The worst thing to do on any game forum is to bring up another game and suggest game X should do stuff like game Y. This is not a criticism of you wanting a better PvP experience, but make your suggestion in line with how ED works, EVE uses an entirely different engine that supports features that may not even be possible in ED, and vice versa.
PVP ACTIVITIES
- Thread starter XComanceX
- Start date
Elite has the best flight model from all the space games available. Fdev are literally sitting on a gold mine but do not act to make Elite proper MMO. BGS is PvP (Player vs Player actions) as two opposing player managed factions get head to head. Power Play is PvP as only players can influence merits.
The game is called Elite Dangerous and only players can make it so. In reality it should be really renamed to Elite Private Groups.
The game is called Elite Dangerous and only players can make it so. In reality it should be really renamed to Elite Private Groups.
San Tu not a spot anymore (given it lost the Anarchy status despite there have been tentatives to flip it back to that) now it's been replaced by https://inara.cz/elite/starsystem/27543/ or for organics between Fed and Imp https://inara.cz/elite/starsystem/12637/San Tu still exists doesn't it? If you want to PvP just go there. Pretty sure CZs are still combat zones.
This comes up regularly, it's not called Elite Dangerous because it's meant to be dangerous!
You do know what you said makes absolutely no sense wotsoever
Anyways thanks to @StellarKnight observation. Pvp is no longer "hotel california" territory.
Else PP and bgs also be categorised as the same.
Because.. God I'm gonner run with this, bgs and PP ARE both pvp!!
Else PP and bgs also be categorised as the same.
Because.. God I'm gonner run with this, bgs and PP ARE both pvp!!
Without seeing the original post, its most likely that wasn't just about PvP. We are actively discussing PvP in the PP2 thread without posts getting deleted. My guess it was a Hotel California post or they were attacking another player - the moderation post implies this.
Also, posting about moderation on the forum can get you a paddlin'
You only have to look at my posts to realise there isn't any moderator bias towards me. I'm a keen advocate of combat related (gotta call it that now hehe) pvp. And I'm very vocal about it.
To date no moderator has ever silenced or moderated my musings, opinions.
I'll say this. This forum is a free speech place. Even criticism of fdev is allowed.
The line is crossed when posts contain insults or slurs upon a cmdrs character.
To date no moderator has ever silenced or moderated my musings, opinions.
I'll say this. This forum is a free speech place. Even criticism of fdev is allowed.
The line is crossed when posts contain insults or slurs upon a cmdrs character.
Or it can be called dangerous because you can face many forms of danger, if you so choose. Landing on a high G planet is dangerous. Thargoids are dangerous for many players, and for some players even regular NPCs can be dangerous. I was once almost killed by a Type 9 in my FdL.
Just because the name is dangerous doesn't mean that danger has to come from PvP. For some players, maybe that's the only danger for them. For others, not so.
PS: About the first part of your post, ED is indeed a goldmine, but it doesn't have to lean into PvP to become better. The majority of players prefer PvE so improving the PvE experience would net them better results. For ED to work well as a PvP game they'd need to change a lot of the elements of the game that would result in a lot of PvEers leaving the game.
Its been demonstrated time and again in the history on online gaming, that the PvP market in open world games is relatively niche compared to the PvE market. Only open world games totally designed around PvP stand a chance of doing well, like EvE or Rust, but then they are not catering to the PvEers. Often when devs create separate PvP and PvE servers the PvP servers die, because the PvPers can't live without the PvEers but the PvEers can live without the PvPers. It can be a bit of a parasitic relationship at times.
Last edited:
Meanwhile, me, a staunch PvEer, has had a number of posts (deservedly so) removed, and I once even got a week ban during my tenure as a moderator here.(Brett called me a drunk potato for what I posted)
I can also say from my time as a moderator that any moderator who showed bias in moderation towards a particular person or group would be soon put in their place by the CMs.
Close to, but not actually... What is acceptable, or otherwise, appears to be more a matter of interpretation around the set rules of the forum (I may have found this out the hard way!
)But not always...
I'm all for people playing however they wish - although I may just casually rebutt suggestions that imply that everyone has to play thier way.
I 'get' that some folk believe that PvP play provides 'something' lacking in their gameplay, but, more often than not, when the rather excellent organised PvP groups are suggested as providing them with exactly what they desire, the suggestion is rejected as it isn't the "PvP they were talking about"... OK...
The title refers to the players as being of "dangerous" rank.
Combat related pvp can be pvp vs pvp. It's possible only if the game has a system in place that places 2 opposing groups (wows alliance vs horde) in a given situation that's fluid and dependent on skills, numbers etc.
If elite had such a mechanic in place I can promise you it would be a boon.
San Tu, decait etc isn't what I mean.
PP 2.0 might well address it. Perhaps not we've yet to learn.
We've had debates about pvpers doing bgs czs and getting higher % handed ins which I agree just isn't cricket.
But if there was a predisposed mechanic in place it would be a hoot. And if it affects PP or the bgs bring it on.
That other game killed pvp because doing something illegal gets you bounty spammed. Kleischer bang up incoming..
And interdiction requires 2 ships.
So even SC frowns upon pvp.
I agree pvp does need victims.
But those victims don't have to be pvers.
Put a game loop in the pits pvpers against pvpers and elite will shine!!
If elite had such a mechanic in place I can promise you it would be a boon.
San Tu, decait etc isn't what I mean.
PP 2.0 might well address it. Perhaps not we've yet to learn.
We've had debates about pvpers doing bgs czs and getting higher % handed ins which I agree just isn't cricket.
But if there was a predisposed mechanic in place it would be a hoot. And if it affects PP or the bgs bring it on.
That other game killed pvp because doing something illegal gets you bounty spammed. Kleischer bang up incoming..
And interdiction requires 2 ships.
So even SC frowns upon pvp.
I agree pvp does need victims.
But those victims don't have to be pvers.
Put a game loop in the pits pvpers against pvpers and elite will shine!!
Mmmm I gotta stand down on this one. Can someone else please comment : )
Back on topic, I’d like some bounty hunting features - say, missions to kill specific players (who have bounties) including informants and mission signals for their location (like some current pirate assassination missions). Sure, instancing is an issue, but the stars will align at some point, and if you take a bunch of pvp bounty missions, you’ll always have a few that you can instance with.
Power-aligned ship combat pvp could be more consequential, also. And bgs and powerplay actions and kills in open should have more impact than in solo or private group, imo, simply because they can be directly opposed by players dogfighting. I like the principle of players directly opposing players in dogfights, fps, and using other noncombat missions - delivery, rescue, etc - but always with direct opposition in the game with actual live players that you can see, shoot and run away from
Power-aligned ship combat pvp could be more consequential, also. And bgs and powerplay actions and kills in open should have more impact than in solo or private group, imo, simply because they can be directly opposed by players dogfighting. I like the principle of players directly opposing players in dogfights, fps, and using other noncombat missions - delivery, rescue, etc - but always with direct opposition in the game with actual live players that you can see, shoot and run away from
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
Really what was your intention then when you made complaints about moderation that didn't happen on this forum, and then post a quote of me taken out of the context of the thread it was in, purely to accuse the moderation team of being biased? I'm curious?
The people that post was aimed at know exactly who they are and what they were doing
You obviously didn't read the posts I'd deleted, you also obviously didn't read the last couple of pages to see how the conversation had deteriorated into people bickering about different playstyles. If you read the forum rules, you'll see that publicly discussing moderation actions is forbidden, you'll also see how to complain/appeal/contest them.Hotel California, in any of it's incarnations, has never just been about PvP.
Also
Elite dangerous was so named because that was the rank of most Elite pilots at the time ( from DB himself) . Not because it's a Dangerous universe
BGS is not PvP based in fact the best results are from Trade and Inf with bounties and exploration coming last. With no extra for blowing up the other side .
Power play is a slightly different kettle of fish( I can fly with no fear into an enemy state with no repercussions from stations ,security and NPC) however Elite has always had Open Solo and PG and are all equal and Fdev have always wanted commanders to play their own way. There are small groups who think differently but that's been my experience since I started playing .
Last edited:
So by being Elite i'm an overachiever for once in my life! Goooooo me!