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

[Tiwaz]

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.

Now how about explaining what is wrong with that mentality and why the hell you would give a crap if we were given what we wanted, which is PvE option?
What gives you right to expect us to forfeit our free will and our preferences?

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

Good for you. Be happy in your land.
Care to explain by which right you are here with your attitude trying to tell that I cannot want exactly that kind of system?

Look at just about all MMO games which present more than just shooting stuff...
LOTRO, SWG, SWTOR etc etc. LOTRO has no PvP at all, except specific PvMP instances (other players playing mosters kind of). SWG had PvP toggle. It off and you could not be attacked.
SWTOR provides servers with or without PvP.

It is standard practice in industry to NOT force PVP.

 

[Tiwaz]

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.

How you would not have free will to fly in your PvP univere without anyone from PvE group ever being visible there?
What gives your version of free will desire to shoot anyone you want greater importance than free will of others to be free of such behavior?

 

[JohnStabler]

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

Perhaps they could give it to them. And I wouldn't mind if they did. I was just pointing out how arbitrary a request it was. And a bit irrational also.

 

[Tiwaz]

Perhaps they could give it to them. And I wouldn't mind if they did. I was just pointing out how arbitrary a request it was. And a bit irrational also.

Explain why it is any more arbitrary or irrational than having Ironman and All being groups who never see one another? If it is arbitrary and irrational to want PvE content, why it is not arbitrary and irrational to have groups at all?

If you are going to claim it to be arbitrary or irrational, back up you claim with logic.

 

[JohnStabler]

How you would not have free will to fly in your PvP univere without anyone from PvE group ever being visible there?
What gives your version of free will desire to shoot anyone you want greater importance than free will of others to be free of such behavior?

I think you are getting confused between free will and freedom.

By hardcoding to prevent or ensure certain actions you are impacting on a individuals free will.

You are saying that PvE people should be free from PvP. But I guess the question is, why should they be granted such freedom? Is there to be a bill of rights?

It's all philosophy at the end of the day.

 

[JohnStabler]

If you are going to claim it to be arbitrary or irrational, back up you claim with logic.

In my original post I highlighted that combat, as a behaviour, is (devoid of subjective preference) the same as any other behaviour (trading, mining). To exclude it is arbitrary.

What was wrong with that?

 

[JohnStabler]

Explain why it is any more arbitrary or irrational than having Ironman and All being groups who never see one another?

Not even talking about them.

 

[ianw]

If I've got this right and PVP averse people take themselves out of the All player group - going into a solo "group" (surely an oxymoron if ever there was one) - they therefore become non-existent from the point of view of the PVP enthusiasts who unable to interact with them.

Which from the PVPers point of view would be exactly the same as them being in another group with like-minded players where PVP is restricted and are therefore no longer available as targets of opportunity for PVP enthusiasts or able to interact with them.

Both examples result in the same thing - they are effectively in a different game - how does this matter to either party?

For the record as stated elsewhere I'm okay with PVP. But based on my understanding as I've tried to outline above I'm struggling to see how allowing the PVP flag has a detrimental effect on the All group.

Unless of course there is some technical issue that makes it unviable.

 

[JohnStabler]

If I've got this right and PVP averse people take themselves out of the All player group - going into a solo "group" (surely an oxymoron if ever there was one) - they therefore become non-existent from the point of view of the PVP enthusiasts who unable to interact with them.

Which from the PVPers point of view would be exactly the same as them being in another group with like-minded players where PVP is restricted and are therefore no longer available as targets of opportunity for PVP enthusiasts or able to interact with them.

Both examples result in the same thing - they are effectively in a different game - how does this matter to either party?

For the record as stated elsewhere I'm okay with PVP. But based on my understanding as I've tried to outline above I'm struggling to see how allowing the PVP flag has a detrimental effect on the All group.

Unless of course there is some technical issue that makes it unviable.

The problem is that if the non PvP people go to the solo group then they won't meet other players and will therefore miss out on human interactions. But they don't want the combat human interaction.

 

[psykokow]

Ian that I think is why its not worth all this aggro..

Raise it and explain it.. and let ED work...

 

[Mzr]

If the likes of tiwaz have their way this game will be a commercial flop.
Elite is supposed to be a cold, dark sandbox of a universe, that severely punishes the incompetent,careless player, not hello-kitty online.
Increased risk should be balanced by increased reward, and the play-it-safe risk averse players should expect a corresponding decrease in rewards.

If you want some fluffy hold-my-hand candy-floss theme park nonsense, then just go away and play WoW or one of its many clones.

I don't have any stock in people here advocating following the mmo 'industry standards' in many aspects. Just consider how short lived or unsuccessful many of the same cookie-cutter theme park type games are.

Maybe Star citizen will cater more for those who want heavily structured arena-type pvp. For the rest of us, an open no-holds-barred persistant universe is the more attractive option, with minimal NPC input to the ingame market hopefully.

 

[Dr Wookie]

I had a quick look at the proposal, based on this discussion, and I have to agree with John, in that you can always use the private group.

- A private group is not the same as an alliance

-People in private groups can only be matched with other people in that group

- You can add anyone to a private group, regardless of whether you are "friends"

- You can save group settings to easily match up with the same people, and quick-join that group

- You can search by commander name so you can add people wherever they are

- You can trust everyone in your group not to fire on you . Accidental friendly fire should be perimissable though; you can always kick out repeat offenders

 

[JohnStabler]

If the likes of tiwaz have their way this game will be a commercial flop.
Elite is supposed to be a cold, dark sandbox of a universe, that severely punishes the incompetent,careless player, not hello-kitty online.
Increased risk should be balanced by increased reward, and the play-it-safe risk averse players should expect a corresponding decrease in rewards.

If you want some fluffy hold-my-hand candy-floss theme park nonsense, then just go away and play WoW or one of its many clones.

I don't have any stock in people here advocating following the mmo 'industry standards' in many aspects. Just consider how short lived or unsuccessful many of the same cookie-cutter theme park type games are.

Maybe Star citizen will cater more for those who want heavily structured arena-type pvp. For the rest of us, an open no-holds-barred persistant universe is the more attractive option, with minimal NPC input to the ingame market hopefully.

To be fair I think tiwaz was trying to advocate for something that would keep everybody happy. I agree with your perception on what the Elite universe should be, but I don't think his suggestion would cause it to be a flop.

I haven't actually said anywhere that I don't think there should be a PvP switch in the All players group. Indeed, many people would probably use it.

It would be nice if people just replied to what I wrote instead of replying to what they think I wrote.

 

[jabokai]

I honestly don't understand which part of it you guys don't get!? :S

It's just another (very common) choice of online play - if it can be provided then why the hell would you want to alienate those customers? It doesn't matter whether you think it's soft (and by extension, how cool and tough you are) as it'll never affect you... so why even care!?

 

[JohnStabler]

Maybe they should just have a combat on/off button. If you turn the combat off then you can mine, explore or trade with no fear of death, even from the AI. This may actually be a very popular feature (I may even use it!)

And if a PvE person says to me "that would be dumb" then I would say it is no less dumb than turning PvP on or off.

 

[ianw]

The problem is that if the non PvP people go to the solo group then they won't meet other players and will therefore miss out on human interactions. But they don't want the combat human interaction.

Yes I understand that is the case with the all group proposed structure at the moment. So..

1. Go into the solo group as is and play solo

2. Go into the All group and play whatever comes your way

3. (imaginary) Have a PVP disabled separate All group where they can interact with other players co-operatively against NPC rather than adversarially against other players.

If they choose 1 they're lost to the all group and if they could choose 3 they'd be lost to the All group. Either way the net result is the same - the all group continues without them and is diminished by their absence.

I'd prefer option 2 - but of the other two I'd prefer 3 over 1.

I just don't see why that's a problem for the PVP enthusiasts given that either way the PVEers aint gonna play in the All group so why not let them play how they want. Technical issues permitting..

 

[ianw]

Ian that I think is why its not worth all this aggro..

Raise it and explain it.. and let ED work...

This isn't aggro - it's a work avoidance passing of the time for a few mins strategy - on my part at least...

 

[JohnStabler]

Yes I understand that is the case with the all group proposed structure at the moment. So..

1. Go into the solo group as is and play solo

2. Go into the All group and play whatever comes your way

3. (imaginary) Have a PVP disabled separate All group where they can interact with other players co-operatively against NPC rather than adversarially against other players.

If they choose 1 they're lost to the all group and if they could choose 3 they'd be lost to the All group. Either way the net result is the same - the all group continues without them and is diminished by their absence.

I'd prefer option 2 - but of the other two I'd prefer 3 over 1.

I just don't see why that's a problem for the PVP enthusiasts given that either way the PVEers aint gonna play in the All group so why not let them play how they want. Technical issues permitting..

Yes, that's what has been proposed on this thread. Im not saying it should not be included, I'm just questioning the logic behind wanting it.

 

[jabokai]

I haven't actually said anywhere that I don't think there should be a PvP switch in the All players group. Indeed, many people would probably use it.

This is a bad idea! It affects the PvPers universe and immersion and it shouldn't. If I'm in All Player I want to hit anyone I see, should I choose... and vice versa.

 

[JohnStabler]

This is a bad idea! It affects the PvPers universe and immersion and it shouldn't. If I'm in All Player I want to hit anyone I see, should I choose... and vice versa.

Sorry, my bad; I phrased it wrong. I should have said a separate group for non PvP.