[POLL] PvE, PvP, PvAll - What is the playstyle you want in ED?

[Perseus]

It isn't wrong though, is it? There is indeed an 'all' group and this group shouldn't have any playing restriction imposed on it. If a player wants a game without the chance to be attacked by another player they can set a perameter for this.
We know that everyone won't be in the 'all' group. Try to think of the word meaning ALL POSSIBILITIES or ALL ACTIONS not ALL in terms of population or collective of individuals.
Everyone deserves to have the best game they can. The problem is, we have differant ideas about this. Luckly, FD seem to be trying to accomadate the diversity. However, I think the bottom line (the 'all' group) has to be dangerous and PvP enabled.
Might there be a status anxiety in the minds of people in regards to playing in a private or public galaxy?

 

[DigitalDuck]

It isn't wrong though, is it? There is indeed an 'all' group and this group shouldn't have any playing restriction imposed on it. If a player wants a game without the chance to be attacked by another player they can set a perameter for this.
We know that everyone won't be in the 'all' group. Try to think of the word meaning ALL POSOBILITIES or ALL ACTIONS not ALL in terms of population or collective of individuals.

But that's not what it means either. If (for example) there was an option to allow people to buy equipment regardless of how much money they had (the reasoning being to allow players to pursue more expensive playing style without "grinding" their way up to it) then this would become the "all" group. Because only buying equipment you can afford is a restriction, so the "all" group must be one which removes that restriction.

And I bet if that was implemented, you'd be claiming that it should be a separate group, with the "all" group being one in which you can only buy equipment you can afford.

However, I think the bottom line (the 'all' group) has to be dangerous and PvP enabled.

Might there be a status anxiety in the minds of people in regards to playing in a private or public galaxy?

That question to you too.


Q: Why do you really feel the dangerous and PvP enabled group has to be labelled "all"?
A: Because the "all" group is the one you'd like to play in.

Q: Why do some others feel the less dangerous and PvP-disabled group has to be labelled "all"?
A: Because the "all" group is the one they'd like to play in.

Q: Why do some in other threads feel the "permadeath" group has to be labelled "all"?
A: Because the "all" group is the one they'd like to play in.

Q: Why do some in other threads feel a group that offers "true persistence" has to be labelled "all"?
A: Because the "all" group is the one they'd like to play in.

Everyone wants the full experience of the game, which is what "all" suggests. To some, PvP is detrimental to the game, so removing it gives them a fuller experience to the game, therefore their "all" group is the PvP-disabled one. To some, anything other than permadeath is detrimental to the game, so permadeath gives them a fuller experience to the game, therefore their "all" group is the "permadeath" one.

So the "all" moniker is wrong.

And there is a big difference between public and private groups - anyone and everyone can join a public group, whereas private groups are... wait, do I really need to explain this difference? It should be bloody obvious.

 

[Caribou]

I hate to be pedantic but....

From the FAQ
"We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group. "

So you start in the All group and you can add restrictions (one of which I can pretty much guess will be PVP off). In open groups you can connect with everyone that has the same restrictions (or lack of restrictions in the All Group) as your open group.

Yep although it's being worked on again at the moment. There is a 32 player limit on the number of players you can meet at any one place in space as well.

All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together

You'll be able to ignore (I.E. exclude *where possible* people you do not want to meet again) and also friend people specifically (I.E. try to ensure you meet up more)

If you want a PvE experience then there are smaller groups you can define for friends, or friends of friends (the way forward for peaceful co-op)

Solo is obviously excluding everyone....

 

[Perseus]

@ DigitalDuck. Please don't assume what I'd do or imply that I'm self-centred to the point of bias. It's brutta figura.
I asked the question about status anxiety because it did bother me. Is it bothering you too?
Let’s imagine:

“I’m Elite!”
“Fantastic! Well done. Did you get to Elite in the ‘ALL’ group (with no softening of gaming parameters and player exclusion)?”
“Er, no, it was a private group with restricted interactions.”
“Ahh, I see. Still an achievement though. Congratulations.”

Kudos is the key here.

 

[Tiwaz]

@ DigitalDuck. Please don't assume what I'd do or imply that I'm self-centred to the point of bias. It's brutta figura.
I asked the question about status anxiety because it did bother me. Is it bothering you too?
Let’s imagine:

“I’m Elite!”
“Fantastic! Well done. Did you get to Elite in the ‘ALL’ group (with no softening of gaming parameters and player exclusion)?”
“Er, no, it was a private group with restricted interactions.”
“Ahh, I see. Still an achievement though. Congratulations.”

Kudos is the key here.

That can be turned other way around too.
"I'm Elite!"
"Fantastic. Did you actually fight enemies or gank and grief people who had no means to defend themselves?"
"Well... Yeah but it was PvP so... It... You know"
"Good for you."

Honestly, trying to make one way to obtain Elite "better" than other is stupid. Someone got there? Great, have a cookie. But no, it does not make it bigger.

In the end reality is this...
"Gritty" people have to grasp that nobody is forced to play this game. If you want to force your "gritty" and "right" ED on others, you just drive them out of the game. Why care? Well, because someone has to pay for the server upkeep... Less players, less payers (no matter how the income is gathered)...
Less servers.

So "real" men should just accept that it is essential to have group which is NOT private, but simply "no PvP-permitted" with all the other bells and whistles included.

Because that is where money comes from. And money makes ED servers go around.

 

[Perseus]

Yeah, it can be turned but it's very, very weak.

 

[Tiwaz]

Yeah, it can be turned but it's very, very weak.

Is it? What makes it weak? Your idea that humans MUST be vastly superior to hard computer opponents?

That is not true at all. Computer opponents can be vastly more difficult than average human. Computer can have faster reflexes, perfect situational awareness, perfect lead...

Harder AI pilots can be made to wipe the floor with majority of human pilots, only skilled ones being able to defeat them.

 

[Perseus]

Is it? What makes it weak? Your idea that humans MUST be vastly superior to hard computer opponents?

That is not true at all. Computer opponents can be vastly more difficult than average human. Computer can have faster reflexes, perfect situational awareness, perfect lead...

Harder AI pilots can be made to wipe the floor with majority of human pilots, only skilled ones being able to defeat them.

I never said they were superior. What was weak was your attempt to detract from the difficulty of achieving Elite. You implied that how it was achieved was unimportant and now, in your latest post, you wish to indicate that there is more kudos in destroying AI entities.
I disagree. Human psychology smarts at being bested and all the more so by another sentience. On the flip side, working with another living pilot has more weighting than with an AI. This is in addition to the personality of a living player, something altogether unpredictable and maybe threatening but ALWAYS rewarding.
Competition, as long as it’s not really competitive. Danger as long as it’s safe. Not for me, I’m afraid.
Can I have my cookie now?

 

[DigitalDuck]

@ DigitalDuck. Please don't assume what I'd do or imply that I'm self-centred to the point of bias. It's brutta figura.

Is it really? Because...

“Fantastic! Well done. Did you get to Elite in the ‘ALL’ group (with no softening of gaming parameters and player exclusion)?”

... you just defined "ALL" as being one with no softening of gaming parameters, which is far from the same thing as no restrictions as you suggested earlier, and coincidentally changing that definition the instant I give you an example of a restriction that could be removed to make the game easier.

You'd like the game to be harder, which is reflected in your changing definition of an "ALL" group.

(Also, there's no player exclusion either way, because... y'know... they're both public groups. You still seem to think one of them will be private for some reason.)


But wait, there's more!

“I’m Elite!”
“Fantastic! Well done. Did you get to Elite in the ‘ALL’ group (with no softening of gaming parameters and player exclusion)?”
“Er, no, it was a private group with restricted interactions.”
“Ahh, I see. Still an achievement though. Congratulations.”

Kudos is the key here.

Let's just assume for a second that getting to Elite with PvP enabled is more difficult or more noteworthy than getting to Elite with PvP disabled.

Then... er... what difference does it make whether the group's labelled "ALL" or "PvP-enabled"?

 

[Perseus]

I don't know, why don't you enlighten us?

 

[DigitalDuck]

I don't know, why don't you enlighten us?

Way ahead of you.

Everyone wants the full experience of the game, which is what "all" suggests. To some, PvP is detrimental to the game, so removing it gives them a fuller experience to the game, therefore their "all" group is the PvP-disabled one. To some, anything other than permadeath is detrimental to the game, so permadeath gives them a fuller experience to the game, therefore their "all" group is the "permadeath" one.

So the "all" moniker is wrong.

 

[Perseus]

I'm not reposting what has already been said. Read again if you have a care.

 

[Minti2]

Is it? What makes it weak? Your idea that humans MUST be vastly superior to hard computer opponents?

That is not true at all. Computer opponents can be vastly more difficult than average human. Computer can have faster reflexes, perfect situational awareness, perfect lead...

Harder AI pilots can be made to wipe the floor with majority of human pilots, only skilled ones being able to defeat them.

So if most players are gonna be crap compared to human players you shouldn't have any worries and join the PvP(maybe you ought to, to get away from those dame griefing AIs! )

So humans cant have that sense of unpredictability, that certain keen awareness, the risk taker, something that makes them more dangerous then the AI?
Not for one minute in ED am i gonna worry more about the AIs then the human players. There will be good human players out there, and hopefully most like Perseus and me, wont be griefers either.

Am just gonna see how the Devs sort it, and go from there, we can argue all we like but am sure there will be a compromise to keep everyone happy....i hope!

 

[DigitalDuck]

I'm not reposting what has already been said. Read again if you have a care.

Read it, and answered it. See above.

Oh look, I can do it too. This is clearly constructive.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Even if a player achieves Elite status in PvP(vE) mode there is no knowing what the kill mix was. The player may have simply preyed on NPCs.

 

[Barns]

Kudos is the key here.

Well, if it'll make you happy, I'd be more than prepared to say "w00t Perseus got Elite on PvP he's much more hardcore than my softy easymode PvE Elite". Maybe even let you have your Elite badge with special blood-drippy PvP sparkles. Because I'm not interested in being "hardcore" or any sort of Kudos beyond what satisfaction I get from playing the game myself.

Comes down to who you're competing against; other players, or "the game". Me, I compete against the game, cooperating with other players when required but I don't care how far they get compared to me as long as them being further progressed doesn't disadvantage me (thus, dislike PvP as players with more time -> better ships and better gameplay -> me dead 99% of the time -> no fun for me). Versus NPCs, it doesn't matter if I play an hour or 100 hours a week, doesn't matter if I'm miles behind everyone else ship-wise, I can still make progress at my own pace. I'll never be spinning top-of-the-line ships outside Lave Station making the other players jealous and me feel big.

So you get Elite 3 years before me? And PvP mode? Don't care. Nice that you care, and others too, congratulations, be competitive all you want. But I really don't mind if my softy PvE world is labelled lacking in "Kudos".

 

[Perseus]

Aye, it comes down to who you're competing against. That was the initial point, wasn't it?
Ducky, you're flapping around.

 

[Barns]

Aye, it comes down to who you're competing against. That what the initial point, wasn't it?

Cool, so we agree then?

You want to compete against players who like to PvP -> set a "PvP liked" flag.
I don't want to compete against players but instead cooperate with them -> set a "PvP disliked" flag.

Or have separate groups entirely, or whatever tech FD comes up with. They're doing this "ignore" thing on a per-player basis at least, it wouldn't be hard to allow each player to set "I'm PvP" or "I'm PvE" and then you could say "ignore all PvPers" or whatever, and the existing "ignore" tech would handle the rest without needing explicit separate groups / servers and whatnot.

Then we're both happy competing and playing how we like against others with similar tastes! Smashing.

 

[DigitalDuck]

You want to compete against players who like to PvP -> set a "PvP liked" flag.
I don't want to compete against players but instead cooperate with them -> set a "PvP disliked" flag.

Or have separate groups entirely, or whatever tech FD comes up with. They're doing this "ignore" thing on a per-player basis at least, it wouldn't be hard to allow each player to set "I'm PvP" or "I'm PvE" and then you could say "ignore all PvPers" or whatever, and the existing "ignore" tech would handle the rest without needing explicit separate groups / servers and whatnot.

Then we're both happy competing and playing how we like against others with similar tastes! Smashing.

The end result of which is two mutually exclusive groups, because those who checked the "PvP liked" flag will only appear with those who also checked that flag, and those who checked the "PvP disliked" flag will only appear with those who also checked that flag.

But yeah, basically that.

 

[Perseus]

Barns, honestly, I hope we are all happy in this game. It just might be that we are not all in exactly the same game.