PvP The PvE <-> PvP Rift

[Bob Lighthouse]

Actually Truesilver myself and i beleive others have suggested the harder ones be opt in. So it hasent been ignored so much as discounted by (strangely) the most vocal PvPers here.

It should scale with rank, which as it stands now is meaningless.

The risk/reward debate is over risk not danger if it is eady to escape (debateable) ther is no extra risk. Still adding an extra bonus for being in open seems silly. It obviously is an attempt to lure more targets into open since the PvP bros are at no extra risk since they are already fit for PvP not trade.

Here is somerhung to think about. Even if such a bonus was put in and if the avility to exploit it werw removed (alrready stated how thats not possible at this point) The traders would soon leave since they would always get blown up and made fun of. And unless you get your kicks on killing the weak and new players it will do nothing to improve PvP.

If you want more olayers to try and remain in open yoy need to make it fun for them as well.

That's not particularly coherent or logical.

It can be easier or harder to escape independent of the risk incurred.
They are not mutually exclusive.

For example, the exact same mechanics are used in interdiction, yet the opponent is far more dangerous or weaker.
They could make interdiction impossible to escape, but the NPC be weak as paper.
They could make interdiction easier to escape, but make the NPCs be god like.

As one can clearly see, they are not related at all.

You are making all sorts of strange logical errors.

 

[Roybe]

Are the bucket fillers still patiently explaining to the skill based players players without buckets why the game can never satisfy them because of "reasons?" Oh, yep, I see that it's business as usual

This is what the discussion is really about....without buckets...all you have is a sideshow. Trying to ask for any change without a bucket? Does nothing to change the situation, the gameplay just remains a sideshow.

 

[Sole Hunter]

Zero risk, equal zero risk. Once something is easy, it's all the same.

Reward for actually engaging in PvP, rather than trying to give out prizes for the threat if extra risk.

NPC's don't increase in difficulty over night in this game, there's always room for extra challenge when you fight a real player because of unpredictability.

That's why open is always going to be extra risky, there's no debate here.

 

[Mohrgan]

I've been reading the entire thread, and you've been using that premise repeatedly.
Shall I get a quote?


And yes, I am trying to redirect to the OPs excellent premise, that is being overlooked in favor of a strawman.
I just pointed out that you are overlooking the more logical premise.
Your response its to double down?

The OP's basic premise is/was that the differences between PvP builds, and PvE builds should be reduced by making NPC builds like PvP builds. Supposing that if that difference was eliminated people wouldn't be 'afraid' of PvP, because they would have to be materially 'prepared' for PvP attacks because of the similarity in builds. I don't believe that would happen, or make the game better. I don't see how all players need to be measured by how PvP players do their thing. When did open, and PvP become the benchmark?

I propose that the 'gap' between PvEers, and PvPers derives from differing interests, not differing threat levels. Making all players succumb to the META combat builds would take away a lot of opportunity to engage in all of the content E|D offers. It would reduce the flexibility in outfitting we can opt for now, that allows players to spontaneously engage in many opportunities the game presents.

There have been a number of suggestions that META build NPC's be made available for those with META builds to engage with for a challenge and practice. That's a really good idea.

I and my side of this discussion, are not the only ones guilty of misdirecting this conversation. I have supported the idea of an optional level of NPC's, above the current Elite level, to give the Commanders out there with max g5 combat ships a PvE challenge. I have also suggested that engaging in PvP can be rewarded for the effort, without baiting players into one mode or another. I have not supported the notion that every Commander has to be beholding to the single focus builds that PvP produces.

 

[Sole Hunter]

The OP's basic premise is/was that the differences between PvP builds, and PvE builds should be reduced by making NPC builds like PvP builds. Supposing that if that difference was eliminated people wouldn't be 'afraid' of PvP, because they would have to be materially 'prepared' for PvP attacks because of the similarity in builds. I don't believe that would happen, or make the game better. I don't see how all players need to be measured by how PvP players do their thing. When did open, and PvP become the benchmark?

I propose that the 'gap' between PvEers, and PvPers derives from differing interests, not differing threat levels. Making all players succumb to the META combat builds would take away a lot of opportunity to engage in all of the content E|D offers. It would reduce the flexibility in outfitting we can opt for now, that allows players to spontaneously engage in many opportunities the game presents.

There have been a number of suggestions that META build NPC's be made available for those with META builds to engage with for a challenge and practice. That's a really good idea.

I and my side of this discussion, are not the only ones guilty of misdirecting this conversation. I have supported the idea of an optional level of NPC's, above the current Elite level, to give the Commanders out there with max g5 combat ships a PvE challenge. I have also suggested that engaging in PvP can be rewarded for the effort, without baiting players into one mode or another. I have not supported the notion that every Commander has to be beholding to the single focus builds that PvP produces.

OP premise is dumb, you don't get better by flying a PVP ship versus NPC's. You get better by fighting better players. If all you do is blow up sidewinders in Eravate, that's all you'll know as far as PVP goes.

 

[Mohrgan]

NPC's don't increase in difficulty over night, there's always room for extra challenge when you fight a real player.

That's why open is always going to be extra risky, there's no debate here.

Except you keep getting rebuttals. We are commonly reminded that the risk in open isn't a bad as people may say it is. I am often reminded that if you avoid certain locations open is just like a PG. I am perfectly fine, under the right conditions, that actual PvP earn a reward. I can't see rewarding people just to accept the threat of extra risk.

I openly admit that for the most part, I don't play any game for a challenge per se. I play a game for it's entertainment value, to me. That is part of the disconnect between some PvE players, and some PvP players. I'm all for you and any like you to seek a challenge. I'm all for the Dev's creating avenues for those desires. What I am not for is forcing players with differing goals, and outlooks to, measure themselves by players with different points of view.

I'm a play, and let play kind of gamer.

 

[Sylveria]

You seem to be making the mistake that people who do not PvP are only not engaging because they are afraid or unskilled. It seems to be an affliction of the Open Only crowd.

Competitive goading and posturing, nothing more.

Reminds me of Charlie Brown's teacher. (wah, wah, wah.... wah wah wah. Wah wah wah wah wah...)

 

[Roybe]

Competitive goading and posturing, nothing more.

Reminds me of Charlie Brown's teacher. (wah, wah, wah.... wah wah wah. Wah wah wah wah wah...)

'All in good fun'....'boys will be boys'....hmmm.

 

[Sylveria]

'All in good fun'....'boys will be boys'....hmmm.

Eh, not so much "fun", but definitely a statement of the obvious reason in comparing egos.

I find it all rather dull, personally- because laying e-peens out on the table really doesn't contribute to the meaning of the conversation itself.

It's usually what happens in a situation where people are losing a debate, after all... people start putting away the pens and drawing swords.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

On the regards that rank is currently meaningless I fully agree but to make rank actually have meaning it you would also have to be able to loose rank as well as gain it. Put some teeth into your actions.
Still the majority of players are fine with the current system so making them have to deal with the uber NPCs is likely not a good idea. Contrary to what seems to be the opinion of PvPbros there are people who would use the opt in system to git gudder which is what you lot are always trying to spread.

They wouldn't have to.

You seem to be making the mistake that people who do not PvP are only not engaging because they are afraid or unskilled. It seems to be an affliction of the Open Only crowd.

I have done nothing of the sort, in fact, I challenge you to quote me making ANY assertions about avoiding open for anyone.
I haven't done it.
Why are you bringing up the "open only crowd"?
Looks like you are engaging in "othering".

If you are saying a person should get a bounus just for clicking on Open you are mader than a hatter (no idea the etymology of that comes from). There are far too many ways to make open exactly as safe as solo, they have been pointed out in this thread and many many others.

Why are you intent on attributing various arguments to me, that I have not made?
Is it too difficult to address only the points I've made?

The only thing I see in these threads is the PvPers wanting more PvEers to shoot. Any time an idea is presented they always fall back to open bonus or remove PG/Solo. If they really want more people in open or more meaning to PvP that is a truly illogical way to go about it.

I suggest you go back and read the OP more thoroughly.

No the current tact is likely to widen the gap between PvP and PvE more than anything.

I like Truesilvers idea including the entirely optional part he put into it. This game is made for all different styles of player, and there is plenty of room for all.

Removing game play from one group to satisfy another is a bad choice. It would be like making PP and BGS only working in open but open not allowing any PvP all PvP would be restricted to PGs, I am sure that would go over well.

As far as logical errors, i see more in your arguments but I am a right brained redhead PegaSister so take it for what its worth

I don't think you are actually reading what is in front of you.

Since you frequently make mention of your schooling, I feel compelled to ask, is critical thinking a part of your curriculum?
It seems not, and that would be no shortcoming of your own of course.

Your "trivium" needs work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium

 

[Han_Zen]

Eh, not so much "fun", but definitely a statement of the obvious reason in comparing egos.

I find it all rather dull, personally- because laying e-peens out on the table really doesn't contribute to the meaning of the conversation itself.

It's usually what happens in a situation where people are losing a debate, after all... people start putting away the pens and drawing swords.

In this thread, it’s the debate that is losing.

OP wrote a good post. Some agree with him, some don’t.

Most are discussing something else.

 

[Sylveria]

Im sorry Sylveria I dont know what that means

It simply means the inferences of "scared, afraid, etc." are all taunts and goads in order to dilute the conversation, rather than engage in it.

Rather similar to childish playground taunting. And usually used because they know they lack understanding in how to engage in stimulating conversation.

 

[Maka Gucci]

Eh, not so much "fun", but definitely a statement of the obvious reason in comparing egos.

I find it all rather dull, personally- because laying e-peens out on the table really doesn't contribute to the meaning of the conversation itself.

It's usually what happens in a situation where people are losing a debate, after all... people start putting away the pens and drawing swords.

I would really take a good look in the mirror hun. I struggle to find the arguments amongst your jabs, yet your condescending disdain towards PvPers, is made endlessly apparent.
Shame.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I would really take a good look in the mirror hun. I struggle to find the arguments amongst your jabs, yet your condescending disdain towards PvPers, is made endlessly apparent.
Shame.

That was the strangest thing I found out about this place when I joined.
When you use Google search modifiers, you don't really see all the bizarre vitriol.
You only get that once you make an account!

 

[Mohrgan]

I would really take a good look in the mirror hun. I struggle to find the arguments amongst your jabs, yet your condescending disdain towards PvPers, is made endlessly apparent.
Shame.

I wish you would notice, and complain about, the 'condescending disdain' handed out by the bucketful by the PvP proponents.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

In this thread, it’s the debate that is losing.

OP wrote a good post. Some agree with him, some don’t.

Most are discussing something else.

One of the issues with OP's statement is game mechanics.

NPC's are dumb "minions" intentionally. They are supposed to be farmed. Make an NPC as strong as someone like me. You're gonna have a 15 minute fight in a 1v1 scenario. These NPC's no matter their ranking are meant to be farmed.

You cant make NPC's as strong as PVPers. You'd have to rework everything. And I mean everything, BGS #'s, Powerplay Merits, Mission generation for those 1000K+ massacre missions.

The players are the missing key on either side. Thats where its supposed to be meaningful. In Powerplay and Player-faction BGS.

And if they wont ever fix this problem we have. Then we need Player-faction and power-play ATR. That can Nuke some of these guys with META builds in Private and Solo where they use their advantage against open players. And that "ATR" NPC that is aligned with a player faction can also turn in the bounty to effect the BGS numbers as it happens.

But somethings gotta give in the way of balancing here.

This is the only game I've played where the balancing scale was tipped to one side. However, like most will claim. I dont think it was intentional.

I think it started out one way, and the game evolved in multiple directions. There have been other games that have done this too.

And they readjusted "core gameplay mechanics" which is what Beyond is. To fix the issue.

For Squadrons sake, for Elites sake. This issue has to be one of them.

Otherwise, squadrons is delivered dead in the water like power-play. And it will only be used I assume it comes with a GUI interface and chat like WoW does. Just like Powerplay is mostly used for modules by the larger portion of the community.

I dont want that, trust me they dont want 3/4's of their game not being used because of the MODE METAS.

So there lies my hope.

Sandro acknowledged the Risk and Reward factors years ago. And knows they exist.

Its time to pull the pin on that hand grenade and throw it into front door of the hotel california.

 

[jasonbarron]

I am not seeing this. If danger is easy to avoid/escape as we are constantly told how does that equate to more dangerous. If the danger is in getting blown up and its easy to escape/avoid how can it be more dangerous?
Its either that or its not easy to escape/avoid and is there for more dangerous. Is this dichotomy you are suggesting some kind of Zen thing?
What is being called out is you (again this is the general, dont want you (specific) thinking otherwise) can have it one way or another, unless of course you are trying to spin things for your particular agenda at the time. Hey people do it all the time.



Being overlooked or lost in the discussion? Either way since the majority of the player base is happy with NPCs current level forcing that type of change is a bad decision. FDev and M.o.M dialed up the difficulty back aways and even the Elite Players were complaining about it so a increase for all NPCs would need some serious work, making it opt in would be (imo) a much better idea.

The OP suggested that more people would play in open and PvP if the skill gap wasnt so big. That would only be true if all players wanted PvP the gap will always remain as it is a play style choice not just a skill/fear choice but that gets drowned out in these discussions as well.

When the NPC's were dialed back it was the "bucket fillers" who seek to squash this topic under the weight of obfuscation that were the ones who screamed so loudly that Fdev was forced to recant. The day that happened, my rose colored glasses concerning this community came off for good. The people you've been arguing with and shouting down are the ones who begged for harder NPC's, just like we are now. Because we wanted more than mindless bucket filling

 

[jasonbarron]

Hmm it seemed to be a universal complaint. Seems to me you are the one trying to cloudy the waters (obfuscation?) I did not say it was only the Elite PvPers but it did include some of them, just as not every PvEer complained. I actually enjoyed them. Of course I dont really care if I get blown up its all part of the game.

It was in no way shape or form a "universal complaint," not by a long shot.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Surely there is another way to change the META other than removing content from other players? Why that is the only thing being suggested?
The modes are part of the skeleton of the game, the game is designed for different play styles not just one or the other.
I can think of ways to make PP more a choice than module shopping (wasnt for me), simply remove the modules as a reward either remove them or make them something that can be purchased or at least make them only usable while you are pledged to that power.
Add powers that are PvP centric that you cant gain any merits without the PvP. But leave the others in place.
Have PFs that are restricted to a single mode but leave the others as is. And again tie the merits for those factions to PvP.
Remove engineers completely so the ship gap is easier to over come, add true defensive weapons to trade ships (they would be unable to carry offensive weapons) Add NPC wings for players and NPC escorts especially for high value missions.
I know they all have problems or just outright stink but so does removing game play just because you dont like the fact you cant shoot them.

Let me get this through your guys' heads.

[video=youtube;cnYXTh4TCVo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYXTh4TCVo[/video]

As long as BGS attacks, Flipping systems or UA bombing can be done safely in other modes. No one is going to INTENTIONALLY PUT THEM SELVES OUT THERE TO BE PVP'd.

You cant ADD A MECHANIC on top of what we have now and change nothing. It will be the same thing we have now. Im not going to login in and let someone take 30 merits or points off me when I dont have to. And all I have to do is trade to flip a system.

In order to add anything PVP related. It has to be funneled and the main process of flipping powerplay and player BGS systems has to change with ANY LAYER they add for PVP. And if they ADD a Layer for PVP. It has to be in a FORCED ENVIRONMENT. Or people will opt out, not because its optional. But because its OPTIMAL.

AND THATS THE BOTTOM LINE, CAUSE 90s KID SAID SO.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Yes he was put on leave for being a richard. You seem to think it was all jokes and fun, no it was pretty brutal even bringing economic slurs as well as gender ones. But I guess if thats not a bad thing to you so be it.

Humor has nothing to do with it, they were attacks made in front of others to cause discomfort. Do not forget people in my age group commit suicide over things like that. Dont be a richard yourself.

You didn’t mention that stuff the first time around. Now I’d probably deck the guy!