PvP Behold, the great Fdev Ganker filter..

Because every PVP thread needs its militant anti PVP poster.

The names change but the pattern stays the same.

Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing
Interesting.

Enter the militant pro-PvP poster. This time not only do the patterns stay the same, but so do the names.

Which is poignant, don't you think?
 
It's a multiplayer-only game with a shared setting and the same rules have to apply to everyone for the experience I'm looking for to be possible.

The consequences have to be an ever present threat despite my very best efforts to avoid or mitigate them and my CMDR would have to be able to use them, directly or indirectly, against his enemies, and vice versa.
There are several "survival" type games available.
Upon death a player loses everything.
 
None of these fit all of my criteria, or even as many of my criteria as Elite: Dangerous does.
I have an honest question, then...

Do you actually want to change the game that most fits your requirements to be something a bit different than what it actually is designed to be?
I'm asking because I'm a bit unsure, that's all.
It'd just be a bit confusing for me if you have a range of games and specific criteria to meet, select the one that fills most, and yet still want it to be slightly different again...
 
Eve Online
Tried it way back during it's beta when Jumpgate was thriving. It's ship control is too abstract and it's not first-person, so I quickly ruled it out. They did add a first person mode later, but from what I've seen it's still not at all close to the gameplay I'm looking for.

Jumpgate was the first-person EVE Online equivalent (that predated EVE) and it's been closest to the experience I want. Elite: Dangerous is, so far, the next best thing and the only one currently viable.
 
Tried it way back during it's beta when Jumpgate was thriving. It's ship control is too abstract and it's not first-person, so I quickly ruled it out. They did add a first person mode later, but from what I've seen it's still not at all close to the gameplay I'm looking for.

Jumpgate was the first-person EVE Online equivalent (that predated EVE) and it's been closest to the experience I want. Elite: Dangerous is, so far, the next best thing and the only one currently viable.
So the setting is more important than the game-play?

That is a hard one for me, because I struggle with coming over to sci-fi which I don't find to be particularly compelling.
I'd rather be in a game world with dungeons and dragons but I've been disappointed by more titles than I care to recount.
 
Gitting gud has always had a rather poetic, elegant flow.
Lol.. I always get annoyed when that phrase is used. It seems so demeaning because it implies one is automatically part of a pecking order when one chooses to fight others. Comparisons are difficult to avoid, but I guarantee that the actual love of PvP and self motivation are just as important as the competition when it comes to "success." One does not need to be "gud" to enjoy PvP. I am a textbook case example. I certainly hope to improve and indeed the slow but eventual advances I do make are why I continue to play. However, this is a game, an entertainment and telling peeps to "git gud" or else, is not unlike my mom nagging me to practice the piano or make the varsity team. People who cajole others to "git gud" just remind me of bad parenting.

Besides, some of us who are less talented will play the game longer and thus get a better bang for the buck....

:)
 
So the setting is more important than the game-play?

That is a hard one for me, because I struggle with coming over to sci-fi which I don't find to be particularly compelling.
I'd rather be in a game world with dungeons and dragons but I've been disappointed by more titles than I care to recount.
What specifically is it that disappoints you about dungeons and dragon type games? Video games perhaps, are reflections of their respective literary genres. I have read a copious amount of fantasy and I agree with you. The interesting ideas may be juggled around a bit, but in the end it is the same old story with different unpronounceable names. I have to admit feeling the same about science fiction. The mechanisms and ideas are juggled around a bit and the aliens may be ever so slightly stranger, but in the end it's just a human in a Martian suit.

I really really loved sci fi and fantasy as a youth. But now that I have grown old, I find RL to be just as much, if not more interesting.

o7
 
Telling your dragon that it needs to use more lateral movements just doesn't make it. In addition, dragons only breathe fire, not plasma or any kind of small munition. Dragons are very limited combat vessels.

Dragons are certainly more fearsome to look at than a Hauler though. But a bunch of nasty looking teeth is no good long range.
 
Lol.. I always get annoyed when that phrase is used. It seems so demeaning because it implies one is automatically part of a pecking order when one chooses to fight others. Comparisons are difficult to avoid, but I guarantee that the actual love of PvP and self motivation are just as important as the competition when it comes to "success." One does not need to be "gud" to enjoy PvP. I am a textbook case example. I certainly hope to improve and indeed the slow but eventual advances I do make are why I continue to play. However, this is a game, an entertainment and telling peeps to "git gud" or else, is not unlike my mom nagging me to practice the piano or make the varsity team. People who cajole others to "git gud" just remind me of bad parenting.

Besides, some of us who are less talented will play the game longer and thus get a better bang for the buck....

:)
Getting good isn't about placing oneself in a pecking order. It's an attitude that takes responsibility for the development of one's own skill at a game. The fact you hope to improve and take steps to do so shows you are committed to getting good.

It's simply the most perfect and fine formulation of the idea. And frankly, with how much whining and poor sportsmanship in defeat there is around Elite and any other online game with allowances for player conflict it's really all there is left to say.
 
Hard to separate the setting from the gameplay when it comes to games like this.

I want to feel like I'm piloting a spaceship and I want to do it in a broadly credible setting.
I was viewing gameplay in broader terms such as full loot PvP and consequences for decisions.

It would be interesting for FDev to add Nightmare Mode to the game:
1: To play there the commander has to be created there and remain there for the duration (once you leave you cannot re-enter).
2: No insurance.
3: <fill in the blank with other things you'd like to see>

I understand your desire for a more realistic setting.
I don't think it is possible in a game with this level of progression, that is, if you want to keep your player base.
 
Getting good isn't about placing oneself in a pecking order. It's an attitude that takes responsibility for the development of one's own skill at a game. The fact you hope to improve and take steps to do so shows you are committed to getting good.

It's simply the most perfect and fine formulation of the idea. And frankly, with how much whining and poor sportsmanship in defeat there is around Elite and any other online game with allowances for player conflict it's really all there is left to say.
I'd second this and add the importance of being able to set one's own definition of winning.

Do not allow others to define what winning means for you. A twitch monkey is going to define winning one way, a hauler another way, and an explorer yet another way. You may have your own definition - don't allow people to construct imaginary ladders and then pin you to it. I advise this way because the PvP crowd, bless them, are full of rule makers that will corner you into defining winning in terms that suit their needs, not yours.

For example, for me winning has been a variety of things. First it was landing with FA off, and then moving onto dodging in and out of stations with FA off, and fighting NPCS and testing different weapons. If I set my idea of winning in the same way Morbad defines winning then I'd likely never get there and spend the next couple of years frustrated. Thankfully, with this game you can make substative contributions to your faction and never leave solo - which is pretty cool.

BTW, anytime you're near my group feel free to jump and and help us slaughter NPC pirates.
You always have an open invite.
 
I'd second this and add the importance of being able to set one's own definition of winning.

Do not allow others to define what winning means for you. A twitch monkey is going to define winning one way, a hauler another way, and an explorer yet another way. You may have your own definition - don't allow people to construct imaginary ladders and then pin you to it. I advise this way because the PvP crowd, bless them, are full of rule makers that will corner you into defining winning in terms that suit their needs, not yours.

For example, for me winning has been a variety of things. First it was landing with FA off, and then moving onto dodging in and out of stations with FA off, and fighting NPCS and testing different weapons. If I set my idea of winning in the same way Morbad defines winning then I'd likely never get there and spend the next couple of years frustrated. Thankfully, with this game you can make substative contributions to your faction and never leave solo - which is pretty cool.

BTW, anytime you're near my group feel free to jump and and help us slaughter NPC pirates.
You always have an open invite.
Am I the best at PvP? No.

Have I used PvP as one of the tools in the countless campaigns I've lead? Campaigns that ended in victory? You betcha.

Set your own goals. It's still allowed and in the end worth the effort.
 
What specifically is it that disappoints you about dungeons and dragon type games? Video games perhaps, are reflections of their respective literary genres. I have read a copious amount of fantasy and I agree with you. The interesting ideas may be juggled around a bit, but in the end it is the same old story with different unpronounceable names. I have to admit feeling the same about science fiction. The mechanisms and ideas are juggled around a bit and the aliens may be ever so slightly stranger, but in the end it's just a human in a Martian suit.

I really really loved sci fi and fantasy as a youth. But now that I have grown old, I find RL to be just as much, if not more interesting.

o7
Too many games feel like character development is on rails and there is next to no room for innovation.
I really liked UO because the ability to mix and match any 7 skills allowed a person some room to create hybrid characters.

I've been looking for a replacement for over a decade.
 
Top Bottom