No, I'm saying that people who played those early releases might have got a different impression of what the full game would have been like based on their experience with it, which is a reasonable position. Not everybody follows forum debates and developer diaries.
Player affecting factions even in Pvt and Solo
- Thread starter 3Times4
- Start date
No, I'm saying that people who played those early releases might have got a different impression of what the full game would have been like based on their experience with it, which is a reasonable position. Not everybody follows forum debates and developer diaries.
You have to include Alpha/Beta players in any group where you declare what their impression of the game is at the time of purchase though. Loads of players come into this game expecting the pvp side to be better only to leave disappointed, I've been on enough discord servers to know that.
When PvP has no unique features, it becomes an irreverent sideshow, which explains why most PvP-focused groups have a life-cycle of about 18 months to 2 years before they all get bored and leave.
If they added a PvP-toggle we'd be in exactly the same position as we are now.
Have you tried it? New/casual players in CQC get stomped just as hard by those who've unlocked everything. It's really no different.
Of course we don't have exact numbers, but by the enthusiasm the idea was greeted with I'd bet it would draw lots of players in.
Nor would it, Powerplay is optional, Sandro reiterated this point so many times:
Almost all players playing today started playing the game with solo mode available. All XBox and PS4 players will have bought the game with solo mode available. Your argument isn't at all reasonable.
Edit: And as Powerplay wasn't introduced until after release (when solo was available), your point is completely moot, anyway.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I expect that the primary purchase location for Alpha / Beta access was the so-called "Backers' App" which took over after the Kickstarter finished - the Kickstarter information, particularly the FAQ (which details, among other things, how the single player and multi-player aspects of the game were expected to develop) remains available to this day.
As a KS backer, I was familiar with the three game modes and single shared galaxy state from the beginning - nearly two years prior to release. That the information was available and that some players chose to ignore it / hoped that it would not be implemented is their issue. Forum threads started by those proclaiming that the game "would die" if the modes were implemented started at about the same time as some players realised that other players could choose not to play with them.
Did they buy a game that supports their play-style?
.... or did they leave because the Developer does not choose to accede to their demands / implement their suggestions / take content from players who don't share their optional play-style?
Indeed - in a game where PvP is, as it has always been, completely optional when engaging in any game feature.
Barely - not outside of Beta.
Speculation faced with Frontier's apparent knowledge that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP. Enthusiasm != profit on development time expended.
The whole point about the Open only Powerplay proposal is that it would require players to engage in PvP, if encountered. Powerplay would remain optional, of course, as it is now, however the option to engage in Powerplay without ever engaging in PvP would have been removed.
It's worse than moot - Solo and PG modes were incorporated into the Kickstarter campaign from the very outset. Even before any coding or development began on the game itself. The fact that Solo and PG modes weren't available during the alpha phase is entirely irrelevant and misplaced and a red herring in this discussion. I suspect that it is a deliberate red herring as well... but there we are, there's nothing like a bit of deliberate misinformation to back up one's viewpoint, is there???
Solo and PG weren't "added on" - or an afterthought - they were intrinsic in the fundamental game design right from the get-go, and part and parcel of the entire game design philosophy well before we, the players, got to test the multiplayer network in the alpha and beta release phases...
Yours Aye
Mark H
Indeed.
My point was that doing PP in solo has always been an option. It isn't something that has changed.
PvE players don't have any content "to themselves" as everything is shared in all modes.
Everything a PvE player can do, a PvP'er in Open can do.
Even the real world competitions and rewards were done in Open Only so PvP'ers had the advantage over PvE'ers.
As a PvE player, I was excluded from them as I didn't want to play Open so early on in my Elite gaming.
So I've never been able to join in a competition.
PvP'ers were given CQC, a PvP only feature (No AI ships, only humans).
So while PvE'ers have never had anything for "themselves", PvP'ers have and yet you still complain about shared content.
No, but they were part of the design plan and KS pitch in 2012; before you were even able to play.
The fact they didn't add the multiplayer filter until beta is a moot point, it was always going to be there, it was an advertised feature before you bought (or pledged) the game.
You know this, I've given you the KS info multiple times, this attempt at being dishonest about it really shows it's not PP you want to improve, it's your target pool you want improving - even by dishonest means.
Nope, because I have absolutely zero interest in PvP combat. How can this be, if Elite: Dangerous is right up my game-street? Perhaps that's because Elite: Dangerous is not a PvP combat game. Sure, you can indulge in PvP combat, if that's your thing...
Even if I had tried CQC, new players being stomped is not an issue I'd have with it - in fact I'd expect this to be the case, and wholeheartedly don't find that to be an issue. Mostly because there should be skill as the primary delineator of which player wins and which gets their ship destroyed (unlike E: D proper!). Also, there appears to be no "penalty" for losing your CQC matches (unlike E: D proper). No rebuy, no lost missions, no lost cartographic data, and finally, since CQC is an opt-in game all unto itself, all players are going in knowing that it is solely a PvP combat game (unlike E: D, which can be played fully in all of it's multiple facets without once, ever, engaging in PvP combat. You can even engage in PvP conflict without engaging in PvP combat. Those two things are distinct and not the same thing. Conflict can involve combat, but not necessarily so...)
All the best
Mark H
They can do PvE sure, but not PvP because there is nobody doing Powerplay in open.
What competitions are you talking about? The graphics card one back in 2015?
CQC was only built to give Fdev a foot in the console market and was subsequently forgotten about. We're so spoiled..
I Still don't see the issue being campaigned here.
If winning PP is your metric, then find ways to win.
If PvP combat (against other PvP combateers - or in mixed fleets) is your metric, then go ahead and organise this against LIKE MINDED PvP combateers and LIKE MINDED mixed fleets. This is available to you. Right Now.
If, however, what you really desire is <s> PvP combat </s> in your wing of 4 ultra-engineered combat vessels against lone target haulers, then PP ought not to provide that for you.
If winning PP is your metric, then find ways to win.
If PvP combat (against other PvP combateers - or in mixed fleets) is your metric, then go ahead and organise this against LIKE MINDED PvP combateers and LIKE MINDED mixed fleets. This is available to you. Right Now.
If, however, what you really desire is <s> PvP combat </s> in your wing of 4 ultra-engineered combat vessels against lone target haulers, then PP ought not to provide that for you.
What about the argument for organic PvP in open play that affects the wider galaxy? Doesn't seem to be on your list there.
Sounds like you're trying to dictate how others play the game, which is something you guys usually speak like you're against...
The Powerplay idea was proposed by the lead developer, nobody forced them to bring it up, so naturally it will get discussed a lot - especially as Fdev have never confirmed what they're going to do one way or the other.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Powerplay already has the ability to deliver that. What it does not do, however, is exclude players in Solo and Private Groups from participating in it in their preferred mode. Some players want the feature to be restricted so that it can be dominated using PvP.
All players engage in PvE. PvP remains optional.
The proposal, as part of an investigation with no guarantee of implementation, was indeed made by the Lead Developer. He was always the most visible proponent of Powerplay but has subsequently redeployed within Frontier to another project. I strongly expect that the Open only aspect was included in the Flash Topic simply because it would be demanded by a vocal subset of the player-base.
No, that is exactly what you are doing. You want to change the way the game is, and has always been (despite your weak protestations to the contrary) into something that suits you and the minority of players (and you are a minority) who see PvP as an essential part of the game.
'Has the ability to deliver' does not mean it does. You have admitted yourself that it can't be used as a vessel for PvP combat because of the modes. PvP is at its core (as said by Sandro) so dominating through PvP is not an unreasonable thing. PvE groups already dominate BGS so Powerplay would cater for an other part of the ED community as it should.
Yes and they have not confirmed the outcome yet, they should put us all out of our misery and just tell us the conclusion of their investigation... not just go quiet on it and hope it goes away.
Also, just because PvP players call for something does not mean Fdev open up flash topics on it, this was a one off so it obviously has support within Fdev.
Yes but I'm not trying to hide my bias behind a thinly-veiled morally superior standpoint. I want powerplay to be open only so I can fight and kill other players in open, this is exactly right.
Every subgroup of the Elite playerbase is technically a minority, so what?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
What Sandro actually said was that it offers the opportunity for consensual PvP - not that it requires PvP. The pan-modal implementation makes it rather clear that the feature does not require PvP.
What Frontier should or should not do, with regard to providing content for players is up to them. Knowingly removing existing content from players would be quite a significant step, in my opinion.
PvE players dominating the BGS in a game that has no requirement whatsoever to engage in PvP is a perfectly reasonable outcome. It's a false equivalence to suggest that an optional play-style, not required for any game feature, should be able to dominate a game feature.
Sandro indicated that he'd been in discussions with the groups that have formed around each Power - their desires may have encouraged him to include the Open only proposal - equally, the admittedly low participation in Powerplay (as Sandro previously indicated that it was difficult to prioritise development time to a feature with low uptake among the player-base as a whole) might mean that the proposal was not representative of the player-base as a whole.
No other minority want to change a fundamental aspect of the game to benefit themselves to the detriment of the majority, that's what.
And you can fight and kill other players in open already, so that argument is worthless.
The Replicated Man
T
LMAO You guys are hilarious. You know what Sandro said regarding PvP and powerplay, and you just can't bring yourselves to accept it.
SMH
SMH
Open PvE and PvP tag advocates do it all the time, what are talking about?
So you'd rather we attack players who haven't signed up for anything. Got it
