PvP or combat, or both?
General Remove private Lobby and single Player
- Thread starter Black White
- Start date
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
Okay, so another non-issue then.
That's eve online right?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... is being optimised and is an optional DLC in the first place that no-one needs to purchase to continue to access base-game and Horizons content.
I had another in mind.
While it may seem obvious to some players that shifting development direction towards PvP is the way to go Frontier know that they have a significant number of players with no interest in PvP and can only guess at how popular bespoke PvP features might be.Okay, so you see this (and Frontier as agreeing) that PvE is the privileged game experience, and PvP is an addon (well, really, a nuisance that should be tidied away). And yet, Frontier might find that they've actually created a gem without realising it - the flight model and scenario possibilites that keep PvPers interested in a game that on its other bases doesn't fully engage them. What do they do with that? "Aaah, we were never interested in that, we're not now", or make more of it? BGS, Powerplay and perhaps all of the game features have gone in ways that they really didn't anticipate. And they've run with it, generally. Not running with it re
Each day that goes by, more players buy the game as it is - so the number of players who would be adversely affected by changes that would PvP-gate game features increases. The longer it continues, the stronger the case for splitting the game in two rather than removing access to features or penalising those who choose not to play in Open.
Running with PvP would not remove dissatisfaction with encounter asymmetry - it was bad enough between ships optimised for different roles before engineering and the gulf widened massively after its introduction.
Players choosing to play in modes other than Open is not a problem - it's a game feature - other players have always been an optional extra in this game, noting that some may want to play with everyone but their preference does not have any bearing on the mode choice of others.
DBOBE basically dismissed any chance of an Open-PvE game mode in the Engineers launch stream - too much work to remove all possible ways of adversely affecting other players. That being the case, I produced a starting point for a set of optional rules that could be implemented in Private Groups that could benefit both PvE and PvP players:
For PvP:
- Enable mass-lock delay on hyper-jumps if due to player ship? [yes/no]
- Increase menu exit delay if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
- Disable menu exit option if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
- Disable weapon healing effects? [yes/no]
- Disable premium ammunition? [yes/no]
- Disable Shield Cell Boosters? [yes/no]
- Lost connection while "in danger" due to player attack results in destruction / rebuy? [yes/no]
For PvE:
- Disable player / player interdiction? [yes/no]
- Disable player / player wake following? [yes/no]
- Disable player / player wake dropping? [yes/no]
- Disable "friendly fire"? [yes/no]
- Session kick player on attacking another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
- Session kick player on destroying another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
- Remove menu exit delay if "in danger" flag was only set due to player attack? [yes/no]
For all play-styles:
- Move player to another instance after a period of inactivity on a landing pad.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - not being content with the ability to affect game features in exactly the same way and with the same effect as players in other modes they want those who choose not to play in Open to be either penalised or completely excluded from affecting the features.
.... and the LYR / Archon benefits would only ever be a mode change away for those who can play in the multi-player modes (after arriving in the station).
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
PvP was made entirely optional as there remains no requirement ot play among other players to play the game (apart from CQC that has no consequences for ship loss). Combat in general is likely largely opt-in due to the fact that Frontier chose to add Trade and Exploration ranks to the game - ranks that can be gained without firing a shot in combat and ships optimised for those roles are often quickly and easily destroyed in combat. Frontier didn't choose to set the general NPC challenge at a level where players need to outfit defensively when engaged in non-combat activities.
Not the, a way to go. Why would they only develop one aspect?
You're assuming people are not attracted to it in the same proportions as before for different activities.
These things don't seem related.
Yeah I think it is. But features should be designed carefully, and to coexist comfortably.
It's fair to say that PGs could be developed more. I sometimes wonder why PG is, it seems, universally treated as a safety bubble. Why aren't there also PGs that specifically set out to create a dangerous environment. For instance, you could add another to your list "permit lock all systems within X ly of system Y" to concentrate CMDRs and increase encounters.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Development for PvP automatically means that a significant portion of the player-base are likely to completely ignore the feature, reducing the number of players who would benefit from the development. All players engage in PvE.
Not at all - just that the proportion of new players buying the game, who won't engage in PvP, is non zero and that the number of non-PvP players increases even if the proportion may, or may not.
It was in response to "Not running with it re
vP so far has led to a lot of the dissatisfaction with asymmetry of encounters and with C&P". The ability to attack ships optimised for different roles will always lead to complaints regarding asymmetry, i.e. there's no fun for the target in an encounter where the attacker faces no meaningful risk nor has to exhibit any particular combat skill to suckerpunch the target they selected.As I said: "noting that some may want to play with everyone but their preference does not have any bearing on the mode choice of others". In a game where both multi-player game modes are PvP-enabled, there's no "peaceful coexistence" - an attacker may appear at any time.
Anecdotally, some PvP PGs exist - however I expect they're not popular with asymmetric PvP specialists as they contain players who want to engage in PvP (or are accepting of PvP).
I'll steal that idea, thanks.
Last edited:
.... Gosh 19 pages, so I suppose that means that now we have a new:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vydym4wh9Qo
I think I found an even more fitting song, it says "Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives and I decline".
Also, backing vocals "Time I had some time alone"
Also, backing vocals "Time I had some time alone"
Fallacious argument when coupled to a combat Requirement, because some players have no aptitude, as opposed to a lack of skill, for combat. As a result, you are institutionalizing a discrimination against any player that cannot improve their raw combat talent.
This ignores the fact that a civilization advances not through combat but by peaceful endevours.
Even the Mongols, the most effective military machine Humanity ever produced, maintained their Empire through things like schools and ensuring that their people (willing or otherwise) were taken care of.
And those players, what are they doing opting into a feature that paints a target on them- ten times over?
And where does that apply in Powerplay? All powers kill at some point to UM and all NPCs will attack you, limp as it may be.
How does this apply to Powerplay, an opt in feature about conquest in a game that treats murder and killing like buying a pint of milk?
But they are not adverse to taking choices when they have to. If they are not willing to develop the PvE then Open is the next best thing to inject life back into Powerplay and set it apart.
And this is exactly what I mean- the vast majority of opponents are not even interested in the fate of Powerplay because its just the slippery slope crew. Elite needs a better channel for PvP for in game assets and lo and behold it has the framework for one.
And both times (in fact three times if you count the first weighting proposal) Sandro comes to the conclusion the modes are not balanced for Powerplay.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - offline mode was cancelled because it would not offer the desired game experience (and Solo and Private Groups survived that cull so must offer the desired game experience); the Mac client was removed because Apple chose not to keep up with the latest OpenGL version; delaying the Odyssey release on consoles gives Frontier time to focus their efforts on PC optimisations (that are highly likely to benefit consoles given the similarity of hardware) without performing them on three platforms at once. There's no such necessity with Powerplay.
The slippery slope is only a fallacy if proven wrong - by the time it is proven to be correct, it's far too late.
The game already has a channel for PvP, referred to as the only bit of the game that requires PvP by DBOBE in the Engineers launch stream (when he also states that the game is not sold as a PvP game) and that feature does not have direct effects on the shared galaxy. Whether a game that does not require PvP to engage in any game feature (apart from CQC) needs a better channel for PvP, or not, rather depends on ones preference, or lack thereof, for PvP. That Frontier haven't chosen to include one to date might be quite telling.
That he may have - yet he was crystal clear that the only feature even under consideration for a potential change was Powerplay and that the last repetition, in the Powerplay Flash Topic, was part of an investigation and not a fait accompli. Noting that the "last thing on our minds" comment came after the Flash Topic threads had been running for a while in what seems to be his last stream appearance and also last communication with the player-base before he left the project.
Last edited:
I thought it only gets recognised as Hotel California material at 1000 pages ?.... Gosh 19 pages, so I suppose that means that now we have a new:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vydym4wh9Qo
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The thread's opening post is classic Hotel California material - warranting instant classification.I thought it only gets recognised as Hotel California material at 1000 pages ?
Well, there is- its a six year old headline feature that has been left to die. Its comparable to FD not fixing Odysseys main features, and yet FD went ahead and launched it incomplete, lied about its state (which can be seen from how Mike Brookes evaded the topic as well as Powerplays v1.0 manual mentioning Collapse that never appeared, thus breaking the very need for the main game loop of Powerplay- this being weeks into Powerplays introduction).
The slippery slope is paved with the paranoid who hold back any semblance of progress. ED is littered with such mistakes.
And as I keep telling you, Open Powerplay sidesteps the problem of NPCs who are simply incapable of providing the PvE needed. These NPCs are further constrained by the problems of SC/POI/station travel while players have no such constraints. If FD can provide the former then the latter is not as important.
You can also argue Powerplay is not strongly connected to the game and its effects are limited. Sandro suggested reducing the BGS footprint to control systems, which would make this even smaller.
And thats all ED needs, to actually make Powerplay in whole or part open to live up to its design, since its as close as a feature can get to being PvP capable. At the very least too is recognise Open can be far more dangerous than PG or solo and weight it accordingly.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not really comparable and not a headline feature - Powerplay was only one of several significant free additions to the base game in the first year - it was not a paid DLC that added significantly to the game.
Misrepresenting all opposition as the paranoia of those who may have concerns with respect to the rest of the game is one way of diminishing ones argument I suppose.
The repetition is noted - however not agreed with. Some insist that there must be a PvP-only element; some don't. That some have identified Powerplay as potential low-hanging fruit with respect to appropriation for PvP is obvious.
Powerplay can be affected by BGS state of the systems where a Power is present - which is orders of magnitude more effect than CQC has on any game feature.
.... or not, depending on ones preference, or lack thereof, for PvP - in a game where there's no requirement to even tolerate PvP to play the game.
It was a main feature, just as legs, new planet surfaces etc were / are- it added a whole new layer to the game. If its so minor, why does the game stop each Thursday morning for 30 minutes for it?
LOL! A lot of the complainers are just constructing straw men to set on fire. I can vividly remember the screeching about shields being made weaker and gimbals not being linked to sensors- all changes that would have added depth to the game.
And there is a need to cater for PvP in ED, otherwise, how will you attract more people to the game? Having a mini Star Wars Squadrons within ED with territorial overtones is going to be something worth playing. If you don't want that, fine, but then make PvE harder so all modes even out. If FD can;t even do that then they have to acknowledge (as Sandro did) Open risks more than being in solo or PG, and needs some form of reward to offset that danger.
And you can just as easily switch that off, or use a different metric. Separating Powerplay and make it self contained would be far, far easier than hiving off an Open server.
You are confusing what is and what is being proposed though. And as I keep saying- Open for Powerplay makes players NPCs the feature lacks, and would also supercharge team activity within the game because no other feature would focus on that aspect in such a way.
In the end for Powerplay there is no difference between players or NPCs- both want to destroy you because thats the default position. So PvP in Powerplay would not differ in outcome because the aim to to stop you.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I didn't actually say it was minor - just of less magnitude when compared to Odyssey - and free rather than paid.
As are those extolling the benefits to the game of changes that would actively exclude a subset of the player-base from existing pan-modal game features....
Simply put, we don't all want the same things - the only thing we are guaranteed to have in common is that we bought the same game.
Some perceive a need, no doubt - others bought a game with no intention of engaging in PvP.
It might be easier but it might also not be the most equitable solution when all players are taken into consideration.
It's not confusion at all - we don't know what might be, - we only know the reality of the current implementation, not the large number of disparate proposals leading to a similarly large number of hypothetical implementations that may never come to pass. I don't disagree that Powerplay being made Open only would likely improve the game for some players, noting that some players would lose access to it completely and some would be disinclined to engage in it due to PvP.
What would differ is the type of attacker - and that makes a difference for some players (a fact that Sandro acknowledged in a discussion on a different topic), so much so that Frontier chose to make PvP entirely optional in their game.