What went wrong with Elite Dangerous

[Mystify]

This. I have nothing against PvP, as long as it is meaning full PvP. I really don't understand why people get enjoyment out of blowing someones ship up for the lols.

Because, there simply is no meaningfull PVP offered by Frontier.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Honestly [....] Welcome to the galaxy.

This is a glorious juxtaposition. Let us admire it as we would a beautiful close-orbiting binary

I was all dressed up and ready to point out stuff as well

and then I read

I probably posted in bad taste

You utter pillock. Being all sympathetic just after providing me with so much irony to rip into.

I hates you!

 

[Mighty Dangerous]

Elite Dangerous is a MMO, just not the one some people where expecting, even tough it was pretty obvious from the start it wasn't going to be the same as other MMO's.

I get that but newer players won't.
They won't go back and look at KS video's etc.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Because, there simply is no meaningfull PVP offered by Frontier.

Surely it's up to the player to make it meaningful.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I get that but newer players won't.
They won't go back and look at KS video's etc.

True, but I never looked at kickstarter videos either. I did some research and when I found out it wasn't like EVE and all the other MMORPG's out there, I new I had found the game for me.

 

[babelfisch]

I get that but newer players won't.
They won't go back and look at KS video's etc.

I don't care if some new players are too lazy to research what they are buying. I just bought Dragons Dogma and don't like the game because it doesn't meet my expectations. But I don't care, I just made a mistake.

PS
It's not ED or Frontier that went wrong. The guy who bought ED and expected Eve went wrong.

 

[sndle9]

This. I have nothing against PvP, as long as it is meaning full PvP. I really don't understand why people get enjoyment out of blowing someones ship up for the lols. These people know that its upsetting for some, so why do it. Do they get some kind of perverse enjoyment of upsetting people, I really do not know.

Um... Yes, they absolutely love upsetting someone and this is the whole point. This is why CQC and NPC opponents will never be acceptable to them.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Um... Yes, they absolutely love upsetting someone and this is the whole point. This is why CQC and NPC opponents will never be acceptable to them.

Well, all I can say is that I am very happy not to be like that.

 

[Lianachan]

Still here though

Well, first time I've been on the board for a while, first post for a while and I've not played Elite Dangerous for many weeks. I popped in to see if anything had changed.

 

[Axel Deathrage]

Well, all I can say is that I am very happy not to be like that.

Me neither, but some people like to play the bad guy. I try to be the vigilante guy who is against the bad guys.

I don't hate any player who decides to be a bad guy in this game. It's just a game after all, and the enemies in game become my friends when I meet them outside of the game.

 

[frostypaw]

When it comes to the OP's question of What went wrong... I have to look at the PvP crowd and think - you didn't police yourselves. Now you are in a community that is largely toxic towards PvP and there seems to be no way back.

Sad but true.

What SHOULD of happened = (IDEA): Fdev designed and embraced a more robust PvP in-game system that:

a) channeled "seal clubbers", and seals away from each other
b) developed a functioning policed deterrent in the more lawful systems - relaxing off towards the anarchic systems
c) add bait in the less policed systems in the form of rich unexplored mining opportunities and PvE bounty hunting - to catalyze PvP encounters. Effectively channeling CMDRs to team up, to solve or create their own P2P game content.
d) developed a more detailed, universe wide, player bounty advertisement feature so wanted players could bask in their glory, and develop some real time game lore
e) To protect Explorers: limit dedicated combat ships "system to system range" - implemented by weapons using up jump range, and or ship design doing the same
d) etc.

There are some really good ideas there, and they are working towards some of that right now.

I don't think they expected the PvP people to be so keen on abusive play - and from how they go about it including their total failure to defend a station once they got one they're clearly not really interested in running stations or any of that, just ganging up on people. There was a chance to win some real respect in that battle

 

[MottiKhan]

Bingo, exactly the point.


Last I checked the vast majority have no real problem with PvP, you know, actual PvP, you say people are hostile against PvP? but at least from my perspective, it seems to be dual sided, there are yes, people that dislike PvP, but PvP people also are hyper aware of these people, my impression is the vast majority of players, are somewhere in the middle and are fine with PvP and whatever can happen in open, the problem, is not PvP.

But, and only, those that destroy other people for no reason, no interaction, no nothing, just interdict boom, and while I haven't had it happen to me, personally, I can totally understand why that would frustrate, and the problem lies in the fact that you only need a few of these people, to sour the entire PvP experience, they are the aggressor, so they can affect many people, and if they do it enough those people begin to combat log and whatnot because of it. And you know what, if your experience is, some random person is going to randomly interdict you and blow you up, simply because he wants to and can, and likely has a very superior ship against your relatively smaller ship, then yeah, I can't really blame people, because as much as open mode means you want 'everything' to happen, if 'everything' turns into getting blown up by random dude for no reason, well yeah..

And then the arguments that come from the PvP side vs the few that actually dislike PvP, it gets blown up beyond proportions, and suddenly, and I've experienced this myself, people that are fine with PvP get accused of being care bears and whatnot, which is not going to make anyone agree with the those that call themselves PvP'ers.

So yeah, once those two sides get started, those of us in the majority, can try to reason with the sides, but often it just goes bad. And a lot of PvP people come across on the forum as very very aggressive people in general, which doesn't improve people's view on them and it then just spirals out of control, because some people then are put off by those reactions.

The problem isn't just from one side, but multiple, and people really, really don't want to admit that they might be making mistakes.
I was going to post to your other post and point out you seemed rather emotional, but then I saw this, and you know what I can respect that, this happens to everyone, and owning up to it is something rarely seen, well done, now if we can get this to happen more in general we might get somewhere.

+1. Yes, there are PvP'ers that give other PvP'ers a bad name. I've never actually have a bad experience in PvP dogfights. Not that I've won every one. I've been "killed" for sure. I've also been interdicted and attacked without a word and it's never led to my "death" or a bad experience for me. I've never, ever had combat logging cross my mind. Then again, I rarely travel in an unarmed ship.

The problem I see are the seal clubbers. That's what leads to combat logging and complaints about the lack of meaningful PvP. The bad PvP'ers make it bad for themselves. Then they come and complain that ED has problems. The issues of where "ED went wrong" are affecting those that caused the problems in the first place. To me, that's a feature.

 

[sndle9]

Me neither, but some people like to play the bad guy. I try to be the vigilante guy who is against the bad guys.

I don't hate any player who decides to be a bad guy in this game. It's just a game after all, and the enemies in game become my friends when I meet them outside of the game.

Same here, It's only a game and I expect they are completely normal people IRL so no hate ( pity maybe ). I just don't enjoy the same things as they do and won't be their content either.
.
I should mention that PvP between reasonably matched sides that BOTH want a fight is great gameplay even if I don't do it (just don't get kicks from fighting). Its only the seal-clubbers that I wish would find another game.

 

[lysan]

Sad but true.

There are some really good ideas there, and they are working towards some of that right now.

I don't think they expected the PvP people to be so keen on abusive play - and from how they go about it including their total failure to defend a station once they got one they're clearly not really interested in running stations or any of that, just ganging up on people. There was a chance to win some real respect in that battle

There are many ways where you can lead players to do PvP volatility. However it will require the space leg addition to be implemented first.

Planet control:

Combat to control XYZ Planet, players need to coordinate attack on outposts and military bases to gain acces to larger cities and settlements. If you try to attack before these bases are under your faction control you will be shot down by ground to air weapons and a strong "air force" launched from those bases to aid the cities. When the bases are under you control, your faction will gain control and the boarders will move on the planet map. Combat 101 to clear the area will be needed, assets as ships and SRV combined with "Marines" can be used.

Those planets can be 100% PvP and no NPCS need to get harmed gaining control over these key planets will give your fraction system control just the way it is now. This should not be an overall mechanic, only selected systems or systems within a given type should have this option.

Interesting PvP, the fight will be for an end goal, to win you will need to transport supplies, setup bases, and coordinate the war effort. But the main fraction structure will remain and the control of that fraction will be as it is now. Only the decisions to attack the planet will be made by a larger player group belonging to that fraction.

 

[Chongo]

For anyone tired of the philosophical doom and gloom discussions - here's a video of the OP being rammed to death.

 

[TiberiusKirk]

The Reddit post says it all, in the first line: 'just screenshots of pretty planets and that with no real story going on.'

Sums the game up. Next question?

 

[frostypaw]

There are many ways where you can lead players to do PvP volatility. However it will require the space leg addition to be implemented first.

Planet control:

Combat to control XYZ Planet, players need to coordinate attack on outposts and military bases to gain acces to larger cities and settlements. If you try to attack before these bases are under your faction control you will be shot down by ground to air weapons and a strong "air force" launched from those bases to aid the cities. When the bases are under you control, your faction will gain control and the boarders will move on the planet map. Combat 101 to clear the area will be needed, assets as ships and SRV combined with "Marines" can be used.

Those planets can be 100% PvP and no NPCS need to get harmed gaining control over these key planets will give your fraction system control just the way it is now. This should not be an overall mechanic, only selected systems or systems within a given type should have this option.

Interesting PvP, the fight will be for an end goal, to win you will need to transport supplies, setup bases, and coordinate the war effort. But the main fraction structure will remain and the control of that fraction will be as it is now. Only the decisions to attack the planet will be made by a larger player group belonging to that fraction.

Think about what you're asking for - the systems to design and build your own stations and layouts and different defensive systems and structures, team systems for organising your troops/guards, ways to deal with those people having lives to go lead on Earth so NPCs that match them exactly to fill their roles.

Are you sure this isn't fantasising about an entire extra game with entire extra different mechanics grafted onto an already huge game? We have to be realistic with our expectations.

Base assault etc is already doable, stations can already be owned and defended and systems overthrown but it's abstracted by necessity. How would you feel if your base you'd spent ages on was wiped out to the ground while your country was in sleepytime? Can you organise a world-wide 24/7 effort to keep each of these bases on each planet protected by live players?

It'd be nice, but it's fantasy.

 

[Sandmann]

Attributing real life physiological or physiological disorders/illnesses to gamers who have an aggressive style of game-play in a fantasy world/game advertised as "Cut-Throat", and is a a place to escape the real world - is...... a bit silly...

Just as an aside, there's more than a few very credible studies correlating online griefing, trolling etc behaviours and low empathy & narcisism, with high reliability. Google it...

 

[Vandaahl]

You clearly didn't understand or took the time to read what is being said in that reddit discussion.

So you expect people to read the mother of all loads of chinese great walls of text before participating in a discussion here...? Or should I've read it there and reply there? If yes, why then even post it here?

Is there something that went wrong with Elite? Really? I haven't noticed.

 

[lysan]

Think about what you're asking for - the systems to design and build your own stations and layouts and different defensive systems and structures, team systems for organising your troops/guards, ways to deal with those people having lives to go lead on Earth so NPCs that match them exactly to fill their roles.

Are you sure this isn't fantasising about an entire extra game with entire extra different mechanics grafted onto an already huge game? We have to be realistic with our expectations.

Base assault etc is already doable, stations can already be owned and defended and systems overthrown but it's abstracted by necessity. How would you feel if your base you'd spent ages on was wiped out to the ground while your country was in sleepytime? Can you organise a world-wide 24/7 effort to keep each of these bases on each planet protected by live players?

It'd be nice, but it's fantasy.

Not building you own bases / outposts, using already in game assets. Small Bases should be as they are now, and could be made destructible, they will need repairs after you win the fraction control equal to, you must supply them with materials to be rebuild.

I don't see this as a huge task compared to what is already in the game.

 

[wstephenson]

Seeing this thread has passed over the event horizon and deteriorated into the eternal PVP Griefganker punks vs Solo loving 1984 Carebear Senior argument, I'm going to unsubscribe now. I have a VHS vs Betamax thread on CIX that needs attention. See you in the void, CMDRs!