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

[Minti2]

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

A week eh?! am gonna grief your hide so hard, it will be hours not days!

Wow, been out all day, and this thread at least four pages longer then from this morning, agree with you Mr P, had my say and staying out of it now, it will be what it will be, and i hope everyone gets the game play they want.

 

[JohnStabler]

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!

OK, I'll explain it a bit more.

The proposition assumes that all players are either haters of PvP or lovers of PvP. Whereas I believe that it is a little complicated than that and that the majority of players sit somewhere in the middle (think of it as a bell-curve).

By forcing players to choose what is basically a fundamentalist play style not only do some players miss out on a certain experience, but the community may suffer from a lack of personalities and play styles.

I'm not saying that's a killer argument against the proposal. But it shows that it's not a simple "everybody's happy" situation.

 

[JohnStabler]

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,.

Yes I stand corrected. I posted this before I understood the exact nature of the proposal.

 

[Tiwaz]

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.

Name forced PvP game/server which does not have massive griefer population.

There isn't one.
As long as PvP is considered "legal" in any given environment, it is easily abused.
If you are denied ability to shoot others to pieces, toolkit of ruining fun for others becomes massively smaller. Amount of effort you would have to put into crashing certain trade route for example is so staggering, that griefer could not concentrate on anything but that. And victims could turn towards other trade routes which just got more lucrative by comparison.

You just can't effectively grief if you cannot shoot someone to bits. That is why griefers in PvE environments are practically nonexistent. Only ways to grief are simply too much work for them to bother.

 

[DigitalDuck]

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.

I'd like to see those scenarios... outside of player communications (which can be muted) I can't think of any plausibly effective methods.

And I'm not suggesting that it will necessarily entail such a high degree of griefing. In fact, I'd like to believe it won't be at all significant. But there's plenty of precedent for it in other games, and it's very plausible in this one. So it makes sense to have a backup.

The proposition assumes that all players are either haters of PvP or lovers of PvP. Whereas I believe that it is a little complicated than that and that the majority of players sit somewhere in the middle (think of it as a bell-curve).

By forcing players to choose what is basically a fundamentalist play style not only do some players miss out on a certain experience, but the community may suffer from a lack of personalities and play styles.

I'm not saying that's a killer argument against the proposal. But it shows that it's not a simple "everybody's happy" situation.

I'm not sure I understand this...

Without the option of disabling PvP, you're still forcing players to choose a fundamentalist play style.

You just only have a choice of one fundamentalist play style instead of two.

 

[Tiwaz]

OK, I'll explain it a bit more.

The proposition assumes that all players are either haters of PvP or lovers of PvP. Whereas I believe that it is a little complicated than that and that the majority of players sit somewhere in the middle (think of it as a bell-curve).

By forcing players to choose what is basically a fundamentalist play style not only do some players miss out on a certain experience, but the community may suffer from a lack of personalities and play styles.

I'm not saying that's a killer argument against the proposal. But it shows that it's not a simple "everybody's happy" situation.

Problem here is, that by trying to offer PvP environment where you would suffle the PvE players, you just push them away. They go for solo play or limited groups.

Problem with that is, as noted before, that social aspect suffers. Building friend group with all PvE minded people is just not practical.

So they will play game solo or in little group. Odds are that interest in game does not hold. They quit the game.

Result is that money is lost, which leads to less money to maintain servers etc etc... Thus, at best static situation or more likely slow stagnation, which starts to speed up eventually.

One way to solve issue would be to copy SWG. To switch between PvP and PvE, you have to go to certain station to speak with some kind of person who will switch your tag if you have no outstanding bounty. (basically change group, which could be done in login as well)

Ta da! We cannot escape justice but can choose whatever style fits us that current day.

 

[JohnStabler]

Name forced PvP game/server which does not have massive griefer population.

There isn't one.
As long as PvP is considered "legal" in any given environment, it is easily abused.
If you are denied ability to shoot others to pieces, toolkit of ruining fun for others becomes massively smaller. Amount of effort you would have to put into crashing certain trade route for example is so staggering, that griefer could not concentrate on anything but that. And victims could turn towards other trade routes which just got more lucrative by comparison.

You just can't effectively grief if you cannot shoot someone to bits. That is why griefers in PvE environments are practically nonexistent. Only ways to grief are simply too much work for them to bother.

Shattered Halls EU. I played on there for years and griefing was practically non-existent.

I guess that renders the theory that all PvP servers are griefer havens dispoved.

 

[Tiwaz]

Shattered Halls EU. I played on there for years and griefing was practically non-existent.

I guess that renders the theory that all PvP servers are griefer havens dispoved.

Personal experience can be different depending on what side of the fence you were. Griefing may not have been an issue for you, but I doubt that all players would agree.

 

[JohnStabler]

Personal experience can be different depending on what side of the fence you were. Griefing may not have been an issue for you, but I doubt that all players would agree.

You're joking right? Heads you win tails I lose?

I guess my next question would be on what non-personal experience do you base your claim that griefing exists on all PvP servers?

 

[Allen Stroud]

Another view.

I don't want to be a hero, unless there are people lurking around the corner wanting to take me down.

I don't want to acquire wealth, unless others can find ways to take it from me.

Not everyone can win. Its a good life lesson to teach children. Many are insulated against it and then don't understand consequences or values. Games are often used to teach these lessons.

Back to the point.

The grouping system already accommodates certain preferences which when you think about them, encourage very aggressive players to try and disappear on the Frontier. This makes it risky territory as it should be.

If you want to avoid the chance of that kind of encounter, stay in the core systems.

ED unlike other MMO games offered as a comparison has a NPC premise at its heart, namely the Empire/Federation/Alliance stand off. Players will have an effect on this, but I doubt very much (I know nothing more than anyone else) they will bring down these Factions.

Risk and reward is at the heart of all of the versions of Elite I have ever played. Insulation against risk should bring insulation against reward. If you die, so what? Be gutted for a minute or two then go start another game. Remember the beans you count are still virtual beans, the world moves on.

The trick to make starting again attractive, may be we need privileged information based on the initial directions people take? Maybe the Faction or Corporation you sign with gives you a special bit of 'knowledge' and that makes the game death a bit more palatable.

But insulating against the experience? Not worth it in my view. I think the proposals as they stand are good and accommodate enough styles of play.

 

[Tiwaz]

You're joking right? Heads you win tails I lose?

I guess my next question would be on what non-personal experience do you base your claim that griefing exists on all PvP servers?

General knowledge.
However, you fail to grasp something relevant...

If someone experiences griefing on PvP server, then it is present.
If someone does not experience griefing on PvP server, then it does not mean it does not exist.

Same logic as asking if someone there is snow on Earth based on personal experience. Does someone living in the middle of Amazon not having experience of it mean there isn't any?

But even if one server is griefer free, trend tends to be opposite. I do not like to assume that things work perfectly, because they never do.

 

[Tiwaz]

Another view.

I don't want to be a hero, unless there are people lurking around the corner wanting to take me down.

I don't want to acquire wealth, unless others can find ways to take it from me.

Not everyone can win. Its a good life lesson to teach children. Many are insulated against it and then don't understand consequences or values. Games are often used to teach these lessons.

Back to the point.

The grouping system already accommodates certain preferences which when you think about them, encourage very aggressive players to try and disappear on the Frontier. This makes it risky territory as it should be.

If you want to avoid the chance of that kind of encounter, stay in the core systems.

ED unlike other MMO games offered as a comparison has a NPC premise at its heart, namely the Empire/Federation/Alliance stand off. Players will have an effect on this, but I doubt very much (I know nothing more than anyone else) they will bring down these Factions.

Risk and reward is at the heart of all of the versions of Elite I have ever played. Insulation against risk should bring insulation against reward. If you die, so what? Be gutted for a minute or two then go start another game. Remember the beans you count are still virtual beans, the world moves on.

The trick to make starting again attractive, may be we need privileged information based on the initial directions people take? Maybe the Faction or Corporation you sign with gives you a special bit of 'knowledge' and that makes the game death a bit more palatable.

But insulating against the experience? Not worth it in my view. I think the proposals as they stand are good and accommodate enough styles of play.

So why risk only means PvP? Are you assuming that NPC ships are not going to be in the game? They are, and depending on place they will be more or less dangerous.

Thus risk vs reward exists.

You still have not presented rational and good reason why people should not be granted possibility of opting out of PvP completely.

I'll give you another view to "oh it is just 2 minutes lost". I'm dad of 2 little girls, work long hours. My gametime is precious little, so when I play I want to have FUN! For some reason having some at drop by and blast my ship when I wanted to have little trade run during my short freetime is not fun.

I do not play games I do not find fun, I do not pay for expansions for games I do not play. And there are a lot of people like me out there.

Give me one good reason why I should play this game how YOU want to play it instead of how I want to play it.

 

[DigitalDuck]

Risk and reward is at the heart of all of the versions of Elite I have ever played. Insulation against risk should bring insulation against reward. If you die, so what? Be gutted for a minute or two then go start another game. Remember the beans you count are still virtual beans, the world moves on.

I hope someone takes their time to repeatedly kill you over and over again.

Because apparently you're fine with that, and it means he's off my back.

 

[Allen Stroud]

So why risk only means PvP? Are you assuming that NPC ships are not going to be in the game? They are, and depending on place they will be more or less dangerous.

Thus risk vs reward exists.

I'll call strawman here. Never played a game where the NPC was comparable to a player in their tenacious and variety of tactics. I don't believe I said 'no risk' in my post at all.

You still have not presented rational and good reason why people should not be granted possibility of opting out of PvP completely.

Because competition is healthy. I call PVP two people trying to complete the same mission or two people trying to win the Wiccan Ware race. Do I want everyone to win? No. Similar to building an economy on everyone profiting, letting everyone win devalues the achievement.

A second point. Encountering players who are in available to be seen but under a 'no pvp' limit removes all tension from the encounter. Allow it and everyone will use it most of the time. So pretty much all of your encounters will be a second of 'ooh he might' followed by a tedious five minutes of mass lock with nothing happening and no possibility of it happening.

You may have missed the point I made about 'Frontiering' pvp players and how the system naturally encourages this. I think this along with the NPC police (who incidentally we have no idea of the abilities of before we start a panic about being attacked) is perfectly adequate.

I'll give you another view to "oh it is just 2 minutes lost". I'm dad of 2 little girls, work long hours. My gametime is precious little, so when I play I want to have FUN! For some reason having some at drop by and blast my ship when I wanted to have little trade run during my short freetime is not fun.

Different strokes. For me, that would be an exhilarating chase far outstripping anything I'd gain from the trade as I tried to work out if I could take him out or needed to run.

You though about a sticker in your window? Kids onboard?

I do not play games I do not find fun, I do not pay for expansions for games I do not play. And there are a lot of people like me out there.

Same argument for us all on that. If you note the reason above you'll see why allowing what you've suggested ruins the game for others.

I hope someone takes their time to repeatedly kill you over and over again.

Because apparently you're fine with that, and it means he's off my back.

Yep, I am. I'll refrain from wishing a pox on your house in return though...

 

[DigitalDuck]

A second point. Encountering players who are in available to be seen but under a 'no pvp' limit removes all tension from the encounter. Allow it and everyone will use it most of the time. So pretty much all of your encounters will be a second of 'ooh he might' followed by a tedious five minutes of mass lock with nothing happening and no possibility of it happening.

Same argument for us all on that. If you note the reason above you'll see why allowing what you've suggested ruins the game for others.

Er... no.

The proposal is PvP and PvE players in two separate groups. You'll never see a PvE player if you're in the PvP group.

So it doesn't affect your game at all.

 

[Allen Stroud]

Oh so you want a separate 'all group'? which actually will mean two 'all groups' which aren't all at all. (see what I did there? )

You have confused me. A different group where you can see everyone but can't shoot at them, only hurl some harsh or loving language?

I think I possibly confused your point because the idea is quite odd. Wouldn't establishing a peaceable region with others to ensure no attacks not be an achievement? If so, that achievement would be undermined by producing an option to play the game with players in the 'all pve' group without attacks .

Back to the Hero and Assassins point then and the panic prior to any indication of the NPC asset support, plus the options available to get away. Earlier points about risk are still valid as well.

No Enterprise verses Reliant in your version then?

Ah well, I guess your right, wouldn't undermine my game provided the people in that group couldn't compete with me over anything more than the way in which solo play worked. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair. I go do a mission and fail because someone in the 'other group' got their quicker owing to a lack of players in their way.

 

[Wolframium]

Because competition is healthy.

I repeat: not everyone wants competition in a video game. I for one do not. For me, the place for competition is real life. A game for me are just a pastime, a leisure activity, a source of mellow entertainment, and since my opinion and money are worth just as much as yours, I don't see why your desired gaming experience should be forced upon me.

letting everyone win devalues the achievement.

So that's what it's all about? Ego fuel? I remember a girl in school who was disappointed to see how mobile phones were becoming so widespread because "I used to be the only one in my class with a mobile" and now she was no longer the coolest kid on the block. In hindsight, I can understand that kind of thinking from a fourteen year old girl, but can we as adults concentrate more on the objective value of things instead of constantly look left and right to see who has it bigger? I don't think I would find a Lamborghini any less appealing even if all my friends had one, nor would I be any less appreciative of the company of a beautiful lady if all the men around me had a lingerie model by their side, but hey, who knows, maybe I'm the strange one. Besides, if achievement is all you care about, have it. Make a separate ranking system for the cool PvP kids, throw in a bunch of badges and medals, maybe set up a "wings system" like in motorcycle gangs. That way you'll still get to stand out from the crowd and all other like-minded players will stare in awe at your collection of trophies and salute you. Everyone goes home happy. Except perhaps that guy whose ship you had to obliterate so you could earn that new super cool medal, but hey, he chose to play in PvP mode, no one forced him. Unless of course someone did...

 

[Zagdul]

I repeat: not everyone wants competition in a video game. I for one do not. For me, the place for competition is real life. A game for me are just a pastime, a leisure activity, a source of mellow entertainment, and since my opinion and money are worth just as much as yours, I don't see why your desired gaming experience should be forced upon me.


So that's what it's all about? Ego fuel? I remember a girl in school who was disappointed to see how mobile phones were becoming so widespread because "I used to be the only one in my class with a mobile" and now she was no longer the coolest kid on the block. In hindsight, I can understand that kind of thinking from a fourteen year old girl, but can we as adults concentrate more on the objective value of things instead of constantly look left and right to see who has it bigger? I don't think I would find a Lamborghini any less appealing even if all my friends had one, nor would I be any less appreciative of the company of a beautiful lady if all the men around me had a lingerie model by their side, but hey, who knows, maybe I'm the strange one. Besides, if achievement is all you care about, have it. Make a separate ranking system for the cool PvP kids, throw in a bunch of badges and medals, maybe set up a "wings system" like in motorcycle gangs. That way you'll still get to stand out from the crowd and all other like-minded players will stare in awe at your collection of trophies and salute you. Everyone goes home happy. Except perhaps that guy whose ship you had to obliterate so you could earn that new super cool medal, but hey, he chose to play in PvP mode, no one forced him. Unless of course someone did...

You sound like someone who's far too sensitive to be on the internet at all.

 

[Tiwaz]

Oh so you want a separate 'all group'? which actually will mean two 'all groups' which aren't all at all. (see what I did there? )

You have confused me. A different group where you can see everyone but can't shoot at them, only hurl some harsh or loving language?

Why pro-PvP folk just do not bother to figure out how the system works.
It would be two groups which cannot see one another ever.
In case you have not read, it already exists. Only people who put on Ironman-mode can see other people with same mode. And they cannot see anyone BUT people who opted to play in Ironman-mode

 

[Tiwaz]

I'll call strawman here. Never played a game where the NPC was comparable to a player in their tenacious and variety of tactics. I don't believe I said 'no risk' in my post at all.

You implied it though.
Risk is there.

Because competition is healthy. I call PVP two people trying to complete the same mission or two people trying to win the Wiccan Ware race. Do I want everyone to win? No. Similar to building an economy on everyone profiting, letting everyone win devalues the achievement.

Cooperation is healthy, that is what made humans kings of this planet. Our ancestors only managed to survive because they worked together.

You may have missed the point I made about 'Frontiering' pvp players and how the system naturally encourages this. I think this along with the NPC police (who incidentally we have no idea of the abilities of before we start a panic about being attacked) is perfectly adequate.

Only adequate protection would be that they teleport in after first shot and instakilled offender. And that requires offender to be unable to one-shot me.

Different strokes. For me, that would be an exhilarating chase far outstripping anything I'd gain from the trade as I tried to work out if I could take him out or needed to run.

You are still thinking about the event. I am seeing result, you failed. You are now dead, it was all in vain.
And same on next run.
And the next one.
And the next one.

Is concept of griefing and ganking starting to sink in? It is not about "can I take him or do I have to run" but instead "oh great I am dead... AGAIN!".

Same argument for us all on that. If you note the reason above you'll see why allowing what you've suggested ruins the game for others.

Again, different groups means different universes.