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

[DigitalDuck]

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? )

As I've already said in the thread, the "all" group isn't all at all anyway. It's "all who have elected to play in a public group and not enable permadeath".

I've already made the argument for calling neither of them "all".

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.

The idea is so odd it's... included in nearly every MMO.

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.

I don't understand this mentality. It's the same one as in the "Achievements" thread. No, having an option to not do something the hard way doesn't make doing it the hard way any less of an achievement. I could get to the top of Everest via helicopter (probably not actually, but roll with it) and that wouldn't make climbing it on foot any less of an achievement.

Achievements are what you make them. If you want to get your Elite status with no deaths, no criminal rating in your starter ship buying nothing except fuel while blindfolded, do it. It'd probably be a massive achievement. But I don't think people would just say, "But getting Elite status is easy!" because you haven't gotten Elite status, you've gotten Elite status with no deaths, no criminal rating in your starter ship buying nothing except fuel while blindfolded.

In the same way, the achievement getting to Elite status in a PvP universe isn't undermined by the possibility of getting to Elite status in a PvE universe. Because they're still two separate things, if you want them to be.

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.

As far as I know, that's exactly it.

 

[Allen Stroud]

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.

I think you'll struggle to find a game without any form of competition, but I would guess you mean competition against others? How do you measure your progress then? Through acquirement of things?

So that's what it's all about? Ego fuel?

Ah, you may have misunderstood me and I'm noting the polarisation and bit of hostility around here. Lets be plain. Basics first, I don't go into any discussion on the internet without accepting that someone may convince me my views are wrong. When I am persuaded against my opinion, I say so, very clearly.

Secondly, boiling down the argument against an 'everyone wins' scenario to being about 'ego fuel' is a bit of a misnomer. Personally, I like losing, I've had some of my best moments in games when I do and try to come to terms with re-planning with what I have left. Some of the most memorable game playing moments I've had were about survival, not winning.

Additionally, economic planning to allow everyone to win is not realistic. You end up with a smaller win and devaluation of the achievement. The ramifications for this are the devaluation of the environment as the items and trappings of achievement become more numerous. Competition and allowing methods for such trappings to be stolen or acquired by other nefarious means distracts people from acquiring them first up. Similarly, by making the initial acquisition competitive, you ensure less objects are required initially.

There are a lot of sociological theories that model both Conflict and Consensus as drivers in society. Not going to bore you with details on them, but ultimately if you insulate against certain types of risk (thereby making things less risky) and offer equal reward, you create a premise for devaluation.

Any alternative proposal. How about there is an all PVE group, but in that group the NPC risk level is increased, by say 50%?

 

[Ende]

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.

If this is your major concern about PvP being within ED then u truly r blinkered in how Pvp works in alot of games. It really lookslike u have a very narrow view on it, and consequently as much as we try to alleviate your concerns we wont be able to open your mind up.

As me, Kingston and to some degree Johnstabler have said, ur worrying unnecessarily about something u havent even tried yet. Just take our advice and lets see what beta delivers then lets have this discussion again... cos until then its completely pointless.

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.

If ur scared of griefing then it sounds to me like u dont like any form of online game. If u dont like online gaming then i think ED will disappoint u on many levels.

Basically its 100% impossible to setup a social online game where every player likes every other player. There are ALWAYS idiots u dont like, exactly the same as in real life. They will get dealt with exactly the same as they do in real life.

if u want to participate in the social aspect of the game then u must be prepared to play to the social aspects settings. Players with PvP set to off cannot exist in the same space as pvpers thats just stupid and unfair. Why should players with pvp set on be more at risk and get the same 'rewards' than those with it turned off in the same space?

Oh and another point... methinks ur mistaking pirates and bountyhunters with griefers. Dont forget FD have clearly stated it will be possible to play as a pirate... it just looks to me like if any other player kills u then they automatically get labelled a griefer.

 

[ianw]

@Allen Stroud

I'm a little confused as to how a no PVP flag equates to everybody wins?

If there is a PVE only option that just means they won't kill each other. They will still be killed by NPCs - and given this is a work in progress game we don't know yet how good or otherwise NPCs will be.

And that notwithstanding it seems unlikely that all the PVEers will be of the same standard so clearly they can't all be "winners" as some will obviously be much better than others - in their own arena.

Other than that I agree with your sentiments about competition - and they would in fact be competing with each other in their way.

And I look forward to meeting you and the others in the PVP verse sometime!

 

[Captain N]

Don't like someone ganking you repeatedly? Remove him from your group.

Some people forget it works on an individual basis, which makes it infinitely more elegant than some hamfisted invulnerability flag solution.

 

[kumoban]

Okay, let me weigh in here. I'm not going to reply to the ongoing discussion, but simply say as a long term EVE player that you will not get as much out of a PvE only server as you would from a PvP server.

If ED only had risk in the form of NPCs, players would eventually find the perfect strategy to deal with that risk, and as AI does not have the ability to adapt the way a Human does, the game would eventually be no challenge at all. Player gets bored, player quits.

The reason EVE has lasted for nearly ten years is that players create the content, there is always risk, there is always challenge, because other players change their strategies and adapt to your way of playing. True, it's harsh, unforgiving and often arbitrary, but it has excellent subscriber retention, because it never stops being a challenge.

If you elect to play on a PvE Server, you are only playing half a game, and are missing out on the full experience ED promises to deliver.

P.S.
I'm sorry, I lied, I will respond to the complaint of being griefed by being killed over and over again.

If you are repeatedly being killed by the same person over and over again, perhaps you need to change your behaviour? Adapt, like a human.

It's a moot point anyway, because doubtless, the consequences for blowing you up the first time should mean he's not able to do it again, because he's flagged as criminal and would *hopefully* being chased by the police. Unless you went into a lawless system, in which case, what did you expect?

 

[Tiwaz]

Don't like someone ganking you repeatedly? Remove him from your group.

Some people forget it works on an individual basis, which makes it infinitely more elegant than some hamfisted invulnerability flag solution.

Hamfisted idea making people quit game because they cannot be bothered to keep removing every single PvP player one by one.

Try to get in your heads that some people just do not want ANY PvP

They want cooperative game where players are at least neutral towards one another if not helpful.

 

[Captain N]

Okay but it seems to me a pve-only group has already been suggested many times and met with wide support and there doesn't appear to be any good arguments against it.

edit: also, perhaps there could be a setting to remove players automatically when they kill you so you don't have to do it manually. It might even be on by default: it would make things more realistic in a sense. If you killed someone in real life you wouldn't expect them to come back five minutes later screaming revenge now would you?

This would be kind of like a type of soft permadeath.

 

[Tiwaz]

If this is your major concern about PvP being within ED then u truly r blinkered in how Pvp works in alot of games. It really lookslike u have a very narrow view on it, and consequently as much as we try to alleviate your concerns we wont be able to open your mind up.

Try to finally open your mind and grasp that some people just do not want any PvP. Is that so hard concept?
I'll spell it out slowly for my case.
I
Do
NOT
Want
Any
Forced
PvP
Notice, ANY.

As me, Kingston and to some degree Johnstabler have said, ur worrying unnecessarily about something u havent even tried yet. Just take our advice and lets see what beta delivers then lets have this discussion again... cos until then its completely pointless.

Do you like being kicked in the head by Bruce Willis?
No?
Have you ever been kicked in the head by Bruce Willis?
So how can you say you would not like being kicked in the head by Bruce Willis?

Well, namely because anyone with half a brain grasps that it hurts and vast majority of people do not enjoy being hurt. Most likely not you either.
So why you insist assuming that we would suddenly become pro-PvP if we want no PvP?

If ur scared of griefing then it sounds to me like u dont like any form of online game. If u dont like online gaming then i think ED will disappoint u on many levels.

Basically its 100% impossible to setup a social online game where every player likes every other player. There are ALWAYS idiots u dont like, exactly the same as in real life. They will get dealt with exactly the same as they do in real life.

Have you actually played ANY MMO games? Because ats are not dealt with as in real life. Griefers grief and nobody does a thing about it.
That is why online games by and large have option to avoid PvP, making it a choice not forced attribute.

if u want to participate in the social aspect of the game then u must be prepared to play to the social aspects settings. Players with PvP set to off cannot exist in the same space as pvpers thats just stupid and unfair. Why should players with pvp set on be more at risk and get the same 'rewards' than those with it turned off in the same space?

They are not in same space! Why is this so difficult concept? There is already separatino of Ironman-mode players from non-Ironman players.
By your logic, everyone should be forced to play permanently in Ironman mode, because else "normal" players get unfair advantage.

Do you want permadeath game only, where you every single goddamn time you make mistake you have to start all over?

Oh and another point... methinks ur mistaking pirates and bountyhunters with griefers. Dont forget FD have clearly stated it will be possible to play as a pirate... it just looks to me like if any other player kills u then they automatically get labelled a griefer.

Another point, they can be griefers. Also...
Many people just do not want PvP game, this is desire that is respected in vast majority of online games by offering them option not to participate in it!

 

[Tiwaz]

Okay but it seems to me a pve-only group has already been suggested many times and met with wide support and there doesn't appear to be any good arguments against it.

That is what me and few others are trying to get through into some forced PvP fans who think that we just do not know what we want, trying to explain how PvP is what we really want when we have clearly stated we do not want any part in it, at least in forced form.

edit: also, perhaps there could be a setting to remove players automatically when they kill you so you don't have to do it manually. It might even be on by default: it would make things more realistic in a sense. If you killed someone in real life you wouldn't expect them to come back five minutes later screaming revenge now would you?

This would be kind of like a type of soft permadeath.

Would not really make any difference. You are still dead, whatever you were planning to do is ruined and you are not feeling happy.

Unhappy people leave games for games which make them happy. That means less customers to keep this game running.

 

[Ende]

I
Do
NOT
Want
Any
Forced
PvP
Notice, ANY.

And where have any of us told u that PvP will be forced?

We have only said if u dont wann aPvP then turn it off.

They are not in same space! Why is this so difficult concept? There is already separatino of Ironman-mode players from non-Ironman players.

EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE SAYING

So why r u even still talking on this thread?

If u dont wanna play PvP then turn it off and play with others who dont want PvP...

By your logic, everyone should be forced to play permanently in Ironman mode, because else "normal" players get unfair advantage.

What im saying is non-pvpers cannot exist in the same space as pvpers... and u have agreed with that above... so whats your problem?

If they exist in the same space then the non-pvpers have an advantage cos they cant be killed by other players. They have less risk to their game.

Do you want permadeath game only, where you every single goddamn time you make mistake you have to start all over?

have u even played Elite or Frontier?

Cos the whole point is your ship is disposable... when your ship is destroyed u shouldve earned enough cash to buy another one.

Its not like the old game where u die and have to reload a saved game. U dont lose EVERYTHING if u have played well and earned credits, which afterall is the entire point of the Elite universe. With this basic principle in mind im sure FD will deliver a 'death system' which works and therefore PvP isnt as punishing as some of u seem to think.

Another point, they can be griefers. Also...
Many people just do not want PvP game, this is desire that is respected in vast majority of online games by offering them option not to participate in it!

As i said above... set to non-pvp and play with all the other non-pvpers.... problem solved.

 

[Captain N]

That is what me and few others are trying to get through into some forced PvP fans who think that we just do not know what we want, trying to explain how PvP is what we really want when we have clearly stated we do not want any part in it, at least in forced form.

So what is your objection to an all pve group then? It seems that's precisely what you want and which is what you almost certainly will get.

Would not really make any difference. You are still dead, whatever you were planning to do is ruined and you are not feeling happy.

Unhappy people leave games for games which make them happy. That means less customers to keep this game running.

So uh, you believe NPC's can't kill you?

Okay you died. Somebody killed you, whether a player or an NPC. Maybe you miscalculated your docking approach.

Then you just can't respawn and go do what you wanted to do?

It's a game, no loss needs to be permanent unless you want it to be.

I am 100% positive that a game where nothing bad can ever happen to you will make much more people unhappy and more permanently so than the chance of sometimes getting killed would. The biggest sin a game can commit is to be boring. I believe most Elite fans are true hardcore gamers and would not be satisfied by a casual game where you can't lose.

 

[Allen Stroud]

This is what confused me. I thought the idea was some sort of invulnerable to PVP flag in the same group as the all group, which is a rubbish idea. As I said earlier, I don't like the idea of an All PVE group personally as its not my game, but if that's what others want... up to them.

 

[Mzr]

honestly there's no point talking to tiwaz at this stage, he wants some sort of game where there's zilch challenge and zero risk. Fortunately (I think) he's in the minority, at least going by the poll results here.


I do hope the PvE in this game is fun and entertaining. In eve it's commonly known as 'the grind', mind numbingly boring, tedious and consists of shooting at lots of red cross symbols on your overview.

 

[DigitalDuck]

If this is your major concern about PvP being within ED then u truly r blinkered in how Pvp works in alot of games. It really lookslike u have a very narrow view on it, and consequently as much as we try to alleviate your concerns we wont be able to open your mind up.

As me, Kingston and to some degree Johnstabler have said, ur worrying unnecessarily about something u havent even tried yet. Just take our advice and lets see what beta delivers then lets have this discussion again... cos until then its completely pointless.

The hypocrisy! IT BURNS!

As I have said SEVERAL TIMES now, I'm sure that the griefing will be at a tolerable level for me, and I'll probably be playing PvP.

However, I have played PvP in many other online games, and I can safely say the main problem I have with it is those who kill people for no reason whatsoever.

Should that become too much of a problem in ED, I'd like to continue playing in a public group, because that's where most of the uniqueness of the game comes from - it's like Elite, but multiplayer.

Why do you want to deny this?

If ur scared of griefing then it sounds to me like u dont like any form of online game. If u dont like online gaming then i think ED will disappoint u on many levels.

Erm...

Hmmmm.

I'm playing an online game right now.

Hmmmm.

if u want to participate in the social aspect of the game then u must be prepared to play to the social aspects settings. Players with PvP set to off cannot exist in the same space as pvpers thats just stupid and unfair. Why should players with pvp set on be more at risk and get the same 'rewards' than those with it turned off in the same space?

They shouldn't. We've been saying they should be two separate groups the whole time. For some reason you've gotten it into your head that people are asking for a "switch", and, as I've said SEVERAL TIMES, NOBODY wants that.

Oh and another point... methinks ur mistaking pirates and bountyhunters with griefers. Dont forget FD have clearly stated it will be possible to play as a pirate... it just looks to me like if any other player kills u then they automatically get labelled a griefer.

Sure. Except every time I've used the word "repeatedly". Look up the word repeatedly in a dictionary.

And where have any of us told u that PvP will be forced?

We have only said if u dont wann aPvP then turn it off.

Right now we don't have the option to turn it off.

At least, not without going into a private group.

EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE SAYING

So why r u even still talking on this thread?

If u dont wanna play PvP then turn it off and play with others who dont want PvP...

Because right now we don't have the option to turn it off.

At least, not without going into a private group.

What im saying is non-pvpers cannot exist in the same space as pvpers... and u have agreed with that above... so whats your problem?

If they exist in the same space then the non-pvpers have an advantage cos they cant be killed by other players. They have less risk to their game.

Right, and we've been saying the same thing all along.

But right now we don't have the option to turn it off.

At least, not without going into a private group.

As i said above... set to non-pvp and play with all the other non-pvpers.... problem solved.

But right now we don't have the option to turn it off.

At least, not without going into a private group.

Is this getting through to you yet?

 

[jabokai]

This is what confused me. I thought the idea was some sort of invulnerable to PVP flag in the same group as the all group, which is a rubbish idea. As I said earlier, I don't like the idea of an All PVE group personally as its not my game, but if that's what others want... up to them.

That's it a nutshell really... welcome to enlightenment!

Like you I'll be playing PvP but I am an advocate for having a proper PvE option in place for those that want it because I do know that many people simply prefer that (as I even have in certain games, at certain times).

It's not about judging whether their play style does not match yours, whether their goals or ideas of entertainment are the same, it's just about realising it IS a popular option and, hopefully, providing for it. The easiest AND best way is simply an addition to the Ironman and Normal groups - so you have a choice of 3 - Normal, IronMan, PvE. Nobody in Ironman or Normal (currently called "All players" but it's a dumb name!) will ever see each other and, likewise, with the PvE option.

I'd be cautious about splintering the playerbase too much, but I truly believe that at that high a level it will help the game to provide those options.

To the person that said you could simply remove a person from your group - the latest proposal doesn't work that way.

 

[Captain N]

To the person that said you could simply remove a person from your group - the latest proposal doesn't work that way.

I know the ignore list doesn't guarantee not meeting those players but it should eliminate the worst cases of repeated ganking.

 

[Tiwaz]

And where have any of us told u that PvP will be forced?

We have only said if u dont wann aPvP then turn it off.

By saying that there should not be PvE group like there is PvP group (AKA "All").

As it stands, there is no option to turn PvP off while not being forced into solo or private group.

As stated by DigitalDuck repeatedly to you.

I'll make it really clear...
We want PvE group which is just like "All"-group, except it does not come with PvP. Right now, there is not one.

 

[JohnStabler]

If we're going to start playing hardball epistemology then we should back up a bit.

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

There isn't one.

Sounds like you asserted a claim there, and you're also trying to shift the burden of proof on to me to prove you wrong. How about instead you demonstrate it is true?

That may be problematic because:

1. You don't seem to want to accept personal experience as evidence (or is it just mine?)
2. The very definition of griefing is subjective (one person's competitive play is another person's griefing) and therefore rooted in personal experience
3. General knowledge is a synonym for collective anecdote or personal experience.

Also, you make an absolute claim, which would be impossible to to prove unless you were going to try and make some kind of inductive argument. But wait...

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?

You don't trust inductuve arguments. Whoops!

I think the default sceptical position should be taken on the claim that all forced PvP servers have a massive griefer problem. In fact, if we're going to have a constructive debate about PvP I suggest we stick to facts and evidence rather than just throwing out blanket generalisations and bold assertions.

And given your comments on the levels of certainty required to convince you of counter-claims, I think we should leave it there.

 

[jabokai]

Ha ha, rather than engage in wordplay and post dissection, how about answering a simple question...

Do you actually object to there being an open, PvE only group?

It's that simple!