I'm not afraid of gankers, I'm afraid of human interaction and socializing.
Make Elite an MMO again !!
- Thread starter CMDR Lukone
- Start date
- Status
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Some players find PvP to be a tedious and predictable waste of valuable game time - regardless of how rarely it is encountered.
This game gives the choice of each player as to who to play among precedence over any desire that other players may have to play with them - whether that be by game mode selection or use of the block feature as it applies to both multi-player game modes.
Risk vs Reward...
What risk is there for the ganker? Unless you are the worst ganker in history, all the risk is being forced on your hapless opponent....
What risk is there for the ganker? Unless you are the worst ganker in history, all the risk is being forced on your hapless opponent....
The game's not designed for open. You're either flying a ship designed to murder people or a ship designed to be murdered. When the two meet there will be no interesting PvP. It would need a ton of design work to turn it into something where you can get quality fights breaking out even when bullying people running missions like in GTA:O.
well, eve is one of its kind, pioneer and rock solid success for decades, so it doesn't compare well to others.
and after all ... wrong decision? for who? elite dangerous and frontier have done spectacularly well financially. elite no doubt has a lot of appeal, else we would not be here talking about it. those are wrong decisions for pvp, but it turns out they just don't care about pvp and the game works well enough without. what i do hold up to frontier is being ambiguous about it, and marketing the game as including proper pvp, simply to widen the audience. which makes them either incompetents or liars.
the game is what it is and good enough, though. just get your pvp fix elsewhere.
If you force people to play in Open, then you'll ruin my game, because I don't enjoy running into certain immature players that ruin my immersion - it has nothing to do with winning or loosing. Not to mention that I would be forced into someone else's gameplay style (combat). People who do PvP can easily impose their gameplay on others, while I can't force them to roleplay.
Changing balance to favour Open would be wrong, because people would simply use it when it would suit them best. I can run missions or gather materials in regions that rarely see any other player. It would not change number of people you encounter in Open, but it would ruin balance.
Elite has really unique approach to Multiplayer - actually it's way ahead of it's time with it's system of affecting game world without direct player interaction - look at Death Stranding: it uses similiar approach, where you play alone, but you encounter things left by other players, also playing alone. This is the reason I like and play Elite for so long. I don't want it ruined, because I don't want to play regular boring MMO.
Nobody would be forcing you to play in Open. There's nothing more stupid then a BGS conflict where one team decides suddenly to go 100% Solo and you can't do anything about it. Players wanna engage in "war" between factions? Well war means killing and being killed, also by players, aka PvP.
There should be a cost for being able to freely influence BGS without any risk whatsoever, that could be translated in double influence for playing on Open. You can still freely play safe in Solo, but there should be a downside to that!
What if they’re on console? Or in another time zone? Or you just never get instanced with them? They could be opposing you in Open the whole time and you still might never encounter them.
That would be an incentive for squadrons to have people in different time-zones and different platforms!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Some players can only play in Solo.
No-one can force another player to play with them - by design.
If another player does not wish to engage in PvP that is their choice - and their choice alone.
BGS conflict does not require any player to engage in PvP.
As soon as there is a tangible benefit to playing in Open there'll be a reason for players who don't want to play there to do so - and make extensive use of the block feature to remove players who attack them - and I don't expect that Frontier will remove the block feature from either of the multi-player game modes (as they have only ever strengthened it and made it easier to use over the years).
In a game where other players have always been optional, why should there be a penalty for playing alone or among selected others just because players who wish to engage in an optional game activity can't attack them?
There's a difference between incentive to play in open and penalty for playing solo/pg. It's more of the former what I'm talking about.
That's the game. You fight war by killing NPCs in conflict zones. It's a numbers game - who killed more NPCs. You influence the BGS by your actions, not fighting other players. If you don't accept that, then maybe some other game would suit you better.
This also simulates how big the space is, because you would not be able to control whole solar system on your own.
Why not? If I absolutely do not want PVP side of game on my game session that decision should be mine to make.
x2 bonus will never offset time lost to griefers and murderhobos. There is a reason why strict PvE groups like Mobius exist. No thank you. PKing is only fun for the killer.
Also, with the way how blocking works, you simply can block every commander you (coincidentially or not) encounter and subsequently drop into normal space to break instance consistency.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
They are functionally equivalent - the difference is the spin attached to the name.
So let's say a War in a system between two PMF, with active players on both sides should not involve "fighting other players"? Maybe you're the one for whom the game's not made.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In-the-same-instance PvP in relation to Faction conflicts can involve as many players as are able to instance together - if they want to. It's not a requirement, just as having a PMF inserted into the game does not require that the player group requesting it to have any interest at all in PvP.
Given that BGS conflicts don't require PvP, they are perfectly suited to those who have no interest in PvP - even if it is a form of indirect asynchronous competition between players.
It’s also an incentive against Open-weighting, of a sorts, since the perceived risk isn’t always that much greater...
I think this gets back to the game being too easy and repetitive and/or role optimized meta builds being too effective. Offer optional challenges that are actually challenging and rewarding, and ways for players to help each other, and the problem (assuming there is one) will sort itself out.
Seems a lot better than something like pip bonuses to me, for example. Have it game-play based and not bonus based.
Seems a lot better than something like pip bonuses to me, for example. Have it game-play based and not bonus based.
Last edited:
That's the great thing about Frontier's system. It doesn't matter what mode or platform, or even if you can play at the same time as them, you can still fight against them in that war.
You're limiting your concept of PvP to direct ship on ship combat, there is a much broader and deeper PvP going on as well.
- Status