The Tri-poll: What does multiplayer mean to YOU?

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello guys and gals, backers and watchers!

I am trying out a little experiment here, and I'd love your help.

There's much speculation and debate on what multiplayer should mean in Elite: Dangerous (and rightly so).

I've set up a simple poll, which I'm going to run in the Design Decision forum, the Private Backers' forum, and the General forum at the same time, probably for a week or so.

Don't read too much into this poll, it's NOTHING more than an attempt to gather some data. Please feel free to vote in all polls you have access to.

That being said: there are a few points to remember about each of the options so please read this before voting:

General notes:

* We have the concept of a normal commander and an iron man commander, the difference being that iron men commanders suffer permanent death. This already splits the user base, as these types of commander cannot interact. So any splits in the poll options would be in addition.

* I've purposefully stayed away from talking about having PvE/PvP options set on a private group basis. For the purposes of this poll, imagine that a private group would use the same rules as the option chosen, just with a set of players chosen to join it.

"I can attack anyone at any time, just like everyone else"

* Remember that the game still features NPC response and consequences in the crime system
* Remember that you can still create private/solo groups

"There are some areas of the galaxy where I cannot be attacked by other players"

* This would likely be based around system security (in a highly secure system weapons systems would be blocked and we'd have to modify collision rules)

"I can move between one of two groups: a PvE group or a PVP group"

* This would effectively be splitting the user base
* You could move between the two groups at will
* Any private groups would be sub groups of your chosen group

"I must pick and stay in one of two groups: a PvE group or a PVP group"

* This would effectively be splitting the user base
* The choice would be on a per character basis
* Any private groups would be sub groups of your chosen group

"I cannot attack anyone else, and they can't attack me"

* This is effectively co-op only play

 

[breakpointUK]

I don't agree with anything that splits the user base, there is enough already in place that will...

Magic anti collisions do not wash with me either (see final point).

Co-op only is interesting, but not for me

So option 1 to me seems the most realistic and of course the Vipers will still be around (almost to the point that option 2 is not required in the core systems)

-

This has been posted in all three polls

 

[DarkWalker]

I, specifically, will NEVER engage in unwanted PvP.

I never fire first at another player unless I'm absolutely certain that the other player wants to engage in the PvP conflict.

On top of that, if someone attempts to engage me in PvP against my will, I will simply suicide, respawn, and continue playing as if nothing has happened. If the game has strong enough PvP death penalties to disincentive this kind of behavior then I will just not play.

This is not specific to Elite: Dangerous, BTW. It's how I deal with PvP in every single game I play, and have played for the last decade or so. It's how I went through over half a decade of playing WoW in PvP servers (due to having friends that flat out refuse to play in PvE servers) without attacking the opposite faction even once (which includes refusing to help friends when they attacked the opposite faction), for example.

Also, as a caveat, I love PvP - when in the mood for it, and on top of that the game absolutely assures me that everyone I'm fighting with or against has consented with the engagement.

 

[DarkWalker]

I don't agree with anything that splits the user base, there is enough already in place that will...

Magic anti collisions do not wash with me either (see final point).

Co-op only is interesting, but not for me

So option 1 to me seems the most realistic and of course the Vipers will still be around (almost to the point that option 2 is not required in the core systems)

-

This have been posted in all three polls

Option 1 would split the player base in a worse way, by making the players that don't want to engage in PvP just play alone. You still won't see them, but on top of that you are forcing those players to never see anyone else.

 

[Sir.Tj]

Voted for "safe area" option 2 myself, not by restricted gameplay, more as in the heavy retribution from attacking in say a core system.

 

[breakpointUK]

Option 1 would split the player base in a worse way, by making the players that don't want to engage in PvP just play alone. You still won't see them, but on top of that you are forcing those players to never see anyone else.

Yeah true, personally I go with the realism angle

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I voted for option 1, eventually. On the one hand, I've no particular interest in taking up the careers that require tracking down players specifically to attack them, and if it happens too much to me (by which I suppose I mean "systems which the NPC traffic would let me survive I can't with players added") then I'd probably go to solo or small-group play pretty quickly. So you'd think based on that I'd go for PvE.

However, I also don't want to gain an unfair advantage over the NPCs by being able to fire wildly into the middle of a dogfight (or just use the energy bomb...) knowing that I can't possibly damage anyone important that way. That just doesn't feel right. Having to think before you open fire is important to me.

I figure that if Option 1 is chosen there'll pretty quickly be a very large "friendly play" group that mostly mimics Option 3/4 except for friendly fire, so I can just join that if the "all" group is too much about PvP. Whereas if Option 3 (or especially 4) is chosen if I want to stay in a reasonable-feeling ruleset I'll probably end up playing PvP solo...

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I don't agree with anything that splits the user base, there is enough already in place that will...

Jabokai summed up a good response to you which I will quote:

The private groups will already "steal" people away from the All Players group - seems churlish to deny all those mini groups not to have one bigger group for their own play style, no?

The only sensible choice from the poll is "I must pick and stay in one of two groups: a PvE group or a PVP group"

Splits the server into 2 : PVE and PVP.

This gets my vote. (Personally I prefer option 1 but I am thinking of the bigger picture here)

 

[Selezen]

Will this never end???

For the record I've gone for the first option in each poll. I think that REALISM is something that the game needs, and the most realistic option is that ANYONE can shoot at ANYONE. The punishments are the deterrent here, but the realism of the situation is that if someone wants to shoot at someone then they will.

I do like the idea of "safe zones" though, and as long as they would have some sort of justification in the game universe I'd take that as my second choice.

The PV? question is one that will never get an answer that will make EVERYONE happy here. I also believe that until the game is released no-one is going to know how it's going to actually work, so the debate is a little pointless until at least the alpha.

PVP tuppence spent, I now retreat into the dark corners from whence I came.

 

[Mobius]

get rid of the many different sub groups and just have a pve and a pvp server, a way around for the two groups to swap around is for the player to dock at any station and on leaving is given the choice of entering PVE or PVP galaxy . this would allow players to enjoy both worlds.

 

[Alien]

I voted for the safe areas option as I feel it would be important to new players to have safe areas where they can learn the game before venturing off out into the wider, more dangerous universe.

Not having these safe areas would potentially see new players getting attacked straight away, and would put a lot of new players off of continuing the game because it is too hard to learn what to do and get started.

I'd like these safe areas to be off limits once you pass a certain level.

 

[ianw]

I've gone for option 3 - can move between PVE and PVP groups.

With the proviso that you can't take a PVE commander into the PVP group - would have to be a different commander.

I can't see how the splitting the base argument matters that much.

As has been pointed out - it's already split if the PVE'ers stay out in SP mode or in private groups.

And - even if only 10% (and I suspect it will be much more) want a separate PVE server that's still at current levels about 2700 players - i.e. enough to fill 84 instances of 32 players.

And clearly there will be many more than the current base of 27000 once the game goes live.

Lastly, if there is a PVE only server it might encourage some committed single players to try PVE co-op - which they might enjoy more and if not well then they stay SP.

For me personally I'll be in the PVP group mostly. But why not give people a real choice?

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I voted for the safe areas option as I feel it would be important to new players to have safe areas where they can learn the game before venturing off out into the wider, more dangerous universe.

That was already going to be in the game Alien.

To escape the region you need to upgrade your engines to make a bigger jump - once you leave you can't go back.

(That was the premise anyway during the KS)

 

[DigitalDuck]

Yeah true, personally I go with the realism angle

For the record I've gone for the first option in each poll. I think that REALISM is something that the game needs, and the most realistic option is that ANYONE can shoot at ANYONE. The punishments are the deterrent here, but the realism of the situation is that if someone wants to shoot at someone then they will.

Then enjoy realism in the PvP group and allow others to enjoy PvE in their group... it's just as realistic for you, doesn't involve splitting the playerbase any more (PvE players will not play PvP anyway) and allows more people to play online, increasing the size of the community.

Although the first option would still be the one to pick in that case, because it does ask what you want, so eh.

 

[jabokai]

Had a think and I would have picked option 4, but with the way private groups work I don't see much issue switching between a main PvP and main PvE group so went with that (option 3).

 

[Dr Wookie]

As in the other polls:

I think that people should be responsible for their own actions, and that disallowing hot pc on pc action would be artificial.

Sometimes I might want to play with a group that makes a verbal agreement not to shoot each other. But they should all be bound by their word rather than game mechanics. It's easy to keep your promise if you have no other choice!

Most importantly, if there's a big pc vs npc battle, then PvE players would feel more secure in hosing laser fire everywhere, since they can't hurt their own team. I believe that friendly fire should always be a danger.

By the way, I'm not some crazed PvP monster, and generally play the good guy.

 

[loststargirl]

Developers please stick to 1 universe please. No different PVE and PVP servers (player base will be cut in two and we need all players to fill space).

I voted option 1.

I think it's the player responsibility to calculate threat risks before visiting a star system. (Feudal vs Democary vs Unclaimed and everything in between).

 

[jabokai]

Developers please stick to 1 universe please. No different PVE and PVP servers.

There's already 2. Normal and Ironman.

 

[DigitalDuck]

Developers please stick to 1 universe please. No different PVE and PVP servers (player base will be cut in two and we need all players to fill space).

Almost all of those that would play PvE will not play PvP regardless of whether there's a PvE option or not. That's like saying, "don't offer a vegetarian option or less people will eat the bacon" - nobody turns down bacon in favour of plants unless they'd turn down bacon in favour of nothing.

 

[loststargirl]

There's already 2. Normal and Ironman.

So basically creating PVE and PVP only divides the population in four? Bad idea IMO. Most MMO's are forced to merge servers eventually.