Imagine all that charisma being put to use to influence the culture of the community.
- Status
Tear's of greifers, the sweetest tears....
If there is no interest in improving PvP's influence on the game's mechanics, it surely points to just one thing; false concerns about the BGS, and PP used to simply mask the desire for plain old targets. It's not like this conclusion is anything like a surprise.
Most posters involved with this discussion had already strongly suspected so, but to read someone indicate as much, and so blatantly, just destroys the facade they have labored over all this time.
In conclusion we can deduce that the PvP/PvE Rift is simply over targets. PvP players resent that they cannot shoot at every player, so they throw up poop storms, thinly veiled as calls for 'fairness'. Mystery, and not a deep one, solved.
Thank you all for participating.
Most posters involved with this discussion had already strongly suspected so, but to read someone indicate as much, and so blatantly, just destroys the facade they have labored over all this time.
In conclusion we can deduce that the PvP/PvE Rift is simply over targets. PvP players resent that they cannot shoot at every player, so they throw up poop storms, thinly veiled as calls for 'fairness'. Mystery, and not a deep one, solved.
Thank you all for participating.
Last edited:
There is certainly a bit of reluctance to accommodate any kind of meaningful PvP gameplay from some, and this is a bridge that will eventually need to be crossed. However these players already have what they want, and all they need to do (when that bridge is eventually reached) is campaign for maintaining status quo.
Overcoming this objection is where the idea of adding a new layer of manipulation comes in; the PvE player cannot reasonably complain that something should not be added that will have no impact on their game, other than arguing the case of dog in a manger Dev time (why is this thing being given Dev time over my pet project?).
However, and this is the big point that comes out of all of these threads, the PvP crowd are unable to unilaterally agree on a proposal that will benefit them without making things worse for others. The PvPers are effectively so busy fighting amongst themselves that the PvE objection bridge has never been reached.
Until consensus is reached on a reasonable way to move forward from those who would actually use it there is no point in continuing the debate. It just goes around in circles endlessly, never moving beyond 'I want what they have', never reaching the point where a new feature can usefully be debated.
They are cutting off their nose to spite their face, then somehow thinking the rest of the community cares that they now have no nose
I already have the game I want, it also has a lot of other stuff in it that I don't use. It's okay, it's not for me. I'd be happy for there to be more stuff added that isn't for me, and will try to help where I can with that.But if nothing happens it's not me (or the PvE community at large) that is unhappy.
The biggest problem I see with a bucket for PVP, is a matter of scale. This game equates any player to single NPC. How many PC's would a PVP player have to kill to equate to an NPC? How many NPC's have to be killed by a PVE player?
Tie this to the idea that all buckets can be fought over using PVE for the filling mechanism, what would be the PVE antithesis to this (e.g. anyone can 'fight against' a given movement within the game doing PVE 'things', what PVE thing would there be for the opposition to do to affect the rising PVP influence bucket)
This single issue also brings to the fore, the longstanding buggaboo of PVP bonuses. Not just in Open...but in any mode that allows PVP. <shrug>
Many people accuse me of nit picking, because in any of these discussions, 'we don't care how it's done...we are not developers...we are just 'putting it out there'...my question always is, 'how do you think you can do this, without breaking the whole of the game...or removing parts of the game from someone'. Without that discussion, nothing will ever change.
Last edited:
Riverside;6625039[U said:
I think this is a breakdown in logic...the devs are under no pressure to provide 'someone else's' idea of 'meaningful gameplay'. I can see them not even noticing this bridge. Or, more probably, just ignoring it completely.
Currently, from the devs point of view it is quite meaningful to the community. People love it or hate it...with very few shades of feelings between the ends. Regardless of people's proclivites, PVP has provided some solid storytelling in the game. Although they have not been provided a connection the BGS, PVP players have certainly brought meaning to the community, through their dev supported 'illegal and atrocious' actions.
PVP, certainly provides content, motivation, and lore through what they do. Unfortunately, rather than building this type of gameplay through cooperative PVP play with other members/groups of the PVP community, they shoot random PVE people (again, wholly supported by the devs), and/or denigrate them in loss, and/or tell them they don't want them around and go to 'mobius'..... in a game that has a strong negative feedback loop for just such gameplay, which provides the pathway to rarity.
To me, the PVP players have a marketing issue...and should address this issue with better, more interesting PR and storytelling...understanding, this is ultimately all they have...which is exactly the same problem the PVE player groups have. In this game, the gameplay is not the driving factor, it's the story each group builds, and can convince other players to buy into. Think of this game in layers. At the core is the map, the Stellar Forge. On top of that are the gameplay dynamics...PP and the BGS. Once those are mastered...where does the player go? Working with others to build some kind of story. Look at a group like the Fuel Rats. They could be fully functional without their home system. They have built up a great story, and has garnered respect and protection from the vast majority of the community. Why is this not possible for PVP groups to do? Buckyball Races, conceivably, are PVP are they not? Code had their New Carribean.
<shrug> I see the problem differently...but in the end...if the PVP folks want a bucket...they need to be asking why, after 5 years of development, they haven't been given one yet.
Last edited:
There's always going to be 'some'. Some always object. You can't get anywhere without some. But there are also others. And they already cross that bridge. It's just that making a thread Got nothing against PvP, or PvE is alright, are non-issue threads, so that's far less visible.
I think the majority of players don't have issues with one side or the other.
Pvp bucket implementation sounds good. The only thing is that it has to be worthwhile to be involved in PvP and not worthwhile to jump to SOLO and grind from there.
Just change the proportions, PvP kill should equate to lets say 10 npcs or some other number. Players are tougher than any npc even top elite conda. The payment should be proportioned to the work done thats all.
Just change the proportions, PvP kill should equate to lets say 10 npcs or some other number. Players are tougher than any npc even top elite conda. The payment should be proportioned to the work done thats all.
Oh, look I got you thinking in the right direction too!
Miracles!Why can't solo players play there (keeping in mind the game currently doesn't care where anyone plays...because of design)? If the antithetical PVE response/bucket is correctly balanced...everyone should be able to fight against each other...the same way we have now. I personally think this is nearly impossible and the reason PVP doesn't have a bucket, if for no other reason than population factors.
Last edited:
Sole Hunter
Banned
Can't do that im afraid because I believe lots of the BGS is linked directly to PP, they'd have to separate the BGS from open to solo, not sure if that's feasible without major redesign or if that's something that they would remotely consider.
Which is why powerplay will always be a total failure from a design perspective and just a wasted opportunity.
lol!
Last edited:
Sole Hunter
Banned
Honestly, there's better ways to fix and give an incentive to do PVP.
For instance, you could start by fixing piracy by making it 1) lucrative 2) meaningful 3) player driven with objectives
that's just one example, trading is another good way to give both side a meaningful way to get rewards and have fun while doing PVP.
but i doubt frontier will ever fix piracy, they are slow at developing new ideas and not so great at implementing fun mechanics, so ain't holding my breath.
Last edited:
Funny you should say that because the only thing PvP is good for in this game is griefing. That part works very well and the easiest thing to do is kill weaker ships. There are defentely tears but not those of the griefers.
If FDEV wont introduce a proper outlet for pvp griefing will continue to be a favorite activity.
Or you have to adjust your idea that piracy has to be PVP oriented. I agree that piracy has been weak sauce...but talking with the people that pirate NPC's, there have been substantial increases in payouts.
Meaningful is in the eye of the beholder so let's set that to the side momentarily.
What do you mean by player driven objectives?
Last edited:
As I stated above, this is a marketing issue the PVP players have. Again, the Fuel Rats or Code, really didn't need a home system for what they did/do. Think about how you can use the game as it sits to come up with either PVP based storyline...or events (events are easier, but the storyline would base the events deeper into the game and actually add meaning to whatever event you can think up). Granted, you might not see 'new blood' to start with, but the process of building it, properly advertised will bring new folks in.
Last edited:
Perhaps I should clarify:
If the proposal impacts on the existing gameplay of non-PvPers it needs to have their support - there needs to be something in it for them if they are to have to change to accommodate a new thing.
If the proposal doesn't impact other players, only adding to the game in an optional way (like Power play) then there is going to be much less of a justifiable objection.
Ziggy, all views should be taken into account. Clearly in a case of incompatible views one will lose out. In this case, the PvPers lose out if no action is taken.
Piracy requires two interested players. One to be the pirate, and one to be the victim. That means someone interested in PvP being the victim. How do you expect a system like that to work, besides how we have it now? That of course means not forcing people into open, or PvP.
Explain how that would work? I have outlined a suggestion to incorporate PvP into the BGS, and deeper into PP. Tell us how piracy could be made more attractive for both sides of the equation? Without favoring open, or forcing PvP on players.
Just what could be done to encourage those interested in trading to engage in PvP? It's as I've been saying for years, we can only expect to game alongside those that enjoy the same environment.
I'm certainly not holding my breath for those with a PvP focus to accept that PvP is not for everyone, nor is it some kind of benchmark for E|D game play. Let's discuss how to better integrate consensual PvP into the game. Experience has shown that FD do respond to feasible ideas. Look at how FD have exempted PP-PvP from the C&P system. This could certainly be expanded upon.
Bonus in trading in OPEN. Bonus in trading in open and being in an anarchy system.
You are running a risk being pirated/murdered by another player in OPEN. Npcs are incompetent both at piracy and at murder so no risk to run into those issues in SOLO.
As it stands right now a trader has no benefit in flying in OPEN. It has only the extra risk without the extra rewards.
There is no choice but to make Open lucrative becsuse the extra risk running into other players.
Incentivizing open is a non-starter. The basic tenant being that all modes are equal. Offering more credits in open doesn't make PvP more enjoyable for the trader. It just potentially baits them into a situation they don't want to be in. How does that equate to fun, or even enjoyable game play for the trader? It's just the only solution you can come up with. To satisfy your need for more targets.
Realistically, we can only expect to make PvP more relevant, and enjoyable for those that like it. But, any attempt to coerce people into PvP will only breed resentment.
Last edited:
I've explored.
Traded.
Fought.
Became triple Elite. Blazed my trail.
In Solo/Group. Happens there too, FYI.
Last edited:
- Status