Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 45 of 45

Thread: You're probably going to say "duh, it's obvious", but I think I get it now. (PvP dislike)

  1. #31
    Originally Posted by rootsrat View Post (Source)
    No, I don't think that is the case. Losing can also be a positive experience. The fight, the thrill, the close call, the not knowing, all that kind of stuff.
    + Repped! You get it.

    Rooks o7

  2. #32
    Originally Posted by Un1k0rn View Post (Source)
    I was just reading the FFF, where someone's post struck me.

    It said something along the lines of that they don't want to spend time with people who want to fight and destroy them in-game, however, they are happy to have "positive" encounters.

    The thing is I can't help but think that "positive" means they have a chance of winning.

    Do you guys think this is the cause of the PvP/E divide? People just want to "win" every time, and if they can't for whatever reason then they get upset? Because I'm not sure that's how competitive play works...
    I think there's a lotta different tastes so I can only speak for myself. I just hate the impersonal gank. Dying in an instant and that's the end of it, or maybe "lolnoob" is frustrating, at least in a game that isn't set up for fast-paced pvp. But I don't mind dying if it results in a good social interaction. Basically what it comes down to for me.

  3. #33
    Originally Posted by Eriseley View Post (Source)
    I think there's a lotta different tastes so I can only speak for myself. I just hate the impersonal gank. Dying in an instant and that's the end of it, or maybe "lolnoob" is frustrating, at least in a game that isn't set up for fast-paced pvp. But I don't mind dying if it results in a good social interaction. Basically what it comes down to for me.
    Precisely. Psycho murders are simply disappointing. I try very hard to understand the thinking of someone who treats other players as AI wanted ships, even though they are clean, no threat, and no challenge. The only conclusion that I come to is that they want to irritate someone.

    A positive outcome from being ganked would be something like: "...I am the dread pirate xxx, submit and deliver all your cargo or face punishment..." You give over your cargo or not, and consequences happen. Afterwards, you're able to laugh about it whatever the result, share ship builds etc. Maybe team up, who knows.

    Or, if they want a proper fight, at least allow my to go fetch something built for a fight.

    Having a ship suddenly appear from nowhere, interdict, and then attack immediately with 4 racks of packhounds is just sad. Especially when the muppet doesn't get the kill.

  4. #34
    Originally Posted by Un1k0rn View Post (Source)
    It said something along the lines of that they don't want to spend time with people who want to fight and destroy them in-game, however, they are happy to have "positive" encounters.

    The thing is I can't help but think that "positive" means they have a chance of winning.
    I need more context to answer properly. But the problem also stems from "clicking Open = you want PvP", when many click Open to interact with humans, but not PvP which is far down their list of positive interactions to have.

    For example, if i'm being a Fuel Rat, and between cases just chilling about or running data missions, someone interdicting me for PvP is rarely positive. I'm not fitted for combat, so the interaction feels very one-sided and pointless. I'm not saying it's negative, but there's not really notable interaction with a human (vs say a proper pirate role-playing and sending comms), so these random PvP encounters are not what I use Open for (sharing the game-world, and rescuing stranded ships).
    I don't dislike PvP per se: it's highly positive when i'm outfitted for it; with a matched opponent; and win or lose (which does not need a ship-explosion) it can be enjoyable.

    It's all about context.

  5. #35
    Originally Posted by rootsrat View Post (Source)
    No, I don't think that is the case. Losing can also be a positive experience. The fight, the thrill, the close call, the not knowing, all that kind of stuff.
    A fight with a completely predetermined outcome is no fight at all. The possibility for failure, even if failure itself is undesirable, has to exist for there to be excitement or challenge.

    Originally Posted by Han Zulu View Post (Source)
    Perhaps that's a few people a few times here and there, but are there people that each time they sit down and log in do so in anticipation of "oh, let's see what battle I can lose today!"
    I do my best to win whatever fights I find myself in, but failing to achieve that measure of victory is often more educational, and I value the experience I've gained through every mistake I've ever made. On some level, I even look forward to the next time someone is able to best me, even though I apply great effort (all within the bounds of the rules, of course) attempting to forestall that date to 'never'.

    Originally Posted by CamelNumber1 View Post (Source)
    Psycho murders are simply disappointing.
    Personally, I consider even these encounters positive. Either I become a victim, have to analyze what mistakes I made, and resolve not to make the same ones again; or I don't, putting conclusions drawn from previous experiences to the test, validating them, and seeing if there are any refinements that need to be made.

    I may be annoyed or frustrated in the moment, but not unduly so, and there is nothing to blame the other player for (the CMDR is another matter), unless they were cheating to influence the outcome.

  6. #36
    Originally Posted by Morbad View Post (Source)
    Personally, I consider even these encounters positive. Either I become a victim, have to analyze what mistakes I made, and resolve not to make the same ones again; or I don't, putting conclusions drawn from previous experiences to the test, validating them, and seeing if there are any refinements that need to be made.

    I may be annoyed or frustrated in the moment, but not unduly so, and there is nothing to blame the other player for (the CMDR is another matter), unless they were cheating to influence the outcome.
    That works if the game gives you time to learn, but with power creep, and in Elite Dangerous' case just random "features" (like high waking and no mass lock), you kinda just have to look it up online. I dunno, it's not super-fun to me but I will say Elite is much nicer about this than EVE or MUDs I used to play.

  7. #37
    Originally Posted by Un1k0rn View Post (Source)
    I was just reading the FFF, where someone's post struck me.

    It said something along the lines of that they don't want to spend time with people who want to fight and destroy them in-game, however, they are happy to have "positive" encounters.

    The thing is I can't help but think that "positive" means they have a chance of winning.

    Do you guys think this is the cause of the PvP/E divide? People just want to "win" every time, and if they can't for whatever reason then they get upset? Because I'm not sure that's how competitive play works...
    By positive I think of a nice chat or joining in a wing.

  8. #38
    Originally Posted by Eriseley View Post (Source)
    That works if the game gives you time to learn, but with power creep, and in Elite Dangerous' case just random "features" (like high waking and no mass lock), you kinda just have to look it up online. I dunno, it's not super-fun to me but I will say Elite is much nicer about this than EVE or MUDs I used to play.
    Being told how things work (or reading it in the manual or online) can put an experience in context, or allow one to better prepare, but it cannot replace actually experiencing something first hand.

  9. #39
    Originally Posted by Morbad View Post (Source)
    Being told how things work (or reading it in the manual or online) can put an experience in context, or allow one to better prepare, but it cannot replace actually experiencing something first hand.
    No, but reading a guide gives you the build to get the time to actually learn, whereas just diving in gets you dead in time you can't learn anything. That's what annoys me. I can avoid wing ganks now, but no thanks to the game system itself but reading outside stuff. That's just kinda annoying.

  10. #40
    Originally Posted by Morbad View Post (Source)
    A fight with a completely predetermined outcome is no fight at all. The possibility for failure, even if failure itself is undesirable, has to exist for there to be excitement or challenge.
    So, if I was flying a T9 which has never been defeated in combat but setup for cargo hauling, and then I am interdicted, by a FAS armed with Packhound missiles. I manage to low-wake escape 3 times before being destroyed as I am entering the airlock of a space station. During this encounter I was never scanned for cargo, never trash-talked, in fact there was no discernable reason beyond costing me time. (I wasn't carrying cargo at the time.)

    It was no fight, the only outcome was that my ship was going to be destroyed. There was no "fighting back to the best of my ability". It was truly pointless. Hence: Psycho murders are just disappointing.

    What is truly disappointing is that someone wants to fill their time with wasting someone elses time. There's no challenge, beyond trying to destroy their ship before they run away.

    It's possible that the individual was destroyed by the station, but I think they probably combat logged.

    The only positive from that was seeing packhounds in action. Possibly be a bit less patronising in future?

  11. #41
    Originally Posted by CamelNumber1 View Post (Source)
    no discernable reason
    One does not need to dramatically telegraph their motivations to their enemies for them to be legitimate.

    Maybe this CMDR assumed you had or were manipulating the BGS in a way that was unfavorable to them. Maybe you once stole one of this CMDRs kills in a RES or nearly squished their ship and were recognized. Maybe the CMDR just wanted to test their packhounds and seeing a T-9 explode was the icing on the cake. All equally valid reasons for a player to have their CMDR attack that T-9.

    Originally Posted by CamelNumber1 View Post (Source)
    I manage to low-wake escape 3 times before being destroyed as I am entering the airlock of a space station.
    Originally Posted by CamelNumber1 View Post (Source)
    It was no fight, the only outcome was that my ship was going to be destroyed.
    You had at least three chances to save your ship and you decided to stick around to be shot down.

    Originally Posted by CamelNumber1 View Post (Source)
    It's possible that the individual was destroyed by the station, but I think they probably combat logged.
    If the ship firing on you wasn't within 2km of the station when you actually exploded, it's highly likely they escaped.

    Originally Posted by CamelNumber1 View Post (Source)
    The only positive from that was seeing packhounds in action.
    Well, you learned that sometimes you need anti-missile defenses. It should also have become apparent that low-waking when you can be interdicted seconds later probably means you should leave the area rather than repeat an action that isn't working.

  12. #42
    First points - no, apart from maybe the pack hounds test - but I doubt that, too. I've seen youtube the individual getting a hiding from someone on youtube, and it turns out if was a couple of hours before I encountered them.

    Sticking around - well not really. I just wanted to get where I was going.

    They were about 500m from me when I was actually in the airlock. Having "friended" them, I notice that pretty much all the time when they enter open play, they're in a detention centre - so I figure that means that they are being killed. A lot.

    As they say, 3 times is the charm. I have modified my gameplay to counter this behaviour, but there is a point to all this: people behaving like this put other people off playing. It's that simple. If there aren't enough players, the servers will be switched off and there will be no more game.

  13. #43
    Originally Posted by Un1k0rn View Post (Source)
    I was just reading the FFF, where someone's post struck me.

    It said something along the lines of that they don't want to spend time with people who want to fight and destroy them in-game, however, they are happy to have "positive" encounters.

    The thing is I can't help but think that "positive" means they have a chance of winning.

    Do you guys think this is the cause of the PvP/E divide? People just want to "win" every time, and if they can't for whatever reason then they get upset? Because I'm not sure that's how competitive play works...
    positive imply they dont want to get hit with a rebuy screen. If we get rid of that or reduce it then there's no risk or danger associated with flying in open.

  14. #44
    Originally Posted by CamelNumber1 View Post (Source)
    I just wanted to get where I was going.
    No doubt. Sometimes it's better to wait, or change destinations, than risk having to start over after paying a rebuy.

    Originally Posted by CamelNumber1 View Post (Source)
    They were about 500m from me when I was actually in the airlock. Having "friended" them, I notice that pretty much all the time when they enter open play, they're in a detention centre - so I figure that means that they are being killed. A lot.
    Yeah, I agree with that assessment. Penalties for getting shot down are quite mild, so some people just don't care about the survival of their ships.

    Originally Posted by CamelNumber1 View Post (Source)
    As they say, 3 times is the charm. I have modified my gameplay to counter this behaviour, but there is a point to all this: people behaving like this put other people off playing. It's that simple. If there aren't enough players, the servers will be switched off and there will be no more game.
    I have no doubt many people find these experiences off-putting. I personally think the game is overly lenient on ship destruction (for everyone) and that the crime & punishment system could still use some work in higher security areas. However, I'd find it even more off-putting if the game used overly heavy handed means to prevent players from having their CMDRs engage in such activities. Such attacks should always be possible, even if the deterrent value of in-game law enforcement and economics could stand to be a fair bit higher.

    As it stands, modifying our gameplay is the best option we currently have, if we still want to interact with others outside of private groups.

  15. #45
    Turning a Guardian ruin into a racing track, while others slam their "exploration" Anacondas nose into the dirt (because they canīt see anything from a hundred meters away), launching fighters into Thargoid bases or killing senselessly just for da lulz is just not my style of gaming.

    I want to explore and enjoy the excellent scenery and moods Frontier has created or fight in a more tactical way and with the goal in mind to not behave, like it is just another rebuy you lose. I donīt care about winning or beating other players. And these play styles donīt go along very well, if at all. So before i annoy any other player or let others ruin my few hours i have for gaming sessions, i stick to a private group together with some good friends. Very much fun, very interactive and the way i like to play. If you ask me... i neither need Open Play nor PvP.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123