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

[Mohrgan]

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.



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.

Insisting that PvP be required, of any Commander, is a non-starter. If we can come to agreement on this issue, many of the obstructions to integrating PvP would disintegrate. One group declaring as a PvP-Group, doesn't entitle them to insist they only face PvP opposition. The BGS is available and equal in every mode, including open.

I tend to agree. It's the method and depth of change that has to be managed, before a cogent argument can be put to FD. Currently the desires of the PvP crowd are not in line with the game's demonstrated intents. PvP being completely avoidable, even after an attack, should give you an idea of the designer's intent. Look for solutions that keep this in tact, and you may have success. Insist that PvP have demands on all players will see no changes.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I said

Think civil war between fed and imps.

Y'all aren't thinking civil war. Feds and imps already hate each other. There could be huge battles lasting for days over some system. Warship vs warship. Mayhem.

No one listens to me! [mad]

Or ... if y'all rather shoot traders ... that's fun too.

Edit: last remark lose quip, not aimed at Lat's suggestion.

 

[Sterling MH]

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.

My point was that you WANT to do PvP. And that if it's ust combat against NPCs, the lack of "challenge" makes it
meaningless, meaning that you are already rewarded for your PvP combat.

Go on, answer my hypothetical. If PvE combat were upped to, lets say, new mining level ROIs. Would you spend your time now doing NPC kills because there's a lot of credits in that, and the PvP side can go float in a bath? Or would you find that so boring you don't WANT to play, you merely feel you HAVE to play? Because in the latter case you are proving that the challenge of PvP is a reward in and of itself.

Which may be why you don't want to answer, because you'd like to answer honestly. It would be ruinous for your case.

Like I said, if trading earned a lot more, ESPECIALLY if combat paid LESS, then those who want PvP with traders, so as to play pirate, get their meaningful PvP with other PvPers who have been practically forced to play that (or were playing prey all along, in which case the upgrade in profit is pure gravy) so that they can get their chance to play predator.

It would ensure that even if everyone bar PvPers were playing in Solo, that there would be a maximal amount of PvPers to play with, unless either the trader payout was not high enough compared to combat, OR paid too much. There would definitely be a goldilocks zone.

I don't give a rat's reputation for what bullying you think some other person who wants combat payout buffed. Not that he said that anyway.

Indeed upping the combat payout would REDUCE that meaningful asymmetric PvP so many want. If combat pays out enough to keep EVERYONE playing full time as the predator, then there will be nobody who is playing the prey. Because they don't HAVE to and it's more fun being the bully than the bullied.

But if I profess this idea that combat payout needs to be nerfed for the sake of PvP, do you think I will get more or less of the backlash you were "really talking about"?

MY version has a causal process that informs an optimal outcome is possible. His has a causal process that shows it is counterproductive.

 

[Mohrgan]

I said


Y'all aren't thinking civil war. Feds and imps already hate each other. There could be huge battles lasting for days over some system. Warship vs warship. Mayhem.

No one listens to me! [mad]

Or ... if y'all rather shoot traders ... that's fun too.

Throughout all of the discussion about this subject, the PvP argument always seems to leave itself open to the idea that all the suggestions are just ploys to gain soft targets. Don't they? It unfortunate, because this apparent intent leaves all chances for change derided by those intended targets.

 

[Sterling MH]

Throughout all of the discussion about this subject, the PvP argument always seems to leave itself open to the idea that all the suggestions are just ploys to gain soft targets. Don't they? It unfortunate, because this apparent intent leaves all chances for change derided by those intended targets.

CQC was pure PvP combat. On equal terms. The PvP crowd did not like it. Or at least few enough that it died by lack of players.
Not forgetting that huge wave of people saying that they don't HAVE to fight fair because they're a pirate and this is Elite DANGEROUS and that real life pirates would not choose a hard target over an easy one. Forgetting that IRL pirates usually died penniless ,young, and very, very badly. And if you don't like it, git gud or hide in solo, carebear.

And I can count on the thumbs of both hands the number of PvP professed players who derided and eschewed as a fellow the posters claiming PROUDLY that they WILL demand asymmetric warfare, as long as they have the upper hand. The most PvPers will do is mock a (usually) unnamed "they" who grief and then CLog, genuinely if tables get turned.

Your post sounds like worrying that 80% of the PvP players give 100% of PvPers a bad name...

 

[Sooden]

you had your chance with QCQ and you let it die!... no more pvp updates That's how it works right, if interest is not shown in a feature, Fdev don't develop it.

Spoiler

Just having a joke

Even with explorations tapped on the end of beyond. I would expect the next payed expansion to be exploration lead. 'Beyond' was about fixing the core (or was meant to be) after nearly a year of debate on the forums... was never about adding a lot of features, in fact people said, fix the game before new headline features.

With that i happily took a year of and waited. what has been added would not really be classed as added features but adjustment. finishing of the features that where already in-game (

Spoiler

and making Sooden angry with the silly zoom stuff, i know it was just to annoy me fdev, i know your evil plans!

), getting ready for a proper expatiation, and i can see that being gas giants.

On a good note for PvP, we may see new types of battles, new mission and maybe new ships better suited to thick atmospheric flight, but as for a PvP focused expansion... cant see it happening

 

[Mohrgan]

CQC was pure PvP combat. On equal terms. The PvP crowd did not like it. Or at least few enough that it died by lack of players.
Not forgetting that huge wave of people saying that they don't HAVE to fight fair because they're a pirate and this is Elite DANGEROUS and that real life pirates would not choose a hard target over an easy one. Forgetting that IRL pirates usually died penniless ,young, and very, very badly. And if you don't like it, git gud or hide in solo, carebear.

And I can count on the thumbs of both hands the number of PvP professed players who derided and eschewed as a fellow the posters claiming PROUDLY that they WILL demand asymmetric warfare, as long as they have the upper hand. The most PvPers will do is mock a (usually) unnamed "they" who grief and then CLog, genuinely if tables get turned.

Your post sounds like worrying that 80% of the PvP players give 100% of PvPers a bad name...

I think the fate of CQC was set when players weren't allowed to use the ships they have invested in. There is nothing wrong with asymmetrical threats in a game where it is so easy to avoid PvP in total.

My time with a PvP Player Group, and my long history of PvP in gaming informs me that there are as many PvP types as there are players. Many seek the thrill of spontaneous engagements with unknown foes. Some just want to prove some momentary superiority. In the end, I'd rather not go around stereotyping any kind of player, so that I can insist I not be stereotyped. I don;t get much more from the above post, except for an opportunity to get some 'digs' in on the PvP Crowd. It's all quite unnecessary.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I think the fate of CQC was set when players weren't allowed to use the ships they have invested in. There is nothing wrong with asymmetrical threats in a game where it is so easy to avoid PvP in total.

My time with a PvP Player Group, and my long history of PvP in gaming informs me that there are as many PvP types as there are players. Many seek the thrill of spontaneous engagements with unknown foes. Some just want to prove some momentary superiority. In the end, I'd rather not go around stereotyping any kind of player, so that I can insist I not be stereotyped. I don;t get much more from the above post, except for an opportunity to get some 'digs' in on the PvP Crowd. It's all quite unnecessary.

This was my issue.

Until I played this game I've never played a game where people opted out of being attacked against one another.

Then when I came here several years ago. Asking why I cant defend against the people attacking our BGS.

I was told all I want to do is grief, or shoot more people.

When I first started to PVP people thought I was an SDC member just because I PVP'd.

People cant tell the difference because this game really didnt point you in that direction to show what PVP would be used for. And since people had the option to remove themselves from it.

It lost its value.

So now, im just a griefer.

I never cared about griefing before. I never exploited peoples feelings. I never messed with people just to mess with them.

This game when people play it, most of the community goes through that carebear phase. I was one, I really came from Mobius PG.

One day I was told I was "no longer morally recognizable" because I started to learn. That kinda got to me.

I asked people what is PVP for if a game developer allows it into the game? Do people really think Game Devs make a game made for griefing?

So that's why people and PVPers take to open only. A lot of those guys never wanted to be a griefer.

They got labeled a griefer because others don't understand PVPs place in the game.

All any of us ever wanted was a legit playing field.

But now, after all the nonsense, after all the cry babies, After all brigadding because they don't want consequences for their actions against others. Its been fun to me at least messing with some of those guys here. And in the game if I can get to them. They know what PVP should be used for.

Some of those guys have been playing for 3-4 years.

And if they feel griefed. Good

 

[Havvk]

This was my issue.

Until I played this game I've never played a game where people opted out of being attacked against one another.

Then when I came here several years ago. Asking why I cant defend against the people attacking our BGS.

I was told all I want to do is grief, or shoot more people.

When I first started to PVP people thought I was an SDC member just because I PVP'd.

People cant tell the difference because this game really didnt point you in that direction to show what PVP would be used for. And since people had the option to remove themselves from it.

It lost its value.

So now, im just a griefer.

I never cared about griefing before. I never exploited peoples feelings. I never messed with people just to mess with them.

This game when people play it, most of the community goes through that carebear phase. I was one, I really came from Mobius PG.

One day I was told I was "no longer morally recognizable" because I started to learn. That kinda got to me.

I asked people what is PVP for if a game developer allows it into the game? Do people really think Game Devs make a game made for griefing?

So that's why people and PVPers take to open only. A lot of those guys never wanted to be a griefer.

They got labeled a griefer because they don't understand PVPs place in the game.

All any of us ever wanted was a legit playing field.

But now, after all the nonsense, after all the cry babies, After all brigadding because they don't want consequences for their actions against others. Its been fun to me at least messing with some of those guys here. And in the game if I can get to them.

Some of those guys have been playing for 3-4 years.

And if they feel griefed. Good

It sounds like you're trying to sound like those like you are the victims here.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

It sounds like you're trying to sound like those like you are the victims here.

No my victims say this,

"It sounds like you're trying to sound like those like you are the victims here."

 

[Muetdhiver]

I think missions are a more urgent matter to attend to.

An in depth rework making the best use of the current game assets and mechanics looks like a big win.

PvP and combat already got 2/3 of ED new content over 2yrs...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Throughout all of the discussion about this subject, the PvP argument always seems to leave itself open to the idea that all the suggestions are just ploys to gain soft targets. Don't they? It unfortunate, because this apparent intent leaves all chances for change derided by those intended targets.

Not all PvP arguments. It's clear that there are those who would love their favourite playing style have meaning in the Elite galaxy. And there are those who are campaigning for everything Open Only just because they have a grudge against the solo boogeyman.

The latter one being the most vocal and outspoken and as far as I can tell alienated the former one.

CQC was pure PvP combat. On equal terms. The PvP crowd did not like it. Or at least few enough that it died by lack of players.
Not forgetting that huge wave of people saying that they don't HAVE to fight fair because they're a pirate and this is Elite DANGEROUS and that real life pirates would not choose a hard target over an easy one. Forgetting that IRL pirates usually died penniless ,young, and very, very badly. And if you don't like it, git gud or hide in solo, carebear.

And I can count on the thumbs of both hands the number of PvP professed players who derided and eschewed as a fellow the posters claiming PROUDLY that they WILL demand asymmetric warfare, as long as they have the upper hand. The most PvPers will do is mock a (usually) unnamed "they" who grief and then CLog, genuinely if tables get turned.

Your post sounds like worrying that 80% of the PvP players give 100% of PvPers a bad name...

Don't think that the prolific PvP posters here are representative of the PvP player overall.

None of the fellers on my friendslist who primarily PvP are concerned about the modes. And they shy away from the threads which sport the more rabid crusading posters because they don't want to be associated with them.

 

[Mohrgan]

This was my issue.

Until I played this game I've never played a game where people opted out of being attacked against one another.

Then when I came here several years ago. Asking why I cant defend against the people attacking our BGS.

I was told all I want to do is grief, or shoot more people.

When I first started to PVP people thought I was an SDC member just because I PVP'd.

People cant tell the difference because this game really didnt point you in that direction to show what PVP would be used for. And since people had the option to remove themselves from it.

It lost its value.

So now, im just a griefer.

I never cared about griefing before. I never exploited peoples feelings. I never messed with people just to mess with them.

This game when people play it, most of the community goes through that carebear phase. I was one, I really came from Mobius PG.

One day I was told I was "no longer morally recognizable" because I started to learn. That kinda got to me.

I asked people what is PVP for if a game developer allows it into the game? Do people really think Game Devs make a game made for griefing?

So that's why people and PVPers take to open only. A lot of those guys never wanted to be a griefer.

They got labeled a griefer because others don't understand PVPs place in the game.

All any of us ever wanted was a legit playing field.

But now, after all the nonsense, after all the cry babies, After all brigadding because they don't want consequences for their actions against others. Its been fun to me at least messing with some of those guys here. And in the game if I can get to them. They know what PVP should be used for.

Some of those guys have been playing for 3-4 years.

And if they feel griefed. Good

I wouldn't say my comment, the one quoted, supports this commentary at all. When someone's personal game philosophy doesn't match the rules and structure of a game, rules that are part of it's foundation especially, it's up to that player to resolve the issue. It's not up to the game, and it's developers to resolve.

My point has always been, you can only expect to play along side those that share your interests. That's exactly how this game is designed and offered. Resorting to griefing because you have misconceptions about your options is, in my opinion, not a supportable position. I see that as what happens on play grounds with school kids. It's a childish kind of extortion. "Play my way, or I'll ruin the way you play".

The current playing field is perfectly level. You have every choice that other players have. A BGS faction can only be attacked via PvE, and a Faction can only be defended through PvE. In open PG or Solo. If you insist a PG or Solo has an advantage over open in terms of the BGS, a view I don't agree with, then you are able to use those modes and the benefits you see in them, as well. The very definition of fair play. Equal access.

As to brigading, or what ever word you intended, that tactic is not a one sided affair. It has equal favor on both sides of the discussion. Cryptic messages and innuendo solves nothing. As to how people feel about being griefed by you, that goes both ways. If you feel marginalized and your favored play style seems redundant, with your attitude, all I can offer is a solid: Good.

 

[Mohrgan]

Not all PvP arguments. It's clear that there are those who would love their favourite playing style have meaning in the Elite galaxy. And there are those who are campaigning for everything Open Only just because they have a grudge against the solo boogeyman.

The latter one being the most vocal and outspoken and as far as I can tell alienated the former one.

Don't think that the prolific PvP posters here are representative of the PvP player overall.

None of the fellers on my friendslist who primarily PvP are concerned about the modes. And they shy away from the threads which sport the more rabid crusading posters because they don't want to be associated with them.

Point taken, and accepted. Even when I'm trying to be reasonable, I can still have a perception issue.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I wouldn't say my comment, the one quoted, supports this commentary at all. When someone's personal game philosophy doesn't match the rules and structure of a game, rules that are part of it's foundation especially, it's up to that player to resolve the issue. It's not up to the game, and it's developers to resolve.

My point has always been, you can only expect to play along side those that share your interests. That's exactly how this game is designed and offered. Resorting to griefing because you have misconceptions about your options is, in my opinion, not a supportable position. I see that as what happens on play grounds with school kids. It's a childish kind of extortion. "Play my way, or I'll ruin the way you play".

The current playing field is perfectly level. You have every choice that other players have. A BGS faction can only be attacked via PvE, and a Faction can only be defended through PvE. In open PG or Solo. If you insist a PG or Solo has an advantage over open in terms of the BGS, a view I don't agree with, then you are able to use those modes and the benefits you see in them, as well. The very definition of fair play. Equal access.

As to brigading, or what ever word you intended, that tactic is not a one sided affair. It has equal favor on both sides of the discussion. Cryptic messages and innuendo solves nothing. As to how people feel about being griefed by you, that goes both ways. If you feel marginalized and your favored play style seems redundant, with your attitude, all I can offer is a solid: Good.

I didnt resort to griefing.

Again, people's understanding of the game is what made griefing. Not me.

And when the developers of the game remove that rule structure and people ask it to be fixed. So griefing goes away. A lot of people here play both sides of the fence.

Just like you did in this comment.

Either devs make it so we have Legit PVP. Or we have griefing. Not both.

Play style has jack all to do with this conversation. Especially when others invade systems.

Which one do you think they are going to fix so people understand it?

 

[Exeider]

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

.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh wait, you were serious...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Which one do you think they are going to fix so people understand it?

With your prediction track record, I think we can safely assume that it's not the one you think it will be

And lets remind ourselves:

I call them rare holographic cards. I cant post what they said on the forums before I killed them. But whew lad they were salty baby. At the gnosis too.

Thats the real meaningful PVP. It was glitched for a couple hours. All modes were merged. We got to kill solo players.

We were living the dream for a couple of hours.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ve-in-a-game?p=7150676&viewfull=1#post7150676

First opportunity you got, you resorted to griefing. So you can talk about the wrong people getting killed, you're not fooling anyone.

You want soft targets, so they can be salty baby. That is you living the dream. You got to kill solo players.

 

[Mohrgan]

I didnt resort to griefing.

Again, people's understanding of the game is what made griefing. Not me.

And when the developers of the game remove that rule structure and ask it to be fixed. So griefing goes away. A lot of people here play both sides of the fence.

Just like you did in this comment.

Either devs make it so we have Legit PVP. Or we have griefing. Not both.

Which one do you think they are going to fix so people understand it?

There you go again...

You presume that how people play the game, and how FD develop it is some kind of mistake. It isn't. The mistake is on you.

You are firmly entrenched in a false dichotomy. Just because E|D doesn't force people to accept PvP, doesn't mean that you are free to take your dissatisfaction out on others. That is what petulant children do. The fact of the matter is that you don;t understand the developers intentions. You view the entire discussion through a single filter. Never bothering to weigh the implications of the rule set put before you. It's not my, nor FD's, responsibility to accommodate you.

Accept the fact that you can only expect to play alongside those that share your interests, and everyone would be better served.

 

[EUS]

With your prediction track record, I think we can safely assume that it's not the one you think it will be

And lets remind ourselves:


https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ve-in-a-game?p=7150676&viewfull=1#post7150676

First opportunity you got, you resorted to griefing. So you can talk about the wrong people getting killed, you're not fooling anyone.

You want soft targets, so they can be salty baby. That is you living the dream. You got to kill solo players.

No, no, no. It's you that doesn't understand anything about the game.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, no, no. It's you that doesn't understand anything about the game.

But I gots my big boi pants on because I was told everything will be Open Only since 3 months ago [sad]