Correct. Even the PvP Hub, a group dedicated to PvP saw the need for PvE players and welcomed them into the fold.
Modes Reworking the game modes
- Thread starter Haggbad Celine
- Start date
Correct. Even the PvP Hub, a group dedicated to PvP saw the need for PvE players and welcomed them into the fold.
Yet PVP isn't unrestricted... it is controlled by modes and instancing. Both PVP and instancing are both in game and either can be controlled by the player. The modes are instances in their own way as are X-box and PS4. Plus the great thing about PVP is that, as has been stated many times, it has nothing to do with winging or loosing or even putting an enemy station in lockdown. It is just for some people's enjoyment. It has no effect on the grand scale of the universe... So is it really a "feature"?
And if their premium sub runs out or they stop paying it?
Locked to Solo.
Then what use are they for "Open BGS War" ?
Yet they can still push the BGS from Solo, or would you tell them as you have an objection to Solo that they cannot join in?
The modes, which have existed since the original Kickstarter, are there to restrict PvP primarily to Open. Which is why PvP is an optional feature.
Funny thing is that I agree with you. Which is why so many people cannot fathom why some people insist on pursuing a strategy that would drive their own faction into lockdown. It does make it easier for you when your opponent is doing your work for you. [haha]
I prefer to convince uninvolved players, across all modes and platforms, to avoid your faction like the plague.
I dont have a faction nor do I touch any BGS or PP activity with the current implementation of the game. As far as I am concerned they can remove both BGS and PP from the game.
This escalated quickly.
Consensual PvP in this game works kind of in a very unsatisfactory way.
There is no consent to indirect PvP, but to direct PvP only. This way advertised and will not be changed.
Ok... but maybe we can hopefully get some mechanics to not rely on grind wars alone, but actually play strategically when having such encounters.
Consent to PvP is basically given by joining open.
There are no restrictions, everyone in open has given consent to be attacked.
This makes me wonder if the issue of so called griefers has a reason.
Sure it's not fair to be gunned down by a G5 Corvette when you're in your Noobwinder, but that's what you agreed to by going open.
I would state that 'seal clubbing' is a symptom of not having the option of meaningful engagements.
When players choose to look for fights, the best solution is to look for a crowded area and kill everyone until you get a hefty bounty and become an interesting target yourself!
So to get there you need to go on a killing spree and we are talking quite a lot of kills here to get anywhere beyond a 10 mil bounty.
10k bounties are a joke, why would I bother with hunting a player for something like that?
But the most unsatisfactory part about how the consent works is that you can revoke your consent any minute.
Let's say our beloved terrorist fan ALGOMATIC decides to kill innocent haulers at the CG (all of which agreed to be killed by joining open).
The moment he faces real opposition he is able to just say, 'nah I do not consent with getting hunted by a fleet of elite Cmdrs' and joins PG, chills until notoriety has reduced, pays off his bounties and rinse repeat.
You can be very picky with how the consensual PvP works and imho that's a very unsatisfactory mechanic.
This is also the reason why I really liked to idea of having to stay in open to reduce notoriety.
I red postings of wolf vs wolf instead of wolf vs sheep, the game doesn't support this at the moment and heavily favors the wolf vs sheep playstyle.
Notoriety being locked to the game mode you were in would have the potential to shift that to some extent.
Also the current methodology of not differentiating between player kills or npc kills regarding to crime is not optimal imho.
Players do have a different impact on the PP/BGS compared to NPCs.
NPCs are not able to take on missions.
NPCs do not influence PP.
NPC lifes matter, but player lifes matter more should be a policy.
Consensual PvP in this game works kind of in a very unsatisfactory way.
There is no consent to indirect PvP, but to direct PvP only. This way advertised and will not be changed.
Ok... but maybe we can hopefully get some mechanics to not rely on grind wars alone, but actually play strategically when having such encounters.
Consent to PvP is basically given by joining open.
There are no restrictions, everyone in open has given consent to be attacked.
This makes me wonder if the issue of so called griefers has a reason.
Sure it's not fair to be gunned down by a G5 Corvette when you're in your Noobwinder, but that's what you agreed to by going open.
I would state that 'seal clubbing' is a symptom of not having the option of meaningful engagements.
When players choose to look for fights, the best solution is to look for a crowded area and kill everyone until you get a hefty bounty and become an interesting target yourself!
So to get there you need to go on a killing spree and we are talking quite a lot of kills here to get anywhere beyond a 10 mil bounty.
10k bounties are a joke, why would I bother with hunting a player for something like that?
But the most unsatisfactory part about how the consent works is that you can revoke your consent any minute.
Let's say our beloved terrorist fan ALGOMATIC decides to kill innocent haulers at the CG (all of which agreed to be killed by joining open).
The moment he faces real opposition he is able to just say, 'nah I do not consent with getting hunted by a fleet of elite Cmdrs' and joins PG, chills until notoriety has reduced, pays off his bounties and rinse repeat.
You can be very picky with how the consensual PvP works and imho that's a very unsatisfactory mechanic.
This is also the reason why I really liked to idea of having to stay in open to reduce notoriety.
I red postings of wolf vs wolf instead of wolf vs sheep, the game doesn't support this at the moment and heavily favors the wolf vs sheep playstyle.
Notoriety being locked to the game mode you were in would have the potential to shift that to some extent.
Also the current methodology of not differentiating between player kills or npc kills regarding to crime is not optimal imho.
Players do have a different impact on the PP/BGS compared to NPCs.
NPCs are not able to take on missions.
NPCs do not influence PP.
NPC lifes matter, but player lifes matter more should be a policy.
Players can "blaze their own trail" in whatever mode they choose - some people just complain that they can't pounce on them on that trail to serve as their content - they then form all sorts of spurious arguments to try to obtain that content.
Players can "blaze their own trail" in whatever mode they choose - some people just complain that they can't pounce on them on that trail to serve as their content - they then form all sorts of spurious arguments to try to obtain that content.
And yet "blazing your own trail" is relegated to the ship you choose and what pre-approved activity you choose to engage in.
One cannot achieve anything but basic change in a pre-approved manner through BGS grinds. For a self-proclaimed "space sandbox" game that's pretty weak.
Ehmm, well I think that using the ship you want to do what you want pretty much covers it really.
It is a computer game - of course results of ones actions depend upon conditions set by the programmer's code.
Last edited:
What certain players fail to realize that this game was designed, from the ground up, as a PvE coop game. While the game does allow for direct antagonistic play in Open, it is strictly optional, and players can choose Solo or Private Group with no penalty besides a narrowing of the number of players they can potentially be instanced with.
This works for everyone except the kind of player who likes to pretend they are Elite PvPers, but are so pathetic at PvP they limit themselves to newbies, strict PvE players, and frequently rely on cheats to get or combat logging to get kills and avoid death. And thus all the salt about how modes are “ruining” Powerplay or BGS play, despite admitting that they don’t do either.
The fact that more than half of the weaponry in this game is only useful in PvP scenarios kind of makes me question the statement that ED was entirely designed as a PvE coop game.
Exactly the reason, why I do not want the pretend Elite PvP'ler to have an option of evading real adversaries.
Why do you consider stating the fact that it feels unbalanced that the best option for influencing BGS/PP is PG/solo and therefore all game modes are not equally valid as salt?
And I can't take the argument of ED being a PvE game seriously, or do you usually shoot at NPCs with Target Lock Breaker, Cascade Torps and FSD Disrupters or do you mind explaining me the value of emissive ammunition in a PvE scenario?
But it doesn't mean that games cannot allow freedom in how changes are made.
The better game would set the stage and say "here's your universe, now go do shizz". What ED does is say "okay so you can do x BGS grind to achieve y change, and causing any changes outside what we want you to do is off the cards". It doesn't just come down to the Open/PG argument, it's visible even in the heavily scripted alien invasion alongside any other "narrative" they provide: almost everything in ED is on a path you've been set on. Very much not "blaze your own trail".
To add to that all the 100 balance passes with each release to remove toxic OP weapons like healing and heat cannons. Why did they bother if not to make PvP balanced and fair.
If it's a PVE game why only one mode out of 3 (SOLO) restricts PvP?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Solo is guaranteed to remove any opportunities for direct PvP. Depending on how trustworthy the other members of the Private Group are (and bearing in mind that there can be as many Private Groups as there are players), Private Groups can also be considered to be free of unwanted PvP.
Open alone gives the player no choice as to who they play with (or without) - apart from the block feature that can influence matchmaking, of course....
If that's your criteria, none of the modes restrict PvE. So that would make it a PvE game.
I never said its not a PVE game, its both PvP and PVE.
The PGs I play in are restricted PvP.
Anyone who might even think about it are kicked instantly.
So 1 mode no PvP;
1 mode yes to PvP;
1 mode that can be yes or no depending who runs it;
Perfect balance
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
A player can only encounter direct PvP if the player chooses to play in a multi-player mode - and there's no requirement that the player play in a multi-player mode (indeed, console players without premium platform access can *only* play in Solo).
Indirect PvP, on the other hand, through the BGS is not optional.