Player affecting factions even in Pvt and Solo

[Rampant]

Sandro's post concerning Powerplay changes in the Focused Feedback thread appears to contradict the above statement:



Note: My emphasis in bold

Your emphasis in bold says "player versus player conflict"

It doesn't say "player versus player combat"

You appear to be conflating the word "conflict" with "combat", when the 2 are indeed separate and distinct.

It is perfectly legitimate use of the English language that 2 player groups could be involved in PP - and be in "direct conflict" with one another - while both groups are also performing their gameplay from their own private group.
Fighting a group by engaging in PP token hauling and BGS manipulation is a legitimate way to engage in a "conflict".
Both groups have "conflicting" aims - only one of which may prevail. I don't see PvP combat as the only way to interpret Sandro's words.
This conflict is also "consensual" even if both groups are playing in Solo or PG. You are engaging in the PP aspects, so it is a consensual engagement, with various different methods to further your groups aim.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[darkseer]

Huh... I could have sworn I saw him on live streams talking about how cool powerplay was going to be, before it was launched. Maybe I was thinking of someone else. He is a pretty unique character though, so that would be odd.

ah i had my dates wrong that was to something else thank you for the correction I have fixed my mistake and feel quite foolish. but i do still stand by the fact that powerplay is mainly driven by pve activities and sandaro word not being gods.

 

[Drelthar]

ah i had my dates wrong that was to something else thank you for the correction I have fixed my mistake and feel quite foolish. but i do still stand by the fact that powerplay is mainly driven by pve activities and sandaro word not being gods.

I entirely agree with that part! The thing that most dissapointed me with powerplay was the "missions" to gvet merits were just... terrible versions of the most mundane tasks already in the game. I had imagined unique missions, or at the LEAST powerplay missions on the mission board.

But, yup, the way to gain "stuff" in powerplay is, to do PVE things.

 

[darkseer]

I entirely agree with that part! The thing that most dissapointed me with powerplay was the "missions" to gvet merits were just... terrible versions of the most mundane tasks already in the game. I had imagined unique missions, or at the LEAST powerplay missions on the mission board.

But, yup, the way to gain "stuff" in powerplay is, to do PVE things.

what always bothered me about powerplay was how it was gating sometimes very essential parts for building a pvp ship and as such you had players joining factions not because they wanted to be apart of the faction but because they wanted that part, and as such they did not support the faction. see my earlier post about duval supports blockading and ganking their own allies just to try and stop the priming of a system ( it was such a dumpster fire).

 

[Lateralus]

Your emphasis in bold says "player versus player conflict"

It doesn't say "player versus player combat"

You appear to be conflating the word "conflict" with "combat", when the 2 are indeed separate and distinct.

It is perfectly legitimate use of the English language that 2 player groups could be involved in PP - and be in "direct conflict" with one another - while both groups are also performing their gameplay from their own private group.
Fighting a group by engaging in PP token hauling and BGS manipulation is a legitimate way to engage in a "conflict".
Both groups have "conflicting" aims - only one of which may prevail. I don't see PvP combat as the only way to interpret Sandro's words.
This conflict is also "consensual" even if both groups are playing in Solo or PG. You are engaging in the PP aspects, so it is a consensual engagement, with various different methods to further your groups aim.

Yours Aye

Mark H

8:08 - 9:25 Sandro clearly refers to encouraging direct PvP.

 

[Robert Maynard]

8:08 - 9:25 Sandro clearly refers to encouraging direct PvP.

"Most importantly of all it allows consensual PvP". Consensual != required, in this context.

 

[Lateralus]

"Most importantly of all it allows consensual PvP". Consensual != required, in this context.

Yes... However, people here are trying to suggest that Powerplay is not intended to encourage direct PvP, which is evidently false as the video proves.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes... However, people here are trying to suggest that Powerplay is not intended to encourage direct PvP, which is evidently false as the video proves.

The video proves that any direct PvP in Powerplay is optional - which seems to be the crux of the issue that some players have with Powerplay (and the BGS, for that matter) - players can engage in it without requiring to PvP and some players can't accept that.

 

[Lateralus]

The video proves that any direct PvP in Powerplay is optional.

That's not the point I was making, we all know that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That's not the point I was making, we all know that.

True - however there are those who insist that it was meant to be a feature that would revolve around PvP - which cannot be the case for a feature that can be engaged in in any of the three game modes.

 

[Lateralus]

True - however there are those who insist that it was meant to be a feature that would revolve around PvP - which cannot be the case for a feature that can be engaged in in any of the three game modes.

Yes, I agree, they messed up the design.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes, I agree, they messed up the design.

Naturally there are those who don't share the opinion that Powerplay being available in all game modes is a problem - for some, it's a feature.

I expect it depends, to an extent, on one's personal preference regarding PvP.

 

[Goose4291]

The video proves that any direct PvP in Powerplay is optional - which seems to be the crux of the issue that some players have with Powerplay (and the BGS, for that matter) - players can engage in it without requiring to PvP and some players can't accept that.

 

[Arguendo]

Your emphasis in bold says "player versus player conflict"

It doesn't say "player versus player combat"

You appear to be conflating the word "conflict" with "combat", when the 2 are indeed separate and distinct.

Actually I am not. You need to read my reply in the context of the post I was quoting. Here's the relevant part of it:

first off powerpowerplay was not meant to give players a reason to pvp power play made to try and give players a group to rally behind that both combat players and cargo players could interact and have a visible effect on

As I showed, Powerplay was indeed meant to give players a reason to pvp, atleast according to Sandro.
The user I quoted seems to conflate Powerplay with BGS though.

 

[Rampant]

Actually I am not. You need to read my reply in the context of the post I was quoting. Here's the relevant part of it:


As I showed, Powerplay was indeed meant to give players a reason to pvp, atleast according to Sandro.
The user I quoted seems to conflate Powerplay with BGS though.

Here's the crux:

BGS play is PvP conflict.

This game is different from the first person shooter genre where "PvP" is restricted solely to "PvP combat". In this game PvP is not restricted to simple PvP combat. However, a sect of players can't accept this fundamental truth and insist on viewing this game through a first person shooter prism, which is blatantly incorrect, but still, this behaviour persists.

In this game "direct PvP" is not restricted solely to "PvP combat" and players must accept this fundamental truth if we are to move forward in this discussion.

Moreover, if you subscribe to the view that PP was intended to "encourage PvP combat", that doesn't mean that it was intended to solely revolve around PvP combat. To insist this is the case is at best an unintentional misunderstanding, and at worst a deliberate misrepresentation.

Just because PP may have been implemented to "encourage PvP combat", that certainly doesn't mean it was intended to be the be all and end all. Encouragement is a carrot. Not a stick. If PP was supposed to centre on PvP combat, then the stick of compulsion would have been used and not the carrot of encouragement.

Is this becoming any clearer yet?

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Rampant]

At some point, players should nail their colours to the mast in this discussion.

Do you want PvP combat with similarly tooled up PvP enthusiasts?
Yes?
Well, the current implementation of PP allows for this.

Do you want teams of players with mixed fleets of haulers and PvP fighter cover to coalesce or play cat and mouse?
Yes?
The current implementation ALLOWS for this, provided there are equally minded individuals on opposing teams. If this is what you all want, then this is absolutely available in the current system. If this is what A LOT OF PLAYERS want, then why aren't you doing this already?

Is the gameplay the overriding desire, or is the end result the overriding desire?

If, like I keep imagining from this kind of thread, that it is the gameplay that people want, then sort yourselves out and get it done, already. There appears to be plenty of players who want this, unless they actually don't, in which case, I can't help you.

Alternatively...

Do you just want to go out in a wing of optimised engineered fighter ships and destroy single PP haulers?

If so, that is not what appears to be intended by the current system and you're bang out of luck.

 

[Jockey79]

8:08 - 9:25 Sandro clearly refers to encouraging direct PvP.

There is a difference between "encouraging" and "forcing" though.
Making PP Open Only removes the choice and forces people to play in a way they don't want to play.
Which goes against "Play your own way" / "Choice is yours" tag lines Frontier keep using.

Even the KS pitch had "You are at the centre of the action any time, any place and any way you choose – each action has a consequence, and influences the galaxy around you. "

I choose not to be your content and make you nothing more than a background blip in my game, while I enjoy being the centre of the action for my Princess.

 

[Arguendo]

Here's the crux:

BGS play is PvP conflict.
<snip>
Just because PP may have been implemented to "encourage PvP combat", that certainly doesn't mean it was intended to be the be all and end all. Encouragement is a carrot. Not a stick. If PP was supposed to centre on PvP combat, then the stick of compulsion would have been used and not the carrot of encouragement.

Is this becoming any clearer yet?

I think you're stuck in a loop here, and automatically placed my post in that loop tbh. Here's the thing: I do not disagree with you!
I was responding specifically to someone who said that Powerplay was not intended for PvP. By Sandro's own words it clearly was, but that includes both direct (aka pew pew) and indirect.
PvP in this game is different than other games as you clearly stated, but it's still PvP. So if someone wants to limit that to combat only, they need to specify that. Saying "there is no PvP content in this game" is just as wrong as saying "Powerplay wasn't intended for PvP". Neither sentence specifies what type of PvP they're talking about. Sandro's sentence on the matter is all inclusive though, as it correctly calls it PvP conflict which doesn't limit it to dakka-dakka-pew-pew.

Clear enough?

 

[darkseer]

I think you're stuck in a loop here, and automatically placed my post in that loop tbh. Here's the thing: I do not disagree with you!
I was responding specifically to someone who said that Powerplay was not intended for PvP. By Sandro's own words it clearly was, but that includes both direct (aka pew pew) and indirect.
PvP in this game is different than other games as you clearly stated, but it's still PvP. So if someone wants to limit that to combat only, they need to specify that. Saying "there is no PvP content in this game" is just as wrong as saying "Powerplay wasn't intended for PvP". Neither sentence specifies what type of PvP they're talking about. Sandro's sentence on the matter is all inclusive though, as it correctly calls it PvP conflict which doesn't limit it to dakka-dakka-pew-pew.

Clear enough?

your trying to split hairs here most of the time when people say pvp in reference to a game they are referring to player vs player "combat" so when i replied with
"first off powerplay was not meant to give players a reason to pvp power play made to try and give players a group to rally behind that both combat players and cargo players could interact and have a visible effect on." notice how i mention combat players and its how powerplay was made to give both sides something to do. and replicant the person i had replied to was clearly referring to pvp combat

 

[Arguendo]

your trying to split hairs here most of the time when people say pvp...

And there is the problem. Especially in a game like Elite Dangerous. PvP isn't just "PvP".
On the other hand, Powerplay was meant to give players a reason to engage in PvP combat as well as indirect PvP via cargo, merit hauling, missions, etc. You can't exclude one thing, and then include it a sentence later and wipe your hands claiming to be done.
Either Powerplay was meant as an outlet for PvP combat, or it wasn't.