In what way is PvP central to player conflict (in the macro sense) when it is, in and of itself, optional as no player even needs to play with another player to affect the game? Unless it's because players engage, either deliberately or inadvertently, in asynchronous indirect PvP through the BGS, Powerplay, CGs, etc. - in which case it's by design.
Regarding the second point, PvP exists in this PvE centric game simply because players can shoot at anything they instance with - and Frontier seem reluctant to have significant disparities between the "punishment" aspects of C&P for crimes against NPCs vs crimes against other CMDRs.
I'm going to work on your words
backwards, hang in there. All good points!
Frontier's reluctance is understandable, even if we only play the 'lore' card. Pilots of NPC craft are people, too, right? It makes sense they would be beholden to similar rules of engagement by design. If an NPC can interdict, so can a player, and vice versa. I don't take issue with PvP existing in Elite. Good grief, the second half of the title is
Dangerous...granted, I think most can agree the title is hardly deserved in this day of runaway engineering and years-old-balancing issues.
On your first point, I would say PvP is central to
all player conflict - but I think you meant direct (combat) PvP - and in that we're probably of like minds on my definition. The BGS is, largely, a
PvP feature when viewed through this lens. So, I want to start by saying we can get
way off in the deep on semantics if we're not careful. You know that, I know that, so let's go from there:
First, let's
only discuss Open Mode. PG is rules based, and solo is...well, solo. Any
real concerns about PvP need to be kept to the realm of open, as PG control renders balancing PvP a moot point, and solo only has indirect PvP via the BGS and, well, not much else. FC economics, perhaps.
In open, I would argue you're right: PvP is optional as, "no player even needs to play with another player to affect the game". The thing is,
even if they DO interact...it still doesn't affect the game in any meaningful way. I've long argued on many forums that a surefire recipe for a ganking 'problem' (real or perceived) starts with player agency being pointless. Because if I can't affect the game...then I'll affect
your game. Ethics aside, Elite allows this sort of behavior and (I think) incents it.
This is why I say Elite has a PvP-centric model for handling player conflict. Because
non-player conflict (PvE) features virtually no ties to PvP. Either you stick to solo/PG and move the algorithm in BGS
that way - which we can call indirect PvP - or you try to enact PvP directly in open and...what? Murder. By straddling the fence, FDev made 'meaningful' PvP (the notion of factional/squad wars, controlling territory, picking sides in a CG) largely an affair for indirect interactions. Because
direct interactions will see the prescribed meta unfold: massive ganking until only the 'elite' (pun intended) remain. Significantly pushing others to not return to the mode, knowing a lot of griding awaits them
if they want to engage in this again.
That's how it works in EVE, by the way, and there's a whole community that loves (and loves to argue about) it. Might makes right, start over and try again.
Except most
don't start over. Not in Open mode. The majority of the market (for this genre) isn't interested in that kind of PvP.
The trouble isn't that Elite has a PvP-centric model, that the only
real change and advancement of the game's world is through indirect or direct player conflict. Lots of games have this model - EVE Online being the grand-daddy of PvP in space games these days - and it can work just fine. It tends to attract a smaller population in the market, too, but that's a high level decision made at the start of a project and accepted. EVE will
never have the player counts of Elite, just as Elite will likely never have the player counts of something so broad as World of Warcraft (now, finally, in decline).
The trouble is that Elite
is a PvE game, at its foundation, but lacks a model of player conflict to match that. PvE-centric player conflict (PvPvE, as some use) isn't built around enabling players to kill other players...but
out-compete them. We see this in the BGS, now, where the #1 source of player conflict
isn't ganking or the CQC or even player organized tournaments. It's moving numbers on the BGS. But
why? Why is 5th column such a hot topic in PP, and PG squads flipping CG outcomes, and PvPers screaming
it isn't fair, I can't shoot what I can't even connect with!
Even Powerplay - a bona-fide, but incomplete, 'legal' PvP system sees less interaction than just random factions being supported by rookie players without a clue. The systems to better support PvP in this PvE game exist, but are woefully underbaked or outright ignored. That leaves only a few methods for direct interactions - that are meaningful to the player
with other players.
And that's the root of the problem, to me. Open mode offers
nothing to players wanting to play with others
except murder. Wing missions can be done solo with relative ease (emphasis on relative). You don't need a gunner or SLF pilot for Thargoid encounters. Wing mates are uncessary for the toughest of assasinations. The scorpion, while fun, doesn't actually provide much more benefit over the scarab
if your friend can drive their own. Elite's model of multiplayer play is almost
exclusively geared towards conflict between players, not cooperation. Does cooperation happen? Of course it does (Fuel Rats shoutout here).
But the game
pushes players to fight. Not fight
over things, but with each other. That's not bad - it's a kind of design - but it doesn't match how the rest of the game is built. And so, players engage in PvP in the
only way that feels mildly meaningful: either indirectly, via the other modes of play, or if in open...with murder.
The question, is,
is that bad? I think it's safe to say most everyone can agree it
is bad, but not on
how or
why it is bad. And that happens - a lot - when you developmentally (and fundamentally) straddle the fence. You end up with a highly fractured, impossible to placate, communal argument.
An analogy might be FDev decided to invite the socialists, capitalists, christians, buddhists, polygamists, and anarchists to a design meeting and told them, "We'll build whatever you want."
Then did it.
It'd be a fine achievement, except unsurprisingly, the many player groups they listened to
inherently disgree with the design choices of other groups but feel ownership over the whole project.
Which is why you DON'T DO THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE. In seeking to attract as many players as possible, perhaps because of the constraints of kickstarting a project (which has a lot in common with a political campaign: a
lot of false 'promises'), FDev created a system of features at war with themselves, and not in the vein of 'entertaining' war.
(in some cases it's also Discord).