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

[JohnStabler]

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.

That doesn't follow.

 

[jabokai]

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.

In this game I'll be playing PvP Ironman (and then PvP Normal when I die)... I simply understand and accept the strong desire for PvE. So I'm not arguing from a personal point of view here at all.

 

[JohnStabler]

Here's my facetious post:

Given that PvE is a feature requested solely for subjective reasons. If we built up a list of all features with an equal (or larger) interest from the player base and gave it to FD, how should they choose which ones to include? They couldn't do them all surely?

I think they'd just go with whatever the designers wanted.

Oh wait...

 

[Bingo Brewster]

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.

Ok, I think I understand.

So this would like another "ALL" class but with no PvP.

I'm not sure I see the point of it, in what is basically still a combat game, but I see no harm in having that option available to people.

The more choice the better!

 

[Commander Thane]

In real life, the Government have put in measures to prevent people from killing each other. And yet murders still happen.

I think the huge distinction is that murder ends your game of life, while in Elite you just lose a bunch of stuff.

I, for one, am not going to be upset if my ship gets destroyed and I lose a shipment once, or twice. But I am going to be demotivated, however, if I am simply unable to complete a trade run between two systems without getting destroyed by another player simply because PvP piracy is allowed to run riot. That's the point at which a pilot decides to get a desk job, which in ED terms means logging off and playing something else. If players pack up and leave, we all lose.

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.

But we also have to draw a distinction between griefing and playing well. I once got called a hacker for scoring a 25:1 kill-to-death ratio in Counter-Strike. In truth, I was just having one of those "zone" moments. A player who is a successful pirate is not a griefer.

To translate it other games which are actually out and are a frame of reference: killing someone in an FPS is not griefing. Camping their spawn point and spamming it with grenades so that they cannot even rejoin the fight, is.

A group of us tried to play AVP2 online once. Our favourite game mode was "Hunt", whereby there is (I think) one Predator/Alien for every eight humans and only the Hunter scores. Whoever kills the hunter, takes their place and has a chance to score. We were driven away by online players not intelligent enough to understand the play mode. There was one guy who ran around killing all the other humans, boasting over voice comms about how he was pwning everybody. He failed to notice that his score was -45. He didn't win. But then, we didn't win either. Our game experience was ruined as well and we all stopped playing.

 

[Ende]

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

Johnstabler made the point that FD will do what they can to control and stop griefing.

U made the point that u dont trust FD to be able to do that.

I made the point that if u dont trust FD to stop griefing then how can u trust FD to deliver a good game at all.

understand now?

 

[jabokai]

Here's my facetious post:

Given that PvE is a feature requested solely for subjective reasons. If we built up a list of all features with an equal (or larger) interest from the player base and gave it to FD, how should they choose which ones to include? They couldn't do them all surely?

I think they'd just go with whatever the designers wanted.

Oh wait...

Your point, that they couldn't (and shouldn't) include every minute personal preference is well made.

While ED is a new game, it shares a lot in common with many existing games and PvP/PvE as a choice is an accepted (and even EXPECTED) fundamental feature... go look at the populations of the various servers in games where they are separated that way (and not with in game toggles). Be silly not to provide for such a large market when it has no impact (bar a few less people) for the PvPers.

If you're saying FD should do what FD want (and they will anyway) then why are you here commenting? Why not just wait until it gets released? I guess these topics and the level of support (or lack thereof) has no effect on them... like the DDF discussions not resulting in revised proposals... oh wait.

 

[Ende]

In this game I'll be playing PvP Ironman (and then PvP Normal when I die)... I simply understand and accept the strong desire for PvE. So I'm not arguing from a personal point of view here at all.

And im going to play EVERYTHING.. i still dont like this misnoma of PvP and PvE, to me its all about the game and we shouldnt be trying to divide the community with such discussions. I see ALL of it simply as content. As long as we have a multiplayer universe themed around the Elite universe we all grew up with then im happy

 

[jabokai]

And im going to play EVERYTHING.. i still dont like this misnoma of PvP and PvE, to me its all about the game and we shouldnt be trying to divide the community with such discussions.

By keeping those camps together you're denying a large group of people their desire to play something slightly different from what you want to play. If you're happy with denying them that, it's fine. :smilie:

 

[JohnStabler]

Your point, that they couldn't (and shouldn't) include every minute personal preference is well made.

While ED is a new game, it shares a lot in common with many existing games and PvP/PvE as a choice is an accepted (and even EXPECTED) fundamental feature... go look at the populations of the various servers in games where they are separated that way (and not with in game toggles). Be silly not to provide for such a large market when it has no impact (bar a few less people) for the PvPers.

If you're saying FD should do what FD want (and they will anyway) then why are you here commenting? Why not just wait until it gets released? I guess these topics and the level of support (or lack thereof) has no effect on them... like the DDF discussions not resulting in revised proposals... oh wait.

Well, I didn't say every minute preference, I tried to qualify it.

Why am I commenting? As I said, I'm interested in people's reasons.

 

[DigitalDuck]

Johnstabler made the point that FD will do what they can to control and stop griefing.

U made the point that u dont trust FD to be able to do that.

I made the point that if u dont trust FD to stop griefing then how can u trust FD to deliver a good game at all.

understand now?

Not at all.

I don't trust FD to completely stop griefing (in PvP) because that's impossible.

I trust FD to deliver a good game because that's not impossible.

I trust FD will do enough to stop griefing to make it palatable for most, myself included, but feel that adding a PvE option can only be beneficial.

And im going to play EVERYTHING.. i still dont like this misnoma of PvP and PvE, to me its all about the game and we shouldnt be trying to divide the community with such discussions. I see ALL of it simply as content. As long as we have a multiplayer universe themed around the Elite universe we all grew up with then im happy

That settles it then. PvP off for everyone!

 

[Ende]

By keeping those camps together you're denying a large group of people their desire to play something slightly different from what you want to play. If you're happy with denying them that, it's fine. :smilie:

How am i denying anyone else?

I have no problem with having options in the game, im just saying that whatever those options are im gonna play the game so everything is open to its fullest. I want to play and experience all of it, no restrictions.

If people want to close off sections of the game then thats up to them...
let FD install options so they can do that.

 

[JohnStabler]

By keeping those camps together you're denying a large group of people their desire to play something slightly different from what you want to play. If you're happy with denying them that, it's fine. :smilie:

Perhaps that's a bit zero-sum.

There may be drawbacks to effectively splitting the player base. I'm still concerned that PvP is being treated as all there would be to the game, rather than just a component. I think holdmykidney's first post hit on this.

 

[DigitalDuck]

I have no problem with having options in the game, im just saying that whatever those options are im gonna play the game so everything is open to its fullest. I want to play and experience all of it, no restrictions.

As does everyone else. The problem is, what you perceive as "the fullest" isn't what I perceive as "the fullest".

If I can't get from A to B because Gary the Griefer decides he's just going to spend his time annoying me as much as possible, I'm not experiencing the game to its fullest. I'm not experiencing it at all.

Telling me, "TOUGH! PLAY SOLO!" is unhelpful, because it means I now have to miss out on all the social aspects of the game. But I want to play and experience all of it.

 

[DigitalDuck]

There may be drawbacks to effectively splitting the player base. I'm still concerned that PvP is being treated as all there would be to the game, rather than just a component. I think holdmykidney's first post hit on this.

For what it's worth, I'd personally open it up to a lot more than PvP-on/off - but this is a major component of the game, for one reason only:

- No matter how much Gary the Griefer trades, he has very little effect on me.
- No matter how much Gary the Griefer smuggles, he has very little effect on me.
- No matter how much Gary the Griefer works as a taxi driver, he has very little effect on me.
- No matter how much Gary the Griefer explores, he has very little effect on me.
- No matter how much Gary the Griefer mines, he has very little effect on me.

- When Gary the Griefer kills me, it has a massive effect on me.

This is why PvP is singled out above all else - it gives other players the chance to ruin your game.

And before I get the rant again, yes, I'm sure this problem will be reduced a lot, but it'll always still exist until it's impossible for Gary the Griefer to kill me. And the way to make it impossible for Gary the Griefer to kill me that retains as much of every other aspect of the game as possible is a public PvE-only group.

 

[jabokai]

Perhaps that's a bit zero-sum.

There may be drawbacks to effectively splitting the player base. I'm still concerned that PvP is being treated as all there would be to the game, rather than just a component. I think holdmykidney's first post hit on this.

What drawbacks? Less people in each group is the only one I can think of, BUT they're people who don't want to play together anyway! PvPers don't want to be stopped by a "you can't touch this" flag and PvEers don't want to be killed by other players (whether it's griefing/ganking or because psychologically they don't like it).

I don't know, it just seems a no-brainer to me!

 

[Tiwaz]

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.

You are confusing everything about system. How is having PvE people kept in separate universe in any way affecting free will of PvP universe players?
THAT is what is being talked about. You will never see or hear PvE players in PvP universe and vice versa. Same tech as there is with Normal and Ironman modes. Ironmen are not visible for normals and Ironmen cannot see normals.

You want PvP "free will" to mean that they can enforce their will upon PvE, thus denying PvE people their free will to be free of griefing, which is something they are entitled to as much as PvP people are entitled to being able to shoot one another,.

 

[Tiwaz]

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?

Simple fact that in combat you destroy something someone else has.
By mining or trading you cannot destroy property of someone else.
There is always going to be something to mine or trade.

By shooting up a ship you destroy it, as well as disrupt whatever guy whom you shot was planning to do with his gametime.

How can you do the same thing by mining?

As for other groups. If you are against PvE group, then unless you are irrational and arbitrary you must be against ALL different groups. By that logic, everyone must be in same universe with no rules at all, because splitting players to different universes in your view is "irrational" and "arbitrary".

 

[Tiwaz]

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.

In case you have still not figured it out, commercially building game YOU are suggesting is economical suicide.

EVE is exactly what you want, it is miniscule game by any standards, made even smaller by fact that they are only representative of certain style of game in the market! Still they fail to get more than 500 000 subscriptions and barely 60k people online at peak hours.

That is not success, barely living game which has failed. They stay alive, but that's it.

 

[JohnStabler]

For what it's worth, I'd personally open it up to a lot more than PvP-on/off - but this is a major component of the game, for one reason only:

- No matter how much Gary the Griefer trades, he has very little effect on me.
- No matter how much Gary the Griefer smuggles, he has very little effect on me.
- No matter how much Gary the Griefer works as a taxi driver, he has very little effect on me.
- No matter how much Gary the Griefer explores, he has very little effect on me.
- No matter how much Gary the Griefer mines, he has very little effect on me.

- When Gary the Griefer kills me, it has a massive effect on me.

This is why PvP is singled out above all else - it gives other players the chance to ruin your game.

And before I get the rant again, yes, I'm sure this problem will be reduced a lot, but it'll always still exist until it's impossible for Gary the Griefer to kill me. And the way to make it impossible for Gary the Griefer to kill me that retains as much of every other aspect of the game as possible is a public PvE-only group.

I'm not sure I could make bold statements about what mechanics could and couldn't be used for griefing and how much grief is possible based purely on incredulity.

I could think up several scenarios where players use certain mechanics to effect other players' well-being in a very serious way. But I'd like to stick with the facts where possible. And there are no facts to say that PvP will *necessarily* entail a such a high degree of griefing.