Modes My experiment n OPEN

[Warm Considering]

No, PP is PvP, it is not PvE mechanics at all, it is literally groups of players competing against each other to expand their factions. PvP doesn't just mean combat you know.

It IS only 2-1 on one pitch, because on that pitch both sides are defending, which means they reduce the amount the other team score.

If I play PP in open, and you play it in solo, you will have a greater impact on the outcome of the PP cycle because you don't have to worry about opposing players. At best I will have to run a less optimised ship (like sacrificing cargo space for a bigger shield etc), and play more cautiously, at worst I will be interdicted and killed on some runs.

This is also a lie. PowerPlay is a PvE activity. It is not necessary to engage other players in PowerPlay. Just because some players use PowerPlay for PvP does not mean it is a PvP activity in whole.

When you play PowerPlay you are pledging to an NPC faction, not a player faction, and you are working within the BGS.

 

[Han_Zen]

No, PP is PvP, it is not PvE mechanics at all, it is literally groups of players competing against each other to expand their factions. PvP doesn't just mean combat you know.

It IS only 2-1 on one pitch, because on that pitch both sides are defending, which means they reduce the amount the other team score.

If I play PP in open, and you play it in solo, you will have a greater impact on the outcome of the PP cycle because you don't have to worry about opposing players. At best I will have to run a less optimised ship (like sacrificing cargo space for a bigger shield etc), and play more cautiously, at worst I will be interdicted and killed on some runs.

Open is also many pitches. Most of them with no oposing team at all.
In open a defended may show up. That’s the difference.
It does not mean a hole lot to the numbers but it means a lot to the defender, to actually see an attacker once in a while.
It also affects the psycology of the attacker to know that there might be a defender waiting. He will at least probably put on the shin pads.

 

[CariadocThorne]

This is also a lie. PowerPlay is a PvE activity. It is not necessary to engage other players in PowerPlay. Just because some players use PowerPlay for PvP does not mean it is a PvP activity in whole.

When you play PowerPlay you are pledging to an NPC faction, not a player faction, and you are working within the BGS.

And you're wrong. PvP does not necessarily mean combat. Power play is entirely driven by player actions, and is competitive between groups of players pledged to different factions. That is PvP by definition.

If there were NPC factions also fortifying, expanding etc their own factions, that would be PvE, but there aren't.

PvP does not only happen in open. Even the BGS can involve non-combat PvP gameplay, such as if two rival player groups try to help their respective minor factions take control of a system. Every one of them could be in Solo, but they are still engaging in a form of PvP activity.

 

[greenmagik]

When is the change for PP going to happen? When is the switch to only open for PP? I cannot find it anywhere, but I know it is coming.

 

[Warm Considering]

And you're wrong. PvP does not necessarily mean combat. Power play is entirely driven by player actions, and is competitive between groups of players pledged to different factions. That is PvP by definition.

If there were NPC factions also fortifying, expanding etc their own factions, that would be PvE, but there aren't.

PvP does not only happen in open. Even the BGS can involve non-combat PvP gameplay, such as if two rival player groups try to help their respective minor factions take control of a system. Every one of them could be in Solo, but they are still engaging in a form of PvP activity.

PvP is by definition combat. Always has been, always will be. Moving meters around isn't PvP.

This kind of expansive interpretation of PvP is dangerous. Before long competition for bounties in Open will be regarded as PvP. If you're not shooting at another player, you're not in PvP.

 

[Marra Morgan]

PvP is by definition combat. Always has been, always will be. Moving meters around isn't PvP.

This kind of expansive interpretation of PvP is dangerous. Before long competition for bounties in Open will be regarded as PvP. If you're not shooting at another player, you're not in PvP.

Why is it dangerous?

Seems pretty truthful to me.

 

[Jockey79]

Seems pretty truthful to me.

Dishonestly calling a PvE activity PvP seems honest?

Well every other forum I've ever been on, the PvP community would wet themselves laughing how people keep pushing PvE as PvP here.
It's had me in fits of laughter for months, people using "indirect PvP" and "PvP" when talking about Power Play.
In every game ever "PvP" is the ability to shoot another player, which isn't reward or even acknowledged in Power Play.

But feel free to continue and try and conflate PvP with PvE, it really makes some of us laugh every time we read it.
Even funnier when Sandro calls Power Play "PvP", as he designed the PvE Token pushing that ignores players shooting each other (PvP) and can be played in Solo - system.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Dishonestly calling a PvE activity PvP seems honest?

Well every other forum I've ever been on, the PvP community would wet themselves laughing how people keep pushing PvE as PvP here.
It's had me in fits of laughter for months, people using "indirect PvP" and "PvP" when talking about Power Play.
In every game ever "PvP" is the ability to shoot another player, which isn't reward or even acknowledged in Power Play.

But feel free to continue and try and conflate PvP with PvE, it really makes some of us laugh every time we read it.
Even funnier when Sandro calls Power Play "PvP", as he designed the PvE Token pushing that ignores players shooting each other (PvP) and can be played in Solo - system.

I'm probably not as keen to pigeon-hole and polarise things into PvE / PvP labels as you are.

For me, the Elite Dangerous experience is doing stuff alone, working with others for common goals, and competing directly or indirectly with others.

So where there are a group of players competing against another group using a PvE medium, I don't see anything wrong with calling it PvP. It's also PvE. Fancy that!

I would still like to know why Warm Considering thinks it's dangerous.

 

[CariadocThorne]

PvP is by definition combat. Always has been, always will be. Moving meters around isn't PvP.

This kind of expansive interpretation of PvP is dangerous. Before long competition for bounties in Open will be regarded as PvP. If you're not shooting at another player, you're not in PvP.

No it is not. PvP is ANY activity where players are working against other players rather than against the game. This is not a new thing. PvP has been part of games with non-combat activities, and even games with no combat-based activities at all for years.

Yes, most of the time when people talk about PvP, they generally mean combat, but that doesn't mean that the rest isn't PvP too.

Even expressly combat-oriented games like shooters often have a range of PvP game modes, including some which are won by capturing key points, picking up an item or whatever and which can be won without ever firing a single shot. These are directly comparable to PP, and a much better analogy than my previous example of 2-pitch football. Imagine playing a game like Destiny or CoD, in a PvP mode where the objective is to be the first team to place explosives in key points of the battlefield or something like that, but some of the players are playing in the same match, but in solo instances where no-one is shooting at them, and they can simply run around completing the objectives, while the other players have to contend with the other team shooting at them etc.

 

[Jockey79]

I'm probably not as keen to pigeon-hole and polarise things into PvE / PvP labels as you are.

For me, the Elite Dangerous experience is doing stuff alone, working with others for common goals, and competing directly or indirectly with others.

So where there are a group of players competing against another group using a PvE medium, I don't see anything wrong with calling it PvP. It's also PvE. Fancy that!

I would still like to know why Warm Considering thinks it's dangerous.

I cannot answer your last line, but as to the rest - I've talked about it before.
Effective communication relies on everyone using the same definition for everything.
Calling something PvP when by the "normal" definition it is PvE, only servers to confuse the argument.
And when trying to "debate" something, you cannot find an answer if the definitions are constantly changing.

So using the correct word with the correct definition stops ambiguity and makes sure every other person knows what everyone else is talking about.

Just to help clarify, I come from a legal background and spent years dealing with real life situations where the wrong word can not only undermine a situation, but can actually harm the situation.
So it's not that I'm "keen to pigeon-hole", for the most part it is habit to make sure the right words are used to keep things straight for all involved.
It's why I've taken to using "" a lot, with "indirect PvP" / "griefer" etc... because they are not the right words being used.

Plus I understand that conflating PvP with PvE only undermines the PvP'ers doing it, as it looks like desperation to win (no offence).

 

[CariadocThorne]

I cannot answer your last line, but as to the rest - I've talked about it before.
Effective communication relies on everyone using the same definition for everything.
Calling something PvP when by the "normal" definition it is PvE, only servers to confuse the argument.
And when trying to "debate" something, you cannot find an answer if the definitions are constantly changing.

So using the correct word with the correct definition stops ambiguity and makes sure every other person knows what everyone else is talking about.

Just to help clarify, I come from a legal background and spent years dealing with real life situations where the wrong word can not only undermine a situation, but can actually harm the situation.
So it's not that I'm "keen to pigeon-hole", for the most part it is habit to make sure the right words are used to keep things straight for all involved.
It's why I've taken to using "" a lot, with "indirect PvP" / "griefer" etc... because they are not the right words being used.

Plus I understand that conflating PvP with PvE only undermines the PvP'ers doing it, as it looks like desperation to win (no offence).

That would be fine, except that people have been using the term PvP for non-combat, or not specifically combat oriented, aspects of games for years. You say "normal definition", but that is in fact anything but the normal definition. As I pointed out above, even specifically combat oriented games often have PvP game-modes, which would be PvE by your "normal" definition.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

I cannot answer your last line, but as to the rest - I've talked about it before.
Effective communication relies on everyone using the same definition for everything.
Calling something PvP when by the "normal" definition it is PvE, only servers to confuse the argument.
And when trying to "debate" something, you cannot find an answer if the definitions are constantly changing.

So using the correct word with the correct definition stops ambiguity and makes sure every other person knows what everyone else is talking about.

Just to help clarify, I come from a legal background and spent years dealing with real life situations where the wrong word can not only undermine a situation, but can actually harm the situation.
So it's not that I'm "keen to pigeon-hole", for the most part it is habit to make sure the right words are used to keep things straight for all involved.
It's why I've taken to using "" a lot, with "indirect PvP" / "griefer" etc... because they are not the right words being used.

Plus I understand that conflating PvP with PvE only undermines the PvP'ers doing it, as it looks like desperation to win (no offence).

I'll boil this down for you.

'Talk the way I want you to talk so I can better control the conversation.'

Plain as day, man. Wow. If you can't, or won't, understand Marra's point that's on you and your obviously intentional rejection of imagination and creative thinking.

 

[Jockey79]

That would be fine, except that people have been using the term PvP for non-combat, or not specifically combat oriented, aspects of games for years. You say "normal definition", but that is in fact anything but the normal definition. As I pointed out above, even specifically combat oriented games often have PvP game-modes, which would be PvE by your "normal" definition.

Well in all my years of gaming, excluding Elite I've never seen anyone try and pass off interacting with the game (and not other players); as "PvP".

So I'm not sure what circles you move in, but it must be hard to decide to play a game when they cannot tell the difference between Players V Player and Players V Environment.
I'd certainly get annoyed loading Ark up expecting to shoot players and find out "PvP" was who can chop down trees the fastest and there was no way to harm a player.

I'll boil this down for you.

'Talk the way I want you to talk so I can better control the conversation.'

Plain as day, man. Wow. If you can't, or won't, understand Marra's point that's on you and your obviously intentional rejection of imagination and creative thinking.

This has nothing to do with "control" and everything to do with being intellectually dishonest.
Changing the definition on the fly to suit yourself is nothing more than trying to win at all costs.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

I'm probably not as keen to pigeon-hole and polarise things into PvE / PvP labels as you are.

For me, the Elite Dangerous experience is doing stuff alone, working with others for common goals, and competing directly or indirectly with others.

So where there are a group of players competing against another group using a PvE medium, I don't see anything wrong with calling it PvP. It's also PvE. Fancy that!

I would still like to know why Warm Considering thinks it's dangerous.

I concur with this... "PvE" and "PvP" are convenient buckets by which players are stereotyped, but in practice the two play styles are intertwined and inextricable. Most (and when I say most, I mean like all but a handful) of players engage in some level of of both PvE and PvP every time they log in, even if they do so without realizing it.

That's why I get frustrated at "PvE'er vs PvP'er" threads - the black and white classification is a fallacy.

 

[Warm Considering]

Why is it dangerous?

Seems pretty truthful to me.

It's dangerous because it's not truthful. It's a sham, bogus, faulty logic. Just because PowerPlay involves players working against each other to move meters does not mean it is PvP. PvP is player versus player, not player versus meter versus player. There is no such thing as indirect PvP. You're either fighting a player, or you're not.

 

[Jockey79]

It's dangerous because it's not truthful. It's a sham, bogus, faulty logic. Just because PowerPlay involves players working against each other to move meters does not mean it is PvP. PvP is player versus player, not player versus meter versus player. There is no such thing as indirect PvP. You're either fighting a player, or you're not.

Yup.

I really love how they think if they try to pretend PvE = PvP they can force more pew pew into the system.

Next they'll try: "Player Versus Pamphlet" = PvP

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I usually see the "indirect PVP" thing presented as a PVE talking point.

Having cake and eating it too it seems!

 

[CariadocThorne]

Well in all my years of gaming, excluding Elite I've never seen anyone try and pass off interacting with the game (and not other players); as "PvP".

So I'm not sure what circles you move in, but it must be hard to decide to play a game when they cannot tell the difference between Players V Player and Players V Environment.
I'd certainly get annoyed loading Ark up expecting to shoot players and find out "PvP" was who can chop down trees the fastest and there was no way to harm a player.

That's a blatant strawman and you know it. No-one said anything like that. If, however, you are breaking apart the other player's base, then yes, it is PvP, even if you never fight the player directly. That is what you are doing if you undermine in PP.

So when I played Destiny 1, went into the PVP crucible, played a game in the "Rift" game mode, and won by repeatedly grabbing the rift and scoring against the other team OF HUMAN PLAYERS without ever firing a shot, you're saying I was actually playing PvE?

What about games with no combat at all?

If I play FIFA against my friend, there is no combat (well, not unless we are REALLY sloppy in our tackling ;p), so does that make it PvE? No, I'm playing against a human player, not against the computer, so it's PvP.


Edit: Oh, another good example, ESO. I don't play, but my wife does, has done since launch, and the main PvP mode in ESO until recently (they just added an arena mode) was Cyrodil. In Cyrodil, there is a huge open map, and players from the 3 factions travel across the map attacking each others Castles and Resources. This can be conducted entirely without everseeing an opposing player, indeed there are groups who specialise in sneaking in behind enemy lines and attacking these targets without having to fight enemy players. It is still PvP, and if you were to go there and tell them they weren't doing PvP, you'd be laughed at.

It may contain specific instances of PvE combat, but the game mode itself is PvP. This is exactly the same as PP. The only difference is that in ESO you can't enter a different instance from the opposing players while still attacking their forts and resources to avoid having them attack and kill you to defend the resources you are attacking. That is what Elite currently lets you do. By entering solo or PG you can attack the assets the opposing players are building without them being able to defend against you.

 

[sovapid]

PvP is by definition combat. Always has been, always will be. Moving meters around isn't PvP.

This kind of expansive interpretation of PvP is dangerous. Before long competition for bounties in Open will be regarded as PvP. If you're not shooting at another player, you're not in PvP.

If I'm playing Project Cars and racing against other players, is that PVP?

If I'm playing FIFA 18 against another player on XBox, is that PVP?

If it isn't PVP, what is it? PVE?

 

[Warm Considering]

If I'm playing Project Cars and racing against other players, is that PVP?

If I'm playing FIFA 18 against another player on XBox, is that PVP?

If it isn't PVP, what is it? PVE?

What is it? Context. Stay on topic.