WHY!?

[St0rmFury]

Remember, no PvP outlet = ganking... As it's the most reliable form of PvP available.

But @Screemonster just mentioned that there's a ton of organised and arranged PvP events...

 

[Wily Rites]

Well this is what you get when there is literally nothing else for PvPers to do, like many of us have argued a million times before on these forums over the last 10 years. But whenever we suggest content for PvPers/Open players that would focus combat orientated players at more meaningful activities, we get met with "yOu jUsT wAnT mOrE vIcTiMs yOu sOcIoPaTh!!" by people who do not understand game design.

Remember, no PvP outlet = ganking... As it's the most reliable form of PvP available.

I've a massive respect for the PvP'ers, their dedication and skill, they are to my mind some of the best pilots in the game. Gladiators, warriors, and they do not get the respect that they deserve from the game. Not all of them respect the art that they practice, the game or other people, but this is far from being all of them.

I could not agree more with you, and this is FDev cutting off their own nose despite their face. PvP via CQC could have been a massive part of the game, and a massive part of power play too. Training and orienting pilots, giving a testing ground for engineering and new tech, new flight dynamics.
It could be an entire game in and of itself, but the results of that games evolution would have been wasted if not injected back into elite.

Stating that PvP = ganking is like stating that martial arts training installs a lack of discipline, it's just not true.
Misguided PvP leads to some ganking, and this is far from being all cases. There is I suspect a massive element of, 'lead by example' involved, when some of the most established players do it, then the teaching that it is sport for the powerful gets passed on to new recruits, and so it spreads. There are others whos' excellent example is to not engage in it.

Maybe, but a whole bunch would still gank, just because they can. In the beginning I think Fdev thought Cqc would take care of that but it never worked out that way. I doubt pp2.0 will change it either, but we shall all see soon enough

CQC has nothing at all to do with PvP as it stands, not including all of the in game ships and the ability to use your engineered ships was a massive mistake. An enormous part of the PvP skill set evolves around using the lead reticle to predict your opponent's moments, you don't even have weapons with any flight time in CQC, so no reticle, and the inclusion of dynamics such as power up bonuses that do not exist in game at all. It is a mini game that has nothing to do with elite dangerous's actual game play at all. Which is a real shame, it could have been so much more.

Gankers gank because they have lead lives that lead them to believe that it is appropriate behaviour in the given environment, you can't even blame FDev for that, PvP training is a way to reduce it though, as highly skilled pilots lead by example. This could have also been a massive aspect of power play, as the best faction leaders in game would have a place in which they could recruit some of the most skilled combat pilots.

CQC just doesn't scratch the PvP itch with its minimal viable product implementation.. It could have been better had FDEV gone down a more 'Arena Commander' route with it (more varied game options and ship choices). But they were never interested and abandoned it. What a shame.

It really is a shame, I believe that it still could be brought back from the farcical state in which it now resides, if there was willing.

 

[Screemonster]

But @Screemonster just mentioned that there's a ton of organised and arranged PvP events...

Organised and arranged outside the game, if you're not in one of those ingroups or those guys aren't online right now, that's when boredom strikes and the trigger finger starts itching. There isn't really a way to find other people besides looking up the inara traffic/security reports and seeing where people are (or just hitting up ol' reliables like deciat and shin)

 

[Jockey79]

It isn't. Turrets are not controlled by the NPC. That's easy to prove.
And why only turrets? Where are the extra pips? They're clearly visible.

And why do you think that 2 extra points in pvp are meaningless and irrelevant ? Have you never fought in PvP?

Who mentioned PvP?
I never mentioned PvP, your post I quoted never mentioned PvP?

So you're moving the goalposts because you lost. Got ya.

 

[SergMx]

Who mentioned PvP?
I never mentioned PvP, your post I quoted never mentioned PvP?

So you're moving the goalposts because you lost. Got ya.

Why are you accusing me personally? Is this a specific attack on me?

Proof of my wrongness will be that you put your NPC (from the team) in the SRV and will see from the ship as he rides below.

 

[Jockey79]

Why are you accusing me personally? Is this a specific attack on me?

I noticed that you have changed the topic of the conversation to PvP.
I made you aware I noticed. So I assume you concede the point as you changed the topic.

I also do not believe that in general people are using multicrew to get pips for PvP.
The networking for multicrew is far too unstable for that to be a reliable tactic.
One person with a bad connection would destabilise everyone in the instance.

 

[SergMx]

I noticed that you have changed the topic of the conversation to PvP.
I made you aware I noticed. So I assume you concede the point as you changed the topic.

I also do not believe that in general people are using multicrew to get pips for PvP.
The networking for multicrew is far too unstable for that to be a reliable tactic.
One person with a bad connection would destabilise everyone in the instance.

I'm not quite sure what you're writing about.
I looked at the forum subsection, I reread the first post of this thread again.
I didn't change anything, we are still discussing the open world and PvP including.

 

[Lateralus]

But @Screemonster just mentioned that there's a ton of organised and arranged PvP events...

Many PvP players are only interested in organic PvP situations that are supported by in-game mechanics... (and no I don't mean ganking before anyone tries to imply it). More like, players fighting over territory, bases or other locations without one side being able to duck into private groups to circumvent opposition would be a good start. Also in-game tools that drive these players towards choke points would also help (no not unwitting victims either, players who understand what they're going into - risk vs reward). CGs kind've do this but not in the way which gets the best out of PvP because players can be avoided altogether.

The key to getting the best out of PvP in Elite are game features where a player can:

• log in and know exactly where to go in the galaxy to find opponents (Powerplay 2 potentially... also real-time alerts to opponent activity would be a good idea)
• generally know who they are fighting against (which faction, squadron etc)
• what the goal is in opposing these players (what are they doing at the location? are they trying to work against your faction in someway? are they attacking friendlies? etc)
• know that your opponents aren't going to be able to achieve their aims simply by switching into solo or a private mode and leave you wasting your time in trying to oppose them - I.E. if they have to do a certain activity in open play to achieve their goals, you as an opponent PvP player know that your effort is not wasted chasing ghosts in a 1 : 1 scale galaxy, which is frustrating and puts people off the game.
• Have some feedback as to the results of your actions (did the opponents achieve their aims in the end? did you prevent them or reduce their impact by fighting them?)
• Log things like opponent kills and high-wakes, and give some sort of reward to your faction for those outcomes.

Nothing mentioned in that list involves ganking uninvolved players - they would have to be flagged as an enemy or doing something worthy of enemy attack in territory that is not their own.

I've said it before, Powerplay 2 should go in this direction to save PvP in Elite. Coupled with some sort of upgrade to CQC to allow custom fights with all ships and that's all the PvP community would ever need.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I've said it before, Powerplay 2 should go in this direction to save PvP in Elite. Coupled with some sort of upgrade to CQC to allow custom fights with all ships and that's all the PvP community would ever need.

If "all" that is required to save PvP in this game is to make PvE actions in Solo and Private Groups meaningless (in terms of effects on mode shared game features), and from the perspective of players with little or no interest in PvP in a game where PvP is an optional extra, why save it?

 

[Lateralus]

If "all" that is required to save PvP in this game is to make PvE actions in Solo and Private Groups meaningless (in terms of effects on mode shared game features), and from the perspective of players with little or no interest in PvP in a game where PvP is an optional extra, why save it?

Because its a fairly large customer base who FDEV have spent the last 5 years or so driving away from the game with poor design decisions... perhaps they would like some of those customers back?

Also I don't see where I said anything about making PvE actions meaningless in solo/PG. But for organic PvP to thrive in Elite, there has to be something drawing players to it that cannot be dodged in solo/PG, and that does not cause PvP players to waste their time when they sit down and log into Elite.

Nothing causes PvP players to turn away from the game more when they play than 'oh, nothing is happening anywhere again, guess I'll log off for another 6 months'.

 

[Wily Rites]

For PvP to be organic, it must first stop resembling an unreal tournament. A large part of which, from where I currently sit, would need to come from player discipline.

 

[Lateralus]

For PvP to be organic, it must first stop resembling an unreal tournament. A large part of which, from where I currently sit, would stem from player discipline.

Sorry but no, player behaviour is lead by positive and constructive game design, not punitive actions... that just drives players away. You want players to not gank randos so much? Give them something more interesting (and time reliable) to do...

 

[Wily Rites]

Sorry but no, player behaviour is lead by positive and constructive game design, not punitive actions... that just drives players away. You want players to not gank randos so much? Give them something more interesting (and time reliable) to do...

I've not said anything about the game performing punitive actions.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Because its a fairly large customer base who FDEV have spent the last 5 years or so driving away from the game with poor design decisions... perhaps they would like some of those customers back?

If a consequence of chasing a subset of the player-base that is estimated to be "fairly large" would be to alienate and disenfranchise a different subset of the player-base (that Frontier have at one time been "well aware" forms a majority) would it be a wise decision?

Also I don't see where I said anything about making PvE actions meaningless in solo/PG. But for organic PvP to thrive in Elite, there has to be something drawing players to it that cannot be dodged in solo/PG, and that does not cause PvP players to waste their time when they sit down and log into Elite.

This bit, given that mode shared features are driven by PvE actions:

• know that your opponents aren't going to be able to achieve their aims simply by switching into solo or a private mode and leave you wasting your time in trying to oppose them - I.E. if they have to do a certain activity in open play to achieve their goals, you as an opponent PvP player know that your effort is not wasted chasing ghosts in a 1 : 1 scale galaxy, which is frustrating and puts people off the game.

.... because if players could not "achieve their aims", i.e. engage in PvE actions that affect mode shared game features, "simply by switching to solo or private mode" then their PvE actions would necessarily not affect those mode shared game features if the player was engaging in the game feature in Solo or Private Groups.

Nothing causes PvP players to turn away from the game more when they play than 'oh, nothing is happening anywhere again, guess I'll log off for another 6 months'.

What would players who don't enjoy PvP be expected to do when their gameplay would be made meaningless due to the game disregarding the effects of players in Solo and Private Groups?

 

[Lateralus]

I've not said anything about the game performing punitive actions.

Does 'player discipline' not imply some kind of punitive system? If not I don't really understand your point.

If a consequence of chasing a subset of the player-base that is estimated to be "fairly large" would be to alienate and disenfranchise a different subset of the player-base (that Frontier have at one time been "well aware" forms a majority) would it be a wise decision?

If Powerplay 1.0 had been a runaway success and chock full of engaged players, they would not be doing a 2.0. So yes, that is a risk worth taking.

This bit, given that mode shared features are driven by PvE actions:

.... because if players could not "achieve their aims", i.e. engage in PvE actions that affect mode shared game features, "simply by switching to solo or private mode" then their PvE actions would necessarily not affect those mode shared game features if the player was engaging in the game feature in Solo or Private Groups.

The way I see it, there would be certain aspects of the proposed mechanic that would simply be unavailable in solo/private mode. For PvP'ers to have an actual game, a tiny part of Elite would have to be exclusive to open play... this is not an unreasonable position, many online games do this. For example, they could lock Powerplay expansion related actions to open - considering its an aggressive action against other players interests, this would be appropriate.

What would players who don't enjoy PvP be expected to do when their gameplay would be made meaningless due to the game disregarding the effects of players in Solo and Private Groups?

Some aspects of the mechanic (PP2 or whatever) could be left available to solo or private groups. Defensive actions such as fortification would make sense to remain cross mode.

The point is to give everyone a role... the problem is when every action is available to the solo player, it makes PvP and open play actions superfluous by default. Then the PvP'ers just return to ganking whoever is about. The downward spiral resumes.

 

[Wily Rites]

Does 'player discipline' not imply some kind of punitive system? If not I don't really understand your point.


If Powerplay 1.0 had been a runaway success and chock full of engaged players, they would not be doing a 2.0. So yes, that is a risk worth taking.


The way I see it, there would be certain aspects of the proposed mechanic that would simply be unavailable in solo/private mode. For PvP'ers to have an actual game, a tiny part of Elite would have to be exclusive to open play... this is not an unreasonable position, many online games do this. For example, they could lock Powerplay expansion related actions to open - considering its an aggressive action against other players interests, this would be appropriate.


Some aspects of the mechanic (PP2 or whatever) could be left available to solo or private groups. Defensive actions such as fortification would make sense to remain cross mode.

The point is to give everyone a role... the problem is when every action is available to the solo player, it makes PvP and open play actions superfluous by default. Then the PvP'ers just return to ganking whoever is about. The downward spiral resumes.

I consider PvP to be a marital art, you need to learn it to really appreciate it, best done with a master as their disciple, for which one needs discipline, literally. The G word only comes in when folk fall in love with the weapons and use them on unarmed folk for fun; There is no art in that, it is the grunts running around with the masters weapons and little to no training, unabaited.

I agree with you that the game could be setup to make this kind of engagement even better, but am also very aware that PvP is not the raison d'être of the game, just something that it is also supposed to be good at, and is ... however, solo play is also really important, and should absolutely not be crippled by some other play style or mode.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If Powerplay 1.0 had been a runaway success and chock full of engaged players, they would not be doing a 2.0. So yes, that is a risk worth taking.

One reason for players, who may at times choose to play in Open, not to engage in Powerplay v1 was that being pledged gave those so inclined, and pledged to the other ten powers, a reason to target them at any time regardless of what they were doing. I doubt that Powerplay 2.0 will be any different in that regard.

The way I see it, there would be certain aspects of the proposed mechanic that would simply be unavailable in solo/private mode. For PvP'ers to have an actual game, a tiny part of Elite would have to be exclusive to open play... this is not an unreasonable position, many online games do this. For example, they could lock Powerplay expansion related actions to open - considering its an aggressive action against other players interests, this would be appropriate.

Some aspects of the mechanic (PP2 or whatever) could be left available to solo or private groups. Defensive actions such as fortification would make sense to remain cross mode.

The point is to give everyone a role... the problem is when every action is available to the solo player, it makes PvP and open play actions superfluous by default. Then the PvP'ers just return to ganking whoever is about. The downward spiral resumes.

As usual it's a case of take and no give from a PvP proposal, e.g. those who don't enjoy PvP only stand to lose out.

That some players choose to "just return to ganking" is expected - just as would be the case even if a game feature were to be made Open only (to expect otherwise would be naive at best) - as some who choose to gank aren't looking for any challenge in their (possibly only occasional) choice of gameplay, nor, given their predilection for G5 murderboats, do they face any risk.

 

[Lateralus]

I consider PvP to be a marital art, you need to learn it to really appreciate it, best done from a master as a disciple, for which one needs discipline, literally. The G word only comes in when folk fall in love with the weapons and use them on unarmed folk for fun; There is no art in that.

Oh right ok, I get you... But different players have different playstyles. Some will view it like you, others will view it as lol time. Currently you either engage in lol time, or you don't do it at all. The game design has to steer this but it currently only steers players towards random ganks.

I agree with you that the game could be setup to make this kind of engagement even better, but am also very aware that PvP is not the raison d'être of the game, just something that it is also supposed to be good at, and is ... however, solo play is also really important, and should absolutely not be crippled by some other play mode.

I don't think making a small selection of sub-features of Powerplay 2 exclusive to open would cripple solo, I think that's overcooking it. Make half the subfeatures open to all modes and half locked to open play. This would cause more people to get involved and all would benefit, as it would no longer be a dead feature and everyone would have something to contribute.

 

[Wily Rites]

Oh right ok, I get you... But different players have different playstyles. Some will view it like you, others will view it as lol time. Currently you either engage in lol time, or you don't do it at all. The game design has to steer this but it currently only steers players towards random ganks.



I don't think making a small selection of sub-features of Powerplay 2 exclusive to open would cripple solo, I think that's overcooking it. Make half the subfeatures open to all modes and half locked to open play. This would cause more people to get involved and all would benefit, as it would no longer be a dead feature and everyone would have something to contribute.

There is a whole other thread devoted to this subject, and another that turns about it, both of which are currently active; I personally see little point in turning this thread into a third front, in the power grab.

 

[Lateralus]

One reason for players, who may at times choose to play in Open, not to engage in Powerplay v1 was that being pledged gave those so inclined, and pledged to the other ten powers, a reason to target them at any time regardless of what they were doing. I doubt that Powerplay 2.0 will be any different in that regard.

In the current system, finding enemies in open play is near impossible, it's all based on chance and is nothing to do with tactical, location or goal-orientated gameplay. It should be the aim of FDEV to fix this.

As usual it's a case of take and no give from a PvP proposal, e.g. those who don't enjoy PvP only stand to lose out.

Well I'm trying very hard to suggest ideas that are inclusive here... But the idea that you should be able to perform hostile actions inside opponent territory, from solo or private groups is very silly IMO. This should be the area that requires risk on the players part... Expecting to be able to do it from 100% safety from player opposition is pretty entitled.

That some players choose to "just return to ganking" is expected - just as would be the case even if a game feature were to be made Open only (to expect otherwise would be naive at best) - as some who choose to gank aren't looking for any challenge in their (possibly only occasional) choice of gameplay, nor, given their predilection for G5 murderboats, do they face any risk.

What is better >75% of PvPers ganking or <50%... I'm not naive enough to think a PvP feature would stop ganking, but it would reduce the numbers.