Beyond is great but please let the next updates focus on combat and PvP

[Ziggy Stardust]

If they did people would still complain it was forcing PvP on players or ignoring the PvE community. Fdev may as well change something that already exists rather than spend 10x more time building something completely new.

If people complaining is a showstopper for you, arguing for Open Only BGS in certain systems is also a no go area.

Plus it would be confusing as heck.

 

[Mohrgan]

How about G5 engineering mats for sufficient points playing in CQC, for example? 100% pure PvP, 100% consentual. And G5 mats are only really in high demand for PvP, which demands engineering to stay survivable. No need to add anything into the rest of the game, pure PvP is in CQC and that exists. And if people are so against playing it for G5 mats yet will board flip for hours to get them and complain about grind finding those mats, then the problem isn't CQC, it's the PvP players.

A major contention about PvP is that it is superfluous to the game in general. Offering in-game rewards for an out-of-game activity serves very little purpose. Play this, to improve that? It wouldn't be satisfying, and CQC would just become another task required to gather mats.

Making PvP meaningful and impactful would require that it is integrated into the game in the wild. Offering extra rewards for engaging, both the winner and loser, would encourage people to become involved, and give PvP meaning.

Anything offered that is outside of the game, negates all of the effort and time put into building and engineering a personal ship. There should be no forcing people to PvP, but there is no problem with encouraging PvP with balanced, in-game mechanics and rewards.

 

[Lateralus]

Or, they could integrate PvP into the current game mechanics by adding rewards for engaging in PvP. Winner and looser. Have PvP engagements reward vouchers to the victor and the vanquished, that can be applied to BGS/PP influence. The caveat would be, that the PvP-centric players would have to accept that those not interested in PvP, would be able to just avoid it as they do now.

So if your system is under BGS attack and you want to defend it, what if nobody turns up for PvP? The ones attacking you aren't going to because its not their strategy, nobody else might either. We're right back where we are now.

War against a PvP group should mean the risk of direct PvP, regardless of what the other group wants (because why should they get to dictate the terms of an offensive war in the first place?). The alternative would be not to start hostilities - voila, nobody is forced to do anything.

Well sice you already know the future, why ask for something? The prescient has no free will and there's no point in them asking for a future that is already set in stone. Que sera, sera.

Or you don't know that, in which case where do you get the idea that people would do that in this scenario? All the data you have to go on is what you would do, or what you think others will do, which only shows what you think of others, really.

So you're saying that if Fdev spent significant time creating a specific PvP feature to benefit the BGS, that players wouldn't complain about it? lol... just read back this thread a few pages, people are whining about the mere suggestion of more dev time for PvP.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

War against a PvP group should mean the risk of direct PvP

No, it really shouldn't.

Just like a PvEer in Open is still subject to PvP. Your playstyle is irrelevant to the mechanism. It conforms to the mechanism. Not the other way around.

So you're saying that if Fdev spent significant time creating a specific PvP feature to benefit the BGS, that players wouldn't complain about it?

Mind I wasn't talking about a specific PvP feature benifiting the BGS. You need to forget about the BGS, or PvE the BGS like everyone else.

 

[Sterling MH]

So you're saying that if Fdev spent significant time creating a specific PvP feature to benefit the BGS, that players wouldn't complain about it?.

No more than PvP players complained about PvE having SOME significant expansion work done on it for one quarter. And, no, they won't. If it doesn't screw up THEIR game, PvEers don't care what PvPers do. Enjoy your combat with each other.

But if PvP were beefed up for BGS, as long as there's something to allow PvEers to counter that with PvE actions, not forcing them into choosing either PvP or losing the BGS war, no, they would not complain. Why would they?

 

[Andovar]

While I'd have no issues with them adding some "PvP zones" to the game, I'd also be fine if they didn't.

But the decision on what content is in chapter 4 is already decided and being actively developed.
So unless some major PvP work is already on the roadmap for chapter 4, you're going to be waiting a while for any significant PvP changes.

 

[EUS]

The chances of Fdev binning thousands of man-hours of work are 0. Not to mention the **** storm that would create from people having wasted time engineering. It's better to accept that engineering is there now and suggest things to improve the game from where it is rather than from where it was 3 years ago.

Absolutely agree, so good luck.

 

[Mohrgan]

So if your system is under BGS attack and you want to defend it, what if nobody turns up for PvP? The ones attacking you aren't going to because its not their strategy, nobody else might either. We're right back where we are now.

War against a PvP group should mean the risk of direct PvP, regardless of what the other group wants (because why should they get to dictate the terms of an offensive war in the first place?). The alternative would be not to start hostilities - voila, nobody is forced to do anything.



So you're saying that if Fdev spent significant time creating a specific PvP feature to benefit the BGS, that players wouldn't complain about it? lol... just read back this thread a few pages, people are whining about the mere suggestion of more dev time for PvP.

You would still have all of the BGS activities to counter what ever attack you are facing. If you are facing a PvE attack, you would have a PvE response, just as we do now. A PvP group does not have some authority to insist a PvE or Mixed Interest group play in their desired way.

So long as FD doesn't make PvP a required activity, I can't see any problem with FD investing in it. The complaint about time spent on PvP, is that PvP has gotten quite a lot of attention, while other mechanics have had to wait years to come up to par.

 

[Sterling MH]

A major contention about PvP is that it is superfluous to the game in general.

So it can be taken out and player hits not damage?

No, PvP is no more superfluous to the game in general than BGS work is. Those who like either, do it. Those who don't care don't. BGS doesn't matter to those who don't BGS just like PvP doesn't matter to those who PvE.

If the major contention is that PvP is superfluous, lets test that. Remove player on player damage in the game and if PvP is ALREADY considered superfluous, then it won't change the game much. If it DOES cause massive upheaval then it wasn't currently superfluous, it only is now it's coded out.

 

[Lateralus]

No, it really shouldn't.

Just like a PvEer in Open is still subject to PvP. Your playstyle is irrelevant to the mechanism. It conforms to the mechanism. Not the other way around.

Currently.. It doesn't have to stay that way if it doesn't work well for PvP players.

Mind I wasn't talking about a specific PvP feature benifiting the BGS.

There others were.

You need to forget about the BGS, or PvE the BGS like everyone else.

Why though? Shouldn't all playstyles be catered for by the BGS? Why is it deemed the exclusive property of PvE players?

 

[Mohrgan]

So it can be taken out and player hits not damage?

No, PvP is no more superfluous to the game in general than BGS work is. Those who like either, do it. Those who don't care don't. BGS doesn't matter to those who don't BGS just like PvP doesn't matter to those who PvE.

If the major contention is that PvP is superfluous, lets test that. Remove player on player damage in the game and if PvP is ALREADY considered superfluous, then it won't change the game much. If it DOES cause massive upheaval then it wasn't currently superfluous, it only is now it's coded out.

That is a punitive and dissatisfying idea. There are plenty of ways for those of us that don't seek PvP to avoid it, let there be a way to influence the game's mechanics, while retaining choice. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with PvP, or those that seek it. Letting them have rewards and influence over the game would do nothing against the enjoyment of the game for us PvE types.

 

[Morded]

ITT AP IBirdman learns that circular forum arguments are the real endgame in Elite. Watch out for the logic nerds and their fallacy spotting, they're like SDC without the class or creativity.

 

[Mohrgan]

Currently.. It doesn't have to stay that way if it doesn't work well for PvP players.

PvP player's interests don't and shouldn't trump the interests of PvE players. Each side of the equation have to accept that that they can only play along side those with similar interests. Going into open, means you face the chance of a PvP encounter. Playing the BGS means you face the chance of a PvE assault. This has to be settles before PvP can be integrated, fully, into the game. Both sides of the isle have to grow up.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Currently.. It doesn't have to stay that way if it doesn't work well for PvP players.

So Open doesn't have to stay subject to PvP if that doesn't work well for PvE players?

There others were.

If you follow the string of quotes, you get back to "What's best is not bothering with BGS and PP and have Frontier devote an update to PvP like they did last update to exploration and have a PvP mechanism built for PvP from the ground up."

Why though? Shouldn't all playstyles be catered for by the BGS? Why is it deemed the exclusive property of PvE players?

Well, now we're back to: why should I be subject to PvP in Open?

It's as much property of PvE players as Open is property of PvP players. When you engage in either, you're subject to the playstyle of either. Which means in Open you're subject to PvP whether you like it or not. Playing the BGS you're subject to PvE whether you like it or not.

 

[Lateralus]

PvP player's interests don't and shouldn't trump the interests of PvE players.

All I've suggested is a compromise to include both preferences.. Apparently letting PvP players get involved in territory control is the worst idea in history.

Each side of the equation have to accept that that they can only play along side those with similar interests. Going into open, means you face the chance of a PvP encounter. Playing the BGS means you face the chance of a PvE assault. This has to be settles before PvP can be integrated, fully, into the game. Both sides of the isle have to grow up.

PvE/BGS has a clear purpose/benefit, PvP does not. That is an imbalance that needs addressing, hence the non-stop arguments about it for 4 years.

So Open doesn't have to stay subject to PvP if that doesn't work well for PvE players?

It already caters heavily to PvE players (menu logging/blocking/crime system). At least with open only CZs you could disrupt enemy activity enough to derail their aims. Oh look what's that? Tactical warfare that has risk vs reward.

If you follow the string of quotes, you get back to "What's best is not bothering with BGS and PP and have Frontier devote an update to PvP like they did last update to exploration and have a PvP mechanism built for PvP from the ground up."

My argument is that building something from the ground up would take a lot more resources and probably wouldn't be as good anyway. Better to adapt what's there. Powerplay was supposed to be the purpose built PvP system anyway, Fdev just ballsed it up by making it any-mode.

Well, now we're back to: why should I be subject to PvP in Open?

It's as much property of PvE players as Open is property of PvP players. When you engage in either, you're subject to the playstyle of either. Which means in Open you're subject to PvP whether you like it or not. Playing the BGS you're subject to PvE whether you like it or not.

Nothing is currently the 'property' of PvP players (except CQC, but that is another game virtually and did not exist when a lot of us bought the game in the first place). Why 'should' it be that way though? PvE players are not subject to PvP players in open anyway as they can just log out legally or block players they don't like.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Nothing is property of PvE players either. I just bounced that strawman back.

And building PvP mechanic from the ground up wouldn't be as good as flipping a switch on a PvE mechanic?

Ok.

 

[GODofDUTY83]

How about we increase bounties for NPCs in missions to fit in with other professions, such as trading. Would you only PvE because it is now worth your effort, or would you want a challenge? If you want a challenge too to make it worth playing, then that is a reward you want, so credits don't need to be as high for it.

I dont mind either way. Leave it as is.
I was making a point that I believe the OP was on about credits and then gets berated for it.

How dare anyone even suggest that combat pays any decent wage when you got a shiny new ship in an update. - Basically what I'm reading.

 

[Lateralus]

Nothing is property of PvE players either. I just bounced that strawman back.

What strawman? That reference doesn't seem to fit the context of this conversation.

And building PvP mechanic from the ground up wouldn't be as good as flipping a switch on a PvE mechanic?

Ok.

It depends of course, but I'm guessing that something built to be a 'pvp zone' or some such would be a flawed irrelevance or sideshow to keep PvPers busy while the galaxy is taken over from private modes.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What strawman? That reference doesn't seem to fit the context of this conversation.

BGS requiring PvE means the BGS is property of PvE players. It's Frontier property, they set the rules. The BGS belongs to all players.

It just requires PvE and will not go Open Only exclusively in systems just because it is played by PvP players. Beside that, it would be a mess. Why should the presence of PvP players change the rules?

It depends of course, but I'm guessing that something built to be a 'pvp zone' or some such would be a flawed irrelevance or sideshow to keep PvPers busy while the galaxy is taken over from private modes.

Such a lack of imagination. And your example isn't integrated in the Elite environment, so that wasn't what I was thinking off. Think civil war between fed and imps.

 

[00nutzy]

What strawman? That reference doesn't seem to fit the context of this conversation.



It depends of course, but I'm guessing that something built to be a 'pvp zone' or some such would be a flawed irrelevance or sideshow to keep PvPers busy while the galaxy is taken over from private modes.

I think what Ziggy is saying (could be wrong) is that a mechanic that directly allows PvP to affect (directly) the BGS rather than some band aids to indirectly allow PvP to have some influence on he BGS would be a far far better idea and worth spending time on.

As well as not removing (punishing) other playstyles it would give actual meaning to the PvP that many seem to desire.