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

[Sir.Tj]

Ok, I've noticed one or two posts in the thread have got a bit heated.

There's been some great discussions on here but if we could all remember to moderate our language a bit and tone things down a bit I'd be a happy chap.

Thanks all.

 

[jabokai]

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

Yes, that's basically all that's required - an open, global group, where PvP is disabled. It's not realism, but it's a valid choice for a lot of people given the number of eedjits you run into into PvP!

 

[JohnStabler]

Ok, I've noticed one or two posts in the thread have got a bit heated.

If we could all remember to moderate our language a bit and tone things down a bit I'd be a happy chap.

Thanks all.

Aww, man. It's another thread with me on it.

How many strikes 'til I'm out TJ?

 

[JohnStabler]

Yes, that's basically all that's required - an open, global group, where PvP is disabled. It's not realism, but it's a valid choice for a lot of people given the number of eedjits you run into into PvP!

I understand. And all I'm interested in is the peasoning behind it. You mention ats which makes me think PvP is being conflated with griefing.

 

[jabokai]

I understand. And all I'm interested in is the peasoning behind it. You mention ats which makes me think PvP is being conflated with griefing.

Well, if you go into open PvP games (where combat is not the sole purpose of the game) you get it all the time. It's just a fact of life - if people can do something, they will. You can easily tire of it. PvE just means you still get player interaction for everything else, but can avoid that annoyance. I've played both PvE and PvP and have preferred one or the other depending on the game. It's simply good to have the choice!

 

[Ende]

They are now playing with every player that does not want PVP on.
You add more restrictions you will play with less players.
Simples.

Now this i understand and is thankfully working in the direction i was hoping

To summarise in a nutshell... i want a multiplayer populated universe which has the option to play solo, NOT a singleplayer game with the option to play with mates.

So it like the default ED universe will be fully open with everything available at the start, and if u want to play solo (or in a closed party) u need to change the settings to remove items. Thats exactly how i was hoping they would design it

On the subject of gankers i have said all along that idiots will exist in the game, they exist in ALL online games. And i also agree that some idiots will work out how to bypass the games 'ganking/griefing control systems', ofc thats what will happen...

My response to this is... lets make sure that we give the beta tests a proper thrashing! It sounds like EDs following has very experienced gamers so lets all work together to playtest this beta and close as many griefing doors as possible. It also sounds like the vast majority of EDs following are of an older generation and theyre more interested in building a flourishing community than a divisive PK heaven full of arrogant powerhungry griefers... this indicates to me that even ingame griefers will get an exceptionally hard time.

Lets finish on the point that Kingston is trying to remind everyone... lets not slate PvP within ED until we actually try it. Cos right now the vast majority of concersn r not even worth worrying about.

 

[Mzr]

The problem with a game like Eve isn't the concept of non-consensual pvp, its the abuse of game mechanics by certain large organisations such as the goons.

They're mainly into griefing people in the more secure 'hi-sec' areas while the 'wild-west' or 'null-sec' regions controlled by said alliances is actually some of the most boring space to live in presently.
This region at present is stagnant, controlled by a monolithic block of feudal-like alliances, and very little real pvp takes place, so the leadership encourages the rank & file to 'gank' ships near the market hub systems in high security space, simply in order to distract their membership, while the golden circle at the top siphon off large in-game funds to sell to other players for real cash.

I'm not sure if EDs mechanics will enable players to form these sort of massive organisations within, but a lot of eve or ex-eve players will be taking interest in this game I would imagine, so hopefully a 'goon' type group won't be able to replicate itself here.

 

[JohnStabler]

Well, if you go into open PvP games (where combat is not the sole purpose of the game) you get it all the time. It's just a fact of life - if people can do something, they will. You can easily tire of it. PvE just means you still get player interaction for everything else, but can avoid that annoyance. I've played both PvE and PvP and have preferred one or the other depending on the game. It's simply good to have the choice!

I think this is where I (politely, of course) disagree. FD have already said they're going to put in measures to prevent griefing and provide a safe space for new players.

Do you have doubts about their ability to deliver this feature?

I think conflating two separate issues (griefing and like/dislike PvP) doesn't help the discussion because people end up talking past each other.

My only point is that, in my experience, even if you remove all opportunity for griefing, there still exists a minority of players who are psychologically averse to being killed by other players in-game (even though they're happy to be destroyed by an AI pirate).

If FD are able to cater for these people then great! But I just find it bizarre, and I wonder if FD would cater for any other bizarre demands for changes.

 

[JohnStabler]

The problem with a game like Eve isn't the concept of non-consensual pvp, its the abuse of game mechanics by certain large organisations such as the goons.

Indeed.

 

[Bingo Brewster]

Sooo.... its possible to play with others WITHOUT enabling PvP?? Surely its still PvP, just with limited participation, defined by the group settings?? :S

Or to put it the other way around, we can play PvE, but together with other players? So does that mean that you cant shoot anyone in such a group (that you are a part of)?

Chill your jets people, we're all the good guys

 

[Commander Thane]

The problem really comes down to an issue of balance. In a multiplayer game you can't have a mechanic which supports a system of victims and bullies, because the victims get fed up that they can't make any progress and leave the game unsatisfied - then the bullies leave because their isn't anybody to play with.

It's different to a multiplayer shooter, because at the end of a short round there is a clear winner and everybody (for the most part) goes back to the drawing board. Elite: Dangerous is different, because all of us are trying to build something, whether it be a career in piracy, mining, or spycraft, whatever.

So, an example:

I've got my Mining ship, remote mining equipment and a trade run I'm using to progress my ranking and success. On my trade route I get jumped by PvPers and my ship is destroyed, my cargo looted and my mining equipment wrecked.

As a game where is the mechanism for me to balance the score? The solution has to go beyond "go and shoot them back" because as a trader/miner, clearly ship-to-ship is not my area (otherwise I would have won the battle in the first place). There's an old saying that it is easier to destroy than it is to build. So for the Minecraft/Pokemon/Sim City game style lovers out there it is far easier for PvPers to ruin their game than it is for SIMers to ruin a PvPers game. Why bother to build anything valuable when a griefer can repeatedly come and kick over your sandcastle?

But at the same time I don't want to have to lock PvPers out of my game in order to enjoy the game myself.

There needs to be mechanisms of cause and effect in the game which protect citizens from crime. So, for example, you may get away with robbing me once, but second time? Or if anybody else tries it? You're going home in pieces without me ever pressing a fire button. Why? Because through my resources which I've developed over combat options, I've bought myself a gang of mercenaries, lobbied to increase the police presence in my system and seeded the planetary orbit with so many Friend-or-Foe automated turrets that if anybody so much as fires by accident in my system, they're going to be dead before they can apologise.

These are the things we need to ensure that PvP has repurcussions. It can't just be about shooter fans being able to destroy what they like and run off, chuckling. Continual unprovoked firing upon other ships, whether NPC or player, should result in hardship. Almost the entire core system should really be off limits to anybody who regularly fires on another vessel without legal authorisation; but, this should be enforced by gameplay mechanisms, not by blocking people from your server.

I think the reason everybody is getting upset is that we currently can't see any game system in place which stops the PvPers from just running riot through the game spoiling the quiet ambience for those who want it. But realistically there will have to be balance.

Because even for those of us (like me) largely uninterested in PvP I don't want to feel that my game is Nerfed, just so that I can have an illusion of success... but, I do need a way to see my own playstyle give me a chance at competing.

 

[JohnStabler]

Sooo.... its possible to play with others WITHOUT enabling PvP?? Surely its still PvP, just with limited participation, defined by the group settings?? :S

Or to put it the other way around, we can play PvE, but together with other players? So does that mean that you cant shoot anyone in such a group (that you are a part of)?

Chill your jets people, we're all the good guys

Yes. The proposal is for a PvE group where no player would be allowed to attack another player. All PvP players would be in another group. It would basically be all players vs AI.

 

[Ende]

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.

I totally agree...

Having an on/off switch for PvP is a VERY bad idea!!!

U all make the point u dont want griefers... well greifers will use and abuse this mechanic!

The griefer attacks and kills someone then he switches his PvP off... u see the problem right?

If a player has setting of no pvp then they will not be playing alongside any of the players who have their setting to 'all'. Thats the way i read it. Non-pvpers shouldnt be playing alongside those who have set the game to 'all'.

 

[DigitalDuck]

I think this is where I (politely, of course) disagree. FD have already said they're going to put in measures to prevent griefing and provide a safe space for new players.

Do you have doubts about their ability to deliver this feature?

In real life, the Government have put in measures to prevent people from killing each other.

And yet murders still happen.


Will the measures reduce griefing to the point of being tolerable? Maybe to me, maybe not to others, who knows? But the only way of completely getting rid of griefing, however, is to remove negative interactions between players. Lo and behold, that's PvE.

 

[jabokai]

I think this is where I (politely, of course) disagree. FD have already said they're going to put in measures to prevent griefing and provide a safe space for new players.

Do you have doubts about their ability to deliver this feature?

Absolutely I do! :smilie: Because, as others above have pointed out, people WILL exploit the game systems whatever way they can simply to be as annoying as possible. It's a shame, but that's what people do in online games. PvE is a way of just saying "I want to play with people, but I can't be bothered with that".

Perhaps, psychologically, you are right that SOME do not want the "killed by a real person" thing, but even if that's true - does it matter? PvE is a widely accepted choice, whatever the reasons, isn't that okay?

 

[DigitalDuck]

I totally agree...

Having an on/off switch for PvP is a VERY bad idea!!!

U all make the point u dont want griefers... well greifers will use and abuse this mechanic!

The griefer attacks and kills someone then he switches his PvP off... u see the problem right?

Erm... none of us want a switch... :S

 

[JohnStabler]

The problem really comes down to an issue of balance. In a multiplayer game you can't have a mechanic which supports a system of victims and bullies, because the victims get fed up that they can't make any progress and leave the game unsatisfied - then the bullies leave because their isn't anybody to play with.

It's different to a multiplayer shooter, because at the end of a short round there is a clear winner and everybody (for the most part) goes back to the drawing board. Elite: Dangerous is different, because all of us are trying to build something, whether it be a career in piracy, mining, or spycraft, whatever.

So, an example:

I've got my Mining ship, remote mining equipment and a trade run I'm using to progress my ranking and success. On my trade route I get jumped by PvPers and my ship is destroyed, my cargo looted and my mining equipment wrecked.

As a game where is the mechanism for me to balance the score? The solution has to go beyond "go and shoot them back" because as a trader/miner, clearly ship-to-ship is not my area (otherwise I would have won the battle in the first place). There's an old saying that it is easier to destroy than it is to build. So for the Minecraft/Pokemon/Sim City game style lovers out there it is far easier for PvPers to ruin their game than it is for SIMers to ruin a PvPers game. Why bother to build anything valuable when a griefer can repeatedly come and kick over your sandcastle?

But at the same time I don't want to have to lock PvPers out of my game in order to enjoy the game myself.

There needs to be mechanisms of cause and effect in the game which protect citizens from crime. So, for example, you may get away with robbing me once, but second time? Or if anybody else tries it? You're going home in pieces without me ever pressing a fire button. Why? Because through my resources which I've developed over combat options, I've bought myself a gang of mercenaries, lobbied to increase the police presence in my system and seeded the planetary orbit with so many Friend-or-Foe automated turrets that if anybody so much as fires by accident in my system, they're going to be dead before they can apologise.

These are the things we need to ensure that PvP has repurcussions. It can't just be about shooter fans being able to destroy what they like and run off, chuckling. Continual unprovoked firing upon other ships, whether NPC or player, should result in hardship. Almost the entire core system should really be off limits to anybody who regularly fires on another vessel without legal authorisation; but, this should be enforced by gameplay mechanisms, not by blocking people from your server.

I think the reason everybody is getting upset is that we currently can't see any game system in place which stops the PvPers from just running riot through the game spoiling the quiet ambience for those who want it. But realistically there will have to be balance.

Because even for those of us (like me) largely uninterested in PvP I don't want to feel that my game is Nerfed, just so that I can have an illusion of success... but, I do need a way to see my own playstyle give me a chance at competing.

Elequontly written and full of interesting points. And I'm not just saying that because I'll be stuck in a 3 hour Skype call with you later.

But we both agree in principle: the answer is not to be found in fragmenting the player base. It needs to come from game mechanics that balance things while providing as much freedom as possible. Kind of like real life law making!

 

[Ende]

In real life, the Government have put in measures to prevent people from killing each other.

And yet murders still happen.


Will the measures reduce griefing to the point of being tolerable? Maybe to me, maybe not to others, who knows? But the only way of completely getting rid of griefing, however, is to remove negative interactions between players. Lo and behold, that's PvE.

So, u dont trust FD to control griefing.

So, by your own logic u totally dont believe or trust FD to deliver a good game at all... in which case, to put it harshly, go play something else.

Personally i trust FD to wrok hard at making this game work, and judging by the forums they can easily read everyone concerns. Therefore this issue of griefers/gankers/PKers is probably high on thier list.

I trust them (with our help in beta) to close all of the possible greifing loopholes.

 

[DigitalDuck]

So by your own logic u totally dont believe or trust FD to deliver a good game at all... in which case, to put it harshly, go play something else.

?

I... sorry, what?

What?

...

Nope, still don't understand.


How does one get from "griefing is impossible to completely remove" to "this game is crap"?

 

[JohnStabler]

Absolutely I do! :smilie: Because, as others above have pointed out, people WILL exploit the game systems whatever way they can simply to be as annoying as possible. It's a shame, but that's what people do in online games. PvE is a way of just saying "I want to play with people, but I can't be bothered with that".

Perhaps, psychologically, you are right that SOME do not want the "killed by a real person" thing, but even if that's true - does it matter? PvE is a widely accepted choice, whatever the reasons, isn't that okay?

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a preference. I just wish people would say that it's purely a preference and not pretend that their choice is somehow rational when arguing with people who disagree. It would shorten many debates.

I'd understand if it causes you to ignore my posts in the future But you'll soon notice a pattern to my dialog with people. I deconstruct people's arguments until all they have left is "because I want it that way".

And that's what interests me about many of these debates; much of the time people don't actually want to do anything but champion their own ideas with post-hoc rationalisation.

(I hope I don't get in to trouble for using latin again)