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

[jabokai]

The DDF is a serious (I hope) focus group, and FD need that input. As for the numbers, 200 out of 27,000 is under 1%.

Hah, they're a bunch of clowns, honestly! "gif me spays sheeps, pew pew" is pretty much the height of it.

6.46 margin of error - http://www.comres.co.uk/poll-digest/11/margin-of-error-calculator.htm# - so, at worst, 30% of those 27,000 want PvE!

All that aside, despite Frontier repeating that "it's not an MMO", it is a persistent multiplayer online game and you'd expect them to be aware of the fact that PvE and PvP offerings are pretty much de facto in such games, and to have considered it, no? :S

 

[Cody]

... so, at worst, 30% of those 27,000 want PvE!

<sighs> No... 30% of those who bothered to cast an opinion want PvE.
Unless you trust polsters' extrapolations, of course - as bad as statisticians, IMO.

 

[jabokai]

<sighs> No... 30% of those who bothered to cast an opinion want PvE.
Unless you trust polsters' extrapolations, of course - as bad as statisticians, IMO.

No, 36.68% percent of people who cast a vote want PvE... the 30% is taking into account the margin of error for the sample size and population.

I agree however, stats and polls are not to be taken as hard truth. But, I believe, as evidenced from the people themselves, talking on this thread and others, that there is a significant enough population who want PvE to have given it due consideration. :smilie:

 

[DigitalDuck]

All that aside, despite Frontier repeating that "it's not an MMO", it is a persistent multiplayer online game and you'd expect them to be aware of the fact that PvE and PvP offerings are pretty much de facto in such games, and to have considered it, no? :S

Yeah, I'm surprised and disappointed at the decision, and I'm fairly sure this will prove to be a bad move in terms of swaying people towards the game. The total potential audience has been reduced, and those that are put off by the main game because of player interactions have basically been told, "put up with it, play by yourself, or play something else" which'll mean fewer people who continue to play the game a while after post-release (and therefore reducing the number of people that buy add-ons) as well as fewer people who continue to play the game online and contribute via micro-transactions.

Honestly baffled.

 

[Cody]

<chuckles>

But, I believe, as evidenced from the people themselves, talking on this thread and others, that there is a significant enough population who want PvE to have given it due consideration.

Aye well, that doesn't concern me. I am pleased to hear that the DDF is doing its job, though! <smirks>

 

[Barns]

All that aside, despite Frontier repeating that "it's not an MMO", it is a persistent multiplayer online game and you'd expect them to be aware of the fact that PvE and PvP offerings are pretty much de facto in such games, and to have considered it, no? :S

This is the most disappointing thing for me. If they'd come back to you and said "well, we've looked at all the arguments for and against PvE mode and we just don't think it fits with our vision of the game, sorry, PvP only" - then I'd be sad but could at least have a little respect for their decision making process. If it's as you say and they were unaware of even the possibility for the PvE mode and even more so all the discussions on the forum then it's very strange indeed they haven't thought of the issue before - almost like they've not done market research. Which I'm sure they have. And then in which case they must have decided to ignore that large market segment.

The forum PvP debates are impossible to miss from even the most cursory glance, and caused forum warnings and all sorts! Pointed questions were asked in the "Mostly Harmless Questions" thread which must have at least been read by someone in order to reject them. Sorry, doesn't add up.

 

[Serpentstar]

Pve

Personally, I want the option to choose whether or not I have to play with children who have nothing better to do that try to make other people miserable.

I play these games to relax, not deal with more stress.

If someone wants PVP, let them play with others of like mindset. Don't force their desires down my throat.

I haven't looked in on this in a while and wasn't aware the PVE option had been removed from consideration. Someone care to provide a link to this ruling?

 

[jabokai]

I haven't looked in on this in a while and wasn't aware the PVE option had been removed from consideration. Someone care to provide a link to this ruling?

I posted about it in the DDF, to try and get some answers on this, and posted the result earlier in this thread - http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=118063&postcount=381

If you don't have DDF access then this link - http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4728&page=27 - won't work, but that's where it came from.

 

[metatheurgist]

If you don't want to get shot by people then you create you own private group and only play with people you trust. Otherwise PVP is always a possibility.

So...who wants to start creating the largest private group ever? Should be around 10000 strong by some estimates.

 

[DigitalDuck]

So...who wants to start creating the largest private group ever? Should be around 10000 strong by some estimates.

Is it even possible to have a group that large?

Also, is PvE even a private group option? Judging by the response, it seems like you'll be inviting other people in on the "promise" that they won't shoot other players.

Fewer and fewer...

 

[metatheurgist]

Dunno, but it'd send a message to FD if it broke the game no?

For a collection of mature and responsible adults, your word is all that is required. The entire basis of civility is that people agree not to be *******s. I'm sure the people that want to play co-op are singularly united in their desire to enjoy MP without mindless competiveness. And we can always make the group more private by removing dissenters.

 

[Barns]

Is the DDF pushing back on this at all, or are we rolling over and accepting it?

 

[jabokai]

Dunno, but it'd send a message to FD if it broke the game no?

For a collection of mature and responsible adults, your word is all that is required. The entire basis of civility is that people agree not to be *******s. I'm sure the people that want to play co-op are singularly united in their desire to enjoy MP without mindless competiveness. And we can always make the group more private by removing dissenters.

I think you can remove people (via a vote) from an alliance, but not from a group.

From the current, revised group proposal -

Only the original private group creator can invite others into their group. They can also do the following:

• Kick other players out of the group
• Disband the group resulting in all the other players entering their own individual private groups with “quick joining” disabled (gives them the opportunity to play solo or decide to join the all players group)
• Pass their leadership and thus all these options to someone else in the group
• Upon disconnecting, logging off or leaving the group automatically passes leadership to the oldest private group member, i.e. the first player to accept an invite into the group that is still present

It's not suitable for a giant, PvE by choice, group IMHO. e.g. control passes to some idiot who just wants to wreck people's fun and he disbands the group.

 

[jabokai]

Is the DDF pushing back on this at all, or are we rolling over and accepting it?

Liqua is fighting for you! I will too if the devs respond again.

 

[metatheurgist]

It's not suitable for a giant, PvE by choice, group IMHO. e.g. control passes to some idiot who just wants to wreck people's fun and he disbands the group.

It might work, just need to find one person that everyone trusts, shouldn't be too difficult when the entire group is about co-operation. Might be a an administrative nightmare though. Then again, a large thread voting people in or out of the group with formal discussions/petitions would also be a good message for FD.

 

[jabokai]

It might work, just need to find one person that everyone trusts, shouldn't be too difficult when the entire group is about co-operation. Might be a an administrative nightmare though. Then again, a large thread voting people in or out of the group with formal discussions/petitions would also be a good message for FD.

They'd need to change the group ownership handover mechanism at least. Currently if the current group owner has a random disconnect, ownership moves to someone else, not necessarily a trustworthy someone else!

 

[Majere]

Regulators!

They'd need to change the group ownership handover mechanism at least. Currently if the current group owner has a random disconnect, ownership moves to someone else, not necessarily a trustworthy someone else!

Surely all you need is some deputies that would take over if you fell ?

 

[jabokai]

Surely all you need is some deputies that would take over if you fell ?

The group proposal doesn't have that mechanism... that's my point - the design cannot handle what it would need to handle for such a large group.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't understand FD's reluctance to accommodate the third group (PvE) in the same way as they seem to be accommodating the second group (Ironman). Players using Ironman mode will be (as far as I recollect) kept separate from the general PvP(vE) group. FD *could* keep PvE (i.e. co-op players) separate from both of the previously mentioned group, if they felt like it. I will be disappointed if they don't eventually acknowledge the third group.

Another way of handling this would be to have matching settings whereby a player could limit the scope of players that they may encounter by:
1) rating;
2) reputation;
3) Commander "age" (i.e. how long the avatar has been in existence);
4) homicidal tendencies (i.e. PC kills);
5) etc.

The base mechanism for this matching proposal must exist as Ironman mode players will be able to be kept separate from PvP(vE) players.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I don't understand FD's reluctance to accommodate the third group (PvE) in the same way as they seem to be accommodating the second group (Ironman).

The only real difference regarding Ironman is that there are no private groups - it's all or nothing.