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

[Elrawkum]

It does! Just because it's the same as solo and private groups doesn't mean it ISN'T imbalanced if they're imbalanced too! Three wrongs don't make a right! They're ALL imbalancing. Replace the word PvE with any either of those if you like. It doesn't matter. The argument is the same.

A solo player jumping that blockade STILL invalidates the PvPers work.

A private grouped player jumping that blockade STILL invalidates the PvPers work.

It's not MORE imbalancing no (well, even that's arguable depending on other factors), it's EQUALLY imbalancing. Either way...

The arguments above both work. They aren't invalidated. Find solutions to them*, not semantic arguments.

*edit: not you personally, of course - just in general.

 

[DigitalDuck]

The argument is the same.

[...]

The arguments above both work. They aren't invalidated. Find solutions to them, not semantic arguments.

But that's precisely the point! I'm not saying they're invalid arguments, I'm saying they're invalid arguments against having a PvE mode, because they do not change even when you remove PvE mode.

Saying, "your door doesn't have a lock, you should probably fix that" is not a valid argument against allowing me to paint my door black. It's a valid argument, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what colour my door is.

So saying, "we shouldn't have a PvE group because it can affect the PvP universe" is an invalid argument; it makes no difference, because there are already two other groups which have an effect on the PvP universe, and it's likely that the addition of a PvE group will, in fact, change absolutely nothing.

Your argument should be "other groups shouldn't affect the PvP universe", which is a different argument entirely, and one that comes with its own points irrespective of whether there is a PvE group or not.

If we have a PvE group, you will have the problem of different groups affecting each other. If we do not have a PvE group, you will have the problem of different groups affecting each other.

If we have groups and they affect each other, a PvE universe has no extra effect on the PvP universe. If we have groups and they don't affect each other, a PvE universe has no effect on the PvP universe.

These two arguments are unchanged when removed from each other; therefore, they are entirely separate arguments that should not be conflated.

I suggest, if you feel as strongly about completely separating the groups as I do about including a PvE group, that you create a new thread about it; and you'll probably have my support. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the inclusion of a PvE group.

 

[Robert Maynard]

10 NPC ships form a blockade, 10 equally matched NPC ships try to break the blockade. We have balance. Stalemate. This will be the same for both PvP and PvE players so they effectively cancel each other out in either case. So from here on in, we'll discount them.

1 PvP player joins the blockade - if nothing changes the system will fall into anarchy.

1 PvP player tries to break the blockade. The outcome is now uncertain and will be decided by the most skillful player.

OR

1 PvE player tries to break the blockade. The outcome is guaranteed. He will get through, the blockade will be broken and the PvP player who tried to guard it was powerless to do anything about it. The PvE players influence was greater than the PvP players influence, and completely invalidated his efforts. This is not good.

Not just a PvE player, equally an IronMan player or a private group of players. The outcome is not guaranteed. The system could introduce more NPC ships to balance the situation (if it determined that that was the right thing to do).

Rampaging PvEers:

A group of 10 PvE players roam the galaxy taking out outposts, causing havoc, having a lot of fun in the process (which nobody begrudges). They're well armed, well equipped, and skilful. The NPCs do their best, but these guys are too good. They conquer all before them. They become the scourge of the trade-lanes. Who can stop them, I wonder? Well, no one, as it happens. Whatever influence these 10 space dogs have on the universe, for good or ill, no other player can do anything about them. Ever.

A group of 10 PvP players roam the galaxy taking out outposts, etc., etc. Who can stop them I wonder? Well, anyone, as it happens. This way for the bounties lads!

The PvE players would have bounties on them as well. Do you think that there will be no NPC bounty hunters?

You see the problem?

The problem (if there is one, and I'm not totally convinced) is that we already have four play modes (none of which I would consider removing!). Adding a fifth makes next to no difference as it would likely be composed mainly from players that would otherwise play Solo or in private groups.

You'll have a similar problem even in PvP if the group is 32 players and we hit the instance limit, so that no other PvPers can 'join' their instance and kill them either, but I'm hoping that FD will be aware of that kind of 'exploit' and will do something to counter it (maybe maximum group size of 16 allied players per instance?)

Same limit problem. However many NPCs can be added into that mix.

I'm not for one moment saying "don't give people what they want" - but I am saying that you can't have PvE/solo/private groups having the same level of influence on the galaxy as PvPers and it be fair. Not without some damn clever balancing that I've not really heard yet.

The PvP players already have what they want. All the PvE players are asking for is to be treated equally. I think that you are a bit overly concerned with the influence of players on the galaxy. The galaxy is HUGE. There will not be *that* many players considering the scale of the galaxy.

For true fairness, you need to have entirely separate galaxy/servers where you're either PvE (including solo and pvt groups), or you're PvP and never the twain shall meet, nor impact on either universe.

That would be for FD to decide.

Or the PvEers compromise and realise that it isn't really fair on everyone else for them to get an easy/easier ride and have an undue influence on the galaxy without the other players being able to counter them in any way.

Again with the "easy" comments about PvE. Do you not trust FD to balance the NPC difficulty levels in PvE mode such that it is of similar difficulty to PvP mode? I doubt that many players could handle a group of Police Vipers at max AI difficulty.

Personally I'll have a solo game (offline) where I explore and play at my leisure, and a 'real' game in the full dynamic universe - which I expected by default to be unavoidably PvP.

That is your opinion, to which you are completely entitled. However there are others who do not share that opinion. That is what is being discussed here.

Hopefully FD will make a definitive announcement soon as this topic has been chewed over for so long it's pretty much lost any flavour.

 

[Marsman]

by now Frontier will have realized the bad implication of their system of groups (hopefully they will correct this)

- if i want "Pvall" and the solo guys or private groups snatch away resources, rig markets under my nose, it is unfair, because I can do nothing about it
-> therefore I will switch to private group too to do the same, I don't want to have a disadvantage, right?
-> I will play an unrealistic mode I never wanted to play in the first place
-> game will end up everyone doing their single player/private thing because no point in taking the risk of the All Group.
-> All Group is unrewarding and nothing but a hazzle because an easier mode of less resistance exists

besides solo/private groups is like a "make credits fast" scam/exploit scheme. Work towards the uber-ships and weapons in solo/private mode ,then maybe switch back and forth to real player mode when you "feel strong enough" to shoot someone??
this is just all not in the spirit of "make your way in a realistic universe".

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The NPCs do their best, but these guys are too good.

Have you seen the size of the faction Cruisers? No roving band of players is going to destroy one of them on their own, no matter how good they are. Not when the absolute biggest ship a player can own wouldn't look too out of place as a gun turret.

The original Elite and Frontier (and with one exception, First Encounters) had the player be basically irrelevant to the universe.You might get rich, you might even get to be Elite, you might do something newsworthy, but basically the game was about making a living and a reputation in a universe so large you were basically irrelevant to it.

Elite Dangerous, I hope, will do much the same. If a single player or a small group of players can become powerful enough to change galactic history on their own, something has gone wrong. (But the idea that the actions of the player base in aggregate can change the course of history I do like)

To take the blockade as an example: as I said before, space is huge. A blockade would need a ridiculous number of ships to maintain successfully. Similarly to make blockading interesting, there'll need to be a steady supply of NPC blockade runners, for the times no player is trying to break through.

So the overall outcome of the blockade is going to depend on what proportion of ships trying to get through actually make it. If a player - for whatever reason - doesn't run into your blockade group, then you can make up for that by destroying more NPCs. Your individual actions only make a difference as a contribution to the aggregate. You can contribute to the aggregate more effectively than another player (assuming you're better than them!) whether you meet them or not.

 

[el_tel]

Have you seen the size of the faction Cruisers? No roving band of players is going to destroy one of them on their own, no matter how good they are. Not when the absolute biggest ship a player can own wouldn't look too out of place as a gun turret.

The original Elite and Frontier (and with one exception, First Encounters) had the player be basically irrelevant to the universe.You might get rich, you might even get to be Elite, you might do something newsworthy, but basically the game was about making a living and a reputation in a universe so large you were basically irrelevant to it.

Elite Dangerous, I hope, will do much the same. If a single player or a small group of players can become powerful enough to change galactic history on their own, something has gone wrong. (But the idea that the actions of the player base in aggregate can change the course of history I do like)

To take the blockade as an example: as I said before, space is huge. A blockade would need a ridiculous number of ships to maintain successfully. Similarly to make blockading interesting, there'll need to be a steady supply of NPC blockade runners, for the times no player is trying to break through.

So the overall outcome of the blockade is going to depend on what proportion of ships trying to get through actually make it. If a player - for whatever reason - doesn't run into your blockade group, then you can make up for that by destroying more NPCs. Your individual actions only make a difference as a contribution to the aggregate. You can contribute to the aggregate more effectively than another player (assuming you're better than them!) whether you meet them or not.

Good post

 

[Ian Doncaster]

- if i want "Pvall" and the solo guys or private groups snatch away resources, rig markets under my nose, it is unfair, because I can do nothing about it

Bear in mind that you can do the same to them. "Not being in the same instance at the same time" works both ways.

I don't want to have a disadvantage, right?

But don't assume that everyone wants to play in that way. I spent a long time flying an Osprey X - including completing high-level Imperial missions - in First Encounters. It's nowhere near the best ship in the game (it's probably not even the best in its size class) - but it was more fun than ploughing through everything with a Panther Clipper and 20MW beam turrets (or the Thargoid ship...), and it's just a stylish ship.

I don't care if another player elsewhere in the universe is getting an "easier" game - what difference does it make to me? Someone regularly flying around in an alliance of ten ships is going to have an "easier" time than me, because there's no way I'll be able to organise that sort of thing for myself. Someone who can play eight hours a day is going to have an easier time because they'll be able to advance up the ranks and buy an iron-ass ship of their choice while I'm still upgrading my Sidewinder. The people who played the alpha and beta tests are going to have an easier time because they'll be used to the flight model, the map, the trade routes, all the rest while I'm just learning. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Not everyone who plays - indeed, probably only a small minority of players - is going to be interested in getting "to the top" (whatever that means to them) as quickly as possible. If that's what you want to do, great - go right ahead. If you think being in a private/solo group will make it easier, and you want "easier to the destination" over "fun on the journey" - go right ahead. But don't assume everyone else thinks the same. I'm going to start in the all players PvP group, and I'm going to stay there for as long as it continues being fun.

 

[Robert Maynard]

by now Frontier will have realized the bad implication of their system of groups (hopefully they will correct this)

A bit presumptious, no? Groups were announced during the KickStarter so are extremely unlikely to be removed.

- if i want "Pvall" and the solo guys or private groups snatch away resources, rig markets under my nose, it is unfair, because I can do nothing about it

Shame.... Some other player could have done that when you were offline.

-> therefore I will switch to private group too to do the same, I don't want to have a disadvantage, right?

Elite has no "winning". Players in the same mode as you with more game time will have an advantage over you.

-> I will play an unrealistic mode I never wanted to play in the first place

That's your choice.

-> game will end up everyone doing their single player/private thing because no point in taking the risk of the All Group.

A lot of people will avoid the All group to avoid being PKed or ganked.

-> All Group is unrewarding and nothing but a hazzle because an easier mode of less resistance exists

Again, that's your opinion and takes no account of NPC AI difficulty tuning in each mode.

besides solo/private groups is like a "make credits fast" scam/exploit scheme. Work towards the uber-ships and weapons in solo/private mode ,then maybe switch back and forth to real player mode when you "feel strong enough" to shoot someone??
this is just all not in the spirit of "make your way in a realistic universe"

Each player is free to play the game in the way that they want to.

 

[Marsman]

Bear in mind that you can do the same to them. "Not being in the same instance at the same time" works both ways.

does not make it any better if I can do it too, everyone will exploit this group mechanic instead of find ingame ways to deal with situations. Realism feeling is falling apart because of this, which is terrible

I don't care if another player elsewhere in the universe is getting an "easier" game - what difference does it make to me? .

I *do* care and I think a lot of others will too, in online game terminology it is a classic exploit, not more not less

Each player is free to play the game in the way that they want to.

Wrong, I can't play as a pink unicorn shooting rainbows, although this would be far less game breaking than the group idea

 

[Robert Maynard]

Wrong, I can't play as a pink unicorn shooting rainbows, although this would be far less game breaking than the group idea

Be careful what you wish for, FD may make that the only vessel available to you

More seriously, at the moment the poll is split 183 for "free-for-all" and (94 + 69 + 14 + 6 = 183) for something different.

Why should everyone be forced into an All group when only 50% want that?

 

[[VR] Shadowman]

Why should everyone be forced into an All group when only 50% want that?

Why should the 50% who want it not get it?

 

[BBD777]

Reduce Ganking but keep it real

I would really like to see ED help to reduce ganking. I played wow for years where you got ganked time after time by the same players where were much stronger due to constantly playing, which caused a lot of frustration.

I do however believe there should large areas where there are no police or rules and lots of opportunistic commanders who will take advantage of noobs or inexperienced players of low level, as would happen in real life. But there should be some rules which perhaps have a cool down that prevents the same stronger player from attacking a weaker player too many times, say 3 times? Similar to WOW commanders should know when an area is to dangerous for them and not enter until they are sufficient level.

Commanders of equal level shouldn't have any such rules applied and it should be down to skill.

For me you should be able to turn PVP off when you don't feel like fighting and want to focus on quests.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why should the 50% who want it not get it?

If the All group exists (which it does) then they already have it.

The discussion centres on the fact that not all players want to be in the All group.

As we already have the following modes: Solo (offline); Solo (online); Private Groups (online); IronMan (online) and the All group (online), why does adding PvE (online) make such a difference?

None of the players in each of the aforementioned modes are aware that the others exist at all.

It boils down to "you already have what you want, why are you not willing to accept that we want something else (that won't affect you)?".

 

[Marsman]

at the moment the poll is split 183 for "free-for-all" and (94 + 69 + 14 + 6 = 183) for something different.
Why should everyone be forced into an All group when only 50% want that?

the 94 aren't on your side either.

76% want either Free-for-all everywhere or a split between guarded/unguarded systems which is the best compromise for all.

the whole population segregation thing has been pretty much slapped. Question is what is Frontier going to do to fix it.

If the All group exists (which it does) then they already have it.

obviously nothing exists yet, otherwise this poll would not be up

As we already have the following modes: Solo (offline); Solo (online); Private Groups (online); IronMan (online) and the All group (online), why does adding PvE (online) make such a difference?

i think to really make this sandbox work, solo online needs to go, as well as private groups online. Private groups via LAN for offline single players - ok. As long as they can not take their credits and ships into the online universe, fine.

other (not so good) solution is to keep the groups as they are and give a major buff to credits earning, speciality rewards and extra incentives for the All Group for higher risk of "realism modus"

It boils down to "you already have what you want, why are you not willing to accept that we want something else (that won't affect you)?".

It has been pointed out by many users, countless ways how they, the universe economy and realism are affected in a negative way - it doesn't get true if you repeat it does not affect anyone. I am affected and so are others.

 

[[VR] Shadowman]

If the All group exists (which it does) then they already have it.

The discussion centres on the fact that not all players want to be in the All group.

As we already have the following modes: Solo (offline); Solo (online); Private Groups (online); IronMan (online) and the All group (online), why does adding PvE (online) make such a difference?

None of the players in each of the aforementioned modes are aware that the others exist at all.

It boils down to "you already have what you want, why are you not willing to accept that we want something else (that won't affect you)?".

TBH, we can disregard the offline modes, because they are in a different league. So, looking at solo (online): obviously only online due to galaxy updates, so no comparison there.

Private groups are a subset of the larger online groups, which also appear in other modes, so again, can't be used as comparison.

Ironman is an abomination, due to it not being very "iron" at all (sorry Liqua!). However, it is by comparison a different "mode", which is what you're suggesting. It is also a mixed PvP/PvE environment, which is what the online (all) group is.

So, what you're looking for is something in addition to the above, which changes the rules completely, by disallowing any kind of PvP. My issue with this is that it massively separates the player base, more so than any other grouping (so yes, it does affect me) and my bigger issue is that it creates a whole new set of rules and work for FD. I'd rather them work on the main focus of the game and give us some reassurance that it won't turn into an EvE PvP environment, which is the reason people seem to want PvE. But atm at least, it's baseless, because we haven't even had the alpha, so have nothing to compare with.

 

[Marsman]

So, what you're looking for is something in addition to the above, which changes the rules completely, by disallowing any kind of PvP. My issue with this is that it massively separates the player base, more so than any other grouping (so yes, it does affect me) and my bigger issue is that it creates a whole new set of rules and work for FD. I'd rather them work on the main focus of the game and give us some reassurance that it won't turn into an EvE PvP environment, which is the reason people seem to want PvE. But atm at least, it's baseless, because we haven't even had the alpha, so have nothing to compare with.

it is a common misconception (and obviously used as agenda) that EvE would be a PvP environment. It is NOT. Only in sectors with no police. You can't die in high sec to a player only if you are really, really stupid falling for a common trap (I only read about) to become criminal status, looting abandoned ships with criminal goods. Never saw that happen though.
Police arrives quicker and blows up a silly attacker within seconds. There is TONS of SAFE PvE content in EvE. Go try it out if you don't believe me. You can fly hours and hours with your noob ship with no one even bothering or talking to you.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

everyone will exploit this group mechanic instead of find ingame ways to deal with situations.

No, not everyone. You - and people who play games in a similar way to you - will "exploit" the group mechanic, because "getting to the top as quickly as possible" is what you want to do. That's great - go right ahead! I look forward to the news that Commander Marsman has become the first Elite combateer / discovered a new Earthlike planet / been declared public enemy number 1 by all three major factions.

• Other people will use the group mechanic to get a quieter game and ignore multiplayer aspects which don't interest them.
• Other people will stay in the All group, because they want the social atmosphere.
• Other people will stay in the All group, because they feel the NPCs aren't giving them enough of a challenge to keep the game fun for them.
• Other people will stay in the All group, because the NPCs are giving them too much of a challenge, and they want a wider pool of like-minded players to arrange mutual escort agreements with.
• Other people will play permadeath (whether or not the game officially supports it) and start again every time they die, because building their starting ship up in the early game is the fun bit for them.
• Other people will go off exploring the far reaches of space. It doesn't matter what group they're in because you're never going to see them anyway.

in online game terminology it is a classic exploit

Is it? That depends on three things, I think:

1. The NPCs not actually being as challenging as players. Even if their AI isn't as good as a player, there can be a lot more of them - they are not part of the 32-per-instance limit - and they can have equipment and ships not available to players. Frontier have already hinted that if you go around in an alliance so big you stop other players joining your instance, the NPC numbers will be increased to keep the game interesting for you.
2. Player-to-player interaction in the All group actually being a significant "drag" on progress. If it ends up that players tend to cooperate when they meet it might actually be an advantage to be there. If players rarely meet at all (and it's a big galaxy with big star systems) it might make very little practical difference.
3. The value of a monopoly on an in-game resource being consistently sufficiently higher than the costs of violent defence of it (bounties, repairs, death, etc.) that blowing up the competition is more profitable than sharing the resource or locating less competitive resources to monopolise, to the extent that securing such a monopoly is the optimal way to gain power. Again, given the size of the galaxy, I don't see that as being particularly likely: any resource that big and unique is probably beyond the capabilities of independent players to hold against the might of the big NPC factions anyway.

And as has been pointed out before: you can't use the poll results to claim people want one PvP group and nothing else. I voted for option 1 on the understanding that the grouping mechanism was already there, because I think the grouping mechanism is a superior way to allow separation of desired styles of play than a separate PvE server / ruleset would be. Otherwise I'd have voted 3.

 

[jabokai]

76% want either Free-for-all everywhere or a split between guarded/unguarded systems which is the best compromise for all.

the whole population segregation thing has been pretty much slapped. Question is what is Frontier going to do to fix it.

Take a look at this poll - http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5012... 78.95% wanted "no split" and yet Frontier realised that the 21% were actually a big minority worth catering to. Given that already exists, do you actually have a better argument why 20% should be granted something and 25% denied?

Population segregation been slapped? By who? Not by Frontier in any case, as you can already see.

 

[Elrawkum]

Still missing the point on the npc question. It's not about how challenging the npcs are. It's the fact that no player can ever stop you in "non PvP". Ever. Not just sometimes because you're in different instances. Ever.

A PvE player can completely nullify what a PvP player is doing and he has absolutely no recourse. He simply cannot stop you. Your influence is greater than his. It doesn't work in reverse because another player can always, always stop him. Not when they're in different instances no, but when they are, yes. The point being one is POSSIBLE and the other isn't.

I'm sorry - the issue is no longer about whether PvE/solo/private groupings would be unfair. Anyone who can see past their own desires should be able to see the logic without too much trouble. It's how to solve it.

 

[jabokai]

Anyone who can see past their own desires should be able to see the logic without too much trouble. It's how to solve it.

I will be in Ironman to start with, and then Normal (PvP) when I die. I still want there to be a PvE galaxy for the huge amount of people who'll want it... to me, that is looking past my own desires. :smilie: