Modes Elite Dangerous PvE vs PvP and who needs a Solo play if you had PvE server

[Jockey79]

We're about to use an entire season to fix core features. That didn't happen because 10 people had a bit of a problem.

Didn't happen because half a dozen PvP'ers demanded the game being changed either.

C&P was always broken

What other core features are changing again?
Because the sub forum for it is just full of C&P / dealing with "griefers" (aka unwanted PvP) and one thread about insurance, which relates back to pushing the insurance cost to the person committing the crime. - so more C&P basically.

I'd love to know where PvP'ers got the idea "beyond" is the 2nd coming of your pew pew saviour. It's perplexing as Frontier have never said that.

But yeah, I'm literally watching people suggest the game shouldn't be improved so they can dismiss the idea of improving PvP at the same time. That...pretty much sums up this forum. Ah well, back to making our own content

No you're watch people argue not to lock content to any 1 mode or buff any one mode and keep the current equal access to all players.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But yeah, I'm literally watching people suggest the game shouldn't be improved so they can dismiss the idea of improving PvP at the same time. That...pretty much sums up this forum. Ah well, back to making our own content I'll leave you folks to continue talking nonsense and slapping each others backs.

Only time I opened my big mouth is when people went: PvP needs to be improved, and to do that we have to skull frack those cowards who are hiding. I even have a suggestion floating around about adding PvP content to Open.

The thing that always happens is, when people do not agree with one particular change that is suggested, it is portrayed as being against any change. And you know what that's called? It's called a strawman.

The statement I bolded. You say you literally are watching that happening. You literally see people suggest the game should not be improved. Can you quote such a statement?

edit: and to pre-empt, I'm snickered up to the eyeballs.

 

[StiTch]

The thing that always happens is, when people do not agree with one particular change that is suggested, it is portrayed as being against any change. And you know what that's called? It's called a strawman.

The statement I bolded. You say you literally are watching that happening. You literally see people suggest the game should not be improved. Can you quote such a statement?

Today friend you need to keep your treats intact, as I am hoping to get into your snickers once we've had a few drinks.

For all intents and purposes yes, I am literally seeing that. The forum is rife with complaints about the state of the core content, but when we make the suggestion that PvP can be improved without hurting the feels of non-PvP players, there's suddenly deliberately contradictory questions over whether the game has core issues at all, and outright suggestions we don't need to be making changes. Given not changing the game is not going to happen - we're kinda depending on improvements - I still haven't seen a coherent argument against providing any content that PvPers could enjoy.

I know all too well you personally don't have a problem with it, and your suggestion on Open vs. PG PowerPlay objectives is one I refer to regularly because it's a great example of content that would be exciting for both sides. The problem is that in many cases the simple advocation of positive PvP play causes kneejerk "but I hate PvP" responses, which has been the bread/butter of half the arguments made here. I've responded to people here whose entire point was "I don't care about PvP so you should all go play by yourselves"; if some of the folks here dropped the self-congratulatory back slapping and were subject to a fraction of the scrutiny put to someone actually supporting PvP they'd be lost for words faster than Scooby Doo on a ghost train.

Some folks have nothing more than "I hate PvP because gankors"; whether or not they get picked up on it or not, they would be delusional beyond words if they believe it's actually going to improve anything. Frankly if it's the best the community has, then viva la mindless killing!

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Analogy is perfectly valid.
People want to do PP/BGS with PvP combat, wanting to use sword instead of shovel. But swords are useless for the task and they refuse to accept it. (in reality PP/BGS is crutch trying to push for change to force people to Open who do not want to be in open)
If PvP players were actually into PP/BGS, they would take the shovel in their hand and start working for their power/faction using the tools which non-PvP players are using. But in all threads we see just "but I want to pewpew not work"


Now, your analogy. Yes, advertisement said "you can fight with swords". It NOWHERE said that "swordfighting is all there is and everyone must come to you to get beaten with swords". That is the problem with swordwielders. They just do not get into their heads that others do not want to be beaten in the head with swords for amusement of someone ELSE. Nothing in the statement I read said "You must become beating target of swordplayer". In fact, I bought game based on "You can opt out of swordfighting and still do all the interesting stuff if you wish"


Reality is that there are lots and lots of games out there, and basically NOWHERE are the swordfolk well behaved bunch who play nice and polite with those who do not want to play with swords. You spoke of how ED has consequences for your deeds. That is visible here. Significant portion of PvP group did what it always does when permitted. Went into gankmode and "KOS all humans". And now they complain because their actions, or inactions for those PvP folk who are not into ganking but are not going extra lightyears to find and kill all gankers, they are facing consequences.

Idea that "provide us with enough targets and we behave" is not going to work. There just isn't a game out there where non-insignificant portion of PvP people would not go for cheap kills anytime they can.


To carry on with our analogues and snowshoveling. People who like shoveling snow have formed their own groups which are dedicated ONLY to shoveling snow. Swords are banned and anyone wielding one is permanently kicked out.
Why you swordplayers just cannot make big agreement "Swordfighting between us swordfighters, no rules etc on xxxx in system Whatever"? Nobody is denying you the swordfighting you appear to desire. Go forth, fight one another. Beat one another until only One remains. Or whatever.

We already have a sword fighting group, its called open play. We just dont want snow showellers hiding in their snow caves and ruining our sword built structures while we can't kill them.

You like to hide in safe spots? Shouldn't be able to temper and affect others like an underground wiesel.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Who is stopping you from hunting commanders? Go ahead, open is literally open for you. You can hunt anyone who is there. I bought game where I opt out of swordplay because I have over experience found it to be one of the most unsatisfying and stupid things in games like this. Been there, done that. Have enought t-shirts and it has no charm.

And in case you missed it, I suggested that you organize your own swordfighting classes. Go ahead, make yourself happy with fellow swordplayers.



Have you ever noticed that nobody who is not interested in PvP has ever said PvP should be removed from game totally?
And second of all, this "audacity" you speak of... NONE OF THE GAME MECHANISMS YOU WANT TO CHANGE ARE SOMEHOW PVP BASED!
NONE. No matter how "audacious" swordwielder you are it will not create a DAMN DIFFERENCE in PP/BGS. They are affected with PvE activity. Single decent PvE act counts as much or more as total PvP massmurder in PP. In BGS PvP is even more worthless. Those things were not made to be affected by PvE and not PvP.

You talk about playing chess with pigeons but fail to grasp that entire argument of you swordwielders is that you don't want to play the game as it works but force others to be your targets because "I was sold swordfighting" and then ignoring fact that others were sold option to NOT participate in that.



And again, go have your swordfights. Who is stopping you? Nobody. And neither is anyone required to provide you targets.
If you cannot find targets, then don't blame others for that problem but look into mirror and ask why people do not want to play with swordfight enthusiasts.

I already pointed out multiple times how PP was supposed to be PVP content, dont confuse it with BGS, its not the same.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Today friend you need to keep your treats intact, as I am hoping to get into your snickers once we've had a few drinks.

For all intents and purposes yes, I am literally seeing that.

Then for all intents and purposes, show me.

The forum is rife with complaints about the state of the core content, but when we make the suggestion that PvP can be improved without hurting the feels of non-PvP players, there's suddenly deliberately contradictory questions over whether the game has core issues at all, and outright suggestions we don't need to be making changes. Given not changing the game is not going to happen - we're kinda depending on improvements - I still haven't seen a coherent argument against providing any content that PvPers could enjoy.

After you have shown me all the objections from non-PvPers, for improvements that only impact PvP players, I'll address this.

I know all too well you personally don't have a problem with it, and your suggestion on Open vs. PG PowerPlay objectives is one I refer to regularly because it's a great example of content that would be exciting for both sides. The problem is that in many cases the simple advocation of positive PvP play causes kneejerk "but I hate PvP" responses, which has been the bread/butter of half the arguments made here. I've responded to people here whose entire point was "I don't care about PvP so you should all go play by yourselves"; if some of the folks here dropped the self-congratulatory back slapping and were subject to a fraction of the scrutiny put to someone actually supporting PvP they'd be lost for words faster than Scooby Doo on a ghost train.

Some folks have nothing more than "I hate PvP because gankors"; whether or not they get picked up on it or not, they would be delusional beyond words if they believe it's actually going to improve anything. Frankly if it's the best the community has, then viva la mindless killing!

Now .. I have seen an awful lot of paraphrasing from you, and I don't recognize much of it. And I have been reading this bubonic plague of a thread with great interest.

You've got many cases where you literally see people arguing against PvP improvements that have no impact on non-PvPers. So we're not talking about BGS influence bonuses in Open, or barring Solo/PG from influencing the BGS. Which I feel has been the main argument in these threads.

 

[bootsam]

Open play is also the home of a number of snow shovellers. Skilfully circumventing your swords by using their brains and not brawn. To suggest one fights ones battles to ones opponents strengths demonstrates a distinct lack of tactical awareness. Rather than bemoan your lot, perhaps a change in tact is appropriate. It is rather foolish to assume that one should expect to see different results from repeating the same actions over and over again. But hey ho.

The some folk hate pvp coz gankers is merely symptomatic of their experience. I know that the majority of pvp guys/gals are reasonable people seeking combat challenges. However most CMDRs dont meet these reasonable pvp guys as the normal pvp guys leave them alone. Instead they meet the noob clubber ganker crew, whom wouldnt know a brain cell even if it gave them an idea. Thus the illusion of open pvp hell is borne. We all know it isnt like that.

But the game isnt all pvp. Its also pve and PP and you probably have to partake in other things rather than pure pvp. For instance you still have to mat/data hunt. You still have to earn credits. etc. The overwhelming majority action of this game is pve, with a modicum of pvp tacked on, albeit tacked on with gaffa tape and propped up by useless engineers.

 

[Jockey79]

I already pointed out multiple times how PP was supposed to be PVP content, dont confuse it with BGS, its not the same.

I already pointed out multiple times how PP was PvE content, by it not rewarding PvP and promoting pushing PvE tokens about.

Though the bit about people mixing up PP with the BGS is right.
Which shows that really it should be tied into the BGS a lot more, bit daft it's not.

 

[StiTch]

You've got many cases where you literally see people arguing against PvP improvements that have no impact on non-PvPers. So we're not talking about BGS influence bonuses in Open, or barring Solo/PG from influencing the BGS. Which I feel has been the main argument in these threads.

You know the quotes I am referring to as they're the ones I was replying to...let's not drag this out for the sheer sake of it.

But yeah I've come in on the thread late to address something in particular, so I'll hold my hands up if I've diverted from the bulk of the discussion. Yet again though the argument has been the merry go round we all know and love, destination nausea, so forgive me if I am not filled with overwhelming penitence

I already pointed out multiple times how PP was PvE content, by it not rewarding PvP and promoting pushing PvE tokens about.

Manufactured content by itself typically is PvE; it's a bit of a no-brainer that without other players, PvP can't happen. But it doesn't mean that content is created labelled as either PvE or PvP and has to be one or the other: if you are competing against another player, that is PvP.

The construction of PP is very much conducive to PvP mechanics. There's a PvE aspect but let's be honest: it features no new content. It ties together existing mechanics to allow a paramilitary competition to occur between powers, driven by players. Whether you progress your power by pushing leaflets or killing you are still competing with other players, which is the sole reason for PP.

So PP being PvE content....sure, if you consider it so because it features PvE activities. But the activity on the whole is sheer PvP as you're competing with factions driven by other players; it just isn't directly confrontational via your ship, you're playing the BGS against each other.

So in summary, the BGS can be PvP, and PP is about as PvP as it gets. Unfortunately the continuity of it is dissolved by PG/Solo play, and is what actually gets debated...good to make matters clear, aye?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You know the quotes I am referring to as they're the ones I was replying to...let's not drag this out for the sheer sake of it.

In that case I disagree with the paraphrase of those quotes.

I'm not dragging this out for the sheer sake of it. I do so because these kind of paraphrases and misrepresentations of other people's sentiments are conversation killers. The beauty of a written message board is that you can quote people. Address their actual argument. If you dismiss them the way you did, it kills discussion.

But yeah I've come in on the thread late to address something in particular, so I'll hold my hands up if I've diverted from the bulk of the discussion. Yet again though the argument has been the merry go round we all know and love, destination nausea, so forgive me if I am not filled with overwhelming penitence

Exactly. And this merry go round will go round while communication breaks down. And it results in you going: viva le mindless killing. Perpetuating the merry go round.

Droppin' it like it's cod. I have seen some mods sniffing about.

 

[StiTch]

Exactly. And this merry go round will go round while communication breaks down. And it results in you going: viva le mindless killing. Perpetuating the merry go round.

You are welcome to play the role of forum judge, but railing against a single argument or side proves nothing. As you are interested in direct quotes I could quote a number of near incoherent complaints about how PvP should effectively be relegated to having a tiff in the corner (some of my paraphrasing has been in favour of the quotee, I assure you now); are they making the effort to stop the merry go round?

I've approached each discussion of this kind openly, and while I'm sorry for the generalisation, the same thing I come upon almost every time is that people will shoot down anything constructive towards PvP simply because they can while patting each others' backs about it and acting holier than thou. Which is fine but after so many attempts to be constructive...yeah, viva la mindless killing. If the answer to attempts to improve the game is...

I don't really give a damn about PvP as long as it does not negatively affect ME.

(thought you might appreciate the quote), then tell me why I should give a damn about anti-PvPers. The good news is that in-game if neither side gives a damn about each other, it usually doesn't end out badly for the PvP player's ships

Droppin' it like it's cod. I have seen some mods sniffing about.

But think of the cod!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sod the cod, you took effort to find the quote, so it deserves a response.

(thought you might appreciate the quote), then tell me why I should give a damn about anti-PvPers. The good news is that in-game if neither side gives a damn about each other, it usually doesn't end out badly for the PvP player's ships

I do appreciate the quote. It helps me illustrate "I don't really give a damn about PvP as long as it does not negatively affect ME." however is not

But yeah, I'm literally watching people suggest the game shouldn't be improved so they can dismiss the idea of improving PvP at the same time. That...pretty much sums up this forum. Ah well, back to making our own content I'll leave you folks to continue talking nonsense and slapping each others backs.

Not giving a damn about PvP != the game shouldn't be approved so I can dismiss the idea of improving PvP. And I'm not recognizing your claim that sentiment sums up the forum.

You are welcome to play the role of forum judge, but railing against a single argument or side proves nothing. As you are interested in direct quotes I could quote a number of near incoherent complaints about how PvP should effectively be relegated to having a tiff in the corner (some of my paraphrasing has been in favour of the quotee, I assure you now); are they making the effort to stop the merry go round?

I am not planning to play the role of forum judge and I'm not railing, you post whatever you see fit, I hold no authority here. I am however quite opinionated, and will voice that at the drop of a hat.

Cod!

 

[StiTch]

Not giving a damn about PvP != the game shouldn't be approved so I can dismiss the idea of improving PvP.

Quite; I was addressing something different at that point. But hey, I've quite enjoyed the roundabout today, as it featured you - cod dropping and all <3

 

[Iskariot]

Elite Dangerous PvE vs PvP and who needs a Solo play if you had PvE server

I do.
I like solo play because I like to play my games without others fooling around in it.
I strongly prefer an off line static solo universe over an online dynamic multiplayer universe.

 

[StiTch]

I do.
I like solo play because I like to play my games without others fooling around in it.
I strongly prefer an off line static solo universe over an online dynamic multiplayer universe.

I'd be interested to know where support for offline solo stands these days. I mean it's not going to happen, but I'm intrigued as to how many players from the "solo" spectrum want a true solo experience, and how many actually like this half-way-between-solo-and-multiplayer-thing they have going on.

Even as a PvP player if I could the release button on offline ED I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

I do.
I like solo play because I like to play my games without others fooling around in it.
I strongly prefer an off line static solo universe over an online dynamic multiplayer universe.

Exactly, and I truly wish for FDEv to create SOLO offline mode, so you wont be able to affect the common galaxy while actively seeking not to play with others.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Exactly, and I truly wish for FDEv to create SOLO offline mode, so you wont be able to affect the common galaxy while actively seeking not to play with others.

Remembering, of course, that the three game modes in the released game have always been part of the design scope (with all players experiencing and affecting the single shared galaxy state being Frontier's desired player experience) and predate the addition of Offline mode to the Kickstarter pitch, only for it to be cancelled prior to launch as Frontier did not consider that a fully offline game would offer the game experience they wanted.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Remembering, of course, that the three game modes in the released game have always been part of the design scope (with all players experiencing and affecting the single shared galaxy state being Frontier's desired player experience) and predate the addition of Offline mode to the Kickstarter pitch....

Any features added by FDEV to create some multiplayer content failed miserably (PP, Multicrew), maybe, just maybe, this design is not working for them?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Any features added by FDEV to create some multiplayer content failed miserably (PP, Multicrew), maybe, just maybe, this design is not working for them?

Maybe they should stop trying to cater to the uncaterable.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Any features added by FDEV to create some multiplayer content failed miserably (PP, Multicrew), maybe, just maybe, this design is not working for them?

Maybe the fact that PowerPlay tags a player as a target for players pledged to an opposing Power in Open reduced its appeal to players that want to play in Open but don't like direct PvP. Similarly, Multi-Crew revolves around combat - and can leave one's ship vulnerable to the actions of random player crew - not all players choose to engage in combat on a regular basis.