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

[Aewarin Jameson]

<makes note of another of Liqua's pet hates - the dossier grows>

LOL .. have you ever seen on TV "grumpy old men" ..?

 

[DigitalDuck]

It's highly unlikely there will be griefers in the Alpha unless FD direct players to try and grief deliberately.

I will warn now that come first beta I'm likely to intentionally grief. Mainly to make sure nobody can do the same to me in the final game.

 

[Cody]

Nope, I don't possess a TV - threw the damn thing out decades ago.
However, I do possess a curmudgeon's sombrero... will that serve?

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I do possess a curmudgeon's sombrero... will that serve?

Only in pink please

I will warn now that come first beta I'm likely to intentionally grief. Mainly to make sure nobody can do the same to me in the final game.

I will kill people, possibly repeatedly, just to bump up the bounty to test the response - volunteers needed btw

I want the game to treat "bad guys" fairly but firmly ... If you kill a player and it's insta-death you know something is wrong .. equally if they send out a text saying "be a good chap" then that's just as bad

 

[Andrew Sayers]

I will warn now that come first beta I'm likely to intentionally grief. Mainly to make sure nobody can do the same to me in the final game.

My free time is only enough to keep up with the DDF, so I hadn't heard about the PvE thing until jabokai alerted us all to it. I can't speak for anyone else, but here's my take...

First up, FD seem very keen to find innovative ways to stop griefing. They've designed the game to avoid fixed spawn points, and their ingenious match-making algorithm promises to simply keep players away from each other if it wouldn't be fun for them to meet up. Yes there will always be ways to grief and I hereby invite DigitalDuck to make my life as awful as he can in the beta. We'll write up our feedback together, it'll be fun

To be honest, I was surprised to hear PvE come back because I thought the argument had been put to bed months ago - legitimate PvPers will get their part of the galaxy, griefers will be sidelined, job done. Quite the opposite of ignoring the problem, Frontier seem deep in the unsexy part of the job where they figure out all the little details. For example, the final criminality proposal has just confirmed the response to a PvP attack in a policed system will appear in less than a minute and range intelligently from "get a room you two" to "fire at will". I took Mike Evans' response on behalf of the devs in that spirit - Elite isn't a police state and the aesthetic is "freedom with consequences" just like real life. But just like real life, the chance of being killed in a nice neighbourhood is less than the chance of getting yourself kersplatted when you forget to look both ways in traffic.

Having said that, nobody's perfect and since jabokai's post the DDF has attacked this like the hungry dogs we are. Some excellent points have already been raised (like how player groups are poorly optimised for huge groups). Although FD are understandably reluctant to being knocked off their tight schedule, they have an impressive track record of changing tack if (and only if!) we make the right argument.

 

[Barns]

First up, FD seem very keen to find innovative ways to stop griefing.

True. However the griefing argument is a different one to the PvE argument. Those who desire PvE don't want it just to avoid griefing, they want it to avoid all PvP combat in all circumstances. We'd like to have a multiplayer cooperative option - an "all" group, not just a group of named friends - but with PvP disabled so the only combat is vs NPCs. Like many MMOs.

They've designed the game to avoid fixed spawn points

Doesn't the (admittedly in review) in-system travel proposal have everyone arriving from hyperspace at the same point in a system? That's a fixed spawn point if I ever saw one, specifically designed to encourage PvP action, surely?

and their ingenious match-making algorithm promises to simply keep players away from each other if it wouldn't be fun for them to meet up.

If I can configure "I don't want to meet up with anyone who has a [hypothetical] PvP enabled flag set" then it's golden I don't think that's in the proposals for match-making though.

To be honest, I was surprised to hear PvE come back because I thought the argument had been put to bed months ago - legitimate PvPers will get their part of the galaxy, griefers will be sidelined, job done.

Not job done, as PvEers don't want to be forced to remain in the safe core systems whilst PvPers get to play in the interesting exciting frontier. Where most of the fun and profitable content is likely to live. Make the frontier dangerous with pirate NPCs, sure, just don't force PvP on anyone who wants to go there. This leads towards the requirement for a PvE and PvP "server" split, as otherwise genuine PvP players will complain with good reason that PvE players get it too easy (in a shared universe).

Quite the opposite of ignoring the problem...

They've ignored it because there hasn't (that I've seen) been any developer comment in any of these PvE/PvP threads, going on for months now. They could've quashed the argments really quickly ages ago if they were always set on PvP-only. It appears that they're either unaware of the arguments for PvE, or disagree with them somehow; either way their thinking has been opaque and suggestions thus far don't go anywhere towards addressing the real concerns of the PvE crowd.

Having said that, nobody's perfect and since jabokai's post the DDF has attacked this like the hungry dogs we are. Some excellent points have already been raised (like how player groups are poorly optimised for huge groups).

Glad to hear it's getting visibility. Just please try to get the real PvE concerns addressed - not griefing, not "large groups" as that's just a hack that'll never work (maintaining long lists of players, no actual enforcement of PvE etc). What's being asked for is geniune no PvP combat possible (i.e. shooting another player does no damage) in a proper "All" open group equivalent to the existing "All" group.

 

[dannysquid]

I took Mike Evans' response on behalf of the devs in that spirit - Elite isn't a police state and the aesthetic is "freedom with consequences" just like real life. But just like real life, the chance of being killed in a nice neighbourhood is less than the chance of getting yourself kersplatted when you forget to look both ways in traffic.

Have to say I quite like the idea of newly explored systems being extremely dangerous, lawless DEADWOOD style places until civilisation, and the cops, arrive. Is there maybe a mechanic where less trigger-happy players can hire mercenaries (either player-controlled or NPC) to protect them in these places?

It might just be a matter of scale. If there can only be 32 players in an 'instance', maybe the NPC cops or mercenaries arrive in groups of 64.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

Hi Barns, I've snipped some parts of your reply where I don't have anything useful to say. I've tried to get to the heart of it though

Doesn't the (admittedly in review) in-system travel proposal have everyone arriving from hyperspace at the same point in a system? That's a fixed spawn point if I ever saw one, specifically designed to encourage PvP action, surely?

The exact rules aren't 100% clear to me, but I'm pretty sure that's not true. In-system travel isn't particularly related to arrival from hyperspace - the hyperspace proposal is what you're looking for. Remember ED isn't an MMO - players will only see a subset of the other players in the system. My reading of the proposal is when you exit hyperspace you'll be matched up with people the game thinks you'll enjoy playing, and I'd be amazed if they threw a mouse in with an elephant just to make up the numbers. If the system threw you in with other players of similar skill and ability a few times and you never initiated combat, I'd like to think it would take the hint.

Not job done, as PvEers don't want to be forced to remain in the safe core systems whilst PvPers get to play in the interesting exciting frontier. Where most of the fun and profitable content is likely to live. Make the frontier dangerous with pirate NPCs, sure, just don't force PvP on anyone who wants to go there. This leads towards the requirement for a PvE and PvP "server" split, as otherwise genuine PvP players will complain with good reason that PvE players get it too easy (in a shared universe).

I don't think FD are opposed to PvE in principle, it's just not the way they're approaching the problem - that might be part of why their reasoning has appeared opaque. A traditional PvE flag would be too binary and prescriptive for a game that's all about shades of grey and actions with consequences. If you try to force the argument into "PvE yes or no", the answer will have to be "no" by default.

This is where making the right argument comes in.

If you can express your actual gameplay requirement in a way the devs can chew on, you might get something as good as traditional PvE, or even better. But as my time is finite, I can only give you a start. Which of the following statements are accurate, and is there anything fundamentally missing:

• We would like to share our space adventure with friendly strangers, not just existing acquaintances
• Sharing the adventure has nothing to do with leaving communication buoys people can find or swapping tales over a comms link, it's about seeing a stranger in trouble and helping them take down a band of pirates
• We want direct control over that choice - even an algorithm that made perfect choices wouldn't provide the peace of mind we're looking for
• We're not concerned about accidentally walking into each other's line of fire, but we do want a mechanism that guarantees we can never be deliberately targeted by another player - if each player gets the opportunity to attack one of us before they're algorithmically banished, that's one time more than we can accept

If you can break the topic down to this level of detail, there's a better chance the devs will be able to ask "does the proposal I'm writing meet that requirement?", and make changes if not.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Which of the following statements are accurate, and is there anything fundamentally missing:

• We would like to share our space adventure with friendly strangers, not just existing acquaintances
• Sharing the adventure has nothing to do with leaving communication buoys people can find or swapping tales over a comms link, it's about seeing a stranger in trouble and helping them take down a band of pirates
• We want direct control over that choice - even an algorithm that made perfect choices wouldn't provide the peace of mind we're looking for
• We're not concerned about accidentally walking into each other's line of fire, but we do want a mechanism that guarantees we can never be deliberately targeted by another player - if each player gets the opportunity to attack one of us before they're algorithmically banished, that's one time more than we can accept

If you can break the topic down to this level of detail, there's a better chance the devs will be able to ask "does the proposal I'm writing meet that requirement?", and make changes if not.

Sometimes Andrew I smile at your posts

To sum up the PvE argument is simple: Friendly Fire off : I shoot you and no damage

That's it .. being a Northerner it's to the point: a spade is a spade, and no need for waffle.

 

[Robert Maynard]

To sum up the PvE argument is simple: Friendly Fire off : I shoot you and no damage

Totally immersion breaking. I would rather that the matching system were to kick out (at the next instance change) any player who scores a hit on a PC vessel in PvE mode.

That's it .. being a Northerner it's to the point: a spade is a spade, and no need for waffle.

A spade is indeed a digging implement, but there is a need for waffles - they're tasty!

 

[DigitalDuck]

Totally immersion breaking. I would rather that the matching system were to kick out (at the next instance change) any player who scores a hit on a PC vessel in PvE mode.

Gary creates a new commander in PvE mode. Gary shoots Terry. Gary kills Terry. Gary deletes his commander. Gary lathers, rinses, and repeats.

And from the way you've worded it, it's even worse because Terry isn't allowed to fight back, or he'll be kicked out too! (I'm assuming you'll want him to be allowed to defend himself so we'll stick the word "first" somewhere in that definition.)

Also, you accidentally shot a player? Too bad, you're now banned from this game mode.

Oh, you want accidental fire to still be allowed? Welcome back griefing, stay at the door being able to defend yourself.

And so on, and so forth.

Personally, if I have to separate "player characters" from "NPC characters" my immersion is already broken, as they're not really supposed to be separate entities. PvE doesn't make sense from an immersion perspective, and that's not what it's there for anyway. Those who wish for immersion would prefer the PvP mode regardless, and those with hardcore immersive tendencies would insist on Ironman.

 

[withnail]

To sum up the PvE argument is simple: Friendly Fire off : I shoot you and no damage

That sounds really poor to me, wouldn't like to play in that environment myself.

Each to their own I guess.

 

[jabokai]

That sounds really poor to me, wouldn't like to play in that environment myself.

Each to their own I guess.

That, dear fellow, is the crux of the argument! :smilie:

 

[Robert Maynard]

Gary creates a new commander in PvE mode. Gary shoots Terry. Gary kills Terry. Gary deletes his commander. Gary lathers, rinses, and repeats.

This is a very good point - perhaps the (time limited?) ban from PvE mode should more properly apply to the player account, not to the commander?

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Gary creates a new commander in PvE mode. Gary shoots Terry. Gary kills Terry. Gary deletes his commander. Gary lathers, rinses, and repeats.

One would hope that FD implement a couple of things that I have seen in other games:

• Limited amount of simultaneous commanders:
  • Let's say 2 to begin with
  • As your rating goes up, or you buy them with credits / microtransaction you unlock more, up to say 4-8
• When you delete the character there is a retention period
  • Your character is greyed out
  • You can change your mind and bring them back (clock resets)
  • After 3-7 days your character is deleted

Implementing a character creation system like this avoids said abuse mechanic
and also slows the abuse of the commanders with perks (like the 4K start)

 

[jabokai]

Go make yourselves heard - http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6304

And PBF if you have access - http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6303

And DDF if you have more access - http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6302

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Go make yourselves heard

2nd that.

Seems FD are listening and whilst nothing is set in stone; not to read anything into it; etc ... my guess is that they want to gauge the public to help decide on a course of action (final say to FD of course)

Qudos again ... today IS a good day

 

[DigitalDuck]

Implementing a character creation system like this avoids said abuse mechanic
and also slows the abuse of the commanders with perks (like the 4K start)

Indeed, that does seem like it'd at least massively reduce the amount of abuse of the system in a way that doesn't really hinder legitimate players. I think something like this would help regardless, as that abuse exists in all modes (including Ironman, where it has a real impact).

However, if you allow player-player damage in PvE mode then you do effectively force players to partake in PvP when someone else doesn't follow the rules; and those in PvE are there specifically either to avoid PvP, or to avoid people who don't follow the rules. So I can only agree that really friendly fire has to be impossible, either because your lasers don't actually shoot when they'd hit an enemy or because it simply does no damage.

 

[Fromhell]

Seems like there is a small minority with griefophobia / gankophobia.
At least the poll results speak a clear language.

I don't get it, they already have single player mode if the are scared of being shot down by a polygon ship controlled by a player instead of some computer AI.

Completely ridiculous. World of Tanks has 10 million users and doesn't even have PvE content.
If Elite wants a piece of that cake, we need ONE persistant universe with on global ruleset, that should be realism. We don't need little PvE flagged invincible ships, this is not WoW, there are no boss raids and winning by facerolling some keyboard keys. It's about skill.

If you're not skilled enough, or scared of pirates, only fly in groups and hire some NPC ships to escort you. But stop trying to mess up the premise of this game being a real sandbox experience and hiding under th table because the gameworld is inhabited by players with armed ships which *may* attack you.

If that scares some people, I suggest checking out some cartoon MMORPG WoWclones, the market is overflowing with those.

NO freakin' "PvE mode" in a persistant sandbox universe, unless you want to break your own game, Frontier

 

[DigitalDuck]

I don't get it, they already have single player mode if the are scared of being shot down by a polygon ship controlled by a player instead of some computer AI.

And those modes have NO OTHER PLAYERS in, which is not exactly desirable.

If Elite wants a piece of that cake, we need ONE persistant universe with on global ruleset, that should be realism.

You can have a persistent universe with one global ruleset. Those who want PvE will be in a different persistent universe with one global ruleset.

We don't need little PvE flagged invincible ships, this is not WoW, there are no boss raids and winning by facerolling some keyboard keys. It's about skill.

You won't have little PvE flagged invincible ships.

If you're not skilled enough, or scared of pirates, only fly in groups and hire some NPC ships to escort you. But stop trying to mess up the premise of this game being a real sandbox experience and hiding under th table because the gameworld is inhabited by players with armed ships which *may* attack you.

Nobody's trying to mess up the premise of the game being a real sandbox experience.

NO freakin' "PvE mode" in a persistant sandbox universe, unless you want to break your own game, Frontier

As shown in earlier posts, it doesn't break anything.