Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Robert Maynard]

What is 'correct' PvP?

Good question.

IMO there is no 'correct' PvP- the only correct response is how you respond to it.

There doesn't seem to be a consensus on what the "correct" response is either - given that we all backed or bought a game where PvP is an optional extra.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

IMO there is no 'correct' PvP- the only correct response is how you respond to it.

Again there is that, perhaps a bit disturbing, notion that "I can do as I choose it's everyone else who must deal with it"
Or am I not reading the intent of the statement correctly?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Again there is that, perhaps a bit disturbing, notion that "I can do as I choose it's everyone else who must deal with it"
Or am I not reading the intent of the statement correctly?

For open to be truly open, you can't pick and choose what is right. Taking the piracy example, there has to be an inescapable base state to make piracy work- you can't have someone saying "nope!" even though they lost the interdiction, planned poorly or have an unsuitable ship for that task.

If people can't deal with that possibility then Open is not for them, because if they choose Open and pick and choose the whole conceit falls apart.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

For open to be truly open, you can't pick and choose what is right.

I don't agree that an "open" server removes any notion of right and wrong.
Yes piracy is s thing and yes you should perhaps be prepared for such a thing, but it remains fundamentally the wrong thing to do.

 

[Rubbernuke]

As mentioned earlier, Open isn't "special" (no matter how much some players might want it to be) - it's just one of the two multi-player game modes.

But it is- its special because people fit roles, and they have to be able to follow those roles to the end the best way they can to 'win' and establish roles and be able to buttress other professions. Without foundations nothing can really come of it.

Interacting with an optional extra, i.e. other players, may provide different consequences - just as choosing to fly a paper ship may in any mode. Choices have consequences - and players can't force other players to choose the same things they themself did.

But they chose to be in a dangerous mode.

It seems that that robust ecosystem is not sufficiently necessary to remove player choice.

But for things to evolve out of what they are (random) there needs to be inescapable situations.

If there was another game mode with an unlimited population that offered players the choice to play without PvP then I'd agree - however Open is a poor compromise choice for those players seeking a purely social experience (as opposed to encountering players who may wish to engage them in PvP). Blocking is not really an issue, in my opinion, in a game where interacting with other players is optional.

Powerplay is not a globally social mode- its social within competitive groups. Its why I have no issue with blocking out in the larger game.

I would suggest that Frontier decided which side of the fence they are on before they published the game design - and that design makes interacting with other players an entirely optional part of a game where every player affects the game.

I don't think FD really know, otherwise why would they make one choice, and then make a feature that is immediately broken?

Open is simply a matchmaker setting where any player who selected it on that platform may meet, P2P connections willing. It's there for players who wish to play in it but it's not a requirement of any game feature.

It is, but its a flag to say "I want random" rather than "I want curated".

Each player's choice of who to play among takes precedence and may over-ride any desire that other players may have to play with them.

Which is in direct conflict with things like piracy, Powerplay and dangerous situations.

Maybe if a subset of players didn't engage in behaviours that necessitated a block feature in the first place then things would have been different - but here we are. Continuing player interactions, good or bad, to a conclusion is not a requirement in this game - if it was then there's be no menu exit at all when engaged in an interaction with another player.

But its better to be educated about risk and know how to deal with it, than to smother the mode and take away its foundations. Games are about empowerment and learning, Elite is about surviving and growing yet some feel thats an issue.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't agree that an "open" server removes any notion of right and wrong.
Yes piracy is s thing and yes you should perhaps be prepared for such a thing, but it remains fundamentally the wrong thing to do.

This is the conundrum from FD- they themselves don't define whats right or wrong either, instead providing features to evade consequences that break parts of the game- its as if they are absolving themselves of any decision and engaging in doublethink.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But it is- its special because people fit roles, and they have to be able to follow those roles to the end the best way they can to 'win' and establish roles and be able to buttress other professions. Without foundations nothing can really come of it.

There is no "have to" in this context. There is "choose to". The game offers the player many choices of how to play.

But they chose to be in a dangerous mode.

Both multi-player modes can offer "danger" from other players.

But for things to evolve out of what they are (random) there needs to be inescapable situations.

Frontier don't seem keen to offer inescapable situations instigated by players.

Powerplay is not a globally social mode- its social within competitive groups. Its why I have no issue with blocking out in the larger game.

Powerplay isn't special either - it's an optional pan-modal feature that offers double consensual PvP for those who wish to engage in it.

I don't think FD really know, otherwise why would they make one choice, and then make a feature that is immediately broken?

I think that Frontier's stance is quite deliberate - even if it frustrates those who'd like to impose interactions on others. Whether it is "broken", or not, depends on ones point of view.

It is, but its a flag to say "I want random" rather than "I want curated".

Private Groups with open membership exist.

Which is in direct conflict with things like piracy, Powerplay and dangerous situations.

Players can remove consent for any interaction at any time in this game - much to the chagrin of some players. Players cannot continue to force interactions on any player that chooses to remove themselves from the situation.

But its better to be educated about risk and know how to deal with it, than to smother the mode and take away its foundations. Games are about empowerment and learning, Elite is about surviving and growing yet some feel thats an issue.

It all depends on the intent of the game - and this game does not force player interaction. Not everyone is playing the game to "git gud" - some play it to relax after a day in RL.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

This is the conundrum from FD- they themselves don't define whats right or wrong either, instead providing features to evade consequences that break parts of the game- its as if they are absolving themselves of any decision and engaging in doublethink.

Sure but FD not preventing it doesn't then make it acceptable.
I'd have thought a sandbox game was, uniquely, a window on society as a whole and thus the basic principles of the players are what determines the moral compass.

I think the original context of this thread is important , in essence "FD aren't proving me with enough structured gameplay so I am throwing out morality as I can't think of anything better to do"

I fail to understand why it is that we aren't surrounded by a player motivated interstellar war between well organised PvP squadrons but rather we see individualistic lone wolves preying on the weak for no purpose.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is the conundrum from FD- they themselves don't define whats right or wrong either, instead providing features to evade consequences that break parts of the game- its as if they are absolving themselves of any decision and engaging in doublethink.

We can:
1) shoot at anything we instance with;
2) affect the game from any of the three game modes;
3) select which game mode to play in on a session by session basis;
4) leave the game at any time, with or without a 15-second delay as required;
5) block any player we wish to block.

Those who like aspect one and don't like aspects two to five are, I would suggest, engaging in selective acceptance of the game design. Just because a player likes one aspect does not mean that that aspect is necessarily "right" and the other aspects are necessarily "wrong".

 

[Rat Catcher]

4) leave the game at any time, with or without a 15-second delay as required

I left the game 6 times in a 2 hour play session without any delay Friday!
5 CTD and 1 'Blue Screen' crash! (not seen a Blue Screen crash for a very long time!)

Good job I was in a PG for that session - although the friend I was winged with was just a little 'vulnerable' when my Corvette stopped killing the 'bad guys' in the Haz Res and left him to 'leg it'

 

[Rubbernuke]

We can:
1) shoot at anything we instance with;
2) affect the game from any of the three game modes;
3) select which game mode to play in on a session by session basis;
4) leave the game at any time, with or without a 15-second delay as required;
5) block any player we wish to block.

Those who like aspect one and don't like aspects two to five are, I would suggest, engaging in selective acceptance of the game design. Just because a player likes one aspect does not mean that that aspect is necessarily "right" and the other aspects are necessarily "wrong".

Which breaks piracy and Powerplay, rendering them toothless and pointless. Without having a rock bottom inescapable situation there is no hope for these features.

For example:

1 and 5 are contradictory in an Open mode Powerplay, as well as conflict with 2 and 4.

Its not being selective to see the lack of logic in a competitive mode you both pledge to and choose to play in Open.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Sure but FD not preventing it doesn't then make it acceptable.
I'd have thought a sandbox game was, uniquely, a window on society as a whole and thus the basic principles of the players are what determines the moral compass.

I think the original context of this thread is important , in essence "FD aren't proving me with enough structured gameplay so I am throwing out morality as I can't think of anything better to do"

I fail to understand why it is that we aren't surrounded by a player motivated interstellar war between well organised PvP squadrons but rather we see individualistic lone wolves preying on the weak for no purpose.

Thats called Powerplay- that was its role, a more visible and real time war. It allows you to kill other pledges without reason or C+P consequence.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

I certainly agree that a structured game play options like Power Play should have certain restrictions placed upon the participants. Doing PP in solo is a bit daft IMO

 

[Drelthar]

....It allows you to kill other pledges without reason ....

Nope, it allows you to kill enemy pledges, for the reason they are pledged to the enemy.

That's very different to for no reasons. Just saying.

 

[Rubbernuke]

There is no "have to" in this context. There is "choose to". The game offers the player many choices of how to play.

And that is why it fails to work and engage with people.

Both multi-player modes can offer "danger" from other players.

Only by per-arrangement, which for some defeats the object of being ready for anything.

Frontier don't seem keen to offer inescapable situations instigated by players.

Then FD need some tutouring regarding piracy and Powerplay.

Powerplay isn't special either - it's an optional pan-modal feature that offers double consensual PvP for those who wish to engage in it.

And for those who wish to play in Open in Powerplay, having someone else play in Open who then is blocked because they shoot you in a mode that allows PvP is silly. The whole point is that its ad hoc opportunism, if you them block everyone you see to win, then thats not really a great design and not compelling.

I think that Frontier's stance is quite deliberate - even if it frustrates those who'd like to impose interactions on others. Whether it is "broken", or not, depends on ones point of view.

I just see confused thinking, year on year they make predictable mistakes.

Private Groups with open membership exist.

Then great! But that on its own is still not random as Open is- only that is truly you against everyone.

Players can remove consent for any interaction at any time in this game - much to the chagrin of some players. Players cannot continue to force interactions on any player that chooses to remove themselves from the situation.

Even when that situation demands it? Piracy has collapsed because people don't seem to want time wasting interfering with credits per hour.

It all depends on the intent of the game - and this game does not force player interaction. Not everyone is playing the game to "git gud" - some play it to relax after a day in RL.

In a game about strife, conflict and danger there its awfully easy to avoid it all in Open, even though its for interactions beyond friends or NPCs. There is a difference between using the tools to build a great ship, learn to evade and simply logging out every time a triangle pops up. If you want relaxation, pick a mode, location, job etc that puts you away from harms way- that is fully in your power yet people insist on flying into the mouth of danger and wonder why it went wrong.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Nope, it allows you to kill enemy pledges, for the reason they are pledged to the enemy.

That's very different to for no reasons. Just saying.

My mistake. I did mean to say rivals. If you kill fellow or neutral pledges you get merits removed.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which breaks piracy and Powerplay, rendering them toothless and pointless. Without having a rock bottom inescapable situation there is no hope for these features.

They are the basic aspects of the game we play - whether we agree with them or not.

For example:

1 and 5 are contradictory in an Open mode Powerplay, as well as conflict with 2 and 4.

Its not being selective to see the lack of logic in a competitive mode you both pledge to and choose to play in Open.

There seems to be an assumption being made that competition must involve PvP. It doesn't, in this game. Powerplay is not a mode in and of itself - it's a pan-modal feature that any player can engage in if they choose to.

One and five are not contradictory in a game where PvP is entirely optional - they merely give precedence to the choice of the player not wanting to be engaged in PvP over the player who might want to engage them in PvP, i.e. players can choose to shoot at anything they instance with, however no player needs to instance with them.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I fail to understand why it is that we aren't surrounded by a player motivated interstellar war between well organised PvP squadrons but rather we see individualistic lone wolves preying on the weak for no purpose.

I think it's fairly easy to understand.

Because hardly anyone wants to do that. (Or at least everyone who does want to do it is playing Eve already). Like I'm going to boldly make the claim that most people who engage with Powerplay at all do so only as long as it takes to unlock that one module they want then stop forever.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And that is why it fails to work and engage with people.

That depends on what each player wants from the game - and we don't all want to play the same way.

Then FD need some tutouring regarding piracy and Powerplay.

And for those who wish to play in Open in Powerplay, having someone else play in Open who then is blocked because they shoot you in a mode that allows PvP is silly. The whole point is that its ad hoc opportunism, if you them block everyone you see to win, then thats not really a great design and not compelling.

Piracy suffers from is relative indistinguishability from ganking and griefing at the start of any encounter. Do many players find other players leaching their commodities to be a "fun" experience? Frontier can allow players to engage in piracy and give them tools to accomplish it with but they can't make other players participate or enjoy it.

Powerplay was consciously implemented in all three game modes - it's not a feature that requires players to engage in PvP to participate in.

I just see confused thinking, year on year they make predictable mistakes.

.... or they just don't see things the way that players who prefer PvP do.

Even when that situation demands it? Piracy has collapsed because people don't seem to want time wasting interfering with credits per hour.

No situation in this game "demands it" - players might fervently wish it was the case however no-one needs to endure the attentions of predatory players in this game. Piracy suffers because gankers / griefers exist - and there's no apparent difference between them from the perspective of the target until after the event.

If an encounter is not "fun" then it's likely to be a waste of the player's game time. Players seeking to potentially waste other players' game time don't necessarily deserve targets.

In a game about strife, conflict and danger there its awfully easy to avoid it all in Open, even though its for interactions beyond friends or NPCs. There is a difference between using the tools to build a great ship, learn to evade and simply logging out every time a triangle pops up. If you want relaxation, pick a mode, location, job etc that puts you away from harms way- that is fully in your power yet people insist on flying into the mouth of danger and wonder why it went wrong.

Is the game really about strife, conflict and danger when two of the three Elite ranks can be gained without firing a shot in combat?

 

[Maggie_Oz]

Because hardly anyone wants to do that.

I think you are very correct there. PvP just doesn't have the numbers

Like I'm going to boldly make the claim that most people who engage with Powerplay at all do so only as long as it takes to unlock that one module they want then stop forever.

I don't agree with that though, some of the uber player groups that go full on into PP have a huge number of members.