Every activity in ED is PvP

Dragsham

Dragsham
@Mogen Teras
Salt! Wow...but he is right. The insistence is frankly silly.
For me it's a suggestion to make the game more of an experience and by that I'm not talking about PvP I'm advocating open only so it's a true sandbox not 3 overlapping like the proverbial triple hotspot.
How this game fares is upto the devs.
It's their call not ours
 

CMDR Nathan Atterlein

CMDR Nathan Atterlein
MarkAusten said:
I think it does.

If the play style only requires ONE player then that play style MUST be PVE. In contrast PVP MUST have more than one player by definition.

The BGS only requires ONE player, therefore it is PVE.
Click to expand...

The BGS is there for every player. There are no circumstances, such as you purpose. And since it's a universal playing field, it is, by design, a sandbox where people will inevitably kick others' sand castles. Ergo BGS is PvP in its own style.
 

Dragsham

Dragsham
Nathan I don't agree but I get what your saying. I just think cz's would be a blast if both sides were a mix of npcs and players
 

Mohrgan

Mohrgan
CMDR Nathan Atterlein said:
The BGS is there for every player. There are no circumstances, such as you purpose. And since it's a universal playing field, it is, by design, a sandbox where people will inevitably kick others' sand castles. Ergo BGS is PvP in its own style.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's perfectly reasonable to consider the BGS as Indirect-PvP. But don;t confuse that with a zero sum situation. Over all influence within a system is zero sum, but the methods to affect it are not. So long as an opponent attacks a Faction there will be ways, buckets to fill, to counter it. All of this can, and does, carry on without the direct influence of PvP.
 

the100thmonkey

the100thmonkey
Ian Doncaster said:
Even the actual BGS-driven conflicts between two groups can themselves be seen as collaborations from a perspective outside those groups, because the conflicts make the background more interesting.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that that's a feature of any game that works - players have to understand and agree on the rules. This agreement is often tacit in games where the rules are clearly laid out or already shared cultural knowledge exists, such as Monopoly or informal games like three-and-in (a popular British school playground soccer football game where the first player to score three goals in a free-for-all against all other players then takes a turn in goal until the next person who scores three goals takes over), or negotiated in games where the rules aren't fixed, like some card games or, again, informal playground games.

With specific reference to Elite, much of the controversy over whether or not it is a "made for PvX" game stems from two things: its open world design philosophy and FD's decision to obfuscate how many of the game's mechanics work. It allows the entire gamut of gameplay styles mentioned above -- all of which are valid inasmuch as they are possible within the limited open world context of the game -- while not elevating any one particular style of play over another, but given that it is an open world, players have to make specific, conscious choices in order to share expectations of behaviour towards each other1. This is somewhat glossed over in the initial experience, which leads to some players getting a bit of a shock. With regard to obfuscation, it partly stems from the game's mechanical complexity in regards to how its ships and modules work, and how the sink-or-swim attitude that characterised the original game and its early sequels informs the devs' current thinking about things like producing a manual for the BGS (a hard "no" from the devs, IIRC.)

More gregarious players might initially go to open, only to give up after being ganked just outside Dromi and head to PG or solo. In that kind of situation, there is no negotiation of rules possible, as a newb in a starter Sidey taking their first steps outside the starter area isn't really in a position to flee from or fire back at an FdL. There is a clear in-game power differential. A player getting ganked nevertheless might enjoy the experience depending on their attitude to the interaction. I would therefore suggest that any thread or post stating that Elite is made for <<insert favourite playstyle here>> would need to argue that from the first principle of "because it is possible," but would also need to deal with the open-world design brief informing the developers' choices in the mechanics they implement.

1 Interestingly, this is also a feature of languages and their uses.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 121570

D
the100thmonkey said:
I'd argue that that's a feature of any game that works - players have to understand and agree on the rules. This agreement is often tacit in games where the rules are clearly laid out or already shared cultural knowledge exists, such as Monopoly or informal games like three-and-in (a popular British school playground soccer football game where the first player to score three goals in a free-for-all against all other players then takes a turn in goal until the next person who scores three goals takes over), or negotiated in games where the rules aren't fixed, like some card games or, again, informal playground games.

With specific reference to Elite, much of the controversy over whether or not it is a "made for PvX" game stems from two things: its open world design philosophy and FD's decision to obfuscate how many of the game's mechanics work. It allows the entire gamut of gameplay styles mentioned above -- all of which are valid inasmuch as they are possible within the limited open world context of the game -- while not elevating any one particular style of play over another, but given that it is an open world, players have to make specific, conscious choices in order to share expectations of behaviour towards each other1. This is somewhat glossed over in the initial experience, which leads to some players getting a bit of a shock. With regard to obfuscation, it partly stems from the game's mechanical complexity in regards to how its ships and modules work, and how the sink-or-swim attitude that characterised the original game and its early sequels informs the devs' current to things like producing a manual for the BGS (a hard "no" from the devs, IIRC.)

More gregarious players might initially go to open, only to give up after being ganked just outside Dromi and head to PG or solo. In that kind of situation, there is no negotiation of rules possible, as a newb in a starter Sidey taking their first steps outside the starter area isn't really in a position to flee from or fire back at an FdL. There is a clear in-game power differential. A player getting ganked nevertheless might enjoy the experience depending on their attitude to the interaction. I would therefore suggest that any thread or post stating that Elite is made for <<insert favourite playstyle here>> would need to argue that from the first principle of "because it is possible," but would also need to deal with the open-world design brief informing the developers' choices in the mechanics they implement.

1 Interestingly, this is also a feature of languages and their uses.
Click to expand...

That was a fine read indeed. Bang on.
 

-VR- Max Factor

-VR- Max Factor
CMDR Nathan Atterlein said:
Saw a post recently stating that this game isn't made for PvP, got me thinking. This applies to open, solo, and pg, for every platform.

-Trading: you're racing to get the best prices, due to demand constantly fluctuating, influencing your profits. A goldrush, pretty much. Alongside it's competitive nature, you're also potentially influencing local players factions, messing up their bgs. That's indirect PvP right there.

-Exploration: you'd think solo exploration has nothing to do with other players, but as with trading, wherever you'll dump your billions of beagle data, local bgs players will potentially flip out, since their efforts were pretty much denied with huge uncontrolled bgs input. You're kicking other's sand castles, when turning in data without research.

-Bounty hunting: this invariably harms anarchist factions, no matter how pve activity shooting npcs may seem. If you get mauled by gankers in open, at a system you regularly go shooting pirates, it's probably because they are trying to stop you from causing further harm.

-CZs: self explanatory. Everything BGS is likely PvP. I doubt solo people make sure not to impede on other's efforts by picking their fights according to a common goal, unless they work for a group.

-Any missions: BGS, see above.

-Thargoid hunting: Almost pure pve, but say hello to the Pleiades Concordat. :p

-Terrorism: (aka killing civilians for fun, and the sys sec for extra spice) really good bgs undermining method.

-Piracy+using black markets: (see terrorism)

And I'm pretty sure there's more, but these already speak for themselves. As for the the exceptions:

-Photography: I've never seen anyone shouting "plagiarism" because they took the same photo of the same interstellar body, in the same angle, at the same time, so I guess it's.. not PvP. But could be. :D

-Fuel ratting: they have a strict no PvP policy, so you got me, you magnificent people! Bless your souls!

Other than these player-originated activities, Elite Dangerous is definitely made for PvP! Direct, or indirect.
Click to expand...
No it's not PvP. It's PvE. Your PvE activities change the environment that other players play in. It's not necessarily a versus, you're not necessarily fighting against other players.

Now people that manipulate the BGS for their chosen faction against another faction that a player wants in power, some people call that PvP, but the only way to do that is to play with the environment, so it really should look like, PvEvP. People try to say it's designed for PvP, but it isn't.

Now Powerplay, that really is a PvP game, but doesn't work well because it works in solo and PGs. What they need to do is either remove it from solo and PGs or redesign it to make it a part of the BGS so it becomes PvEvP, which would be my preference.
 

PeLucheuh

PeLucheuh
-VR- Max Factor said:
No it's not PvP. It's PvE. Your PvE activities change the environment that other players play in. It's not necessarily a versus, you're not necessarily fighting against other players.

Now people that manipulate the BGS for their chosen faction against another faction that a player wants in power, some people call that PvP, but the only way to do that is to play with the environment, so it really should look like, PvEvP. People try to say it's designed for PvP, but it isn't.

Now Powerplay, that really is a PvP game, but doesn't work well because it works in solo and PGs. What they need to do is either remove it from solo and PGs or redesign it to make it a part of the BGS so it becomes PvEvP, which would be my preference.
Click to expand...
Well said. I would add that PvE and PvP are not mutually exclusive. Often, meaningful PvP is build around PvE objectives where players compete on the same playing field where they can directly interact with each other).

Indirect PvP aka PvEvP aka PvE versus PvE works with PvE activities only that can be done in countless unequal playing fields.
The actual ED design makes it impossible to have any deep and meaningful gameplay mechanics wether it is PvE or PvP.
OOPP would not work as a PvP feature because there are a least 3 different Open mode (platform) containing x amount of different instances.
BGS ? Well... Bot (against TOS) in solo mode is the way to go.
 

CMDR Nathan Atterlein

CMDR Nathan Atterlein
ZeroAi said:
No elaboration needed - double elite on PC and XBOX and never took part in PvP.

Did spend a good amount of time shooting baddies in HRES as well as Thargoids as part of my PvE.
Click to expand...

All the turned in bounties must've ruffled the jimmies of local outlaws trying to flip the system to anarchy. :(

If I rank my harmless alt up to triple elite by the end of the day, will you accept the superiority of my argument?
 

Sylow

Sylow
The OP has an interesting point of view. I guess it means that whenever i buy a bottle of Coke, i am waging war against China and Russia? Wow, i never knew what a fierce warmonger i am! :D ;)

I mean yes, any action may influence the BGS. But unless you intentionally push into a certain direction, a normal players action gets lost in the normal static and is inconsequential. And i just don't see how inconsequential actions would be PvP. I rather leave that to people who are interested in playing the BGS, knowing that my casual and opportunistic playstyle doesn't really affect anybody.
 

Riverside

Riverside
Sylow said:
The OP has an interesting point of view. I guess it means that whenever i buy a bottle of Coke, i am waging war against China and Russia? Wow, i never knew what a fierce warmonger i am! :D ;)

I mean yes, any action may influence the BGS. But unless you intentionally push into a certain direction, a normal players action gets lost in the normal static and is inconsequential. And i just don't see how inconsequential actions would be PvP. I rather leave that to people who are interested in playing the BGS, knowing that my casual and opportunistic playstyle doesn't really affect anybody.
Click to expand...

The effect of unfocused BGS activity can be used to a players advantage. I flipped a system to an Anarchy faction a while back, ambient traffic generally opposes an anarchy faction in a war. It also generally favours Corps. So even with a theoretically uncontested wars between two factions I am the dominant influencer of, I couldn't flip it.

But I could flip it to a democracy, then put the anarchy up against that faction & won :)

Those random players that just happened to find one of those wars & arbitrarily choose to go against me - I met some, explained my 'cause' and persuaded them to help me. That was a direct Player vs Player interaction in the same instance. Had I just fired on them they might have left the system, but they might have just switched to solo, even more determined than before to oppose me. That would have been a Player vs Player interaction too (via the BGS).
 

Sylow

Sylow
Riverside said:
Those random players that just happened to find one of those wars & arbitrarily choose to go against me - I met some, explained my 'cause' and persuaded them to help me. That was a direct Player vs Player interaction in the same instance. Had I just fired on them they might have left the system, but they might have just switched to solo, even more determined than before to oppose me. That would have been a Player vs Player interaction too (via the BGS).
Click to expand...

So you used a very interesting instrument: communication by words instead of fire button. That by itself places you far above and beyond a large part of the playerbase, and your success is well earned. You effectively gave the "random element" some direction by convincing them of your agenda, effectively eliminating the static i refer to above. Good job. :)
 

Sir Ganksalot

Sir Ganksalot
CMDR Nathan Atterlein said:
Saw a post recently stating that this game isn't made for PvP, got me thinking. This applies to open, solo, and pg, for every platform.

-Trading: you're racing to get the best prices, due to demand constantly fluctuating, influencing your profits. A goldrush, pretty much. Alongside it's competitive nature, you're also potentially influencing local players factions, messing up their bgs. That's indirect PvP right there.

-Exploration: you'd think solo exploration has nothing to do with other players, but as with trading, wherever you'll dump your billions of beagle data, local bgs players will potentially flip out, since their efforts were pretty much denied with huge uncontrolled bgs input. You're kicking other's sand castles, when turning in data without research.

-Bounty hunting: this invariably harms anarchist factions, no matter how pve activity shooting npcs may seem. If you get mauled by gankers in open, at a system you regularly go shooting pirates, it's probably because they are trying to stop you from causing further harm.

-CZs: self explanatory. Everything BGS is likely PvP. I doubt solo people make sure not to impede on other's efforts by picking their fights according to a common goal, unless they work for a group.

-Any missions: BGS, see above.

-Thargoid hunting: Almost pure pve, but say hello to the Pleiades Concordat. :p

-Terrorism: (aka killing civilians for fun, and the sys sec for extra spice) really good bgs undermining method.

-Piracy+using black markets: (see terrorism)

And I'm pretty sure there's more, but these already speak for themselves. As for the the exceptions:

-Photography: I've never seen anyone shouting "plagiarism" because they took the same photo of the same interstellar body, in the same angle, at the same time, so I guess it's.. not PvP. But could be. :D

-Fuel ratting: they have a strict no PvP policy, so you got me, you magnificent people! Bless your souls!

Other than these player-originated activities, Elite Dangerous is definitely made for PvP! Direct, or indirect.
Click to expand...
who could imagine such things... in a MMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom