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

[breakpointUK]

Nope.... I just wanted a game about cooperation and story - Basically If there is no PVE mode I'll happily kill you if you attack me....

I just would rather not make the game exclusively about killing.... BUT I came to the conclusion that any hopes I had for an MMO style game went out of the window - this will be TF2 in space - ok fine - I'm highly ranked on that I'll just kill my way to Elite (Ok Dangerous cos I'll get bored and TF2 is much better) and **** the bounties....

I care little for where this game is heading now - the majority want COD/TF2 in space - fine - that's what you're getting. You can dress it up with trading in the crippled predicable (yet unexploitable) economy, and gearing up your 50 ships, but basically this game is an FPS.

In the same thread but in DDF I posted...

Ok... here is what I think about PvP in ED... feel free to express your opinions!

PvP won't happen very much!

Why?

In a heavily policed system - Core Systems
If you PvP you are at risk of being attacked by Police, NPC Bounty Hunters, PC Bounty Hunters and general players (who may or may not have been asked by the target player to help out).

In not a heavily policed system
If you PvP you are at risk of being attacked by NPCs Pirates, NPC Bounty Hunters, PC Bounty Hunters (high end) and you might find yourself waiting around because PCs won't go into those systems, limited trade, limited resources.

Like I said earlier... You can't switch off NPCs, what is the difference between being killed by an NPC and a PC?

FD's matchmaking should be good enough for you not to be instanced with 16 players who are in an alliance, who may wish to attack YOU! I would also of thought that by default you are matched by ping and total time played .. not only that but matchmaking would also take into account if you are solo or allianced (to a point)

and...

Defensive solutions could work like this...

If you attack a player in a system the Police would defend your target, the response time would depend on your locality, if you are near a POI (base) then its gonna be pretty quick... Police would also patrol established trade lanes within a system also providing a quick response time. You would need a pretty good reason for the Police not to instantly dis-enable your weapon systems and magnetically 'clamp' you, leaving your target to remain under protection or free to fly away. Of course there maybe equipment available which blocks Police anti-weapon protocol and clamp, but the Police are going to realise your not the average criminal and call for reinforcements... giving you the opportunity to evade..

If its a repeated offensive they would haul you to the nearest base, at that point you would be cautioned and they would then forcibly remove/escort you out of the system... next time you enter the system you would be escorted.. after an allotted time of good behaviour you would be free to travel around the system but you'll actions will be monitored. If you don't play nice, the area of influence would spread to nearby systems.

About Story

There really wasn't a story in Elite and Frontier (a tiny story in First Encounters), you had a very generic back story but the universe was open for you to create your own story... Rather than a quest line.

Will that change for ED?

I am not sure it will, will people want a story?

I would like to see as in previous games no Main Quest (often used to describe you and your impact in the world), but I would like to see Mini Quests (Missions for all roles), these would be multi-tiered and self contained, they would explain the universe around you (rather than how you effect it, which wouldn't work in a online game anyway) which could include (but not limited to), Lore, NPCs and POIs

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

** Lots of valid words **

Changed my mind.

Valid post BPUK .. Simple fact remains:

- There are 2 sets of people : PvE and PvP
- There has always been a long running issue between the two groups

Some games get it right.

Some games get it wrong.

I hope FD gets it right for ED

If they don't ... many people will simply turn to the grouping system which is a reasonable compromise.

 

[breakpointUK]

Changed my mind.

LOL

I guess that...

Some people don't like PvP . Period

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Some people don't like PvP . Period

Indeed .. realised I was probably coming across as a bit off an a** so changed it to be more friendly.

See new edited version

 

[Cody]

<chortles>

 

[breakpointUK]

Changed my mind.

Valid post BPUK .. Simple fact remains:

- There are 2 sets of people : PvE and PvP
- There has always been a long running issue between the two groups

Some games get it right.

Some games get it wrong.

I hope FD gets it right for ED





If they don't ... many people will simply turn to the grouping system which is a reasonable compromise.

That's where I was hoping Frontier could take Elite: Dangerous - Setting a new standard, bridging that gap between PvP and PvE... They did it before (with Ian Bell) Elite changed the way people played games, the publishers couldn't see it, but David believed in the new concept (genre) and here we are today thanks to likeminded people who kept the faith and believed it could be different

Indeed .. realised I was probably coming across as a bit off an a** so changed it to be more friendly.

See new edited version

No I get you now

 

[Darren Grey]

It's really hard to tell without actually playing the game and getting a feel for the systems and the player behaviours. So much of this discussion depends on how others behave, which is a complete unknown!

So I say consider all options until the alpha testing. Force alpha/beta testers to try out all modes to get a proper feel for things.

 

[Caribou]

Like I said earlier... You can't switch off NPCs, what is the difference between being killed by an NPC and a PC?

None - the point isn't who can kill you - it's lets group together in like-minded groupings and kill NPCs with some shared goal...

However (the source of my RANT - you know I'm DDF too right?) the grouping mechanisms and the limits that exist do not facilitate the social side of this game. IMHO it's because DB and FD want an FPS style space game....

and...
About Story

There really wasn't a story in Elite and Frontier (a tiny story in First Encounters), you had a very generic back story but the universe was open for you to create your own story... Rather than a quest line.

Will that change for ED?

I am not sure it will, will people want a story?

I would like to see as in previous games no Main Quest (often used to describe you and your impact in the world), but I would like to see Mini Quests (Missions for all roles), these would be multi-tiered and self contained, they would explain the universe around you (rather than how you effect it, which wouldn't work in a online game anyway) which could include (but not limited to), Lore, NPCs and POIs

The fact that there wasn't a story in the original doesn't mean there shouldn't be one in this game. The original games became boring for me after a while because they are repetitive and "pointless" with little flexibility. I am surer than ever that what we are about to get is "Pretty Elite" after the ooooooo and aaaaaaah subside it will be Elite all over again - good luck to all those who want that but (and back to my RANT) I wanted more...

I actually agree with your mini missions point.... AND as I said - I'll play in the ALL group all the time because of the lack of provision for social groupings/player interaction.... THAT's my bugbear ...

 

[DigitalDuck]

That's where I was hoping Frontier could take Elite: Dangerous - Setting a new standard, bridging that gap between PvP and PvE...

The problem is, PvP and PvE (in this case, PvP-off) simply cannot coexist.

You can't have a PvP player and a PvE player in the same instance and make them both happy because the PvP player wants to be able to shoot the PvE player and the PvE player doesn't want to be able to be shot by the PvP player.

Similarly, you can't specify certain areas to PvP/PvE, as you then restrict movement in order for people to keep their preferred playing style.

And then those who want immersion never want to see PvE exist in their game at all.


If there is a solution that somehow puts PvP and PvE in the same game without putting PvP and PvE in the same game, then clearly it's a solution that's so powerful it defies the rules of logic itself.

I'll concede if such a solution exists, but until then there are five choices:
1. Make a separate PvE group, make ~20% of people happy (everyone else unaffected).
2. Make a switchable PvE group, make ~20% of people happy but make a number of PvP players unhappy.
3. Don't include PvE at all, make that ~20% of people unhappy.
4. Make PvE compulsory, make ~80% of people unhappy.
5. Try to put PvP and PvE together, make 100% of people unhappy (well, not those playing solo, I guess, or those who don't care about immersion and don't particularly mind whether they're playing PvP or PvE at any particular time and are capable of keeping track of which is in effect wherever they are, but then these are exempt from all of them anyway).

It's a simplification, but I don't believe it's a fallacious one. I'm sticking to my decision, because however much faith I may have in Frontier, I don't believe they're capable of the impossible.

 

[breakpointUK]

None - the point isn't who can kill you - it's lets group together in like-minded groupings and kill NPCs with some shared goal...

However (the source of my RANT - you know I'm DDF to right?) the grouping mechanisms and the limits that exist do not facilitate the social side of this game. IMHO it's because DB and FD want an FPS style space game....



The fact that there wasn't a story in the original doesn't mean there shouldn't be one in this game. The original games became boring for me after a while because they are repetitive and "pointless" with little flexibility. I am surer than ever that what we are about to get is "Pretty Elite" after the ooooooo and aaaaaaah subside it will be Elite all over again - good luck to all those who want that but (and back to my RANT) I wanted more...

I actually agree with your mini missions point.... AND as I said - I'll play in the ALL group all the time because of the lack of provision for social groupings/player interaction.... THAT's my bugbear ...

Fair point... I think if you wanna do shared grouping against NPCs with like minded people then that is facilitated already with on the fly private groups...
"Hey buddies, fancy doing this without other players for a while" - kinda thing (yeah I saw you in DDF, but responded to your post here)

I totally understand what you think of lack of story in the original games, I defended FE2 in an Amiga forum a couple of years ago, when I stated it was my favourite Amiga game... I remember saying that by putting in a story it wasn't really about you, more about you character, being forced into something that you don't have a interest in, breaks the immersion... I think the idea was to use your imagination to create your own story...

...which is why, I don't think ED will have a main quest, not just that but FD would have to do what SC is doing by having a story which then leads into multiplayer which can be avoided... I don't think you could have a main quest in an evolving persistent online universe, which is consistent for all players no matter when they decide to start playing?

I think it would be better to have branching mission trees (and of course, single basic missions, complexity based on rank) which explain the universe around you, the NPCs could be generically generated at the start of mission, but would explain the same story that another player would of done at some point before... The names of the NPCs involved would be different. So Roger McWifestealer wouldn't die every ten minutes, if you get what I mean!

 

[breakpointUK]

The problem is, PvP and PvE (in this case, PvP-off) simply cannot coexist.

You can't have a PvP player and a PvE player in the same instance and make them both happy because the PvP player wants to be able to shoot the PvE player and the PvE player doesn't want to be able to be shot by the PvP player.

Similarly, you can't specify certain areas to PvP/PvE, as you then restrict movement in order for people to keep their preferred playing style.

And then those who want immersion never want to see PvE exist in their game at all.


If there is a solution that somehow puts PvP and PvE in the same game without putting PvP and PvE in the same game, then clearly it's a solution that's so powerful it defies the rules of logic itself.

I'll concede if such a solution exists, but until then there are five choices:
1. Make a separate PvE group, make ~20% of people happy (everyone else unaffected).
2. Make a switchable PvE group, make ~20% of people happy but make a number of PvP players unhappy.
3. Don't include PvE at all, make that ~20% of people unhappy.
4. Make PvE compulsory, make ~80% of people unhappy.
5. Try to put PvP and PvE together, make 100% of people unhappy (well, not those playing solo, I guess, or those who don't care about immersion and don't particularly mind whether they're playing PvP or PvE at any particular time and are capable of keeping track of which is in effect wherever they are, but then these are exempt from all of them anyway).

It's a simplification, but I don't believe it's a fallacious one. I'm sticking to my decision, because however much faith I may have in Frontier, I don't believe they're capable of the impossible.

I respect your decision.

But I don't believe it is impossible, I believe with the right grouping mechanics, dynamic matchmaking and criminality consequences... it would be possible to either ignore (if only temporary), not be placed (in a situation where you are at a clear disadvantage) with or restrict it by consequence, so PvP'ers wouldn't dare attempt PvP with an PvE'er

As much as I hate the idea of splitting the user base (again) and considering anyone can split it further with Private groups, I concede that at this point the only true way of separation is to have PvE'ers and PvP'ers in their own universes.

Should they remain in their own universes forever? (using your example, without the conditions I have listed above, PvE'ers will be able to achieve more in the same time frame.. meaning that anyone who decided to have a fully immersive experience (as you put it) will then be at a disadvantage.. at that point the PvE'er could decide that PvP sounds like a fun idea)

 

[Listeri69]

I'll be playing in the PvP multiplayer mode, It's really what made me pledge as much as I did. Im not worried about griefing or anything like that as far as I go this is the game I want to play

 

[DigitalDuck]

Should they remain in their own universes forever? (using your example, without the conditions I have listed above, PvE'ers will be able to achieve more in the same time frame.. meaning that anyone who decided to have a fully immersive experience (as you put it) will then be at a disadvantage.. at that point the PvE'er could decide that PvP sounds like a fun idea)

And that's precisely the reason I said that switchable would "make a number of PvP players unhappy".

And yeah, I'll be playing in PvP mode too, regardless of the decision. Should PvP disappoint me at some point (although I'm hoping it won't, obviously) I would like an alternative that's still an open universe.

 

[breakpointUK]

I'll be playing in the PvP multiplayer mode, It's really what made me pledge as much as I did. Im not worried about griefing or anything like that as far as I go this is the game I want to play

I think that 'Griefing' (in regards to Poll questions) should discounted at this point. Griefing is not just restricted to PvP (being killed), it is possible to grief in a PvE only environment (it just happens in different ways)... both ways would probably force many people into a Private Group.

 

[DigitalDuck]

I think that 'Griefing' (in regards to Poll questions) should discounted at this point. Griefing is not just restricted to PvP (being killed), it is possible to grief in a PvE only environment (it just happens in different ways)... both ways would probably force many people into a Private Group.

While true, it would be reduced in PvE due to the main tool (killing people) being removed.

 

[breakpointUK]

And that's precisely the reason I said that switchable would "make a number of PvP players unhappy".

from the DDF version...

Has to be open pvp at all times for me, for the immersion factor - I'm not suggesting I want to attack everyone or be attacked by everyone either.

It wouldn't feel right that I'm flying around in space and some people that I can well see are impervious to my weapons and I can't collide with them.

Rather than artificially limiting pvp via flags and magic - use police ships and bounties to ensure that some systems are safe because of the speed and strength of the response, and the crime system.

Push the aggressive players out to the frontiers where they belong.

Of course that doesn't mean the frontiers should be no go areas for more peaceful players, such as miners and traders - but my hope would be that the size of the galaxy means you're not guaranteed to run into hostile action, and some in game mechanics might even the score a bit - distress calls to NPCs and players, chance to spin up hyper drives and bail, non-auto healing ships so that even the pirates have to go and get repairs from time to time, and so on.

If players are attacked and survive by escaping, they should be able to report the crime even if it occurred outside of an authority space - assume you got a scan or imagery of the aggressor and can prove to the authorities what took place. That might persuade attackers to choose their targets rather than shoot at everything moving.

Space is dangerous.

And yeah, I'll be playing in PvP mode too, regardless of the decision. Should PvP disappoint me at some point (although I'm hoping it won't, obviously) I would like an alternative that's still an open universe.

Should PvP disappoint, then I would expect that you wouldn't be alone in your point of view so maybe Private Group Mechanics could be improved or PvE/PvP separation should be implemented? Feedback, historic complaints, Private Group creation analysis, DDF Poll could determine?

 

[breakpointUK]

While true, it would be reduced in PvE due to the main tool (killing people) being removed.

Even without the stuff I said in previous posts, I would hope that consequences of griefing in PvP would be enough to stop it... starting with restrictions imposed by Police, matchmaking and finally being banned.

But still, I don't think people should think about the Poll with griefing in mind, it wasn't suggested in the OP...

 

[zaikoji]

Has to be (1)

We're going to have to rely on players' goodwill a little. Will the community possibly be a little more seasoned/grownup than the COD community? I certainly hope so. Random trolling should (fingers crossed) not be a huge issue. Raises, the uncertainty of all first-time interactions is surely part of the appeal? Itchy trigger fingers and mutual distrust exist in real life. Surely the vastness of the playing arena will amplify certain behaviors and impulses. There's your realism and your fun. I don't want to get blown away any more than the next man, but we'll all run the same risks.

 

[breakpointUK]

We're going to have to rely on players' goodwill a little. Will the community possibly be a little more seasoned/grownup than the COD community? I certainly hope so. Random trolling should (fingers crossed) not be a huge issue. Raises, the uncertainty of all first-time interactions is surely part of the appeal? Itchy trigger fingers and mutual distrust exist in real life. Surely the vastness of the playing arena will amplify certain behaviors and impulses. There's your realism and your fun. I don't want to get blown away any more than the next man, but we'll all run the same risks.

I would hope that the game appeals to everyone, new and old... I think the game play style, progression and mechanics will put off the 'instant frills crowd', or the stereotypical "COD community".. and I would agree the vastness of the game space will provoke more meaningful interactions rather than a 'shoot or be shot' attitude

 

[Steve O B Have]

I went with number 2 - I'm somewhat tainted by my experience with EVE and boarder campers between hisec and losec space but ultimately I think I'd like to see the game develop into a place where social graces, or a lack thereof, shine through. However keeping in mind the element of gamers that belong to the 'want to watch the world burn' crew I think that allowing for a range of areas to give players the breathing room to get to grips with the game first would be wise.

Personally the hardcore PVP crowd are missing a trick and have too much of narrow image of where the games potential lies.