Modes Reworking the game modes

[Robert Maynard]

My point doesn't state direct PvP as a requirement, but as a reasonable option.
That's not in conflict with what is advertised.

An option - if both sides choose to engage in it - absolutely. However one side of the engagement cannot dictate that the other side engage them in an optional play-style.

It's not an excuse. It's an explanation: Don't give players a reason to choose targets and everyone has put a crosshair onto them.
Give players a reason to choose attacking a combat fitted ship over a harmless trader and you have a solution for 90% of the griefers.

True - however players can choose whether or not to play with those players - and, as giving reasons to attack will not engage all of those who resort to poor behaviour, rewarding them will only stop some of them being the problem (and will let all of them know that poor behaviour gets rewarded by the Developer).

Arguably, those who exhibit poor behaviour in frustration are not doing the case for PvP content any good.

As I said clever people avoid problems instead of fixing them.

Indeed - and to lock content to a single game mode would be to cause a problem with the subset of the player-base that chooses not to play in that game mode - as there has not been any content locked behind a PvP gate, everyone can expect to engage in it. Sticking with what is advertised is clever in that context, whereas deviating from it significantly might not be quite so clever.

And on the same side you can't expect players to stop an attack they have no idea where it's coming from, especially without options to stop it.

When they realise that they are being attacked they can formulate a response - as with three platforms and players all over the world playing 24/7 (then there's the block feature) - even if the attacker did play in Open there's no guarantee that defenders would be able to instance with them or even be playing at the same time.

 

[Darkfyre99]

From what I can tell, the only "problem" (if you can call it that) is that there is no reason (besides a fun distraction) to PvP in Elite: Dangerous.
And the way they have built the game, it doesn't support forced PvP.

The C&P system is also a joke now, as money penalties mean nothing to people who abuse game bugs to make billions.

Why would anyone want to risk hard earned ships / cargo / engineered modules etc.. in a situation where the only person who wins is the attacker?
As soon as player "police" turn up, poof, they've gone. If they get caught, why do they care - a billion credits is a lot of re-buys to the point a Corvette is disposable.

So the victim can end up back in a Sidewinder, the attacker risks nothing and if they are caught doesn't actually get punished because their cheated credits means they don't care.
If Frontier want people in Open to "encourage" PvP, to add "depth" & "meaning" - then why should the attacker be the only one without consequences?

Player to player deaths shouldn't trigger re-buys costs. Simple.
If the "victim" just spawns back where they left last (with cargo) - then there is a reason to try and get past other players - for fun.
But as it stands, why bother when it only ever ends badly for the victim not the attacker?

There's a lot I agree with you, but I personally believe that the fact there's no reason to PvP besides for the fun of it IS part of the problem, because that kind of PvP lacks context. Frontier has gone to a lot of trouble creating a Universe where the Pilots Federation fight the shadow wars of the various factions in Human Space, from the cold war between the Empire and the Federation, to two mega-corporations taking the concept of "hostile take-over" to a whole new level. It is only natural for some players to choose a side, and then want to face players on the opposite side of the fence.

It is that lack of context that, in part, creates a perception of griefing... even if in the attacker's mind they're attacking a legitimate target. It's also why when I go marauding, I'm careful to establish context, even if it means someone might get away. It is also the reason why I enjoyed the PvP encounters I had in Powerplay, even if I didn't enjoy the ways to earn merits: those hostile encounters I had with other players had context. I knew why they were attacking me, and they knew why I was in the system. Even if we didn't exchange words, the fact that we were pledged to opposing sides, and knew it, made all the difference.

It is why any proposal I have to enhance PvP starts with allowing players to pledge allegiance to a faction, whether its a minor faction or a Superpower (or declare themselves a pirate.) I would also add the option to declare enmity towards a faction as well. Even if nothing else comes of it, besides flagging other players (and NPCs, for the PvE crowd) as hostile to you, I think it would go a long way towards reducing the perceived amount of griefing in Open.

I mean, which scenario* is better:

"You're making a supply run for the People's Congress of ABC123, a Federation faction that's in charge. As you're flying along, an unknown Pilots' Federation ship approaches you from behind. You have no idea why they're there: they may be moving to attack you, or they could be simply traveling in the same direction. Suddenly, an interdiction tether engulfs your ship. You still don't know what's going on: are they pirates who can be appeased with your cargo? Are they someone who supports the Imperial Party of ABC123? Are they some murder hobo who just wants to kill you for the LOLs? You don't know, and that lack of knowledge causes you to delay several seconds, as the possibilities run through your head. By the time you react, you're already under fire. Ten seconds later, you're dead."

or

"You're making a supply run for the People's Congress for ABC123, a Federation Faction that's in charge. Suddenly, a Pilots' Federation ship, glowing in a malevolent red on your scanner and HUD, approaches you from behind. You instantly start to take evasive action, because you know they're after you. As you try to keep them off your six, you select them, in an effort to identify them. You see they're supporters of the Imperial Party of ABC123, who have been rising in influence over the last two weeks. You now know if they catch you, they'll try to kill you, so you better make sure they don't catch you."

_____________
* With the usual caveat: players are still allowed to play in the mode that suits them best, and there are no bonuses or penalties for choosing one mode over another.

 

[Haggbad Celine]

An option - if both sides choose to engage in it - absolutely. However one side of the engagement cannot dictate that the other side engage them in an optional play-style.

Yet for the moment there is no reason to engage in direct PvP, except for the lulz.

True - however players can choose whether or not to play with those players - and, as giving reasons to attack will not engage all of those who resort to poor behaviour, rewarding them will only stop some of them being the problem (and will let all of them know that poor behaviour gets rewarded by the Developer).

Arguably, those who exhibit poor behaviour in frustration are not doing the case for PvP content any good.

I am not saying griefing should be rewarded.
I said the majority will not resort to poor behaviour if their is incentive for good behaviour.

Indeed - and to lock content to a single game mode would be to cause a problem with the subset of the player-base that chooses not to play in that game mode - as there has not been any content locked behind a PvP gate, everyone can expect to engage in it. Sticking with what is advertised is clever in that context, whereas deviating from it significantly might not be quite so clever.

It's no significant deviation from what is advertised. It's not stated that everything is available in every mode, only that all actions (from which PvP strangely enough is excluded) have effect on the galaxy.

When they realise that they are being attacked they can formulate a response - as with three platforms and players all over the world playing 24/7 (then there's the block feature) - even if the attacker did play in Open there's no guarantee that defenders would be able to instance with them or even be playing at the same time.

The game mechanics allow no response to stop anyone from harrassing a station.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yet for the moment there is no reason to engage in direct PvP, except for the lulz.

.... or for the challenge between individuals / groups who choose to engage each other.

I am not saying griefing should be rewarded.
I said the majority will not resort to poor behaviour if their is incentive for good behaviour.

An incentive for good behaviour is a reward. Such a reward offered after a prolonged period of poor behaviour, by some, would constitute a reward for bad behaviour.

However, I do agree that, if successfully channelled, the desire for direct PvP could offer opportunities for likeminded individuals without impeding the game-play of players disinclined to participate. That's a fairly large "if" though.

It's no significant deviation from what is advertised. It's not stated that everything is available in every mode, only that all actions (from which PvP strangely enough is excluded) have effect on the galaxy.

It is a significant deviation when the CEO has stated that the game is not sold as a PvP game (but rather a game where PvP is possible). It is when the economy, politics and conflicts are advertised as being able to be affected by players in Solo.

PvP is possible in two of the three game modes. That it has little effect on the BGS suggests that Frontier are aware that players would collude to amplify their effect, if they could.

The game mechanics allow no response to stop anyone from harrassing a station.

What do you mean by "harassing a station"?

 

[Jockey79]

I've been reading this thread over the last few days trying to objectively read each post. I need some help with some of the logic.

1. This game is sold today with the concept that every player's actions affect the BGS/PP regardless of mode. That is explicitly stated in the game's marketing. I'm failing to find how that is confusing.

2. PP was, from inception, crafted to allow players in all modes to participate equally. Even today, the marketing for the game says "every player" when it refers to PP interactions. Again, I'm failing to find the confusion.

3. Are there a lot of gamers that are buying this game without reading about how the game works? What can Frontier do to alleviate the confusion that this game embraces...nay...encourages every player to "play how you want"?

4. Straighten me out on this too. If PvE elements were removed from the game entirely, would the BGS or PP progress? If PvP elements were removed from the game entirely, would the BGS or PP progress?

5. in PP, can a player counter another player, regardless of game mode?

6. Why is there outcry about game modes, but not about platforms? I have an XB1 CMDR and a PC CMDR. Is that considered exploiting the BGS since there is no parity of player populations across platforms?

7. If solo/PG mode BGS/PP manipulation is a one-sided player interaction, isn't the same true for nonconsensual direct PvP in Open? Are they not an equal and opposite outcome to forced gameplay?

Okay, I'll answer as best I can.

1) It's not confusing. But some people didn't read all of the marketing before buying and made assumptions on limited information.

2) Power Play seems like a good excuse to PvP, and as Frontier made it so you don't get marked as a criminal for Power Play related killing of each other - it is almost the perfect PvP system.
However, apart from Power Play being available in all modes (so the PvP is optional, not forced), Frontier made it so Power Play human on human kills are worthless, a player is not worth the same merits as an NPC.
Which has lead to some arguments on it - as it should have been a way for PvP'ers to get a reason / meaning for killing - but it turned out to be a watery system for PvP and PvE.

3) Yes. Some people buy because a friend tells them to buy it and have no idea about the game at all. Others just see a YouTube video and assume things. As for Frontier, their marketing leave a lot to be desired. While "technically" they never say the game is PvP, if you watch their videos honestly - they don't state the game isn't a pure PvP either. So they could be more transparent with those.

4) If PvE were to be removed, the BGS and other elements would suffer. PvP is optional, so if it were removed, the game could live without it. HOWEVER! when someone takes a kill mission, you can use NPCs or human players to push the mission - so PvP can be used to interact with the BGS, but it is a small contribution.

5) Yes.

6) Right, when it comes to the modes - for the purpose of PvE, it is irrelevant. Platform or mode makes no difference to PvE. However, the main issue from a PvP point of view is, you cannot use ship to ship combat as a sole means to achieve anything. Which in a game sold with "Blaze your own trail" as the tag line, how can you blaze your own trail as a PvP'er when everyone is in other modes and you cannot interact with them. So if we were to attack a PvP players faction from Solo, they cannot use PvP to defend - so they cannot blaze their own trail, only suffer as we blaze ours.

7) Well, this is a weird one, because of the nature of open mode. Not all PvP interactions are a negative experience. Plus some folks enjoy random interactions with other players, even if it results in them getting killed.
It can also be argued that anyone who joins open, gives consent to PvP - so there is no such thing as non consensual PvP in open mode. And even if a super PvP ship tries to pull over a basic cargo ship, a pilot with their wits about them can get out of the situation and live to tell the tale. So you can reduce / counter the thread of being killed in open if you want to.

Hope this helps, hope I did a good job of answering the questions fairly.
Fly safe CMDR.

And no matter the mode you choose, it's your choice to make so enjoy it.

 

[Mouse]

I've been reading this thread over the last few days trying to objectively read each post. I need some help with some of the logic.

1. This game is sold today with the concept that every player's actions affect the BGS/PP regardless of mode. That is explicitly stated in the game's marketing. I'm failing to find how that is confusing.

2. PP was, from inception, crafted to allow players in all modes to participate equally. Even today, the marketing for the game says "every player" when it refers to PP interactions. Again, I'm failing to find the confusion.

3. Are there a lot of gamers that are buying this game without reading about how the game works? What can Frontier do to alleviate the confusion that this game embraces...nay...encourages every player to "play how you want"?

4. Straighten me out on this too. If PvE elements were removed from the game entirely, would the BGS or PP progress? If PvP elements were removed from the game entirely, would the BGS or PP progress?

5. in PP, can a player counter another player, regardless of game mode?

6. Why is there outcry about game modes, but not about platforms? I have an XB1 CMDR and a PC CMDR. Is that considered exploiting the BGS since there is no parity of player populations across platforms?

7. If solo/PG mode BGS/PP manipulation is a one-sided player interaction, isn't the same true for nonconsensual direct PvP in Open? Are they not an equal and opposite outcome to forced gameplay?

For #4 IF PVE was removed the BGS nor PP would move, but if PVP was removed both would still work as intended

There's a lot I agree with you, but I personally believe that the fact there's no reason to PvP besides for the fun of it IS part of the problem, because that kind of PvP lacks context. Frontier has gone to a lot of trouble creating a Universe where the Pilots Federation fight the shadow wars of the various factions in Human Space, from the cold war between the Empire and the Federation, to two mega-corporations taking the concept of "hostile take-over" to a whole new level. It is only natural for some players to choose a side, and then want to face players on the opposite side of the fence.

It is that lack of context that, in part, creates a perception of griefing... even if in the attacker's mind they're attacking a legitimate target. It's also why when I go marauding, I'm careful to establish context, even if it means someone might get away. It is also the reason why I enjoyed the PvP encounters I had in Powerplay, even if I didn't enjoy the ways to earn merits: those hostile encounters I had with other players had context. I knew why they were attacking me, and they knew why I was in the system. Even if we didn't exchange words, the fact that we were pledged to opposing sides, and knew it, made all the difference.

It is why any proposal I have to enhance PvP starts with allowing players to pledge allegiance to a faction, whether its a minor faction or a Superpower (or declare themselves a pirate.) I would also add the option to declare enmity towards a faction as well. Even if nothing else comes of it, besides flagging other players (and NPCs, for the PvE crowd) as hostile to you, I think it would go a long way towards reducing the perceived amount of griefing in Open.

I mean, which scenario* is better:

"You're making a supply run for the People's Congress of ABC123, a Federation faction that's in charge. As you're flying along, an unknown Pilots' Federation ship approaches you from behind. You have no idea why they're there: they may be moving to attack you, or they could be simply traveling in the same direction. Suddenly, an interdiction tether engulfs your ship. You still don't know what's going on: are they pirates who can be appeased with your cargo? Are they someone who supports the Imperial Party of ABC123? Are they some murder hobo who just wants to kill you for the LOLs? You don't know, and that lack of knowledge causes you to delay several seconds, as the possibilities run through your head. By the time you react, you're already under fire. Ten seconds later, you're dead."

or

"You're making a supply run for the People's Congress for ABC123, a Federation Faction that's in charge. Suddenly, a Pilots' Federation ship, glowing in a malevolent red on your scanner and HUD, approaches you from behind. You instantly start to take evasive action, because you know they're after you. As you try to keep them off your six, you select them, in an effort to identify them. You see they're supporters of the Imperial Party of ABC123, who have been rising in influence over the last two weeks. You now know if they catch you, they'll try to kill you, so you better make sure they don't catch you."

_____________
* With the usual caveat: players are still allowed to play in the mode that suits them best, and there are no bonuses or penalties for choosing one mode over another.

I agree

 

[Haggbad Celine]

.... or for the challenge between individuals / groups who choose to engage each other.

That includes lulz to me.

An incentive for good behaviour is a reward. Such a reward offered after a prolonged period of poor behaviour, by some, would constitute a reward for bad behaviour.

However, I do agree that, if successfully channelled, the desire for direct PvP could offer opportunities for likeminded individuals without impeding the game-play of players disinclined to participate. That's a fairly large "if" though.

If such reward is constituted by some as a reward of bad behaviour is a question of how such reward is communicated, not more.
The concept that such reward could potentially be misunderstood is what I ment earlier by stating that the current implementation of how PvP currently works left parts of the community traumatized.

I am pretty sure there are several options to get the 'if' right.
Potentials exist for example in the way of keeping unreasonable attackers busy.
ATRs are a step into this direction, but the current C&P system can easily be evaded by switching modes, because you would want the griefer get hunted and his bounty collected not just gone for a while.

It is a significant deviation when the CEO has stated that the game is not sold as a PvP game (but rather a game where PvP is possible). It is when the economy, politics and conflicts are advertised as being able to be affected by players in Solo.

Optional PvP affecting the politics, conflicts and economy of the galaxy won't make this game a PvP game.
Players in solo still influence the galaxy, they just don't participate in any direct combat, same as an open player that chooses not to.

I find optionality a very hard to define term in this instance, because doing missions is as optional as exploring.
There is no goal in this game, so what players want to achieve is up to them and therefore what is optional or not is also up to them.
You understand why I am having trouble with the term optional?

PvP is possible in two of the three game modes. That it has little effect on the BGS suggests that Frontier are aware that players would collude to amplify their effect, if they could.

Collusion is a question of how PvP would affect the BGS, not that PvP affecting the BGS in general leads to collusion.
That's why some have a hard time accepting a general approach for a specific problem.

What do you mean by "harassing a station"?

For example having a UA delivery party. You can't stop anyone from doing that.
That's what we mean when we say it's an one-sided attack, if you want your station working you better get going and haul in some Meta-Alloys for as long as we choose to deliver UA's.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

That includes lulz to me.


If such reward is constituted by some as a reward of bad behaviour is a question of how such reward is communicated, not more.
The concept that such reward could potentially be misunderstood is what I ment earlier by stating that the current implementation of how PvP currently works left parts of the community traumatized.

I am pretty sure there are several options to get the 'if' right.
Potentials exist for example in the way of keeping unreasonable attackers busy.
ATRs are a step into this direction, but the current C&P system can easily be evaded by switching modes, because you would want the griefer get hunted and his bounty collected not just gone for a while.


Optional PvP affecting the politics, conflicts and economy of the galaxy won't make this game a PvP game.
Players in solo still influence the galaxy, they just don't participate in any direct combat, same as an open player that chooses not to.

I find optionality a very hard to define term in this instance, because doing missions is as optional as exploring.
There is no goal in this game, so what players want to achieve is up to them and therefore what is optional or not is also up to them.
You understand why I am having trouble with the term optional?


Collusion is a question of how PvP would affect the BGS, not that PvP affecting the BGS in general leads to collusion.
That's why some have a hard time accepting a general approach for a specific problem.



For example having a UA delivery party. You can't stop anyone from doing that.
That's what we mean when we say it's an one-sided attack, if you want your station working you better get going and haul in some Meta-Alloys for as long as we choose to deliver UA's.

Thats exactly what I am trying to communicate on deaf ears, you can troll the hell out of a PF with UAs and Lockdowns, they will never know what hit them.

You think killing a noob is bad? This right here is potential for one sided multi gank in the form of PVE attack, only they wouldn't even know who to blame. Sure, they can run around every day with meta alloys and bounty hunting till they are blue in the face, but their entire gameplay is controlled by someone abusing those modes.

The only saving grace at the moment is simply noone bothers doing it for the salt because salt can be archieved easier with other means. Also, since there is no naarative or terretory control, there is no in game content (like pvp btw) to have PF vs PF conflicts where this tactic would be abused, its not EVE where you actually control in game resources. Here its just pretend play.

 

[Mohrgan]

Thats exactly what I am trying to communicate on deaf ears, you can troll the hell out of a PF with UAs and Lockdowns, they will never know what hit them.

You think killing a noob is bad? This right here is potential for one sided multi gank in the form of PVE attack, only they wouldn't even know who to blame. Sure, they can run around every day with meta alloys and bounty hunting till they are blue in the face, but their entire gameplay is controlled by someone abusing those modes.

The only saving grace at the moment is simply noone bothers doing it for the salt because salt can be archieved easier with other means. Also, since there is no naarative or terretory control, there is no in game content (like pvp btw) to have PF vs PF conflicts where this tactic would be abused, its not EVE where you actually control in game resources. Here its just pretend play.

I think you are beginning to see the light. Yes, you can counter any type of an attack with the opposite action, within the BGS. That's a good revelation. And, you're right, without all of that territory control stuffs there is little to no reason to take the kind of action you are so afraid of.

Just a hint: All game play is just pretend. In E|D you pretend to be a Commander making her/his way through a replica of the Milky Way galaxy. In that other game you get to pretend to be part of a Space Gang. There's no reason for both games to tread upon the same ground. Plus E|D let you know which one it was before you bought it.

 

[Mouse]

Thats exactly what I am trying to communicate on deaf ears, you can troll the hell out of a PF with UAs and Lockdowns, they will never know what hit them.

You think killing a noob is bad? This right here is potential for one sided multi gank in the form of PVE attack, only they wouldn't even know who to blame. Sure, they can run around every day with meta alloys and bounty hunting till they are blue in the face, but their entire gameplay is controlled by someone abusing those modes.

The only saving grace at the moment is simply noone bothers doing it for the salt because salt can be archieved easier with other means. Also, since there is no naarative or terretory control, there is no in game content (like pvp btw) to have PF vs PF conflicts where this tactic would be abused, its not EVE where you actually control in game resources. Here its just pretend play.

I think you are wrong, those in control are the ones who countered and showed the trolls their efforts were in vain.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That includes lulz to me.

In the absence of domination through PvP, for some, there are only lulz.

If such reward is constituted by some as a reward of bad behaviour is a question of how such reward is communicated, not more.
The concept that such reward could potentially be misunderstood is what I ment earlier by stating that the current implementation of how PvP currently works left parts of the community traumatized.

Parts of the community were definitely affected by players who enjoy using PvP to affect others. Thankfully the game gives the targets options regarding who they play with.

I am pretty sure there are several options to get the 'if' right.
Potentials exist for example in the way of keeping unreasonable attackers busy.
ATRs are a step into this direction, but the current C&P system can easily be evaded by switching modes, because you would want the griefer get hunted and his bounty collected not just gone for a while.

How can the current C&P system be evaded by switching modes? It's not reliant on players at all, only NPCs - which exist in all game modes.

Optional PvP affecting the politics, conflicts and economy of the galaxy won't make this game a PvP game.
Players in solo still influence the galaxy, they just don't participate in any direct combat, same as an open player that chooses not to.

Suggest some additional non-existing (or expected) activities then - don't keep suggesting mode-locking existing (or expected, i.e. Squadrons) content, or introducing Open bonuses. There would be, in my opinion, significantly more cross-play-style support for a true addition to the game to cater to players that prefer direct PvP than there is for the attempts to restrict or remove content from modes other than Open.

I find optionality a very hard to define term in this instance, because doing missions is as optional as exploring.
There is no goal in this game, so what players want to achieve is up to them and therefore what is optional or not is also up to them.
You understand why I am having trouble with the term optional?

Not really, no - as every player bought a game where indirect PvP is not optional. Choosing to support a Faction or PowerPlay means that the player has chosen to devote time to engaging in those features that are affected by other players, regardless of game mode or platform.

Collusion is a question of how PvP would affect the BGS, not that PvP affecting the BGS in general leads to collusion.
That's why some have a hard time accepting a general approach for a specific problem.

It's a circle, not a line. If players can collude, in any way, some will.

For example having a UA delivery party. You can't stop anyone from doing that.
That's what we mean when we say it's an one-sided attack, if you want your station working you better get going and haul in some Meta-Alloys for as long as we choose to deliver UA's.

Exactly - action and reaction. If that type of attack is so unpleasant, petition Frontier to change it - there's much, much, more chance of that happening than the fundamentals of the single shared galaxy state and three game modes, in my opinion.

 

[Jockey79]

......
You think killing a noob is bad? This right here is potential for one sided multi gank in the form of PVE attack, only they wouldn't even know who to blame. Sure, they can run around every day with meta alloys and bounty hunting till they are blue in the face, but their entire gameplay is controlled by someone abusing those modes......

Isn't this that coveted "emergent content" that we keep being told the game needs to survive?
It gives a PF a reason to do stuff and not just wonder about bored, killing newbies.

Trolling each other and providing much needed game play seems fine to me.

 

[Roybe]

For example having a UA delivery party. You can't stop anyone from doing that.
That's what we mean when we say it's an one-sided attack, if you want your station working you better get going and haul in some Meta-Alloys for as long as we choose to deliver UA's.

What's wrong with emergent gameplay?

 

[ALGOMATIC]

What's wrong with emergent gameplay?

Nothing wrong with it. Its just I want to shoot him in the face if he touched my property.

Its the same if I kill 10 noobs in Eravate and than hide in SOLO from any players bounty hunters. I mean, my rebuy is close to 100mil, do you really think any NPC is capable of killing me? Ofcourse not, players, however stand a chance.

 

[Roybe]

Nothing wrong with it. Its just I want to shoot him in the face if he touched my property.

snip

You can't...wrong game. Now what you going to do?

 

[ALGOMATIC]

You can't...wrong game. Now what you going to do?

Not to be involved in the BGS/PP that's for sure.

 

[Mouse]

Not to be involved in the BGS/PP that's for sure.

Then complain because you purposely are not involved with what makes the game go round and want the game changed.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Then complain because you purposely are not involved with what makes the game go round and want the game changed.

I want to be invloved though, not with the current implementation, so yeah, defenitely want it changed.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I want to be invloved though, not with the current implementation, so yeah, defenitely want it changed.

Apparently the majority of players don't get involved in PvP though.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Apparently the majority of players don't get involved in PvP though.

Ugh its not a choice thing maynard. Its an efficiency thing. Besides you give any PVPer a powerup in any PVP game that gives them the chance to take objectives without fighting their opponents they are going to take it.

Its small because there is no NEED for it. We are asking for there to be a NEED for it. In a game where players are intentionally effecting each other anyways.

Let us blow each other up.

If you arent involved in it. Then nothing changes. You'll still have the option like everyone else. But lets not snub the good people asking for this. Just because its something you may not want changed.