Every activity in ED is PvP

[CMDR Nathan Atterlein]

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.

-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.

-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.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The forum as well

 

[Robert Maynard]

If affecting the galaxy is to be considered to be PvP (and it certainly can be in particular cases) it is, at best, indirect asynchronous PvP that transcends modes and platforms - and as PvE actions affect the BGS or Powerplay in some way, it can be said to be an unavoidable part of the game.

From the outset, all players experiencing and affecting the single shared galaxy has been part of the intended player experience - so can therefore be considered as simply "playing the game".

In-the-same-instance PvP, on the other hand, is and has always been an optional extra available to those inclined to engage in it.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

What a load of nonsense.

 

[Rat Catcher]

-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 the f*** 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.

Exploration data has diminishing returns (as do most BGS affecting activities) so the difference between handing in 50 mill and 2.5 billion in data isn't going to be effective in magnitude. (Of course, selling Explo data to a FC in the black somewhere will have no effect on anyone's BGS - allegedly )

But - you point is almost perfectly accurate that any action, by any player, could potentially affect another's BGS manipulation.

 

[Zieman]

any action, by any player, could potentially affect another's BGS manipulation

BGS manipulation is the problem.
It is all too easy, all player acticity has way too big influence on the BGS.

 

[Bob McBobblehead]

Someone PVP my carrier slot. The kids will go hungry tonight.

 

[Viscera]

Fuel rats... Indirectly affecting the bgs by refueling those explorers/traders etc that do impact on the bgs.

Not as innocent as you state perhaps?

 

[CMDR Nathan Atterlein]

If affecting the galaxy is to be considered to be PvP (and it certainly can be in particular cases) it is, at best, indirect asynchronous PvP that transcends modes and platforms - and as PvE actions affect the BGS or Powerplay in some way, it can be said to be an unavoidable part of the game.

From the outset, all players experiencing and affecting the single shared galaxy has been part of the intended player experience - so can therefore be considered as simply "playing the game".

In-the-same-instance PvP, on the other hand, is and has always been an optional extra available to those inclined to engage in it.

Indeed, indirect and direct PvP are integral parts of the game, both being a valid gameplay option. That's why it's wrong to dismiss either one of them as merely an "extra". If my bgs is messed up by an inexperienced person, and I decide to remove him from the system by force, both happened within the boundaries of intended gameplay. Cause and effect (the latter is usually dismissed as "ganking").

 

[zaikoji]

To extend your metaphor, barely a day passes when I don’t get ganked by my wife when I’m trying to enjoy a solitary ciggy. (Wouldn’t let me write the UK vernacular for cancer stick.)

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed, indirect and direct PvP are integral parts of the game, both being a valid gameplay option. That's why it's wrong to dismiss either one of them as merely an "extra". If my bgs is messed up by an inexperienced person, and I decide to remove him from the system by force, both happened within the boundaries of intended gameplay. Cause and effect (the latter is usually dismissed as "ganking").

While direct PvP is available in the game, I'd suggest that it is in no way "integral" to the game - as no game feature requires any player to engage in it to engage in the feature (apart from CQC, of course). Players cannot force an optional play-style on other players who can choose not to play with them.

 

[CMDR Nathan Atterlein]

What a load of nonsense.

You may have accidentally left your argument out of the post.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

You may have accidentally left your argument out of the post.

Not neccessary to argue over nonsense.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Other than these player-originated activities, Elite Dangerous is definitely made for PvP! Direct, or indirect.

Sort of. Actions have effects on other players through the BGS, but they can be positive as much as negative (and often both depending on point of view).

The most noticeable effects are generally positive - if you had to get a system to ideal LTD sale state combinations / Tritium trade combinations on your own, it'd never happen - and likewise getting the BGS states for particular HGEs, or having non-flat BGS states so trade is interesting at all, etc.

There obviously are conflicts where there's differences of opinion about how a system should look, but it's more a collaborative mechanism [1] than a competitive one in practice.

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.

[1] Not necessarily collaborating on anything in particular.

 

[ZeroAi]

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 the f*** 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.

-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.

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

Other than these player-originated activities, Elite Dangerous is definitely made for PvP! Direct, or indirect.

Seeing as I've played thousands of hours in Elite focused on PvE, you're obviously wrong lol.

 

[Drelthar]

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

Doesn't turning in the bounties do anything BGS wise?
If not, what about sellin the hearts?

 

[Rat Catcher]

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

I couldn't resist this one

Just don't tread on the toes of such a powerful squadron!

Pleiades Concordat

 

[Araviel]

yea, and I think its adorable how some of the "anit pvp" players engages in pvp by going out to grief your minor faction, attempts to get you banned from fuel rats, throw hateful DM's and being general bullies to get you to quit playing.

Pvp in Elite is far from dead. it just does not happen in open.

 

[CMDR Nathan Atterlein]

Sort of. Actions have effects on other players through the BGS, but they can be positive as much as negative (and often both depending on point of view).

The most noticeable effects are generally positive - if you had to get a system to ideal LTD sale state combinations / Tritium trade combinations on your own, it'd never happen - and likewise getting the BGS states for particular HGEs, or having non-flat BGS states so trade is interesting at all, etc.

There obviously are conflicts where there's differences of opinion about how a system should look, but it's more a collaborative mechanism [1] than a competitive one in practice.

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.

[1] Not necessarily collaborating on anything in particular.

Input needs to be coordinated, in order to positive influences actually be beneficial. Controlling all inputs is impossible in most cases, since not everyone that pays a visit will be willing or caring to cooperate. This gives room for conflict.

I guess you can call it a cooperative mechanism, but it doesn't change the bottom line, that players undermine other players gameplay purposefully, or simply as collateral damage. If that's not competitive, I don't know what is.

 

[CMDR Nathan Atterlein]

Seeing as I've played thousands of hours in Elite focused on PvE, you're obviously wrong lol.

Looking forward to hear your elaboration.