That's not how I want to play - I'll probably start in the Ironman group and see how it goes - but I do want options for people who want a different experience to you or I.
[POLL] PvE, PvP, PvAll - What is the playstyle you want in ED?
- Thread starter Fromhell
- Start date
- Status
That's not how I want to play - I'll probably start in the Ironman group and see how it goes - but I do want options for people who want a different experience to you or I.
And absolutely nobody has suggested making it a single player game with the option to play with mates.
Again, going back to the FAQ and other posts by FD (as this is the only concrete information we have)
I agree with Ende. People here are judging this particular half finished book not by it's cover (as it doesn't even have one yet) but by other books written by completely different authors, that have completely different stories. Some of which just happen to be set in space while other are nothing to do with space. It's like saying you're not going to read The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy as you didn't like 50 shades of grey cos they're both books, right?. That's how ridiculous it is.
As per above, your particular play style is being accommodated for. I think this approach works rather well as it will remove most of the whiners into their own particular games where you can only attack another player after taking them for dinner and a movie
(that last sentence was a joke in case you also lack a sense of humour along with the balls to play the game with a bit of risk (that was a joke too))
- You join the game for the first time and you are connected to the internet
- You create your commander and set the Ironman flag on/off (see HERE)
- From here on in all the below has the caveat of being split into Ironman or normal.
- You are put in the ALL group
- This is the default group with no restrictions
- You can then create an open or closed group and add restrictions to it.
- You will only play with people with the same restrictions (either because they choose the same restrictions or because you invited them to your group) or lack of them.
- Closed groups do not interact with random people, only people assigned to that closed group (think private server in other games).
- Open groups can interact with anyone with the same restrictions (think public servers with certain rules sets, e.g. hardcore mode).
- The All group will have access to the vast majority of players unless a certain set of restrictions becomes more popular.
- I expect the majority of players will be in the All group (probably for Normal rather than Ironman) as this is the default setting, ganking/griefing is being handled and I expect the vast majority of at least initial players to be of a certain mindset (i.e. not idiots) so a lot of perceived issues won't occur.
I agree with Ende. People here are judging this particular half finished book not by it's cover (as it doesn't even have one yet) but by other books written by completely different authors, that have completely different stories. Some of which just happen to be set in space while other are nothing to do with space. It's like saying you're not going to read The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy as you didn't like 50 shades of grey cos they're both books, right?. That's how ridiculous it is.
As per above, your particular play style is being accommodated for. I think this approach works rather well as it will remove most of the whiners into their own particular games where you can only attack another player after taking them for dinner and a movie
(that last sentence was a joke in case you also lack a sense of humour along with the balls to play the game with a bit of risk (that was a joke too))
Last edited:
Crap analogy. Here, let me throw in another crap analogy - it's like being kicked in the balls 10 times by ten different people and then saying "no thanks" to the 11th person! But, it's a different person, maybe the kick in the balls will be fun that time! See how you can play with analogies?
Anyway, from what I recall Frontier have not ventured any additional information on this which does lead to the (interim) conclusion that there will only be Ironman and Normal and both will be PvP. It seems there is a market for a third option - it's worth them investigating surely? Better to cater for another market (if it's easy enough to do) if you can as it may well draw in more players.
Sure.
But you're saying we're not allowed a PvP-disabled option, just on the off chance that maybe, just maybe, there are just one too many idiots?
That's really too much to ask?
I did not vote because I thought the questions were confusing, to me at least.
I don't really get what the discussions are about here. I thought it was clear that (feel free to jump all over me if my understanding is wrong) FD have gone for an onion skin approach, with the base level (ALL) to include PVP and PVE, no restrictions.
We then have the option to filter out ever more game aspects/people by creating open and closed groups (or a mix) until at the other end of the scale, everything is filtered out except PVE and voila, you have single player. All of which is fine by me.
I did not play Eve much, but I think that that kind of griefing will be very difficult in ED. Opportunistic ambush would be very boring / unrewarding without the benefit of jump gates as a conduit to gank central. Plus the fact that we can simply ignore (prioritize?? did I understand Laveradio.com correctly?) the existence of scallywags without switching off PVP will also make griefing unrewarding.
There are probably many other ways (to grief) that I have not considered, but I have confidence that FD HAVE considered long and hard, and have strategies above and beyond those mentioned above that they are keeping mum about.
I am greatly looking forward to enjoying all aspects of the game, both PVP and PVE, including the cooperative and social aspects, all of which are new to me.
I don't really get what the discussions are about here. I thought it was clear that (feel free to jump all over me if my understanding is wrong) FD have gone for an onion skin approach, with the base level (ALL) to include PVP and PVE, no restrictions.
We then have the option to filter out ever more game aspects/people by creating open and closed groups (or a mix) until at the other end of the scale, everything is filtered out except PVE and voila, you have single player. All of which is fine by me.
I did not play Eve much, but I think that that kind of griefing will be very difficult in ED. Opportunistic ambush would be very boring / unrewarding without the benefit of jump gates as a conduit to gank central. Plus the fact that we can simply ignore (prioritize?? did I understand Laveradio.com correctly?) the existence of scallywags without switching off PVP will also make griefing unrewarding.
There are probably many other ways (to grief) that I have not considered, but I have confidence that FD HAVE considered long and hard, and have strategies above and beyond those mentioned above that they are keeping mum about.
I am greatly looking forward to enjoying all aspects of the game, both PVP and PVE, including the cooperative and social aspects, all of which are new to me.
So by your design option its possible for players who have set NO PVP can travel through hostile and dangerous space without any chance of being hit by pirates or bounty hunters...
Thats 100% against how the Elite universe works.
Basically players will set the option NO PVP cos it makes the game easier to play. We cannot have that option anywhere in the game. Why should the nervous player set the game to EASY and get more stuff than the guy who sets it to HARD?
I will say again... GO BACK AND READ PREVIOUS THREADS WHERE PVP/PVE IDEAS HAVE BEEN FLOATED.
U will see many extremely well thought out methods of getting PvP into the Elite universe but in such a way that those who dont want to participate in any PvP whatsoever can happily do so.
EDIT: im not saying that a NO PVP option shouldnt exist at all, im saying that it cant be a simple on or off. It has to be designed in such a way that if ur a pirate or bountyhunter u can still play. Also there must always exist the danger u can actually lose your ship.
We have to be aware we dont want to sacrifice the element of strong realism by wrapping players up in cottonwool
Last edited:
Fun fact: some ships won't be controlled by humans.
Why should he be denied content? He paid full whack for the game like everyone else, not really fair to make him sit through being repeatedly killed just to get what he paid for.
And by your logic, everyone in every game ever always sets the difficulty to "EASY" and none of those other difficulties ever get used, simply because everyone wants the easiest ride possible.
Because god forbid these games should be about FUN! Who needs that, right?
A few things stand out to me which I fail to understand:
1) The constant quest for "realism". Would you ever read a novel or watch a movie in which the minutiae of everyday life were reported with pedantically detailed accuracy? Don't get me wrong, I'd love a game engine that perfectly simulated newtonian mechanics and graphics that looked like the real thing. Some degree of realism can help create a more immersive atmosphere and generally improve the game, sure. What I don't get is why some people obsess over it. It's a game. It's virtual. It's make believe. It's not, nor will it ever be, real. It's just pixels on a screen. When I want realism, I go hiking or sightseeing. When I play a video game, I just want some light hearted fun. I could name you so many games that provided millions of gamers around the world with so many hours of fun without being realistic. And to me, that's what it's all about: fun. I don't see anyone asking to have to go to the loo at least four times a day, I don't see anyone nagging the developers to force all players to have to jettison urine and feces when the tank fills up (though that could certainly provide for some humorous PvP interaction), I don't see any requests to make it possible to catch exotic diseases when visiting strange worlds, I don't see any complaints about how our character's reflexes won't be negatively affected if they don't get at least five hours of sleep per standard day, I don't see anyone asking for characters who haven't changed their underwear in a year to get kicked out of enclosed places because they stink horribly. You don't care about any of those things - and why should you? It's a game. You only want the fun bits of life to be included. And that's where we diverge: our definitions of "fun" don't perfectly match, but while we say "to each their own", some of you seem to think that your brand of fun should be enforced on everyone and that is just plain and utterly wrong.
2) All the wrong assumptions like "you're WoW players" or "you've never played PvP before". Sure I used to play WoW. I also played Starsiege: Tribes, Unreal Tournament, Knight Online, Rift, SWTOR, Diablo 3. I'm sure I've left some out. Hell I even have a team on Hattrick. I also had a moderately successful heavy metal band on Music Maven. My PvP experiences go as far back as Doom II and Duke Nukem 3D, back in those glorious days when developers still allowed users to set up multiplayer games on a LAN. I tried many different flavours of PvP over the years and found that in general I prefer PvE. Does that make me a wussy gamer? Does that make my opinion, my preferences or my right to choose how I play the game I spent my hard earned money for less important?
3) This one really takes the cake.
4) You keep repeating that "griefing would be almost non-existant because attacking other players would result in massive penalties". How is the presence of PvE-only players more detrimental to a carreer in piracy than the certainty of incurring in massive penalties? If those penalties were indeed massive, how many times could you shoot down another player's ship before it became impractical for you to keep playing? And if they weren't massive enough to actually make your in-game life hell, don't you think they would be a rather useless deterrent?
1) The constant quest for "realism". Would you ever read a novel or watch a movie in which the minutiae of everyday life were reported with pedantically detailed accuracy? Don't get me wrong, I'd love a game engine that perfectly simulated newtonian mechanics and graphics that looked like the real thing. Some degree of realism can help create a more immersive atmosphere and generally improve the game, sure. What I don't get is why some people obsess over it. It's a game. It's virtual. It's make believe. It's not, nor will it ever be, real. It's just pixels on a screen. When I want realism, I go hiking or sightseeing. When I play a video game, I just want some light hearted fun. I could name you so many games that provided millions of gamers around the world with so many hours of fun without being realistic. And to me, that's what it's all about: fun. I don't see anyone asking to have to go to the loo at least four times a day, I don't see anyone nagging the developers to force all players to have to jettison urine and feces when the tank fills up (though that could certainly provide for some humorous PvP interaction), I don't see any requests to make it possible to catch exotic diseases when visiting strange worlds, I don't see any complaints about how our character's reflexes won't be negatively affected if they don't get at least five hours of sleep per standard day, I don't see anyone asking for characters who haven't changed their underwear in a year to get kicked out of enclosed places because they stink horribly. You don't care about any of those things - and why should you? It's a game. You only want the fun bits of life to be included. And that's where we diverge: our definitions of "fun" don't perfectly match, but while we say "to each their own", some of you seem to think that your brand of fun should be enforced on everyone and that is just plain and utterly wrong.
2) All the wrong assumptions like "you're WoW players" or "you've never played PvP before". Sure I used to play WoW. I also played Starsiege: Tribes, Unreal Tournament, Knight Online, Rift, SWTOR, Diablo 3. I'm sure I've left some out. Hell I even have a team on Hattrick. I also had a moderately successful heavy metal band on Music Maven. My PvP experiences go as far back as Doom II and Duke Nukem 3D, back in those glorious days when developers still allowed users to set up multiplayer games on a LAN. I tried many different flavours of PvP over the years and found that in general I prefer PvE. Does that make me a wussy gamer? Does that make my opinion, my preferences or my right to choose how I play the game I spent my hard earned money for less important?
3) This one really takes the cake.
Ok, excuse the formatting, but I really want this question to stick out: Who in the world said the game had to be HARD?. It needs to be challenging of course, otherwise it would get boring but why make it deliberately HARD? Do you normally buy shoes two sizes smaller just so it will make the otherwise monotonous task of walking that more exciting? "Oh look, my toes are bleeding, this walking thing is really starting to get my juices flowing". I don't want HARD any more than I want easy. What I want is a game that fits me just right. What I don't want is a game that requires me to spend hours watching YouTube videos and reading guides, forum discussions, manuals and how-to's to constantly hone my skills, because then I'd be calling it a job and I'd expect to get paid for it (disregarding the "it's a hobby" option). Just look at Diablo 3: they made it unreasonably punishing and, unsurprisingly, the majority of the players got fed up and left. Also of interest is the "we cannot have that option anywhere in the game" part. Good grief, imagine what would happen if people could play at a difficulty setting that fit their current level of experience and skill: they might even get to *gasp* enjoy it! A game! What is this galaxy coming to?
4) You keep repeating that "griefing would be almost non-existant because attacking other players would result in massive penalties". How is the presence of PvE-only players more detrimental to a carreer in piracy than the certainty of incurring in massive penalties? If those penalties were indeed massive, how many times could you shoot down another player's ship before it became impractical for you to keep playing? And if they weren't massive enough to actually make your in-game life hell, don't you think they would be a rather useless deterrent?
Last edited:
More than enough.
Again, check the concepts you speak of.
PvP is player versus player. It does NOT in any way say how many players are involved.
If it is one on one, many on many or many on one is irrelevant as long as combatants are player entities.
They are completely different from PvE, where only ONE side has player characters.
Simply put. Impossible. There will always be loopholes to exploit and people who will do that.
You still don't get it. I want to play WITH other players, not AGAINST them.
Try to get in your head that PvE is not solo play.
Why it makes game easier to play?
Tell me exactly why AI controlled opponent which has all settings pulled to hard is not more challenging opponent than about 70-80% of human pilots out there?
AI can have:
Perfect reflexes (time it takes your meatmind to grasp someone fired, then have your meathand twist the controls to avoid is eternity for computer)
Perfect lead (ties up with reflexes for same reasons)
Perfect situational awareness (computer could track your position while doing plethora of other things without a hitch because of processing speed)
People think computer controlled opponents are poor because they are vastly limited from what they COULD be. Only strategy games where speed is not as relevant have the playing field much more even or with human advantage.
And finally, as someone stated... We have paid for this game. Who the hell are you to say we cannot play it on easy setting if we want to?
If you are telling me that your desire for style of game is only right one, I expect you to compensate me fully for the money I have used in this game, because it just lost all interest to me.
Crap analogy. Here, let me throw in another crap analogy - it's like being kicked in the balls 10 times by ten different people and then saying "no thanks" to the 11th person! But, it's a different person, maybe the kick in the balls will be fun that time! See how you can play with analogies?
Anyway, from what I recall Frontier have not ventured any additional information on this which does lead to the (interim) conclusion that there will only be Ironman and Normal and both will be PvP. It seems there is a market for a third option - it's worth them investigating surely? Better to cater for another market (if it's easy enough to do) if you can as it may well draw in more players.
It's a perfect analogy. You don't like something because you didn't like things that are kinda similar. A book and a game are comparable. A game and being kicked in the balls is not.
There will be groups where you define restrictions.
One of those restrictions WILL be PVP related.
I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be a non PVP option. I'm saying there should be and there's a 99.9999999999999999% certainty that one of the restrictions will be PVP related (I expect it to be top of the list of restrictions.)
Where did I say that?
Please point it out as you're making it up.
I say you are allowed a non PVP option. It will be a group restriction.
You will get what you want, stop moaning.
If you've eaten a Ruffle and don't like dessicated coconut then there's no point trying a Bounty!
If a PvP restriction/toggle is available when creating groups then that might work, but I think it'd be clearer and easier if the main PvE group is there from the very start and created by Frontier themselves as most PvEers will want to play in the largest PvE group.
If you've eaten a Ruffle and don't like dessicated coconut then there's no point trying a Bounty!
If a PvP restriction/toggle is available when creating groups then that might work, but I think it'd be clearer and easier if the main PvE group is there from the very start and created by Frontier themselves as most PvEers will want to play in the largest PvE group.
There will be.
Re watch the Multiplayer Dev diary. Re read the FAQ.
Soon as you enter E: D you'll be in the all group with PVP on.
The first thing people who don't want PVP but want to play with others will do is create an open group with PVP off.
They are now playing with every player that does not want PVP on.
You add more restrictions you will play with less players.
Simples.
As in my other reply, the FAQ and the diary are not up to date with current proposals. :smilie:
Care to summarize what the current proposal is?
So when you said you agreed with the guy who wanted exactly the opposite, you were lying? Or just mistaken?
No, I agree with Ende in that people are worrying unnecessarily, condemning something they haven't even tried yet and that I trust DB to get it right.
In Ende's posts prior to mine I do not see them say "PVP should be mandatory"
I do think though that if PVP was mandatory that all you're fears about the game are unfounded and in reality it won't be like the nightmare you have in your head.
- Status