PvP Why PvP is not popular in Elite Dangerous?

[ALGOMATIC]

The fundamental problem with that idea is that it does go somewhat off-script where FD's apparent plan for the universe as a whole is concerned.

Perhaps when FD release squadrons and fleet carriers, may be players can set themselves up something similar (the carriers being comparable to the stations) but essentially CQC is FD's answer to PvP focused gameplay.

CQC to PvP is like taking a paint gun and going to war.

You lost any arguments at the point of admitting to "salt mining" - court dismissed next.

Conduct my expiriement instead of trying to evade it by calling me a salt miner (what the hell does it even mean).

You know you will loose so you try to change the topic.

 

[lenna]

Keep at it, stay on target. I'm sure it doesn't feel like it but I am trying to help you

Is there anyone else that can chip in some decent arguments for the pro 'open is dangerous' side? Other than cheap jibes I mean. I'm tempted to play devils advocate but this really needs to come from a 'true PvPer' I think, not from me.

Based on what I have seen in these forums - the "open is dangerous" argument typically originates from the "salt miners" rather than "true PvPers".

 

[Mohrgan]

If you stop solo undermining you might have a case and by passing blockades in solo is the same as solo undermining.

Solo Undermining. It seems to be some fixation on your part. There is no activity that can be done in Solo (I prefer a PG myself), that can't be done in open to counter it. Since you insist Solo has some magic power that instances, platforms, and time zones don't have. Boom! I grant you the power to use Solo too. There, you too are an invisible god too. Feel better?

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Based on what I have seen in these forums - the "open is dangerous" argument typically originates from the "salt miners" rather than "true PvPers".

Ask any pvpier and they will tell you the same.

 

[Martian Successor]

With this I totally agree. I think the admin who did this should have the balls and apologize at least, if not taking his action back if possible. But until this happens (most unlikely) the attitude of some people here who consider this "their" very own thread and PvEer should have no right to talk is even greater bull.

But in the end, all this behavior, all these hostile attitudes, are actually adding to the answer of the OP's question. Not that I actually expect that you understand this but meanwhile I'm at a point where I stop taking care... Be happy to discuss this topic further with people who don't even understand the question or believe in its premise.

Farewell! [big grin]

You mean the hostile attitudes coming from people who have never PvPed nor play in Open but come here to crap on someone else who might enjoy PvP? Yeah, I'm sure they're adding volumes to OP's question, which is actually just a strawman and not an actual question. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good old fashioned logical fallacy.

If you manage to Google "strawman argument" and "logical fallacy" and understand how that relates to the OP, look me up and maybe we can continue this discussion using actual intellect as apposed to intellect-substitute.

Until then, toodles

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Solo Undermining. It seems to be some fixation on your part. There is no activity that can be done in Solo (I prefer a PG myself), that can't be done in open to counter it. Since you insist Solo has some magic power that instances, platforms, and time zones don't have. Boom! I grant you the power to use Solo too. There, you too are an invisible god too. Feel better?

So you finnaly admit for the META in solo. Congrats.

 

[Mohrgan]

It wont, the META for BGS and PP is in solo, there is no point doing anything in open with the current "balance".

Except that you'd now be in possession of the Meta. You could ramble around in open, while those in your group that enjoy Solo/PG could take up your slack. Just a hint, you can do anything in open, that you can do in Solo/PG. For the exact same rewards too.

 

[Riverside]

I'll just bunch up all I had typed and condence it. Simply have no time atm.

Yeah, take a step back for a bit to consolidate & review. I try to go back every so often & re-read each page at least once. Sometimes I miss valid points the first time around, sometimes people edit their posts for clarity & that can help.

Naturally you realise you & I don't agree on some details, but we do both want something, and most are too busy taking pot shots at each other to usefully contribute to a debate. It's okay for people to disagree with your proposal, but if you can address any valid issues they raise it probably makes sense to at least present a counter-argument.

In my CLogging thread several people raised the issue of the blocklist. The basic idea (as I know you know) is to force the disconnecting player to rejoin the mode they left to face whatever threat they CLogged to avoid. But the CLogger can just block their attacker. Find my counter-argument, see if you can write something similar to overcome objections to your proposal.

If you can't find it PM me & I'll give you a direct link. I would quite like you to put the effort in though

 

[lenna]

You mean the hostile attitudes coming from people who have never PvPed nor play in Open

The specific PvPers in question are not innocent... I think you will find that the ire in question is not directed at "all PvPers in ED", just a select few.

 

[Mohrgan]

So you finnaly admit for the META in solo. Congrats.

I simply pointed out that you feel that way, and offered an option for you to feel better. I think having equal access to all three modes offers perfect balance between players. And, that balance between players far outweighs a dubious parity between modes. Remember that when you try to score schoolyard points, like above.

 

[Martian Successor]

The fundamental problem with that idea is that it does go somewhat off-script where FD's apparent plan for the universe as a whole is concerned.

Perhaps when FD release squadrons and fleet carriers, may be players can set themselves up something similar (the carriers being comparable to the stations) but essentially CQC is FD's answer to PvP focused gameplay.

Perhaps. Depends on if we can move the fleet carriers ourselves. Will have to see.

CQC seems to have been FD just spitballing an idea at a time when they really had no clue what they wanted to do with PvP in their game. They still don't but the Engineers has replaced CQC as FD's preferred answer to PvP gameplay.

 

[Riverside]

The specific PvPers in question are not innocent... I think you will find that the ire in question is not directed at "all PvPers in ED", just a select few.

These sorts of things always start small & end in open hostility, it can be impossible to really say who started it, the OP's troll title or the overly sensitive types that took offence to such a cheap shot. Sometimes a joke is at another's expense, sometimes people are just a little thin skinned & need to appreciate that if they get upset & retaliate it's only going to get worse.

If, by Rudyard Kipling

 

[lenna]

Perhaps. Depends on if we can move the fleet carriers ourselves. Will have to see.

CQC seems to have been FD just spitballing an idea at a time when they really had no clue what they wanted to do with PvP in their game. They still don't but the Engineers has replaced CQC as FD's preferred answer to PvP gameplay.

I disagree where the Engineers are concerned, that seems to be more PvE focused IMO.

I know there are some popular Engineering metas in at least some PvP circles but to my mind that is more an unintended side-effect than part of the apparent original intent. Balance tests of Engineering may have used PvP as a tool but that does not make it part of the original design goals.

Where CQC is concerned, I understand why some may lack interest in it - but CQC need not necessarily remain in it's current form.

I am not sure that you are right about FD not having an idea about PvP in in the main game. I do however agree that what FD want main game PvP to be and what some gamers want where PvP is concerned is out of alignment and probably will always be.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

I simply pointed out that you feel that way, and offered an option for you to feel better. I think having equal access to all three modes offers perfect balance between players. And, that balance between players far outweighs a dubious parity between modes. Remember that when you try to score schoolyard points, like above.

You are confusing the balance of choice with the balance of modes. Every one have the same choices but not all modes are the same in terms of danger. Its inefficient to play in open. Thats not balance.

 

[Riverside]

You are confusing the balance of choice with the balance of modes. Every one have the same choices but not all modes are the same in terms of danger. Its inefficient to play in open. Thats not balance.

If you want to min/max then sure, I agree with your statement. And I guess maybe most players (of all types) do want to min/max. Explorers go out in long legged, paper thin ships, traders forego defence & offence for the sake of better jump range & fuel economy with max cargo, Combat pilots fit FSDs & fuel tanks way too small to be practical in the current game, and only start fights they know they will win.

The basic traits of selfishness persist across all playstyles. For you and I alike, it only becomes an issue when the complaints start.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

I disagree where the Engineers are concerned, that seems to be more PvE focused IMO.

I know there are some popular Engineering metas in at least some PvP circles but to my mind that is more an unintended side-effect than part of the apparent original intent. Balance tests of Engineering may have used PvP as a tool but that does not make it part of the original design goals.

Where CQC is concerned, I understand why some may lack interest in it - but CQC need not necessarily remain in it's current form.

I am not sure that you are right about FD not having an idea about PvP in in the main game. I do however agree that what FD want main game PvP to be and what some gamers want where PvP is concerned is out of alignment and probably will always be.

Phasing sequence, all types of cascades, drag munitions are ones from the top of my head which simply have no place in PvE.

CqC even in it's perfection would remain nothing but a quick test ground. It have no way replace PvP in the open.

 

[lenna]

the OP's troll title

The OP's title is not "trolling" it is probably based on the declaration by FD that they recognise most players do not actively engage in PvP. Probably also explains to a degree why CQC has not evolved beyond it's current form.

I think they hit the nail on the head with the summary of their opening post - whether the most part is applicable or not is perhaps besides the point. WRT PvP being a waste of time and effort - I do not believe they were referring to risk-reward aspects but more about a true lack of interest and the people in question having antipathy over PvP in ED.

I know some of the ED community believe that PvP offers greater risk (whether true or not is highly subjective and moot), but from what I have seen in these forums incentivising main environment PvP will just make matters worse not better.

Phasing sequence, all types of cascades, drag munitions are ones from the top of my head which simply have no place in PvE.

I disagree - a lot depends on certain build choices perhaps but they are far from irrelevant where PvE is concerned.

 

[Riverside]

The OP's title is not "trolling" it is probably based on the declaration by FD that they recognise most players do not actively engage in PvP. Probably also explains to a degree why CQC has not evolved beyond it's current form.

While you may agree, it was not phrased to be diplomatic, it is a little condescending. FDev said 'the majority do not...' while in the OP's body text they write 'the overwhelming majority do not...'

Stuff like that. It's easy to miss if you agree, easy to take offence to if the perceived sleight is directed at you. I recognised the bias in the OP immediately, but as I try to with all posts, looked past the hyperbole to the true content and addressed that. In my first reply in this thread (post #58) I turn the OP's position on him, knowing that he was an Explorer. Needless to say I was not treated with any hostility by other explorers, they either ignored it or saw the irony.

 

[lenna]

And I guess maybe most players (of all types) do want to min/max.

Not entirely sure whether that is true - what is true though is there is an apparent trend in the modern gaming community wrt adoption/promotion of metas and a general dismissiveness of anyone who does not buy into a particular individual's brand(s) of meta cool aid. This type of attitude possibly has the biggest negative consequences where PvP in on-line games is concerned across the board - and has long persisted in ED even before engineering was a thing.

 

[lenna]

While you may agree, it was not phrased to be diplomatic, it is a little condescending. FDev said 'the majority do not...' while in the OP's body text they write 'the overwhelming majority do not...'

Stuff like that. It's easy to miss if you agree, easy to take offence to if the perceived sleight is directed at you. I recognised the bias in the OP immediately, but as I try to with all posts, looked past the hyperbole to the true content and addressed that. In my first reply in this thread (post #58) I turn the OP's position on him, knowing that he was an Explorer. Needless to say I was not treated with any hostility by other explorers, they either ignored it or saw the irony.

Gaming forums (and to a large extent the whole Internet) in general tend not to be diplomatic - it is not as if (where ED is concerned) the more vocal PvPers are not prone to exaggeration.

We can debate semantics and nit-pick on specifics but the message would be lost in the fallout.