[POLL] PvE, PvP, PvAll - What is the playstyle you want in ED?
- Thread starter Fromhell
- Start date
- Status
Well according to the new ranking system - yes they would. In red below - you might not like it but them's the new proposed rankings..
An enduring and somewhat defining feature of the Elite series is the pilot combat rating. With Elite: Dangerous, we want to investigate ways to improve this from the simple kill count it used to be.
Importantly, we want to add meaning beyond simple bragging rights to commander ratings and access to the odd mission; we think that interesting consequences to commander actions – codified by reputations and ratings – will help the galaxy feel more dynamic, consistent and exciting.
To that end, here is our current line of thinking:
Current Plan
Reputation Rules
- Reputations are numerical values representing the consequences of particular styles of play
- Reputations can go up and down, based on commander actions
- Reputations have a high watermark value, used to gate themed event content
- Reputation levels can add themed elements to mission/event generation
- Reputation levels can affect NPC response to commanders
- Commanders can suffix their name with an entry based on current reputation levels
- Each reputation has a number of suffixes unlocked at certain thresholds, e.g. “the silent connection” for a smuggler, or a military rank for mercenary work)
- A commander’s suffix can be changed at any time from available suffixes
- Suffixes become unavailable if the associated reputation drops below the threshold for them
- Reputations are hidden from the player except for name suffixes
Trade
- Increased by: selling cargo at a profit
- Decreased by: losing cargo (lost in space or sold at loss)
- Increased by: selling illegal cargo
- Decreased by: being detected by authorities whilst carrying illegal cargo
- Increased by: selling cargo obtained through a declaration of piracy (an explicit player option)
- Decreased by: destroying ships which piracy has been declared against
- Increased by: successfully completing missions for factional navies
- Decreased by: failing to complete missions for factional navies
- Increased by: killing ships that have a bounty
- Decreased by: attacking but not killing ships that have a bounty
- Increased by: successfully completing assassination missions
- Decreased by: failing to complete assassination missions
- Increased by: selling data (new systems, routes, resources, events)
- Decreased by: losing data before selling it
- Increased by: performing data acquisition missions
- Decreased by: failing data acquisition missions
- Increased by: selling resources mined/refined from space
- Decreased by: losing resources mined/refined from space
- Increased by: successfully completing missions and events that increase factional meta-game status
- Decreased by: successfully completing missions and events that decrease factional meta-game status
- Increased by: committing crimes
- Decreased by: voluntarily paying fines, successfully completing atonement missions and events
- Increased by: successfully performing humanitarian missions and events
- Decreased by: successfully performing opportunistic missions and events
- Elite is no longer a combat rating – it is literally access to the mysterious organisation bearing the same name
- Being a member of the Elite federation confers many privileges, but access to the organisation is extremely difficult: one must show extraordinary promise in one or more areas to be deemed a potential candidate:
- Wealth: profit over accumulated net worth (though both values are taken into account)
- Combat: effectiveness over number of kills (via player rating/ship rating formulas)
- Knowledge: acquisition of data from sources
- Influence: high faction/criminal/humanity relationships
- All the above areas are represented internally by values
- They are visible to the player as human legible ratings, much like an expanded version of the previous games’ combat ratings
- These values can be made public or hidden
- Hidden ratings can still be scanned with the correct ship component
- These values never decrease
- At specific value thresholds, elite missions/events become available to the event generator
- Successful resolution of elite missions/events will increase a hidden elite value
- In general, elite missions/events are not necessarily tied to any particular area; they are more intended to test the player in all aspects of game play
- Elite missions/events are more likely to be generated the more areas (wealth, combat etc.) are above the required thresholds
- When the elite value is high enough a commander is invited to join the Elite Federation
Issues
As you can see, this is quite a departure from previous games and there’s quite a lot to think about. Importantly, does this new take ring true, or are we throwing away the baby with the bathwater?
Perhaps you think it’s too complicated? If so, can you think of ways to simplify it whilst retaining its function?
Do you think that any/all of the reputations are unnecessary, and/or are we missing potential game play options out? Are there additional/better methods of quantifying progress up or down a particular reputation?
Have you spotted our declaration of piracy? This is basically a way to tell the game (and the victim) that a “hold up” is in progress. We think it helps quantify “honourable piracy” and increases the chance of variety during piracy, but perhaps we’re being too prescriptive or we’re just getting it wrong?
We are also investigating “streak” bonuses to reputation. For example, a trader that makes a bigger profit with each consecutive sale, or the mercenary that completes multiple navy missions consecutively without failing. Do you think this idea has mileage? How would a streak bonus end for each reputation?
A creaking, splintering in my bones tells me that this topic might end up being a mammoth, as well as very controversial. I think here in the team we’re also less sure of where we stand in this area, which will make the process more intensive for us anyway. So if this topic turns out to be the ultra-beast, I will let it run for longer, delaying any additional topics until we get someplace happy.
Some useful headings for replies:
Reputation Types
Reputation Actions
Ratings
Data Visibility
Streak Bonuses
Declaration of Piracy
Alternate Suggestions
But is the ranking system the same for each portion of the game?
Elite zero?
I guess npc functionality could be anywhere from roughly equivalent to the abilities of a one legged man in an a r s e kicking contest to utterly invincible (even if only by numerical superiority)...
Last edited:
Not sure, I think so but maybe someone else can confirm?
Well, if they deserved it in any of the previous Elite games, where they can't fight another player, and they deserve it in Elite Dangerous' "Solo" mode, where they can't fight another player, I don't see why they shouldn't deserve it in "PvE" mode, where they can't fight another player.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
and
I guess npc functionality could be anywhere from roughly equivalent to the abilities of a one legged man in an a r s e kicking contest to utterly invincible (even if only by numerical superiority)...
Just because PvE players don't want non-consensual PvP does not mean that they necessarily want the game to be easy. A griefer may (rather irrationally) select a victim to pursue / bully at any cost to himself. NPCs should target a player because of an outstanding bounty - this is perfectly justifiable.
.... and yes, whether by setting AI difficulty to 11 or simply, as you said ianw, by the sheer weight of numbers, NPCs should be able to prevail when required.
I fully expect any Federal GalCops to be extremely difficult for any player to shake.
Yes - as long as the AI difficulty is carefully tuned to provide credible opponents - which I fully expect it to be.
It's all well and good in a single player game, but in a multi-player game you can't expect to be classed so highly if you can't actually kill anyone, because you wouldn't be Dangerous or Deadly, you'd be Harmless.
I'd be interested to know if the ranks differ for each aspect of the game all culminating in an Elite level though, i think that'd make more sense.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That depends rather a lot on the capability of the AI in the game, doesn't it?
.... or are you assuming that simply by being human makes player more capable?
But you can kill others - not all ships are player-controlled...
AI can be duped and is less adaptable; it always follows patterns of behaviour, so you always know what to expect. The only real way to make AI dangerous is to make it grossly over-powered compared to the player, whereas a player in similarly powerful ship could always be a danger to you simply because you don't know how they're going to behave.
Last edited:
Depends on the player... a lot of players are just not great at games and provide regular, easy cannon fodder!
That aside, are you suggesting that the combat rating should be entirely tied to player/player kills? Wouldn't that simply encourage random PvP, rather than "considered" PvP? If people are looking to advance their combat rating and know only players count (or even if they're simply worth MORE than an NPC) then you're forcing the focus of player/player encounters towards combat all the time.
Haha, true enough, but they have the capacity to learn and adapt. It has always been the way in games (and always will be) that if you are not very good at it you're not going to get anywhere unless you get better at it, this is not a reason for game play to be watered down.
In other space games i have played online there have been plenty of options available to someone who doesn't want to fight; they can attempt to flee and out fox their opponent, drop cargo and run, pay a "tax" to not be killed, and so on.
I'm not sure what i'm suggesting, to be honest. I'm very interested to find out how they are going to work it, but i find the notion that someone who has never fought a living opponent yet has reached the ranks of Deadly or Dangerous to be a bit on the silly side in a multi-player game.
I think a player should be worth more as a kill than an AI opponent for the reasons i mention in my previous post, perhaps if you kill a Competent ranked player you would get more of an increase than if you killed a Poor ranked player, or something, who knows how it'll work.
Rafe Zetter
Banned
I have taken the "little restrictions as possible" part of the poll question to include NO SEGREGATION, as that would be a restriction of a sort for the "middle people" I mentioned, who might fancy a bit of PvP action anytime they feel like it without having to log out, make a change or some sort and log back in - if that's even possible in the game system.
Would a "NO PvP" flag on your toon creation be permanent like the ironman one? It's always on? Or will you be able to turn it on and off at a whim; which in itself may cause issues down the road with ppl abusing it.
Why would those who want PvP desire to be separated from those that don't? It's no difference to PvPer's if they shared the same space (an irritant but not gamebreaking), but some are advocating that those who choose PvE cannot cross that line either if they want to on occasion, and that's the basis for my whole point of view, the PvE "stay away, stay away unclean!!!" hardliners are dictating to the middle people and that's just not acceptable any way you cut it.
We DO NOT WANT ED TO BECOME CAREBEAR CENTRAL, nor do we want the PvP only servers to have such low populations ppl get bored for lack of targets as I explained in another post - because if it does in both cases they will go to Eve or SC - fact.
If you were able to poll all of the Eve players labelled carebears and ask them "how many of you have NEVER participated in PvP action of any kind?" I'd bet my nuts the result would be a small percentage of that minority subset, and I'd make that bet based on experience of the community. It IS possible to have an entire career as a carebear in Eve and not do any PvP at all, but almost all give it a try at least a few times.
The truth is that most gamers now are more discerning in their tastes, they can see quite easily what games of that genre are available, they may or may not try it, and a massive portion will judge it based on the freedoms or restrictions therein.
I truly think if ED is made for the hardliners at either end with just 2 choices; "ALL PvP" or "No PvP" - ED as a longterm enterprise will fail.
We have waited for so many years, as have others; and we would play the game regardless; for a time at least, even with draconian restrictions in place; yet still tens of thousands more do not have the nostalgia we have - it is for these people the game must be made if it is to survive long term, and by that I mean past the first couple of expansions, new releases of similar games in the genre and game content being completed.
MMO's survive because of new "end game" content being created, and the endless cycle of gearginds that ensue - now I could be wrong but I don't think ED is going to go down that path, so you have to provide some other in game system to substitute that and allowing PvE players to do PvP content to spice things up whenever they choose is a big step in that direction.
I cannot fathom how those who advocate segregation or similar can fail to grasp this simple concept; either that or it's a case of "I've got what I wanted the rest can go ***** themselves" (yes the vehemence of that statement is intentional), which judging by the tone and words of several of the naysayers is exactly what I think they think.
Why would they need to log out, make a change, and log back in?
Just play in the PvP group?
Most of us would like it to be permanent, precisely BECAUSE it can be abused otherwise.
But it does make a difference to PvPers! PvPers would like to be able to shoot other players, if they so want to. PvEers would like not to be able to be shot by other players, (possibly including consensual PvPers - if they don't want to). You literally cannot please both at once if they're both in the same place!
And let's not get started on the immersion police! For many, it's totally immersion breaking to shoot someone and they not take any damage whatsoever! A single PvE-only player in their universe would destroy their immersion and completely ruin the game! (I'm exaggerating... maybe.)
But the PvP servers won't have such low populations! Because, as I explained in another post (and has been explained by others) those who dislike PvP are unlikely to play in a PvP group anyway. You're taking away a very small minority of people playing in the open PvP group by creating an open PvE group.
And I don't think anyone wants ED to become Carebear Central.
But it's not "ALL PvP" or "No PvP". It's "PvP allowed" or "No PvP". It's not for the hardliners at all. But even if it was, the current proposal is just "ALL PvP" - if you have a problem with a choice of two extremes, try a choice of one!
What "draconian restrictions"? The proposal is, a choice between playing the game with PvP allowed, where you can shoot whoever you like, work with whoever you like, or do whatever you lie; or playing the game with PvP disallowed, which is exactly the same except you can't shoot or be shot by other players.
Here comes the big question mark again!
?
Not having the segregation would effectively leave a case of "I've got what I wanted, the rest can go **** themselves".
You physically cannot have both PvP-allowed and PvP-disallowed in the same place.
You cannot have both PvP-allowed and PvP-disallowed in the same universe without restricting people to certain areas for them to continue playing their chosen playstyle.
You cannot restrict people to certain areas and say that this is less of a "draconian restriction" than simply letting people choose between two universes.
"Failing to grasp a simple concept"...
Rafe Zetter
Banned
The rep types - they all look like solid choices and offer multiple paths for pretty much every playstyle one might follow.
Data Visibility - don't like the idea you can scan and get a persons ranking information other than if he's a wanted man or not. If you choose the PvP mode and decide that freighter is a juicy target; that freighter pilot should be allowed to give that "have a go" pirate a good a r s e kicking if said freighter pilot is well up the combat ranking chain and sporting a full on iron ass to match (which goes with my desire to have a "build it how you like it" ship manifest), rather than scare the wannabe off by having his details broadcast for all to see. You don't get a warning down the pub when it turns out that midget in the corner you spilled your pint over is a blackbelt in kung fu, do you?
Piracy attempts should be a big risk, not a choice of cherry picking the easy ones. I also think the gain in rep should be smaller despite that risk - if you really want to follow that career choice you've got to want it bad AND expect to work harder for it.
Streak Bonuses - a simple additional bonus of +10% of everything earned (rep, credits etc) in that streak - if that's not possible in the code then an accumulator percentage paid at each completion up to a maximum that is a good carrot but shouldn't be so high that experienced pilots who manage a large streak accumulation get a runaway effect from other players, or that people feel forced to group up to get those big streak bonuses or be left behind. It should be a perk and little more. Streak bonuses for factional stuff could be more rewarding, if it has a bearing on player interaction and such.
I don't think the "not just combat rating" version of the elite rank is way off base either - I think it will encourage people to explore other parts of the game and still feel they have justified earning it - we have many real life counterparts of those sorts of people who are considered "the elite" of their field, so why not transcribe that into the game?
I think the negative parts of reputation losses of the various types should be at least a 1 step forward; 2 steps back, situation, if not more. That will MAKE people evolve and adapt. It will always be about the numbers, but if you really want to make becoming elite a real feat to be proud of, players who get there by sheer attrition should pay a heavy penalty compared to those who developed skill and expertise in that or multiple fields.
I think you can choose whether you share that information yourself, although I'm not sure exactly what can be shown/hidden.
That said, in direct contrast with what else has been going on I wholeheartedly agree with everything else in the post. Especially the midget with a black belt.
Rafe Zetter
Banned
What I meant about PvP players not minding PvE'er in their space was if they had a "no Pvp" flag set so you cannot attack them, but could if desired join up with them to defeat a common enemy (say a spawn of npc pirate fleet nearby), so there's still more humans in space overall. (but not being able to shoot AT them would be irritating
)Although if we did allow PvP and NoPvP in the same space and have some sort of radar thing that showed that much info of a target automatically you could get interesting dynamics where a NoPvP flagged player might decide to go PvP against the guy who has it switched on anyway, depending on how the flag system worked.
We don't need to choose between two - we can have both ... maybe.
This group matching system mentioned - is it session based? If so is the proposal to have a flag in the "join multiplayer" launcher from the single player game that allows you to be grouped with whomever is online with the matching flags - PvE or PvP, so that you can change from one set to the other easily?
It's far from ideal and could lead to PvP sessions becoming warzones offlimits to lesser skilled PvE'ers trying their hand, but would at least allow transitions from both playstyles.
To be frank I don't think 32 players in any session is anywhere near enough, but I guess FD have some ideas of how to force encounters or something.
Oh and TY for actually disseminating my posts and responding, I do appreciate it even if the replies are contrary - glad to see I'm not shouting at windmills
The group matching system is per-instance; there can be (currently) 32 (minimum) players in any one instance, as well as hundreds of NPCs. Upon hyperspacing to a different system, you'll be in a different instance, and will probably encounter different people.
As such, it's going to be a lot more than 32 players per session; if one session takes you across (say) ten systems, you could meet 320 different players, and that's assuming that absolutely nobody else is going anywhere (the actual number you'll meet will probably be lower, because generally everyone's moving in the same direction (towards the space station)).
I'm not sure exactly how the "flag" is to be implemented... permanent would prevent abuse, but then it's permanent. It certainly shouldn't be switch-able while in-universe, as aside from anything if you were to segregate the players you'd literally disappear from one place and reappear in another... maybe it should be session-based? I dunno, this is probably the debate we should be having.
I think it's important to point out that you can still do PvE in the PvP-enabled universe - i.e. there will still be NPCs that players can team up with and shoot; it's just a case that those players will also be able to shoot you.
Oh and TY for actually disseminating my posts and responding, I do appreciate it even if the replies are contrary - glad to see I'm not shouting at windmills
Not at all... we all want the same thing here, and that's a game we want to play. I think part of the reason the replies can get a little aggressive is that we're all quite passionate about this.
- Status