Wolf starslayer, have your say :"
....
.....
While we are still guessing:
Diaspora. Not where we do come from. But where we do not belong.
*
Thank You for editing
Frontier
Appears he already did.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wolf starslayer, have your say :"
....
.....
While we are still guessing:
Diaspora. Not where we do come from. But where we do not belong.
*
Thank You for editing
Frontier
Appears he already did.
And I agree. The was it was currently designed it wasn't, in my mind, designed for PVP at all. But Goose was saying, as I saw it, that is was supposed to be... and that claim has been made. But the claim never stood up to the product that was presented. What was presented and what we have is PVE Power Play.
PVP is optional, and sadly doesn't even give you a merit (as I've been told).
So yes...back to the topic of Open Powerplay......
I think this represents our fundamental difference in regards to Open Only. The "non-zero" chance of encountering someone.
Having played online games since 1991, most of them with environments where "spontaneous PvP" is permitted, I would much rather have a zero chance of encountering a player who has no interest in PvP than the alternative. From my experience, the presense of that kind of player does not make for an enjoyable environment for PvP. In fact, the side effects of forcing PvP upon players who don't want it almost inevitably either completely destroys a game's player base, or reduces it to such a degree that the game's dev team decides adds a hard PvP switch in the hopes of bringing some of its players back.
Despite Elite: Dangerous not having any of the features that I attribute to making PvP fun, I am actually having fun with PvP in this game. While positive "spontaneous PvP" encounters are rare, they are much more common than other games I've played... which isn't saying much.
Heck, Powerplay related PvP has entirely positive to date. Granted, it's a sample size of two, but it still has been entirely positive. As for negative "spontaneous PvP," they range from at worst being an irritating interruption, to being something I can actually have fun with, or even look forward to, depending from how frequent they are. In games I've played in the past, they're either at best something to be endured for access to the gameplay I actually enjoy, or at worst something I've quit over, because they make it almost impossible to access the gameplay I enjoy.
I attribute this to the fact that despite Frontier having no experience with online games in general and PvP in particular, they got the most important thing right: games are a social experience, and we should be able to choose who we play with. Online games have been around for about forty years. It's about time game developers start learning from the many mistakes of the past.
I think this represents our fundamental difference in regards to Open Only. The "non-zero" chance of encountering someone.
Having played online games since 1991, most of them with environments where "spontaneous PvP" is permitted, I would much rather have a zero chance of encountering a player who has no interest in PvP than the alternative. From my experience, the presense of that kind of player does not make for an enjoyable environment for PvP. In fact, the side effects of forcing PvP upon players who don't want it almost inevitably either completely destroys a game's player base, or reduces it to such a degree that the game's dev team decides adds a hard PvP switch in the hopes of bringing some of its players back.
Despite Elite: Dangerous not having any of the features that I attribute to making PvP fun, I am actually having fun with PvP in this game. While positive "spontaneous PvP" encounters are rare, they are much more common than other games I've played... which isn't saying much.
As for negative "spontaneous PvP," they range from at worst being an irritating interruption, to being something I can actually have fun with, or even look forward to, depending from how frequent they are. In games I've played in the past, they're either at best something to be endured for access to the gameplay I actually enjoy, or at worst something I've quit over, because they make it almost impossible to access the gameplay I enjoy.
I attribute this to the fact that despite Frontier having no experience with online games in general and PvP in particular, they got the most important thing right: games are a social experience, and we should be able to choose who we play with. Online games have been around for about forty years. It's about time game developers start learning from the many mistakes of the past.
You forget that you opt into Powerplay, so you accept the risks- you are not forcing that on someone because thats what PP is- gang warfare. FD should have a pop-up (like the mode labels in beta) that describe what happens when you pledge; you will be fired on, its adversarial so be prepared.
'PvP' in Powerplay is not always 1 on 1 killing- you can and do have roving wings, you have people chasing away people from an expansion, flying top cover and so on. Open Powerplay would provide even more opportunities because people can't simply drop to PG and farm without interruption, they'd have to ensure the merits they hold are safe by either tactics, wings or mixtures of both.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if PP NPCs were given top end engineering and made to hunt players properly (since all this exists in 3.3 in some way just not in PP). If the NPCs pulled their weight would that be enough? Would it be too much for people, even more so than a chance at seeing a similar ship piloted by a player?
The question arises, why'd you sign up for war if you don't want to get shot at? Why not go exploring? Join the Fuel Rats? PvE in PG/Solo? Of course it's frustrating to get killed with tons of merits or cargo that you're trying to carry over to a far away system your faction wants. Of course it's not balanced if you're in a shieldless T7 trying to get a few more tons of cargo to fit in.
Meaningful choise.
It's not forcing PvP upon players, it's forcing those who participate in the war for galactic standing to actually face their enemies. Not your cup of tea? Don't enlist for a war. Your claim that it kills the playerbase rests on assumption that somehow, PvE PP is involving and meaningful and it's the nectar for the majority of the players. I don't believe that's the case - in fact, I believe it's the opposite. Those who currently participate love the game, the setting, even without PP, but hate the fact that it's ridden with a flawed feature such as PP currently is. They see the potential and it frustrates them. It makes them post on these threads year after year, because they believe it's something that can be achieved.
What do you get out of PP? What are the features that make PvP fun for you?Despite Elite: Dangerous not having any of the features that I attribute to making PvP fun, I am actually having fun with PvP in this game. While positive "spontaneous PvP" encounters are rare, they are much more common than other games I've played... which isn't saying much.
Player versus player isn't supposed to be fun always. When you lose it's usually very frustrating, especially if there's a lot to lose and if you're facing impossible odds. That's what gives it the excitement. It's a pro, not a con.
If you don't want to get frustrated in video games, you should try to control your feelings better or play in a setting that doesn't risk you feeling bad. Given, those who speak for open only PP are trying to take PP away from players like you, and the argument should be if that should be allowed.
It's a good point, but those who speak for open only PP usually argue that you already have a choise who you play with. We just don't want you to have that option when it comes to war for galactic standing, because it takes away from that feature's experience.
Hopefully the "Closed" sign has been hung on this idea. Permanently. NOTHING in ED should be open-only. Ever. No exceptions.
Solid arguments there. Thank you for your contribution.
I guess this is another area where I disagree, fundamentally, with the “Open Only” crowd. For a system allegedly about “gang warfare,” it seems to be much more about politics to me. While warfare is sometimes described as “politics by other means,” very few powers are solely combat oriented.
As for why I signed up for Powerplay, it wasn’t to be shot at. It was to support the (at the time) Imperial heir who I considered to represent the true spirit of the Empire, the one most likely to spread the light of freedom, culture, honor, and prosperity throughout the galaxy. Getting shot at by NPCs was the price to (potentially) participate at level of politics greater than the system level. I play in Open because players represent a different type of challenge vs NPCs.
Good place to end as well.
If Powerplay was like the Galactic Council in MOO with votes to see who was #1 on the board then I'd agree with you. But in PP to be #1 you have to ensure your enemies suffer, you can't convince your way there.
But the only politics that goes on is between player groups, because that requires words and discourse- at best, pledging is you having a point of view.
I've never come across an NPC evangelising about another power, something which would be quite interesting to have anyway.
Powerplays objective is clear- you aid your power to become top dog through doing whatever it takes.
Goose4291
Banned
You really shouldnt have joined one of the heavily combat-centric powers then.
It hasn't been. We want an open, competitive mode with the possibility of PVP interaction.
It's voluntary, so if you don't want to play, the 'solo' door is still over there.
Definitely. I gain no benefit at all from backing ALD. From a meta-game perspective, I should back Aisling Duval, but CMDR Stevenson is a traditional Imperial, and an ex-imperial slave, so she’s a supporter of the Empress instead. Part of being a role player IMO is doing things that make sense in character, but from a meta-game perspective is a lousy decision.
It’s one of the reasons why I tend to do poorly in straight up PvP. Whether it was “wasting” skill points on non-combat skills in UO, or sub-optimal ship builds in Elite Dangerous, I’m generally already fighting with a handicap. Which is why it amuses me that I feel safe enough to toy with the typical player-killer in this game. It says less about my 1337 skills, and more about about theirs.
Even if being combat oriented is the smallest portion of what your faction stands for, it's a cut-throat galaxy, and a lot of actions in powerplay are weaponized. I'm all in for political features being implemented past discords and subreddits, but that's another conversation. As some player-made alliances prove, though, it's working alright as it is. Even though some of the alliances are silly in terms of lore. And you can most definitely contribute to the politics between the player-pledged factions, and well - if it's all you do, your hardpoints need to be deployed rather rarely as most of it is done outside of game. But it's not an argument against open only powerplay inside the game.
It also helps that preventing someone who knows what they're doing from just high waking away from a hostile encounter is actually really difficult. A skilled commander is extremely hard to catch, role player or not, that's in your head and your build - not a stat sheet.
Hope to see Commander Stevenson out in the black o7
Has anyone won yet?