Banging your head against brick walls and solid arguments is equally painful, as you have discovered.
Player affecting factions even in Pvt and Solo
- Thread starter 3Times4
- Start date
That's a self-fulfilling prophecy though, in the current state of the game.
The risk vs. reward model of PvP as it currently stands is way out of skew compared to the rest of the game content. If Frontier addressed that imbalance (as well as other game imbalances that more aggressively impact PvP play), it is entirely probable that significantly more people would be inclined to engage in it.
I'm not disagreeing with most of what you said but I just don't think pointing to the current ratio of PvP vs. non-PvP players should be part of the discussion. The game itself discourages PvP (imo) as it stands right now so that is more a factor of "the game" then "the players".
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Moving into the realms of speculation can go any which way. The Dev quote regarding what proportion of the player-base engages in PvP is an observation, just as Sandro's statement regarding the "significant majority of players play in Open" followed by "both Solo and Private Groups enjoy significant populations". We don't have better information than that.
I thought this thread was about the bgs?
Now it's just another thread about open mode being out played in power play by peeps in solo, pg, xbox and ps.
Sigh.
Now it's just another thread about open mode being out played in power play by peeps in solo, pg, xbox and ps.
Sigh.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It was pointed out very early on that Frontier have recently reiterated their stance regarding the BGS, i.e. it is for all players, regardless of platform or game mode.I thought this thread was about the bgs?
Now it's just another thread about open mode being out played in power play by peeps in solo, pg, xbox and ps.
Sigh.
After that the thread has moved on to Powerplay.
Right...but pointing to it as justification for not making changes to the game that encourage PvP is why I said it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The game design, as it currently stands, basically discourages PvP so lack of PvP players should not be used in defense of not making any such changes. The game needs changes that push more people to actually want to engage in PvP.
Oh gods... not again.
Ok OP, how about FD split Open from PG/solo? Or create a separate Open only mode for those who don't like the shared galaxy. Would that suit you?
Ok OP, how about FD split Open from PG/solo? Or create a separate Open only mode for those who don't like the shared galaxy. Would that suit you?
There's a world of difference between making changes that encourage PvP and making changes that disenfranchise those who have no interest in PvP.
They will be able to use it, against other custom built kill machines.
And it will finally mean there is some meaningful challenging PvP on the table, where you might risk your expensive custom built kill machines. Wouldn't that be more desirable than lining up haulers without any risk? Or hoping for escorts to provide some challenge?
I totally agree. And in terms of this particular thread topic....I actually agree it shouldn't be done. BUT, and it's a big but, using those player numbers is just too easy for the anti-PvP crowd to use in any argument that involves making needed changes to the game which encourage PvP.
You're quick to worry about disenfranchising those with no interest in PvP....but what about those who do have interest?
They are disenfranchised right now. They deserve to have some elements of the game designed around their preferred play style too, regardless of how anti-PvP folks feel about it. The anti-PvP folks already have all the advantages, they can suck it up on a few design points.
OMG bias in this thread? Surely not...
Yes, I agree. But that should be something added to the game, not something being taken away from some.
It's probably been said 1000 times before, but one of the major problems with getting new folk into PvP in Elite is the in-game cost of losing a battle. And you have to lose many battles to "git gud". So maybe an arena or "simulator" where folk can PvP all they like, without paying a fortune in rebuys, to learn the ropes before going out into the big bad universe?
Whatever it might be, making Powerplay open only isn't it, because Powerplay is largely not about PvP.
You know as well as I do, there are people doing PP in Open.
So please stop with the over exaggerating.
The Race to Elite
The GPU Prize
And the Solome event.
All Open Only to qualify for the real world prizes or join in the event.
Where were the Solo and PG events / rewards???
Oh that's right, there haven't been any.
It was made for PvP Only play.
There is no PvE only gameplay.
Where? I've not found anyone in about two years.
The reward is knowing you're not anyone else's content.
The whole game is PvE only for those in solo.
On this, we agree 100%.
I'm not even a PvP'r, by the way. I am just not a competitive person because in order for one person to win another person needs to lose. My nature irl is to try to find scenarios where both sides win.
That's actually why I took the stance I did. I've seen in this game a tendency in threads to push against any and all game changes that might benefit PvP'rs and it seems to me that they have been on the losing side of most game design decisions since the beginning. They deserve a win at this point even if it is a loss for those who dislike PvP; that's just mho.
But, again, I do agree that the BGS is not the place to do it.
Goose4291
Banned
I think we've had this discussion several times before. As I've said most open only types I know (including myself) would be very much for it.
The issue as always then boils down to which servers data dictates the outcomes for lore/galaxy wide events, if we ever get that promise fulfilled.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not so much a justification for making no changes to the game to encourage PvP - more to state the obvious regarding the fact that there are players widely distributed on the like / dislike PvP spectrum and that Frontier's development efforts might be best spent on all players rather than a subset. The game design, as it currently stands, does not specifically reward PvP - as Frontier quickly found out that players would game the system to gain rewards for what were uncontested encounters.
I doubt that any Developer can "push" players into a play-style that they don't enjoy - they'd probably play the game less, if at all if that were attempted.
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
Strange discussion tbh.
In the Focused Feedback thread that Sandro started there appeared to be a clear majority of people who supported Open Only Power Play, and that included a large part of the people who actually engage in Power Play now.
In this thread I see quite a few who are against it because it would take away other players' choice, while the opponents themselves are not engaging in Power Play in the game as it is. I haven't seen a single opponent say "It would take away my choice to do Power Play in Solo or PG and I do that on a regular basis." So it appears that there is opposition based on a general attitude against any separation in the game, regardless of content.
On the other side there obviously are those who just want targets. Always have been, always will be. They want to shoot people and OOPP would give them an in-game reason to do it, without having to defend themselves when asked why they kill traders. "Because I can" isn't really a reason, it's an excuse. OOPP would be an in-game excuse, if nothing else.
So, it's obvious that neither side will budge, as the arguments on both sides appear to be based on feelings and general attitudes, rather than what's good for Power Play in the game. If that's what FDev listens to, they'll never be able to make decisions that are actually good for that specific content. It's like asking a player who only does PvP and has never left the bubble what should be done to improve exploration. Or the opposite, ask an explorer who has 8 different exploration outfitted ships, but none with weapons mounted, what should be done to improve PvP. Neither of them are good choices for good changes for that content.
To make any improvements to Power Play FDev needs to listen to the groups and players who actually do it, day in and day out. That's where the answer lies, not in this discussion or the infamous Hotel California thread. Whether they actually want to ask and listen is an entirely different issue.
For my own part I don't engage in Power Play, but I see the points from both sides. The only real gripe I have with going Open Only would be if the Power Play modules would remain in their current form. That would be gating of very specific content that I would have an issue with. So placing those modules behind another grindwall that is accessible in all modes would be a minimum requirement for my part atleast.
In the Focused Feedback thread that Sandro started there appeared to be a clear majority of people who supported Open Only Power Play, and that included a large part of the people who actually engage in Power Play now.
In this thread I see quite a few who are against it because it would take away other players' choice, while the opponents themselves are not engaging in Power Play in the game as it is. I haven't seen a single opponent say "It would take away my choice to do Power Play in Solo or PG and I do that on a regular basis." So it appears that there is opposition based on a general attitude against any separation in the game, regardless of content.
On the other side there obviously are those who just want targets. Always have been, always will be. They want to shoot people and OOPP would give them an in-game reason to do it, without having to defend themselves when asked why they kill traders. "Because I can" isn't really a reason, it's an excuse. OOPP would be an in-game excuse, if nothing else.
So, it's obvious that neither side will budge, as the arguments on both sides appear to be based on feelings and general attitudes, rather than what's good for Power Play in the game. If that's what FDev listens to, they'll never be able to make decisions that are actually good for that specific content. It's like asking a player who only does PvP and has never left the bubble what should be done to improve exploration. Or the opposite, ask an explorer who has 8 different exploration outfitted ships, but none with weapons mounted, what should be done to improve PvP. Neither of them are good choices for good changes for that content.
To make any improvements to Power Play FDev needs to listen to the groups and players who actually do it, day in and day out. That's where the answer lies, not in this discussion or the infamous Hotel California thread. Whether they actually want to ask and listen is an entirely different issue.
For my own part I don't engage in Power Play, but I see the points from both sides. The only real gripe I have with going Open Only would be if the Power Play modules would remain in their current form. That would be gating of very specific content that I would have an issue with. So placing those modules behind another grindwall that is accessible in all modes would be a minimum requirement for my part atleast.
So because you're not looking very hard for them (or they all have you on a block list - who knows)
They are not there?
Got it.
Also going to ignore all the people who come on the forums saying they play in Open and never see anyone.
Funny how all of you never see each other isn't it.
And PvP is its own reward, so folks can hand those prizes back then as they don't need them.
Who owes £13,000 cash and a GPU to FDev? Time to hand it back.
Well, there is still "indirect PvP" as Rampant keeps pointing out.
So it's still not really a PvE mode is it, as other people (in Solo, other modes and on other platforms) are messing with faction standings, market prices, Power Play standing and so on.
It's not the "environment" we are facing so it is not a Pv "E" mode.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Strange is an understatement.
Everyone against it seems to "miraculously forget" while youre PVEing against each other, If you lose a rebuy, cargo and fail missions. That means you cant continue to "PVE" against each other.
People are trying to pass this off as a play style. But what it really does is remove the ability to win or lose. Its like a never ending game of chess or monopoly. Its not about making people salty. Thats what it turned into.
Thats it. There is no denying this didnt happen. Still, I watch people throw every type of justification to get around that fact.
Even in chess you remove pieces from the field.
So, to watch this disasterpiece of a conversation the past 2 years has been genuinely entertaining.