PvP Why PvP is not popular in Elite Dangerous?

[Bob Lighthouse]

Yeah bored of this now, the moment has passed.

I hope you consider the following.

Excerpts from:
https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978


"The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse."


"So what does it mean to be “entitled” to an opinion?

If “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven.

But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred."
(my bold)


Also, consider the onus is now on those invested in the community to combat your ill informed posts.
That's unfortunate for everyone involved, especially those seeking advice.


I suggest this applies very well here.
Excerpt from: https://www.nature.com/news/take-the-time-and-effort-to-correct-misinformation-1.21106

"Most researchers who have tried to engage online with ill-informed journalists or pseudoscientists will be familiar with Brandolini’s law (also known as the *<Bovine excrement> Asymmetry Principle): the amount of energy needed to refute *<bovine excrement> is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. "
(*edits mine)

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Why would I do that?

Because as far as I'm concerned until you prove competency in game in regards to ship to ship combat you've got no standing in this sub forum. You can talk and talk all you like, but when I find out you've not done a single thing this forum is about for 18 months, the time for talk is over. We can actually play the game and get real information about each other as players - not endless theory and logic.

It'll be a friendly spar for sure. Like I said - bring whatever you want and let me know. Doesn't have to be to the death either.

 

[Roybe]

When applied to the BGS and Powerplay. The game I see. Youd have to be outfitted for both. You cant use one extreme in min maxing, and another extreme of min maxing here. In fact the min maxing like this is my eyes is not supposed to exist.

There is alot of utility modules being unused, we also know if you're just looking to PVP or fight and not get any hauling done on your own. You will fall behind. The goal here is to stop someone else progress. Not rack up a high Kill to Death ratio like call of duty. PVP is supposed to be impactful during these events. And its not.

So the PVP loadouts you're talking about between Algo and I. Would be the result of not being able to use some of those modules like a wake scanner and so forth.

This is why its hard to balance things like shields. They WOULD BE FINE, if we were playing the game correctly instead of min maxing without utilities.

The PVE and the PVP we see in the game not supposed to technically exist. Its de-evolved into META's and efficiency. Rather than interaction.

What I am trying to say is the play styles here would be merged in this case. There would still be META builds. But not in the extremes in one way or the other like we see now.

Again, I point at the other discussion...you say it's not to exist. The devs have created the game so it does. 'Fixing' it, means neither the PVP player nor the PVE player gets to play the game at the maximum of its potential...so your answer is to water it down so 'everyone can play in the middle'. Like that is going to please anyone.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Again, I point at the other discussion...you say it's not to exist. The devs have created the game so it does. 'Fixing' it, means neither the PVP player nor the PVE player gets to play the game at the maximum of its potential...so your answer is to water it down so 'everyone can play in the middle'. Like that is going to please anyone.

I believe this was the way it was supposed to be in the first place.

In any game where min maxing extremes halts the game design. They make changes to make it work.

Thats clearly the case in what happened here. You can believe it or not. Thats fine.

Again, you can look at the modules and activities that arent happening in elite dangerous. And look at the ones that are.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

You probably should remember where this topic initially is coming from. Some mod decided at some point this topic belongs to the PvP sub forum. I know it's bad style to criticize moderator actions but this was a more than debatable step to take it politely. The initial topic strongly suggests opinions rather than facts, or what sense would it make to think a question like "Why PvP is not popular in Elite Dangerous?" directed to dedicated PvPer exclusively. Just because the word "PvP" is in the topic?

To give you an idea how silly this idea was, including your resulting misunderstanding, imagine a question like "Why does religion not matter to you" and then only allow priests and popes to answer. [wacko]

I think there's a reason why it initially wasn't in the PvP sub forum and never should be.

+1. This is a general ED question, not some PvP mechanics discussion.

And PvP being unpopular is not quite true. Today I had saw like 50 PvP players around CG area, despite being in one instance most of the time pretty much (was busy killing pirates in another system in order to protect some peruvian traders...).
If you ask about anyone there to PvP, you see crimes registration being turned off in most of the cases.

And that is given the current situation, where PvP takes maxed out progression, while giving only repair/rebuy/CnP expenses in return. And PvP should not stay unrewarded, IMO.

 

[lenna]

And that is given the current situation, where PvP takes maxed out progression, while giving only repair/rebuy/CnP expenses in return. And PvP should not stay unrewarded, IMO.

Rewards should have context - e.g. bounties - and be emergent in nature (i.e. be the same regardless of whether the target is PC/NPC) so as not to overly encourage engagement in PvP.

There are no rewards as such for random combat - only for PP involvement, CZ bonds, Bounties, and mission pay-outs. Providing the rewards for PvP stay in-line with what is achievable through PvE then there is no issue (either way).

I gather that is mostly the case as it currently stands, perhaps with one or two deficient areas.

 

[frostypaw]

You've just admitted in the PvP Forum you didn't fight anyone for 18 months. You opine pretty aggressively on PvP, and that's fine. However, I no longer have any faith that you are at all experienced or educated on the topic of Elite: Dangerous ship to ship combat. Now, that said, I think it's worth bringing up that a big reason people don't PvP in Elite is because they get a discouraging view from individuals like yourself.

It might be a niche activity, like you said, but the hate it gets from the wider community is broad and wide and completely undeserved.

This thread has turned into a wonderful demonstration of why people don't like PvP.

Time and again it's been discussed that PvP is really fine it's the attitude, time and time again these antisocial elitist and unpleasant attitudes are whacked out and flapped about again oblivious to people pointing out that's what the problem was.

All the way up to "you don't deserve an opinion because you're not a good PvPer" despite this all being ostensibly to find out why people don't like PvP hence the people who aren't 'proper' PvPers being exactly whose opinion it seeks to survey.

It's astonishing people aren't embarrassed at showing themselves up like this and proving the other side's point so comprehensively. Simple self-awareness could have avoided it.

As to risk/reward don't make me laugh, we've seen how y'all play.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

This thread has turned into a wonderful demonstration of why people don't like PvP.

Time and again it's been discussed that PvP is really fine it's the attitude, time and time again these antisocial elitist and unpleasant attitudes are whacked out and flapped about again oblivious to people pointing out that's what the problem was.

All the way up to "you don't deserve an opinion because you're not a good PvPer" despite this all being ostensibly to find out why people don't like PvP hence the people who aren't 'proper' PvPers being exactly whose opinion it seeks to survey.

It's astonishing people aren't embarrassed at showing themselves up like this and proving the other side's point so comprehensively. Simple self-awareness could have avoided it.

As to risk/reward don't make me laugh, we've seen how y'all play.

Some PvPers have a sucky attitude for sure. Not just in ED.

Earlier was playing Fortinte, 50 vs 50. Went for the tower with 2 chests in Tilted Towers straight off the bat. Its a popular place, so knew i might be racing others to get something from the chest.

Was through the top at almost exactly the same time as another guy, although i think i was in just ahead, and not even sure which of us got the chest open. Naturally we both go to grab what we can. He got an impulse grenade, i got a rifle. Rather than going for the next chest, what does this guy do? Throws the impulse grende at my feet, sending my flying and falling, and almost killed me. Fortunately my son was nearby and revived me, but a teammate almost killed me, and delyed me getting into the fight for ages while i looked around for health and weapons.

Some people are absoloute jerks, even when they are on your side.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

A: PvP sucks and is not needed.
B: But you don't PvP, how do you know?
A:

This thread has turned into a wonderful demonstration of why people don't like PvP.

Time and again it's been discussed that PvP is really fine it's the attitude, time and time again these antisocial elitist and unpleasant attitudes are whacked out and flapped about again oblivious to people pointing out that's what the problem was.

All the way up to "you don't deserve an opinion because you're not a good PvPer" despite this all being ostensibly to find out why people don't like PvP hence the people who aren't 'proper' PvPers being exactly whose opinion it seeks to survey.

It's astonishing people aren't embarrassed at showing themselves up like this and proving the other side's point so comprehensively. Simple self-awareness could have avoided it.

As to risk/reward don't make me laugh, we've seen how y'all play.

 

[lenna]

A) PvP sucks and is not needed.

I actually disagree with this standpoint despite not being explicitly interested in PvP. PvP has it's place in ED, but only to the extent of being both "optional and emergent".

PvP focused gameplay is not in-line with the design of the main environment and should not be catered for there. CQC is provided for that type of gameplay.

As for "PvP sucks", that is not entirely accurate - a certain subset of PvP behaviours suck.

B) But you don't PvP, how do you know?

Years (if not decades) of playing both PvE and PvP games. The fundamental problem(s) have always been present but have grown and got worse (or at least more visible) because of the expansion of the e-Sports, certain types of MMOs, and certain social media tools.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

I actually disagree with this standpoint despite not being explicitly interested in PvP. PvP has it's place in ED, but only to the extent of being both "optional and emergent".

PvP focused gameplay is not in-line with the design of the main environment and should not be catered for there. CQC is provided for that type of gameplay.

As for "PvP sucks", that is not entirely accurate - a certain subset of PvP behaviours suck.


Years (if not decades) of playing both PvE and PvP games. The fundamental problem(s) have always been present but have grown and got worse (or at least more visible) because of the expansion of the e-Sports, certain types of MMOs, and certain social media tools.

A type of gameplay, in where you progress in PvE in order for that progression being applied to PvP, which yielded some other rewards in turn, had driven me through many other MMO games, and it were pretty much the only drive of the game in some cases.
And it is my only drive for ED, with a bit of shaken hope for future additions to the game though.

CqC have nothing to do with this. Google "Wow stat templating". Attempt to make arenas into a competitive cybersport by tearing them away from your PvE progression and decisions made while progressing, had brought arena's audience to all-time minimum.
I want a completely different expirience from PvP than flying Sidewinders in the "competitive enviroment".

And "design of the main enviroment" consists of placeholder mechanics which had slowly became the norm pretty much, because people see time sinks as a reasonable challenge. This should not stay like this forever as well.

 

[lenna]

And "design of the main enviroment" consists of placeholder mechanics which had slowly became the norm pretty much, because people see time sinks as a reasonable challenge. This should not stay like this forever as well.

I am not entirely sure what your point is, but let me be clearer.

PvP in ED is purely emergent, that means no gameplay elements are focused on it (though some countermeasures for more unreasonable behaviours may be implemented) and that should NEVER change.

CQC does have relevance as it is the way FD chose to support PvP focused gameplay.

PvP and PvE gameplay elements generally do not mix well - that is why in a lot of MMOs that support both there are often segregated build and equipment stats for PvP. There are some exceptions to this general rule of thumb but I do not rate PvP highly in such environments.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

I am not entirely sure what your point is, but let me be clearer.

PvP in ED is purely emergent, that means no gameplay elements are focused on it (though some countermeasures for more unreasonable behaviours may be implemented) and that should NEVER change.

CQC does have relevance as it is the way FD chose to support PvP focused gameplay.

PvP and PvE gameplay elements generally do not mix well - that is why in a lot of MMOs that support both there are often segregated build and equipment stats for PvP. There are some exceptions to this general rule of thumb but I do not rate PvP highly in such environments.

What is the reasoning behind PvP staying emergent? I am waiting for change in that regard instead. I see no problems if rewards behind both PvP and PvE are the same, futhermore, if even PvP would yield some unique ones.

PvP being pretty much useless in terms of any sort of progression is the main reason audience is not as high as it could be. It does not mean that it should stay the way it is because not everyone does PvP.

By the way, as thing are ED have almost no moral rigth to stop "griefers" from doing what are they doing. As long as there are no other reasons for pvp in game, "salt mining" is pretty much the only one.

 

[lenna]

if even PvP would yield some unique ones.

Absolutely not in any way, at least where the main environment is concerned.

As for why it should stay just emergent - in a simple phrase "rare and meaningful".

As for moral rights to stop griefers, actually they do - ED is a predominantly PvE experience and should remain that way. If you are after a more PvP experience either play CQC or stick to the likes of EvE/SC.

If CQC is not good enough, campaign for changes with-in that environment. However, don't expect there to be any measurable bleed across other than credits perhaps.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

You probably should remember where this topic initially is coming from. Some mod decided at some point this topic belongs to the PvP sub forum. I know it's bad style to criticize moderator actions but this was a more than debatable step to take it politely. The initial topic strongly suggests opinions rather than facts, or what sense would it make to think a question like "Why PvP is not popular in Elite Dangerous?" directed to dedicated PvPer exclusively. Just because the word "PvP" is in the topic?

To give you an idea how silly this idea was, including your resulting misunderstanding, imagine a question like "Why does religion not matter to you" and then only allow priests and popes to answer. [wacko]

I think there's a reason why it initially wasn't in the PvP sub forum and never should be.

I do remember this was moved to the PvP subforum. I also agree it doesn't belong here. It should've been closed long ago as well. Getting involved with it yesterday was an attempt to get some positive discussion moving again.

I think there's been quite a bit, thankfully!

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Absolutely not in any way, at least where the main environment is concerned.

As for why it should stay just emergent - in a simple phrase "rare and meaningful".

As for moral rights to stop griefers, actually they do - ED is a predominantly PvE experience and should remain that way. If you are after a more PvP experience either play CQC or stick to the likes of EvE/SC.

If CQC is not good enough, campaign for changes with-in that environment. However, don't expect there to be any measurable bleed across other than credits perhaps.

Cause you do not value PvP in ED, it does not mean everyone should think the same way. That is your opinion, which is quite common, but still far from being universal.

Rare? Sure. Meaningful? It lacks a bit.

Oh, by the way, by that phrase about placeholders I had ment that there are no reasons for PvP yet, and I do not think that was the original design intention. That is just a state of things.

 

[lenna]

Cause you do not value PvP in ED, it does not mean everyone should think the same way. That is your opinion, which is quite common, but still far from being universal.

Rare? Sure. Meaningful? It lacks a bit.

Oh, by the way, by that phrase about placeholders I had ment that there are no reasons for PvP yet, and I do not think that was the original design intention. That is just a state of things.

IMO you are missing the point...

There are reasons for PvP - Bounty Hunting and Piracy - these could do with improvement but we have covered that ground already.

As for PvP being "rare and meaningful" that is the design intent according to FD, and the Bounty aspect adds a form of meaning (arguably so does the nortoriety aspect too).

If you are expecting PvP focused gameplay in the main environment then you are going to have a long wait - as in almost certainly never.

 

[jasonbarron]

This thread has turned into a wonderful demonstration of why people don't like PvP.

Time and again it's been discussed that PvP is really fine it's the attitude, time and time again these antisocial elitist and unpleasant attitudes are whacked out and flapped about again oblivious to people pointing out that's what the problem was.

All the way up to "you don't deserve an opinion because you're not a good PvPer" despite this all being ostensibly to find out why people don't like PvP hence the people who aren't 'proper' PvPers being exactly whose opinion it seeks to survey.

It's astonishing people aren't embarrassed at showing themselves up like this and proving the other side's point so comprehensively. Simple self-awareness could have avoided it.

As to risk/reward don't make me laugh, we've seen how y'all play.

Whatever your talking about here in this post didn't happen and bears no relationship with reality.

Some PvPers have a sucky attitude for sure. Not just in ED.

Earlier was playing Fortinte, 50 vs 50. Went for the tower with 2 chests in Tilted Towers straight off the bat. Its a popular place, so knew i might be racing others to get something from the chest.

Was through the top at almost exactly the same time as another guy, although i think i was in just ahead, and not even sure which of us got the chest open. Naturally we both go to grab what we can. He got an impulse grenade, i got a rifle. Rather than going for the next chest, what does this guy do? Throws the impulse grende at my feet, sending my flying and falling, and almost killed me. Fortunately my son was nearby and revived me, but a teammate almost killed me, and delyed me getting into the fight for ages while i looked around for health and weapons.

Some people are absoloute jerks, even when they are on your side.

That's a terrible story, AA. Too bad it has absolutely zero relevance to anything under discussion on this thread. Did you post it here by accident? I'd think a former mod of all people would know where the Off Topic sub forum was

Cause you do not value PvP in ED, it does not mean everyone should think the same way. That is your opinion, which is quite common, but still far from being universal.

Rare? Sure. Meaningful? It lacks a bit.

Oh, by the way, by that phrase about placeholders I had ment that there are no reasons for PvP yet, and I do not think that was the original design intention. That is just a state of things.

I think you're on the right track, Egy. Give us a functional KWS, incentivize playing in Open, disincentivize influencing the bgs and power play through group/solo, include some form of arena into the actual game, etc.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Absolutely not in any way, at least where the main environment is concerned.

As for why it should stay just emergent - in a simple phrase "rare and meaningful".

As for moral rights to stop griefers, actually they do - ED is a predominantly PvE experience and should remain that way. If you are after a more PvP experience either play CQC or stick to the likes of EvE/SC.

If CQC is not good enough, campaign for changes with-in that environment. However, don't expect there to be any measurable bleed across other than credits perhaps.

I would maybe, maybe agree with you that this is a PVE focused game if PVE content was not such a horror show.
At the at the current state of the game, without PvP you wouldnt see me playing beyond 100 hours (I have around 1500 by now) because that's all that the PVE content can provide.

For me its very much a PvP focused game while PVE can easily disappear and I wouldn't notice.

 

[lenna]

I would maybe, maybe agree with you that this is a PVE focused game if PVE content was not such a horror show.
At the at the current state of the game, without PvP you wouldnt see me playing beyond 100 hours (I have around 1500 by now) because that's all that the PVE content can provide.

For me its very much a PvP focused game while PVE can easily disappear and I wouldn't notice.

All the game mechanics are geared around PvE, ergo PvE focused. Whether the particular PvE gameplay experience you are looking for is present is moot.

Good for you if you can find enough PvP to consider the game PvP focused for you BUT the game design is blatantly not PvP focused - just PvP enabled.

All this talk of PvP focused main environment gameplay runs counter to the game design, and the more people abuse the PvP opportunities the less likely FD are going to do anything to improve the situation in all likelihood.

ED is not the first game to suffer the ire of certain "entitled subsets" of a game community because it does not actively support their desired gameplay. There are often good reasons for such apparent deficiencies, the expressed attitudes of some PvPers in this thread seem to be indicative of at least part of the reason(s) where ED is concerned.

Just to be clear, by entitled I mean people that think a given product should be changed to suit them - regardless of the product description or design intent.