Pretty much, but the movement of PVE trophies doesnt offer much more complexity TBH.
Modes Reworking the game modes
- Thread starter Haggbad Celine
- Start date
Pretty much, but the movement of PVE trophies doesnt offer much more complexity TBH.
Not just Frontier.
Cryptic Studios have taken lots of flak from PvP'ers for keeping PvP locked to instance games away from the main Star Trek Online game. No matter how much they asked for open world PvP, the answer is always no.
Digital Extremes gets flak over not really investing much in to PvP in Warframe, plus only the stuff you earn in PvP can be used in PvP - so a waste of time for casual gamers who wont have the gear of more invested PvP'ers and end up getting slaughtered for it.
I could go on, but the general gist is, mixed PvE / PvP games - PvP 9 times out of 10 will get the short end of the stick.
The only real exception I personally know where PvP didn't get the short end was in EVE Online. But even then, I see they did set some boundaries that were not there when I played.
I honestly hope Star Citizen;
a) hurries up and releases, because this is beyond a joke now.
b) is every thing PvP'ers want it to be.
I don't honestly see where the beef is. I mean, seriously, you are saying that PvP players are being badly-done-by because people who don't want to be "content" for PvP players are able to play the game. So the complaint is that you can't be allowed free reign to engage in non-consensual PvP with everyone and anyone who plays the game?
To paraphrase part of your post: "casual gamers who wont have the gear of more invested PvP'ers and end up getting slaughtered for it".
Maybe what is really needed are more PvP-only Private Groups or is that anathema because there won't be any non-engineered-to-the-max player's ships to be cannon-fodder?
I don't have a "beef" and I think you've misunderstood my post and its point.
I think mixed PvE / PvP games are a bad idea, because it's generally the PvP'ers who get the short stick in them.
So I understand their frustrations and complaints. You cannot make a game for two very different groups of players and expect it to just work out.
Aside from having their game play style neutered and limited, being pushed away from the main game in most cases.
Once a game is established then anyone new finds it really hard to join PvP due to being constantly under geared to those who've been there from the start.
This was an issue in Star Trek Online until they removed PvP specific gear and now you can PvP in gear you earn elsewhere. You just have to learn decent gear combos.
However Warframe still has PvP specific gear, so they still have this issue. So PvP gets little Dev time or consideration (again, short end of the stick for PvP).
What PvP'ers need, is a game built for PvP that isn't just a re-hash of Battle Royal or Team Death Match.
Something that rewards PvP, has objectives / goals to work towards and doesn't stop new folks joining in.
I hope Star Citizen helps fill this gap in the gaming market, as it seems to be more aimed at PvP game play (from what I can tell - I could be wrong).
Hope I've explained it better.
Actually it is my fault for using that partial quote from your post to introduce what I feel about some PvP enthusiasts complaining about lack of "content". Sorry, that was presumptuous of me.
I do understand what you are referring to. To paraphrase - the "entry barrier" is what Economics calls it - the barrier that needs to be overcome for a new entrant to be competitive in an established marketplace.
Last edited:
Yes, but as well as "the entry barrier" PvP'ers also lack a decent game to play.
Not sure why game Devs think throwing PvP into a game not really built for it, is a good idea.
Trying to have their "cake and eat it" is daft, we all know the cake is a lie.
PvP'ers need a PvP game that isn't just a mindless shooter and PvE players could do with a break from PvP'ers
Yes, but as well as "the entry barrier" PvP'ers also lack a decent game to play.
Not sure why game Devs think throwing PvP into a game not really built for it, is a good idea.
Trying to have their "cake and eat it" is daft, we all know the cake is a lie.
PvP'ers need a PvP game that isn't just a mindless shooter and PvE players could do with a break from PvP'ers
We all know why they thought it was a "good" idea...
More money.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The game doesn't care what the attacker / target is - whether NPC or CMDR. It has been largely PvP-agnostic until recently with the introduction of the short-lived Pilots' Federation bounties. The new C&CC system seems to aim to introduce consequences on general criminal behaviour.
Essentially, the size of the galaxy is a "problem" for PvP, i.e. players get too spread out. That's why I previously suggested "The New Bubble" as a reasonably sized chunk of the galaxy that could only be entered in Open (by using the permit system). It would have all current gameplay opportunities, i.e. PowerPlay (new Powers), Factions, CGs, etc. - with the benefit (to those who like to see who is opposing them) that it could only be affected by players in Open. That could be a possible solution - and even if there was one TNB per platform, composed of several thousand systems each, that's as nothing compared to the size of the galaxy.
Last edited:
Why can't us players just accept that the game allows for all kinds of players with all kinds of interests? The only barrier here is opposing interests, there isn't any game barriers. It's all in the attitudes of the concerned parties. Insisting on one unified play style is the problem.
There is plenty of complexity
Star Citizen will be a PVE/PVP game
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...s-On-Multiplayer-Single-Player-And-Instancing
But there will be areas like in EvE where no matter your settings for PVP there will be if you go there.
Are you speaking from expirience?
Because I am.
I was part of a PF for about 2 months so I know alot about the BGS.
The thing is, the whole BGS gameplay will always favour a player because NPCs dont affect it. If you only have one PF inna system (99% of the cases) you are guaranteed to win becsuse there is literaly no oppositon to your actions. In a state of war if even 1 cmdr is fighting in the CZ they are guaranteed a win in this war its just a matter of time.
The whole concept is a massive grind for no particular reason. We expanded into 2 other systems. Ok, now what? Do we have more income sources? No
Did something change at all in the game play? Not really its just you need to grind more intensively to keep 2 systems in control, again for no particular reason.
I wished someone would attack us to break the monotony... never happened.
My understanding of SC is that it will be PVP everywhere, but with 'proper high sec' systems that have punishment with a bite...which just means the ultra cool PVP players will be there doing what they do!
So, you didn't find value in this aspect of the game. Playing the BGS is my primary interest. It all comes down to the level of control you want to exert. It's just another indication how a complex game like E|D can attract a variety of players with disparate interests. Viva la differance! (sp?).
Yes actually I am
My understanding of SC is that it will be PVP everywhere, but with 'proper high sec' systems that have punishment with a bite...which just means the ultra cool PVP players will be there doing what they do!
According to Roberts I can set my PVP preference to none and unless I am in one of the fridge areas that is ALL PVP I won't see anything.
Erm, as far as I recall, there is no "none" setting for PvP interaction on the live server, only if you run a local server.
So SC will have open PvP everywhere, but you can limit how often you run in to other human pilots (whether they shoot at you or help you is another matter) with that slider thing they talked about.
Which is the main reason I said it isn't built for PvP.
Too many places to go. Each current player could have a star system each and still not have any neighbours.
So advertising the game to the PvP crowd is actually cruel in my opinion. It's also why the modes discussion has gone on since 2012.
"The other key thing the Galaxy Server does is dynamically place players based on their location, skill level, alignment and player versus player (PvP) preference into battle instances." This comment from the link I posted earlier and from other sources are where I was coming form on it. I do hope I wasn't lied to.
Where does that say you wont meet another player who wont kill you?
Granted, it's been some time since I looked up any SC info, but from what I recall there was a 10% chance of meeting another player when your slider is set to minimum.
As for how that player interacts with you, be it friend or foe, is up to them.
They may have changed it since I last looked, which was over a year ago now.
I was able to have a discussion with some of the people working on the game, I could be wrong but was lead to believe it.
And some people were "lead" to believe Elite: Dangerous is a PvP orientated game.
This is why I get so pedantic over technical definitions of words. It's not be being annoying for the sake of it, it's because game Devs work by technical definitions to get away with "false" advertising.
For example, Elite is listed as an MMO.... now most of us have played proper MMOs, and Elite is nothing like one.
However, the "technical definition" of MMO is just lots of players connected, of which in Elite - we can all be potentially connected (if we play open).
I do hate to be the barer of bad news, but I'd reconsider your preconceptions of SC and think about just how broad their definitions truly are for how they describe the game.