military influence.
I'm just spitballing, and this is all from the top of my head without much thought invested in it. There's also Riverside's suggestion thread. There are many ways to give PvP meaning without detracting from what the game has now.
edit: Agony is way ahead of me
Last edited:
Moderate NAT, no firewall.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
That would be up to you and your factions recruitment now wouldnt it?
Why don;t they recruit players using all of the modes? That would be the most logical approach, considering the game's actual mechanics. The separation of the modes is certainly just as trivial as across platforms. Your choice to exclude Solo/PG is just a prejudice you attempt to cover over with concerns of 'fairness'. Fairness is provided by ensuring equal access to all mechanics for all Commanders.
Your choice to act in a given way, has no influence on how other's choose to play. You have all the tools necessary at your finger tips, not using them is your choice, and yours alone.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
The point of updates is that content is added. So you don't have to be limited at what we have now. This is the time to look at what we (you, PvPers, players in open) could have in the future, instead of looking at the past. Q4 is in development, FDev does read forums. If you can get traction on a feature you would like to see added come up with creative ideas.
Suggestions were already made, but since I'm not a PvP player, I can't flesh those out with details. It's up to those who know what they want and have experience to do this.
I feel it's not impossible to keep the current system, with a layer added on which is geared towards PvP. Civilian influence coupled with Military influence for instance. Mega ships factoring in. Have different types of mega ships, if you can park a combat mega ship (which is visible to all) in a contested system, it might raise military influence. Get enough of that, and you might override civilian influence. But on the other hand, if a system is under military control, rising opposing civilian influence can spark rebellions that lessen military influence.
I'm just spitballing, and this is all from the top of my head without much thought invested in it. There's also Riverside's suggestion thread. There are many ways to give PvP meaning without detracting from what the game has now.
edit: Agony is way ahead of me
As long as they give me the chance to defend our player factions BGS Systems Via PVP. And the players that are in other modes are operating at a lesser reward for the lesser risk. Im totally fine any additions they add to the game.
Otherwise they can add anything they want.
People shouldnt be able to flip a system without me being able to defend against it VIA PVP. And if they are still able to and they dont want to remove content from someone else. Then the reward factor for the lesser risk should be smaller in %'s.
And anything an open player does is rewarded.
Sometimes you may never see anyone else at all. But the fact remains, you still have the chance to be stopped. Simple attack and defend stuff via PVP.
How they do it is "Beyond" Me. Pun intended.
Will you stop already. None of this makes sense with the risks and rewards here. Its already been established by Sandro there is higher risk in open compared to others and in this case not equal.
Go to Agony's thread and add your ideas
Not sure I follow. I’m trying to ask if all player groups are proportionately represented across all platforms. I.e. Is the paladin’s consortium equally represented across all three platforms?
- Status