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

[DigitalDuck]

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.

Fair enough.

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.

I don't have a nightmare in my head, as I've mentioned several times.

Always plan assuming things don't work, rather than assuming they do. I'm sure PvP will be a lovely place with no griefers whatsoever, I'm sure the bounty system etc. will sort everything out in those regards.

But should that fail, I'll take a backup plan, and at the moment (I don't have access to the DDF either, so I'm deferring to jabokai here) a public PvE group isn't an option.

 

[jabokai]

But should that fail, I'll take a backup plan, and at the moment (I don't have access to the DDF either, so I'm deferring to jabokai here) a public PvE group isn't an option.

Don't defer to me, I'm a numpty and have no clue!

To be honest I don't recall seeing any mention of PvE in any of the discussions in the DDF.

Anyway, the current proposal states -

A player can only exist in one of the following groups at a time:

• 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
  • A player’s Friend List and Ignore List is used automatically to indicate preferences in match making so that friends will be matched instead of others if a choice exists(though this is a fuzzy system so there are no guarantees)
    • E.g. In a nearly full session a player with more friends in the session than that of another arriving at the same time would mean the first player getting in and the second spawning a new session instead
  • Players can use an option to indicate they would like friends of friends to be included in the preference system described above (which basically expands their friends list for the purposes of preferences under the hood only)
• Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
  • Players can create their own private group and invite people into it
    • To help facilitate inviting players into a private group, players can be indicated as friends in game and can be selected easily for sending invites out too
    • Any player can be invited into a private group regardless of friend status so player name searching and direct in-game selection is possible
    • A player who accepts such an invite will be removed from their current group upon the next hyperspace jump and be placed in the private group of the inviting player
    • A player who refuses such an invite will remain in whatever group they were already in and the option to ignore future requests from that player during the current gaming session is presented
  • Players can save private group settings including players to invite to allow quick selection and set up of groups
  • A player can set an option to allow friends to “quick join” into their private group
    • They can change this option at any time
    • Players will be able to see on their friend list that other friends are in private groups and that some may have a symbol indicated they’re free to “quick join” into the group without needing an invite
    • The “quick join” option can be extended to allow friends of friends in freely also
  • A player wishing to join another player’s private group will have to message them asking for an invite as there is no way to formally request admission into the group
    • Players will thus typically set the “quick join” option if they don’t want the hassle of their friends having to message them when they want to join in with the group
  • Only the original private group creator can invite others into their group. They can also do the following:
    • Kick other players out of the group
    • Disband the group resulting in all the other players entering their own individual private groups with “quick joining” disabled (gives them the opportunity to play solo or decide to join the all players group)
    • Pass their leadership and thus all these options to someone else in the group
    • Upon disconnecting, logging off or leaving the group automatically passes leadership to the oldest private group member, i.e. the first player to accept an invite into the group that is still present
• Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited) with the following properties:
  • Players in this group are effectively indicating they want to be left alone and not disturbed by anyone else
  • By default group and friend invites are ignored but this can be enabled if desired
  • By default a player’s online status is hidden (set to offline) from others but this can be change if desired
  • A player in this group can still see when other friends come online and can message them
  • A player in this group can still receive messages from friends (possibly revealing the fact that they are online by virtue of return messages but still indicated as being offline)

There is more - friends lists, alliances (teams or groups in other MMO parlance) but this is the most relevant bit. And be aware that is not final, just the current proposal.

 

[Tiwaz]

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.

I don't. Whatever DB has done, we have hundreds of griefers trying to outmaneuver.

They will find some way to outmaneuver the design.

As for idea that "if you just try it you love it"... It is idiotic. People do not want PvP and do not want to be cornered into little part of game (if they want to play with others) or forced into private game.

Fact is, huge amount of people do not want forced PvP and they should be permitted everything there is in the "all"-group except that aspect.

Why is accepting that so bloody hard for you people? I see dozens of pathetic excuses "but it is not HARD that way", "you would love it if you tried" and so forth to deny this possibility.

Why? Why are you people so adamant demanding that others must appease your desire for PvP no matter what?

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.

Yes it will be. With mandatory PvP you lose ability to go anywhere but handful of "safe" systems, which in the end won't be safe either, because some insanely rich at is going to come in, find someone suitably soft target, blast them to bits and just shrug the loss of a ship.

It's done in Eve, so it will be done in ED.

 

[psykokow]

I don't. Whatever DB has done, we have hundreds of griefers trying to outmaneuver.
They will find some way to outmaneuver the design.

Why is accepting that so bloody hard for you people?
Why? Why are you people so adamant demanding that others must appease your desire for PvP no matter what?

You trying to make friends Tiwaz...

That is what I mean by these threads jumping before the horse is released and causing aggro where no real decision has been released to say what system is coming out. THe point has been raised and as much as FD read and take argumens onboard, they take the suggestion and work through their own arguments. So wether your point is well made and could sway an argument, ultimately they could just ignore it.

I do not suggest these threads are useless, not at all but the aggro caused to people is most definately not required.

Make your point and move on.. this going round and round is not helpful and ends up hiding the good points further up.

I am confident PVP PVE concepts are known to the FD team, Im sure they have their own plans and now are very aware of the topic.

Let not keep arguing back and forth going nowhere.

The only thing we all need to be aware of is that none of us will get a cake and be able to eat it all without sharing and what am I saying? Oh yes...

We all will get bits that we love, and compromises to keep game play GOOD and fairness. So no matter what... it will be rare if any of us gets all we want out of it. But thats OK, look at the polls... huge swings OR not so huge swings.. not everyone will get their choice.

BUT lets not fall out.. lets play and make it the best it can be.. and if that includes some PVP and PVE options Im for one will be happy it not what I want but its ok by me.

 

[Tiwaz]

That is what I mean by these threads jumping before the horse is released and causing aggro where no real decision has been released to say what system is coming out. THe point has been raised and as much as FD read and take argumens onboard, they take the suggestion and work through their own arguments. So wether your point is well made and could sway an argument, ultimately they could just ignore it.

Well, if FD does not flat out say that they WILL make PvP voluntary I am going to assume they are not doing so.
And I will speak against it.

It is not big task for them to come out and say "We are going to make game with equal PvP and PvE content, you can choose which group you belong to"
And that's it. They do not need to tell HOW they implement it, as long as they guarantee it is there.

I do not suggest these threads are useless, not at all but the aggro caused to people is most definately not required.

Perhaps you should direct your attention towards PvP group, who keep parading how there MUST be only full PvP or private servers.

I want them to pull the same rope, demand freedom to choose PvE or PvP, and that is done by explaining to them why vast number of people do not want forced PvP. I would support their position of wanting PvP if tables were turned, because I would lose nothing.

Oh, and I want PvP people stop assuming that if only PvE-people were introduced to the wonders that is PvP all PvE-players would ditch that E and go for P. Being condescending and saying we do not know what we actually want.

That attitude annoys me very much.

I am confident PVP PVE concepts are known to the FD team, Im sure they have their own plans and now are very aware of the topic.

And yet refuse to come out and tell that either they want Eve Online v2 or they will implement PvP-toggle... All they have to say is that either
"All but private WILL be full PvP" or "There will be way to turn off PvP while having all other stuff there".

The only thing we all need to be aware of is that none of us will get a cake and be able to eat it all without sharing and what am I saying? Oh yes...

Except here we can all have what we wanted. PvP people can have their PvP world and PvE people can have their PvE world. All it takes is splitting and renaming group "All" into "PvP" and "PvE".

Both get what they want.

 

[psykokow]

Im not saying you are wrong. I am indeed criticising boths sides of the circle... wait....heck you know what I mean.

These threads just go round and round and round as people feel that if Joe Blogs says 'i disagree' they HAVE to reply and justify it further only to get more heated.. And so on it goes..

Just say what you want and if any other arguments turn your mind.. pipe up again. Rather than just repeating what you've said with more CAPS and !!!!'s

Yes I agree toggle is maybe very simple to implement at the commander creation stage, and then be bumped into a group of a PVE concept ALL group.

Totally workable I think.. AND won't affect anyone else in any way other than actually keeping the servers streamlines and being able to focus resources well.

For example... on the PVE server.. no need for PVP battles etc... so those resources can go to the PVP said... it may offer no savings at all.. for example.. accidental fire? Will that just not cause damage? in the PVE server? Ramming? same.. just you can't cause damage to an other player?

Anyway I wait with great anticipation and I will be in the Ironman mode until I die.. so about a week.

 

[jabokai]

I am confident PVP PVE concepts are known to the FD team, Im sure they have their own plans and now are very aware of the topic.

Are you? Really? They surely SHOULD know, but there's been nothing from them to indicate they are doing anything about it and it is a big issue for a lot of people. Again, I would like to say that I intend to play PvP Ironman, just because, but I really want there to be a properly realised PvE option for those that want it.

The groups mechanism as most recently described does not allow for the best option. The All Player (and presumably Ironman) group is the only open group so it would either have to be PvE only or have a player PvP toggle or PvP zones to keep the PvEers happy. This would, understandably, irritate the PvPers who don't want (and rightly so) ANY of those options in their world.

Fundamentally, they need to be split up to keep both happy... it's that simple I think! But I haven't seen anything from FD to suggest it will be possible.

 

[psykokow]

No word yet Raven, but they are still working through the DDF piles and PILES of group posts... so it could be soon..

*crosses fingers* oh and I look forward to seeing you in Ironman...

 

[jabokai]

No word yet Raven, but they are still working through the DDF piles and PILES of group posts... so it could be soon..

*crosses fingers* oh and I look forward to seeing you in Ironman...

I might post on that DDF Groups topic about this because it is kind of related and it'd be interesting to see if they have a response!

As for Ironman - I'll be running away from everyone. While I intend to play there I fully expect to last a matter of minutes if I do not perfect my fleeing technique!

 

[ianw]

Just curious - is there any indication of the split between pro/anti PVP in the DDF?

 

[jabokai]

Just curious - is there any indication of the split between pro/anti PVP in the DDF?

Honestly, I don't recall seeing it mentioned at all! But I did join a few weeks after it started so I've not read everything. :smilie:

 

[DigitalDuck]

The groups mechanism as most recently described does not allow for the best option. The All Player (and presumably Ironman) group is the only open group so it would either have to be PvE only or have a player PvP toggle or PvP zones to keep the PvEers happy. This would, understandably, irritate the PvPers who don't want (and rightly so) ANY of those options in their world.

Fundamentally, they need to be split up to keep both happy... it's that simple I think! But I haven't seen anything from FD to suggest it will be possible.

Basically this. On its most basic level, PvPers want to shoot at other players, PvEers don't want to be shot at by other players. They can't exist together, but they can both exist separately. That's all most of us would like.

Once that's in place, I'll be happy to play (and probably in PvP, for what it's worth) knowing that I still have the chance to enjoy the full game even if everyone decides to be even more of a **** than I am.

 

[JohnStabler]

The Groups DDF proposal is not final and some of the finer details may change depending on the various conversatiosn that go on there. However, the core ideas are pretty concrete as DB referred to them in the existing game engine back in the kickstarter campaign.

I'm not sure why there is still much conversation about this. I thought it was pretty simple:

• If you want to play with any and all players then go in the all group.
• If you want to play just with your mates then go in a private group.
• If you don't want to play with other people then get yourself in a solo group.

From what I've read there seems to be an argument for a game system where you can play with any and all players but they shouldn't be allowed to engage you in combat if you don't want.

This is effectively removing other players' free will and is an arbitrary resriction. Why not demand a feature where you can unflag yourself for "resource sharing" so those pesky human players can't mine out all the minerals from your fave asteroid? Or unflag yourself from "economic impact" so that other player's actions don't effect the trade price of the 50 tonnes of computers you're carrying?

This is a game about people flying around in spaceships with frikken lasers on them. Military forces, piracy and bounty hunters are a big clue.

 

[psykokow]

even if everyone decides to be even more of a **** than I am.

Is this EVEN POSSIBLE?? *ducks* <-lol see what I did

 

[psykokow]

• If you want to play with any and all players then go in the all group.
• If you want to play just with your mates then go in a private group.
• If you don't want to play with other people then get yourself in a solo group.

I think you've over simplified it there John.. they are merely asking for a breakdown of option 1.

Like Ironman, create two other ALL groups (PVP and PVE) essentially.

Nothing more than that... In the current proposals you can have a group with your friends, but you wont get that feeling of strangers coming in... yes no risk strangers but still a chance to meet like minded commanders in game.

as I say that shouldnt be difficult to do when you create your player - Iron Man, or ALL (PVP) or ALL (non PVP).. seems simple until told otherwise..

I meant to add John, the piracy etc could apply to NPC units rather than players.. as I also stated before I am a PVPer by heart, but I see no reason why THIS couldnt be implemented to give people that WILD STRANGER factor but without being blasted out of the skies..

 

[jabokai]

From what I've read there seems to be an argument for a game system where you can play with any and all players but they shouldn't be allowed to engage you in combat if you don't want.

Exactly that - and it's quite a popular choice! Well, not EXACTLY what you said - they do not want to play with "any and all" but only with others who choose the same option. Not what I (or you it seems) would choose but plenty of people DO want that and it's a regular feature of this type of multiplayer game.

 

[Tiwaz]

This is effectively removing other players' free will and is an arbitrary resriction.

Because free will of PvP players is SO much more important than free will of PvE people. Of course.

I again ask same as Barns does...
Why are PvP people so opposed to idea that there is split of "All" group into PvP and PvE groups?

They are implementing system which enables people not to be ever placed in same instance, this is not difficult to implement on top of it.
Nobody will have any arbitrary restrictions, because they never see people of opposing group.

Hell, why not change All group into PvE group and all "such a rush" PvPers can go to Ironman group. Now that would give real rush, because you would be finished when you get shot up.

This is a game about people flying around in spaceships with frikken lasers on them. Military forces, piracy and bounty hunters are a big clue.

Big clue, none of that requires PvP. All that can be in a game where players cannot harm other players.

 

[JohnStabler]

I think you've over simplified it there John.. they are merely asking for a breakdown of option 1.

Like Ironman, create two other ALL groups (PVP and PVE) essentially.

Nothing more than that... In the current proposals you can have a group with your friends, but you wont get that feeling of strangers coming in... yes no risk strangers but still a chance to meet like minded commanders in game.

as I say that shouldnt be difficult to do when you create your player - Iron Man, or ALL (PVP) or ALL (non PVP).. seems simple until told otherwise..

I meant to add John, the piracy etc could apply to NPC units rather than players.. as I also stated before I am a PVPer by heart, but I see no reason why THIS couldnt be implemented to give people that WILD STRANGER factor but without being blasted out of the skies..

I haven't oversimplified anything. I was just summarising the current proposed system. I agree, it seems to be too simple for some people and they want to have PVP on or off within the first group. I address that mentality in the rest of my post.

Choosing combat as an optional feature of multiplayer is arbitrary. Keeping some human interaction and removing others is just bizzare. In my opinion, of course

 

[JohnStabler]

Because free will of PvP players is SO much more important than free will of PvE people. Of course.

You imply that we don't have free will in real life because violent people are able to attack people who don't want to be.

 

[jabokai]

Choosing combat as an optional feature of multiplayer is arbitrary. Keeping some human interaction and removing others is just bizzare. In my opinion, of course

Nevertheless, it's a popular, and common, choice. Seems self-defeating to not offer an option many people will want. :smilie: