I'm with this guy! ^^^^^^^^
The Powerplay discussion thread.
- Thread starter Matt
- Start date
I'm with this guy! ^^^^^^^^
I think PP is driving more people to Solo/Group play. Smaller powers, if they are going to be able to compete with larger powers, will feel the need to grind out merits for prep and expansion systems. Larger powers like Arrias's have more than enough bandwith for their PvP players to roam the galaxy in open ,but everyone else is too busy grinding in solo just to keep up. I am thinking about abandoning PP myself.
I can't see why special devices need to be cooked up. If there were enough players interested in both PP, and PvP then you would find action. Apparently players value efficiency and rewards over PvP encounters. With that view, funneling nearly no players would yield you very little. PvP is a facet, a byproduct of the game, I don't see it as something that needs special features developed.
I found the same. I tried for a week after PP released, realized how stagnant the pvp is(and lack there of). Was just waiting on the forum to inform me about the state of pvp, and its the same. To make it worse they release CQC as console only, and alienate the PC pvp community. I'm sure some of the lack of pvp is players not logging on and putting as many hours.
All 3
I know in the systems I usually pirate in.. I now see NO traders what-so-ever... and it is usually a pretty busy few systems with palladium trading going on. The problem, is that there are now wanted underminders hunting in the area. Where have the traders gone? Did they go find some other system to trade in? Not likely. Off to solo they went.
See open vs solo vs group thread. This stuff ties right in. Just don't use the "C" word
Last edited:
Its affecting me 0. I refuse to play with little children.
You don't find any players because PP actively discourages pvp. You don't receive merits like you would against an npc.
PvP is a facet of the game, yes amd just likeanything else, it should be expended upon. It's pretty petty to say it shouldn't get any attention because you don't like it.
PvP is not a byproduct, it's an entire aspect of the game, just like PvE. There are special features for pve, so there is no reason why there should be nothing for PvP. The reason why nobody takes place in PvP is not because they don't like PvP, it's because the game pushes them into PvE.
E: D doesn't actively reward for the encounters you seek, so it discourages it? Once again, it's reward over experience. If the driving factor for choice of activity is reward, a special place to not get rewarded won't gather many fans. That leads us right back to bribing other players to be your content. Nobody wants to be a victim. That's not E: D's fault.
Just how common is it for the PvP focused player to complain that Dev's all over don't spend more resources on it? I have been around gaming for a while. My observation is that there are just not enough open world PvP fans to sustain it over so many games. Even on PvP server I found that an imbalance of factions arose that effectively ended open world fights. While at the same time maintaining a controlled PvP environment.
Just how common is it for the PvP focused player to complain that Dev's all over don't spend more resources on it? I have been around gaming for a while. My observation is that there are just not enough open world PvP fans to sustain it over so many games. Even on PvP server I found that an imbalance of factions arose that effectively ended open world fights. While at the same time maintaining a controlled PvP environment.
What incentive really is there for the average Joe - who's only able to afford a Vulture or smaller, with no wing mates and team speak - to venture into open, PP or not, when open is widely understood to be the haven for hardcore players (and quite naturally so, I'll grant) who've grinded up the ying yang towards powerful ships, wing up with each other using team speak and have high fidelity hardware with the knowhow to use them - and basically own the joint?
32 player instancing and the vastness of the map aside (which are valid points to a degree) if you wonder why there's so few PVP encounters in PP, I think this is why... most players are in solo - along with the possibility that few are even compelled to continue messing around with PP after an initial look see. I have no stats to prove that, so understand that it's just my supposition I'm offering, not a declaritive statement.
Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong, of course my post here will draw out the handful of players who will describe themselves as the average Joes I mentioned and who rather like to venture into open nontheless; and even though it will only be these few who respond to 'prove me wrong', it will tend to seem like a grand choir of voices in opposition within the confines of this thread. But I feel in reality, it will only be a miniscule sample of the overall player population, and can hold no weight.
32 player instancing and the vastness of the map aside (which are valid points to a degree) if you wonder why there's so few PVP encounters in PP, I think this is why... most players are in solo - along with the possibility that few are even compelled to continue messing around with PP after an initial look see. I have no stats to prove that, so understand that it's just my supposition I'm offering, not a declaritive statement.
Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong, of course my post here will draw out the handful of players who will describe themselves as the average Joes I mentioned and who rather like to venture into open nontheless; and even though it will only be these few who respond to 'prove me wrong', it will tend to seem like a grand choir of voices in opposition within the confines of this thread. But I feel in reality, it will only be a miniscule sample of the overall player population, and can hold no weight.
i feel rewarded thanks to the bounties people pick up when they go undermining.
i have only been in PP for about 8 hours nows, but already picked up a couple of nice ones as well as getting a bounty on my own head.
i wonder why not more people feel like me?
maybe the powers should reward more merits for player kills?
even players who enjoy and got a interest in pvp needs carrots sometimes. i am one of those players.
if i did not need a reason for my pvp then i would be one of the "griefers" who shot everything on sight.
i have only been in PP for about 8 hours nows, but already picked up a couple of nice ones as well as getting a bounty on my own head.
i wonder why not more people feel like me?
maybe the powers should reward more merits for player kills?
even players who enjoy and got a interest in pvp needs carrots sometimes. i am one of those players.
if i did not need a reason for my pvp then i would be one of the "griefers" who shot everything on sight.
Last edited:
There are rewards for pve, while there are no reward for pvp besides insane repair bills. By rewarding one aspect of the game and not the other, the game IS discouraging the other aspect. There is no reason why it should stay that way.
God damnit, it's not about forcing people to fight against their will. it's about being able to find people who are willing to fight.
You can be rewarded for PvP. You can hunt PC bounties. You might make an argument, based on rewards equaling legitimizing, that BH'ing is the only sanctioned PvP outlet. This is exactly why I say PvP is a byproduct, not a direct goal. There is no systematic reward for PK'ing. I hope CQC brings some relief to the frustrated PvPers, but I can't see a need to prop up an activity that can't sustain itself.
Paying players to PK would only serve to be Opens' final nail....
Paying players to PK would only serve to be Opens' final nail....
Last edited:
i think that i can say straight off that CQC will do nothing for me, its not going to be connected to the main game,
if the rewards would carry over then yes it could peek my interest. but not as it currently stands. no carrots no pvp for me.
players like me wants depth and meaning to our pvp, and its why many of us hate on games like call of duty.
Last edited:
I had made a suggestion in the PP beta forum before it was shut down. i say let the battlefields decide what powers control systems.
I would like to see conflict zones and instances that are created by PvP interactions on the spot. So players from each power could start battles themselves creating their own conflict zones, let this information be generated to the ticker tape on Galnet in realtime broadcasting in these areas so Cmdr's from all sides in those quadrants who were in range could then join in. Make warzones true warzones. Make the battles count. Have stations go to 'red alert battle stations' in these zones, where if your not aligned or allied or friendly with a station when station is at battle stations, then you are fired upon as a enemy and not allowed to enter.
Make wartime trade routes necessary to resupply these stations in order for them to operate. Stations can waver and even fall if supplies aren't delivered. Have traders have to 'jump the shark' in their trade runs for the chance at huge profits for supplying these wartime stations. Make it so wings of Cmdr's can also escort these traders if they want to, makeing nice profils for successful deliveries as well, while counter wings of Cmdr's try to interdict and disrupt these trade lanes, making large profits for destroying these traders, also making large war bond payments for doing so successfully. Miners could mine for materials needed for supplying the huge industrial war machines factories in the time of war, making huge profits as well for taking the risk of doing so in warzone areas. Miner's too would need Cmdr wing escorts in these hot zone areas. When stations weaken and fall in wartime systems then the winning power who inflicted the most damage in the conflict takes control of that system and it's stations if all fail there. It would also generate a whole lot more PvP action which I think would add to ED immensely. Let rank be decided in the Klingon way, the boldest and bravest excel and grow very wealthy doing so!
To me Cmdr's battling for systems would be a whole lot more fun then just making countless repetitive data deliveries for them. But that's just me speaking of course.
FD could design something along these lines for power play and make it a lot more interesting.
Edit: I think PvP incentive of making much larger profits, vs solo play, which if you chose to play solo these warzone areas they would then be invisible to you, so playing solo you could not participate in them.
I would like to see conflict zones and instances that are created by PvP interactions on the spot. So players from each power could start battles themselves creating their own conflict zones, let this information be generated to the ticker tape on Galnet in realtime broadcasting in these areas so Cmdr's from all sides in those quadrants who were in range could then join in. Make warzones true warzones. Make the battles count. Have stations go to 'red alert battle stations' in these zones, where if your not aligned or allied or friendly with a station when station is at battle stations, then you are fired upon as a enemy and not allowed to enter.
Make wartime trade routes necessary to resupply these stations in order for them to operate. Stations can waver and even fall if supplies aren't delivered. Have traders have to 'jump the shark' in their trade runs for the chance at huge profits for supplying these wartime stations. Make it so wings of Cmdr's can also escort these traders if they want to, makeing nice profils for successful deliveries as well, while counter wings of Cmdr's try to interdict and disrupt these trade lanes, making large profits for destroying these traders, also making large war bond payments for doing so successfully. Miners could mine for materials needed for supplying the huge industrial war machines factories in the time of war, making huge profits as well for taking the risk of doing so in warzone areas. Miner's too would need Cmdr wing escorts in these hot zone areas. When stations weaken and fall in wartime systems then the winning power who inflicted the most damage in the conflict takes control of that system and it's stations if all fail there. It would also generate a whole lot more PvP action which I think would add to ED immensely. Let rank be decided in the Klingon way, the boldest and bravest excel and grow very wealthy doing so!
To me Cmdr's battling for systems would be a whole lot more fun then just making countless repetitive data deliveries for them. But that's just me speaking of course.
FD could design something along these lines for power play and make it a lot more interesting.
Edit: I think PvP incentive of making much larger profits, vs solo play, which if you chose to play solo these warzone areas they would then be invisible to you, so playing solo you could not participate in them.
Last edited:
Once again the choice is clear. Rewards wins out over experience. By and large PvP is valued only through it's rewards. If you need to bribe participants, why not just promote PvE. NPC's never storm the forums asking for nerfs.
- - - Updated - - -
Stewart, would that be in addition to, or as a replacement mechanism? If it's a replacement, you may find a lack of participation.
i see some action daily but what ends up happening is i kill a few and they retreat to solo which is . want to know why. if im sitting in a system to blockade it to stop progress yet there numbers keep going up. that is complete utter bull. im putting up an effort to create a defense and for nothing when ppl just switch to solo. If there is a blockade in system and you cant find the number to stop it you dont deserve the system by grinding for it. nay you should form a bigger group to stop those blockading your system or find a new system to take because you dont deserve that one, theres 400 billion solar systems, if you cant take the heat of the way of those who can and go take systems further out so you can stay safe. ps sorry im just sick of how solo player affect open galaxy, i feel they should be two different servers like beta is seperate from main so to should group and solo be seperate.
Last edited:
For many many reasons, blockades can't work in E: D. If you can't even blockade in Open, why get all bent about Group players avoiding your blockade? That negative, defensive posture of blockading is not viable in E; D, find another method that may satisfy you. We can't change a hefty number of the reasons why blockades will fail, so why change any?
I don;t see that PvP orientated players have a 'right' to have victims. That's an absurd notion.
I don;t see that PvP orientated players have a 'right' to have victims. That's an absurd notion.
There should be bigger rewards in merits in open play and really low insurance cost for dying in open like 90% discount. So it will encourage more players to get in open play. Why is that ?Because people know that against pve they have bigger chance of surviving so they can take risk of higher insurance cost, but in open play they know they got higher chance of dying on other way many players who would get into pvp they would not be afraid to fight and take their chance into fight to get a reward.
Next thing is ships should be balanced, right now FDL and Clipper are too OP make their boost speed slower so smaller ships got better chances of getting distance.
Next thing is ships should be balanced, right now FDL and Clipper are too OP make their boost speed slower so smaller ships got better chances of getting distance.