I'm not quite sure what you're writing about.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well you are responding to me... what you've done there though is signal to the mods that you want this discussion closed. I've currently got a mod responding to every point I make, I'm not going to ignore replies I don't agree with.
All that I've done there, and I can assure you that there is no ulterior motive, is to state my opinion freely.
Sure but 'Fairly large' != 'largest'.
