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

[Andrew Sayers]

No thanks - you survive based upon your piloting skills; ship composition; and a bit of luck ... no arbitrary balancing of damage ... for one keeping the universe rule sets (of combat) identical is easier on the Devs to develop and debug, plus the PvE guys need a challenge as well

Sorry, my previous post wasn't clear. I was suggesting the impact of a trade run would be balanced, not the damage taken. For example, say Elrawkum's Refuge was besieged and behind the scenes the simulation wanted 100 tons of grain per hour to stop a famine. If 100 tons made it through in PvP mode, that's the goal met. But 100 PvE tons would only count for 90% of the goal, 100 private tons would be 85%, etc. It's a similar mechanism to the population balancing that I agree would be a decent workaround for normal trade.

 

[Slawkenbergius]

If we are on separate servers FD are going to have a headache because they will be injecting events into universes that are slowly going to diverge. They'll end up with 2 scenarios to deal with.

Yeah, in my opinion there's absolutely no chance of Frontier doing anything silly like creating parallel universes. That would be the all-round worst option. It would mean twice the amount of GM work, and would really mess up any future fiction projects in terms of canon.

The background simulation has to factor-in the actions of every player, except the ones playing offline.

 

[withnail]

Yeah, in my opinion there's absolutely no chance of Frontier doing anything silly like creating parallel universes. That would be the all-round worst option. It would mean twice the amount of GM work, and would really mess up any future fiction projects in terms of canon.

The background simulation has to factor-in the actions of every player, except the ones playing offline.

In that case I can't see how it can work on the grounds of fairness. If you eliminate the randomness of human players then surely the game becomes easier.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against PvE but we will all need to be on a level playing field.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

Now is it time for a group hug ?

Now we can have a group hug.

Thank you DD. We're cool.

We most certainly are.

By the way, a little off-topic but I struggle to think of another forum that could get from the middle of that conversation to anything like such a happy ending. You guys are awesome

 

[DigitalDuck]

However I do think that it is a shame though because we will all end up on separate servers and never meet up. We would all be posting on the forums about different games

But we'd be doing that anyway! They'd just be playing private or solo instead... and speaking of which:

If we are on separate servers FD are going to have a headache because they will be injecting events into universes that are slowly going to diverge. They'll end up with 2 scenarios to deal with.

In that case, how are you dealing with private and solo players? Does every single private group have its own universe? Does every single solo group have its own universe? If they don't, then it's not fair. If they do, it's surely going to be more of a headache dealing with those... Two scenarios? Try 20000...

I get the feeling there'll be very little "injecting events" involved, at least of those that are absolutely specific to the current situation.

 

[DarkWalker]

If some of us think that multiplayer means a level playing field and 'mixing modes' within the same galaxy sounds unfair, that's a perfectly valid point of view and a valid answer to the question posed.

Nobody wants to take anything away from anyone. We just want the game to be fair.

More than fairness, I want a game that I can play and be entertained, without quitting in frustration.

PvE difficulty doesn't usually make me quit games - heck, I survived BattleToads

But unwanted PvP can quickly make me quit in frustration, whether I win or lose. So, I really want to be able to completely avoid PvP, in order to be able to actually enjoy the game.

I do agree that allowing players to completely opt out of PvP do create a balance issue. My own idea to handle that is to make the PvE encounters easier for players that are flagged for PvP without reducing the rewards, making up for the added risk of PvP.

In other words, PvP players would get PvP plus easier PvE, while PvE players would get just harder PvE, with the overall difficulty more or less balanced between PvP and PvE players.

What will we do with PvE griefers?

To be honest, I personally don't care about it at all, since - unless Frontier botches somehow when designing how PvE interaction will happen - the tools for a PvE griefer to make the game less enjoyable to other players are far more limited than for a PvP one, with chat often being their main "tool".

"In a perfect world", yes, all the balance and fairness issues will be resolved and we'll all be able to share the same universe. If not, I'd personally prefer a complete separation and have different back-end servers for each. The former is far more desirable, but only if those issues can be resolved.

I was not understanding correctly or you were not explaining it very well, either way this specific comment is crystal clear and I suspect we were actually in agreement all along

Segregation of the modes (my argument) but on different back end servers (your argument)

If this is the case then I 100% agree.

- Solution for the PvE crowd & PvP crowd
- Universes are fair and segregated
- Everyone wins

Segregation might be an acceptable compromise, but it's not ideal.

For one, it is bad for anyone that wants to PvP, but also wants to have control over when they can be engaged in PvP. With segregated universes such a player has to choose between the least of two evils between not having control over when they can be engaged, or else not having PvP as an available activity. It can also create situations where two or more players that want to play together prefer different rule sets, meaning at least one of them would be playing with a rule set he dislikes; this is how I was stuck playing in PvP servers in WoW for over half a decade, despite hating the PvP rule set.

Also, segregation is bad in itself. It means that there is a reasonable chance that someone that also plays the game won't be available for you to play together with. In any game with segregates servers, most of the time, whenever I find a friend that also plays, I'm prevented from playing together due to server segregation, which is one of the reasons I tend to consider MMOs as one of the worst kinds of games for actually playing with real life friends, with very few exceptions.

1. Other alternatives may bring the PvE players into the PvP group (e.g. optionally removing the PC/NPC identifer?)

Just want to mention that this specific one would instead drive me permanently into solo, or even offline, mode.

If there is one thing I hate more than being attacked by other players against my will, it's to feel like I'm causing harm to another player - which is what would happen if I make any unprovoked attack on another player. It doesn't matter if I think the other player deserves to be attacked or beaten a hundred times over, I won't attack first.

This basically means that, in a game where it's not obvious whether other characters are players or NPCs, I would only be able to come to grips with firing after making sure of the nature of the opposing character. It would completely prevent me from ever enjoying the game when playing any role that might have a reason to fire a weapon.

 

[CaptGrumpyPants]

Quite frankly, PvE in Elite would be just as frustrating and PvP as the NPC's will likely populate the emptiness of the instance so you'll get attacked just as often. Not sure how NPC's attacking you just as frequently as PC's would make any difference in your gameplay. In fact, with PC's excluded from attacking, I would think the likelihood of NPC attacks would be greater. No benefit to exclusive PvE as far as I can see.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No benefit to exclusive PvE as far as I can see.

.... apart from NOT being able to be irrationally griefed or ganked by PCs....

 

[Ian Doncaster]

To be honest, I personally don't care about it at all, since - unless Frontier botches somehow when designing how PvE interaction will happen - the tools for a PvE griefer to make the game less enjoyable to other players are far more limited than for a PvP one, with chat often being their main "tool".

That depends a bit on how you define "environment". I can't see a good definition of it that doesn't involve taking away a lot of what Frontier have already promised us in terms of cool features.

Let's say Ellen and Paul are both PvE players. Paul is a pirate, Ellen likes escorting freighters.

Ellen is escorting an NPC freighter. Can Paul shoot the freighter? If he can, Ellen unavoidably fails the escort contract. If not...

Paul is attacking an NPC freighter. Ellen comes along and offers to escort it at a knockdown price. The freighter suddenly becomes immune to Paul's attacks, after he's spent consumables, taken damage, got a bounty, whatever trying to get it to dump cargo.

Either way there's potential for someone to grief someone else. Indeed, either way there's potential for people to get on each other's nerves while just playing, if they didn't notice one of the ships in that furball around the freighter was player-controlled. Elite Dangerous doesn't seem inclined to the same clean separation of Player and Environment that other MMO games have - which will make it a great game in general, but I really have no idea how Frontier could resolve this one if they do implement a PvE mode.

 

[withnail]

But we'd be doing that anyway! They'd just be playing private or solo instead... and speaking of which

In that case, how are you dealing with private and solo players? Does every single private group have its own universe? Does every single solo group have its own universe? If they don't, then it's not fair. If they do, it's surely going to be more of a headache dealing with those... Two scenarios? Try 20000...

I get the feeling there'll be very little "injecting events" involved, at least of those that are absolutely specific to the current situation.

I would be interested to know what your thoughts are on difficulty with respect to PvE and PvP. IMHO PvP would most likely be more difficult.

AFAIK it is possible to switch between solo online, groups and all player. Is it reasonable to switch between PvE and PvP? I am not so sure.

How about this: If you choose PvE then you should have to stick with your choice just like Ironman. If you leave for PvP you cannot go back.

I think there will be more event injection than you think. They will want to introduce all kind of interesting events into the universe from famines, political intrigue to war between the factions and this will need to develop this over a number of months. Although this is a bit off topic I believe that this aspect of the game will be really interesting.

 

[jabokai]

Let's say Ellen and Paul are both PvE players. Paul is a pirate, Ellen likes escorting freighters.

Ellen is escorting an NPC freighter. Can Paul shoot the freighter? If he can, Ellen unavoidably fails the escort contract. If not...

Paul is attacking an NPC freighter. Ellen comes along and offers to escort it at a knockdown price. The freighter suddenly becomes immune to Paul's attacks, after he's spent consumables, taken damage, got a bounty, whatever trying to get it to dump cargo.

A couple of solutions to your first scenario -

1. Escort missions flag the escorter(s) as PvP enabled temporarily. Probably not a good idea as a solo pirate could call in a bunch of buddies and get them all lined up to hyper-gank the escorter!
2. When on an escort mission you simply don't get instanced with other players not on the same mission... for the duration of that mission it's effectively solo/group PvE.

Your second one... well, tough on Ellen, she cannot be offered/accept such a mission once it's running. PvEers have to accept (and I think they do, quite happily) that their galaxy will not have quite as many options as the PvP one.

 

[jabokai]

IMHO PvP would most likely be more difficult.

AFAIK it is possible to switch between solo online, groups and all player. Is it reasonable to switch between PvE and PvP? I am not so sure.

How about this: If you choose PvE then you should have to stick with your choice just like Ironman. If you leave for PvP you cannot go back.

As a possibility - they could make it a real cash transaction to switch between modes, or limit it to an absolute finite number, or a finite number in a certain period.

You say you're not sure about it being reasonable to switch between open group PvE and open group PvP... are you equally unsure about switching from PvP to a solo PvP subgroup (effectively solo PvE) and back again?

I don't really fully understand the "fairness" argument when private and solo groups exist. The "exploit" already exists; to make it truly meaningful for open PvE/PvP groups they'd have to change the subgroups thing I think. That's a different discussion, but if we take the groups proposal in the DDF archive as final... that's kind of the position I see ourselves in.

 

[Slawkenbergius]

Ellen is escorting an NPC freighter. Can Paul shoot the freighter? If he can, Ellen unavoidably fails the escort contract. If not...

Paul is attacking an NPC freighter. Ellen comes along and offers to escort it at a knockdown price. The freighter suddenly becomes immune to Paul's attacks, after he's spent consumables, taken damage, got a bounty, whatever trying to get it to dump cargo.

This kind of thing highlights why Frontier can't just come out and say definitively whether PVE mode is going to be included. It does complicate the game, and it's difficult to see all of the unintended consequences. They have to make the game first, and then test PVE to see what the issues are. If PVE is workable without making a mess, then they can include it as an option. If not, then at least they won't have committed themselves down that road.

 

[Caribou]

Good [Insert Deity here]!

is this still meandering though the latter circles of hell?

 

[jabokai]

is this still meandering though the latter circles of hell?

The mention in the latest newsletter gave it an adrenalin shot!

 

[Caribou]

The mention in the latest newsletter gave it an adrenalin shot!

I'm glad I went AWOL I feel much more relaxed now... I shall lurk some more.

 

[withnail]

I'm glad I went AWOL I feel much more relaxed now... I shall lurk some more.

I lurked and made the mistake of posting

 

[DigitalDuck]

Quite frankly, PvE in Elite would be just as frustrating and PvP as the NPC's will likely populate the emptiness of the instance so you'll get attacked just as often. Not sure how NPC's attacking you just as frequently as PC's would make any difference in your gameplay. In fact, with PC's excluded from attacking, I would think the likelihood of NPC attacks would be greater. No benefit to exclusive PvE as far as I can see.

Erm... players don't want PvE to avoid combat. Players want PvE to avoid player combat. That's exactly what PvE offers. That's the benefit.

AFAIK it is possible to switch between solo online, groups and all player. Is it reasonable to switch between PvE and PvP? I am not so sure.

How about this: If you choose PvE then you should have to stick with your choice just like Ironman. If you leave for PvP you cannot go back.

I don't see how it could possibly make any difference if you can already switch to Solo and Private groups and back again. At the risk of repeating myself again (although hopefully in the right context this time...) this has nothing to do with PvE.

Why should you have to stick with your choice in PvE if you don't have to stick with your choice in Solo or Private groups? If people are switching to game the system, locking off PvE will do absolutely nothing except annoy PvE players.

I think there will be more event injection than you think. They will want to introduce all kind of interesting events into the universe from famines, political intrigue to war between the factions and this will need to develop this over a number of months. Although this is a bit off topic I believe that this aspect of the game will be really interesting.

My point was that it doesn't have to be limited to the current situation. Events etc. can happen over a long period of time without having to tie it in to the exact state of the universe.


And that doesn't really answer the question of what happens to Solo/Private modes. Do they have their own universes?

If they don't, then it's still unfair because Solo/Private players are affecting the PvP universe. If they do, then it's thousands of universes to worry about.

 

[withnail]

I don't see how it could possibly make any difference if you can already switch to Solo and Private groups and back again. At the risk of repeating myself again (although hopefully in the right context this time...) this has nothing to do with PvE.

Without wanting to offend anyone I must admit that I do not feel overly passionate about this debate and will leave this here.

This debate has been going on for ages and from your responses I feel that i might be going over old ground anyway.

I have a lot of goodwill for people who wish to play PvE and there is enough of them to give some weight to their arguement. We shall see!

Either way Frontier will make a decision on this at some point and I for one will be happy with whatever they decide.

 

[Caribou]

Fox News Edit of Digital Duck post.... [Don't feed the Caribou]

Erm... players don't want PvE

I don't see how it could possibly make any difference...

Why should you have to ...PvE

My point was that it doesn't have to be...

...it's still unfair because ... If they do, then it's thousands of universes to worry about.

I agree, oh did I read that right?