Am I the only one not understanding all the fuss?

[BjpMunro]

So in the last few days I followed all the threads about PvP vs. PvE etc. and hey, I feel really stupid because I can't understand all this. I mean, this is a game where things will try to kill you, so exactly what difference does make if you are killed by a human or a bot? Yeah, sure, a human opponent will be more skilled than a bot, but relative skills only matter if you are in a gunship yourself - and if you are in a gunship you signed up to fight, so shut up and fight Conversely, if you are a trader flying a space truck any stupid AI-driven Viper will kill you anyway because you are in a defenseless space truck, so, what's the point?

Then I was introduced to the concept of 'griefing', whom I never heard before not being used to plau MMOs. Ok, I understand how this could be a serious problem, but - wait a minute, how it is supposed to happen here?
This is not a game with a limited, fixed playground where you could expect to encounter the same players again and again and again. Here we have a vast, almost 'infinite' universe where it is already uncommon to encounter any human player at all, let alone encountering some multiple times. And, from what I understood about game mechanics, players aren't even all in the same universe but the server will 'conflate' a number of players in the same 'universe' when they happen to be in the same 'place'. All this means to me that to encounter any given player twice you pretty much have to want it to happen, like going to a place where there's literally only the two of you around. And it does not end here: let's assume that a player kills you, and somehow wants to do it again. What would happen? Well, after being killed you would respawn in the station, where said player can't do anything to you because the station would kill him instantly. He would have to camp outside the station, well clear of its fire zone, and literally stay there forever not knowing when or if you're going to take off again, expecially since you could just switch to solo and go away unnoticed leaving just a big "@#$! YOU" greeting card on the pad Ok, he might try to kill you again should he encounter you again by chance somewhere, but then this is just the game, isn't it?

So in the end it appears to me that there is an enormous rage about something that just can't happen because game mechanics prevent it from happening in the first place. Huh. Am I missing something?

Mostly useless traders who think the game is about going from point A to point B and think all pvp'rs are griefers.

 

[Patrick_68000]

The resentment toward a human is much stronger than towards a NPC

 

[Herik]

So in the last few days I followed all the threads about PvP vs. PvE etc. and hey, I feel really stupid because I can't understand all this. I mean, this is a game where things will try to kill you, so exactly what difference does make if you are killed by a human or a bot? Yeah, sure, a human opponent will be more skilled than a bot, but relative skills only matter if you are in a gunship yourself - and if you are in a gunship you signed up to fight, so shut up and fight Conversely, if you are a trader flying a space truck any stupid AI-driven Viper will kill you anyway because you are in a defenseless space truck, so, what's the point?

Then I was introduced to the concept of 'griefing', whom I never heard before not being used to plau MMOs. Ok, I understand how this could be a serious problem, but - wait a minute, how it is supposed to happen here?
This is not a game with a limited, fixed playground where you could expect to encounter the same players again and again and again. Here we have a vast, almost 'infinite' universe where it is already uncommon to encounter any human player at all, let alone encountering some multiple times. And, from what I understood about game mechanics, players aren't even all in the same universe but the server will 'conflate' a number of players in the same 'universe' when they happen to be in the same 'place'. All this means to me that to encounter any given player twice you pretty much have to want it to happen, like going to a place where there's literally only the two of you around. And it does not end here: let's assume that a player kills you, and somehow wants to do it again. What would happen? Well, after being killed you would respawn in the station, where said player can't do anything to you because the station would kill him instantly. He would have to camp outside the station, well clear of its fire zone, and literally stay there forever not knowing when or if you're going to take off again, expecially since you could just switch to solo and go away unnoticed leaving just a big "@#$! YOU" greeting card on the pad Ok, he might try to kill you again should he encounter you again by chance somewhere, but then this is just the game, isn't it?

So in the end it appears to me that there is an enormous rage about something that just can't happen because game mechanics prevent it from happening in the first place. Huh. Am I missing something?

Yup; to prevent all those problems, go Solo...

 

[DarkWalker]

But why though?

Because attacking a real, living, thinking person, even if by proxy, is completely different from attacking an unthinking NPC, even if everything else about the conflict feels identical.

I love PvP, mind, but only fully consensual PvP. Those are no different, for me, than a friendly sparring match, something I enjoy greatly.

What if they shot you first and you were simply trading? Would you still feel guilty shooting back?

Then I wouldn't shoot back. I would ram, in the hope of destroying both ships or, at the very least, causing more damage to my attacker than he could recoup from me (and to end the fight as quickly as possible, as it would be purely frustrating for me). If someone gets me rilled up, I don't play to win anymore; I play to make my opponent lose as much as possible, regardless of the costs for me. And opening fire on me while I'm doing anything PvE is a sure way to rile me up.

And afterwards I would likely leave the game for the day at least, if not for longer. I hate non-consensual PvP enough that I have, in the past, completely abandoned games I otherwise liked the first or second time I was attacked.

I do behave differently when there are no consequences for defeat; then, in the case of non-consensual PvP, I just suicide myself without fighting back, respawn, and go back to playing as if nothing had happened. Without consequences I can ignore that PvP even exists, which allows me to avoid most of the frustration I feel about unwanted PvP.

As an example, I played WoW in a PvP server for over half a decade. Not only played, it was my primary game. In that time I've never, ever, attacked a player from the opposite faction outside a battleground or arena, rarely defended myself if attacked, and if the group I was in decided to attack the other faction I would drop group rather than go along. The only time I got into conflict with the other faction it was over a neutral escort quest, and even then I never directly attacked the other players; I was peacefully escorting the NPC out of a fortress when a party of the opposite faction killed me in order to do the quest, I spent the next hour making sure the NPC got killed every time that group attempted the quest to then /sit and let them kill me without fighting back, until the group gave up and left; then I logged off and didn't play the rest of the week.

(Disclaimer: I was in a PvP server because I had friends that refused to play in a PvE server. Lesson learned, I never again allowed a friend to convince me to play in a PvP server, not worth it.)

Let's assume there was no solo mode. Let's assume that from the start we all knew that this game was online only (regardless if that particular fact impacts your purchase decision), and there was no way to differentiate between NPC and PCs.

Then I would never play, simple as that, regardless of whether I purchased the game or not. If, when firing, I can't be sure I'm engaging in PvP or PvE, I won't fire.

It's not a desire for a moral high ground or something like that; I just feel really bad if I attack another player without his or her full consent, bad enough to completely ruin my gaming session if it happens.

Keep in mind that, for me, the psychological aspect of fighting real players and fighting NPCs are completely different. If you truly feel like fighting a player and fighting a NPC is the same as long as it's impossible to tell which you are fighting, I doubt you can ever understand how I feel about it.

Also, I think the majority of the player base is 25+ here. It's not like we're being griefed or hunted by some pre-pubescent WoW player who's mother bought him his rig. It's someone likely as intelligent and mature as you are.

Opening myself for this kind of conflict is a pure negative, without any redeeming qualities. So, if I have any alternative for my play time, I will take it — and, in this day and age when the number of games I have in digital distribution services is measured in the hundreds and I have lifetime subs for a handful of MMOs, I always have an alternative, even if it's to simply change the game I'm playing.

I love playing with others, mind, but either in a pure PvP match without any PvE elements, or else in pure PvE.

 

[Herik]

They're probably not okay with verbal abuse and definitely anything that goes against real world law going on in their chat channels. There's a bounty system and they designed the matchmaking system in a manner that pull players who PVP towards eachother and away from more peaceful players gradually.


Does he actually have to go and tell you why he likes to hang his underwear at the door way or why he like bacon and eggs in the morning too?
Does the simple answer that he likes to kill players in a virtual world really appear surprising and outlandish to you?
You don't actually have a decent argument do you? That's why you're setting this up to attack his character; pretty pathetic.

He doesn't have to say anything; but its a good question...

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

This is a serious First World Problem. We need more threads that discuss it.

Naw; we got Solo...

 

[eeps]

The people complaining about it should go play a few weeks of EVE and then come back =)

Eve is a griefers paradise, even people who dont play video games have heard how bad player to player interaction is in _that_ game. So the end result is = don't spend money on Eve, you will hate it because the people in the game are atrocious to deal with.

The 'people complaining' as you mentioned, are simply trying to avoid Elite getting the same reputation, and becoming the same kind of game.

Have a good look around, take note of all the hate and trash talk the pro-pvp people are espousing, the push against pvp has a lot to do with that, and not much to do with the actual combat..

 

[Soulstain]

This is the only truth, I wish everyone would see it as you do...

The only ones crying are the same whiners who keep starting threads about people not wanting to play in open all the time. The solo players have nothing to cry about! They don't care! You are complaining that everyone is afraid of being griefed when what you really are saying is you have nobody to shoot at. You are a vocal minority crying like brats about nobody to shoot at. Nobody cares.

I've asked this question about 3 times today. Can anyone point to where it says MMO on ED's main web page? It appears to have been removed. If you bought this game thinking you were going to shoot human players all day long you made a huge mistake. This is just not that game. Solo game with multiplayer elements is what this is. Please stop twisting things to appear that solo players are ruining the game because this is the game as intended.

 

[Uueerdo]

Have a good look around, take note of all the hate and trash talk the pro-pvp people are espousing, the push against pvp has a lot to do with that, and not much to do with the actual combat..

Admittedly, I am new, but I have to say in the short time I have been in the game and lurking the forums, the copious amounts of complaining I have observed regarding PvP vs PvE has come from self proclaimed pvpers lamenting the ability of "carebears" to avoid them by going Solo or into a private PvE group. In one breath they say they want challenge, and in another say an arena (what closer definition is there to a fair fight) won't cut it.

 

[DieScream]

I avoid PvP mostly, always have but I can see the PvP players' point here. It isn't so much they want to shoot defenseless traders so much as they want it to be possible, because that also leads to bounties, pirates, etc. All the different paths in the game should ideally support and require each other to be successful. There is no "living, breathing" universe if everyone just goes to Solo to gear out.

Like a food chain, you remove the traders from being prey in open play, you affect the rest of the food chain. I also think it was a colossal mistake to allow solo and open to share a save game rather than separate profiles for each. Oh well, too late.

What's needed is incentive to trade in Open play, better profits maybe (danger fee?), along with concentrating rarer goods in certain sectors to increase opportunity for traders and pirates to interact/trade/get rich. I think an insurance system overhaul might help too, to allow people to more easily fully insure themselves so even if you are ganked it won't end up costing you dozens of hours of play.

 

[Fenster]

Answer to griefing - right from the manual:

View attachment 6434

Not sure what the issues are....

 

[boringnick]

Eve is a griefers paradise, even people who dont play video games have heard how bad player to player interaction is in _that_ game.

LOL. The hate some people here have for that game is reaching pathological levels. But anyway, no: If you read mainstream articles about Eve, it's usually full of awe about the "awesome community that keeps a 12 year old fee-based niche-genre game alive" and all the crazy stuff that happens in it, like massive wars costing thousands of dollars and real-life mariages.

The tone is almost never negative, but bedazzled. WOW's coverage is more negative (usually about addiction).

 

[CMDR Saari]

What's needed is incentive to trade in Open play, better profits maybe (danger fee?), along with concentrating rarer goods in certain sectors to increase opportunity for traders and pirates to interact/trade/get rich. I think an insurance system overhaul might help too, to allow people to more easily fully insure themselves so even if you are ganked it won't end up costing you dozens of hours of play.

In the dozens of threads and hundreds of posts I've read about this issue, this is probably the first really constructive viable solution I've seen. Have some rep!

To further iterate on the idea:
1. A job accepted, run, and completed in Open should pay more than the exact same job would in Solo.
2. If a job is accepted in Open and the player enters Solo while that job is active, it will now pay out at the Solo rate (even if completed in Open).
3. Insurance should cost less if you are killed in Open than if you are killed in Solo.
4. Even though I love playing in Mobius, Private Groups should probably get the Solo rates.

How much of a difference there should be is a whole other discussion, and one FD should handle anyway. But I really like the idea of giving players an incentive to play in Open rather than by punishing them by forcing Open or having separate saves.

 

[AgentGB]

Answer to griefing - right from the manual:

View attachment 6434

Not sure what the issues are....

sigh... what a pity.

 

[anikaiful]

LOL. The hate some people here have for that game is reaching pathological levels. But anyway, no: If you read mainstream articles about Eve, it's usually full of awe about the "awesome community that keeps a 12 year old fee-based niche-genre game alive" and all the crazy stuff that happens in it, like massive wars costing thousands of dollars and real-life mariages.

The tone is almost never negative, but bedazzled. WOW's coverage is more negative (usually about addiction).

The use of 'lol' removed all validity of the post.

 

[Helvellyn]

Admittedly, I am new, but I have to say in the short time I have been in the game and lurking the forums, the copious amounts of complaining I have observed regarding PvP vs PvE has come from self proclaimed pvpers lamenting the ability of "carebears" to avoid them by going Solo or into a private PvE group. In one breath they say they want challenge, and in another say an arena (what closer definition is there to a fair fight) won't cut it.

Encouragement and not insulting is what's needed to get more people in Open. The PvPers need to try sounding like people others will want to play with. There's a hell of a lot of potential with Open and it would be a pity to see it never appear thanks to hostile attitudes.

 

[eeps]

Well whatever the fuss actually is, its driving people to pve in record numbers !

The Mobious PvE group has just broken the server : https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=38362&page=83

Stick that in your pvp and smoke it

 

[Commander Silex]

Encouragement and not insulting is what's needed to get more people in Open. The PvPers need to try sounding like people others will want to play with. There's a hell of a lot of potential with Open and it would be a pity to see it never appear thanks to hostile attitudes.

I can't blame a lot of 'PvPers', but particularly those playing Pirates being upset and aggravated over being unilaterally labelled griefers, sociopaths, and the vilest kind of scum known to man over a game. Certain people arguing on the other side of this are just as much to blame. Simply stating things in an eloquent manner doesn't make them any less offensive when the statement comes from a place of prejudice.

 

[eeps]

and the vilest kind of scum known to man

But this bit didnt come about from their desire to pvp or be pirates, this bit came about due to their attitudes and comments here in the forums.. same would have been for pve people, except they didnt react the same way.

There is a marked difference in discussion style, preference for name calling, trash talking and trolling, between the two groups.

Are you really surprised that people dont want to play with trash-talkers?

 

[PacalB]

I agree of course common Traders being typically defenseless compared ship-to-ship.

That's why I would have given them the option to i.e. hire NPC escorts or even get an ad-hoc/single trip escort from a real Player for some Credits.

It's rather nonsensical to be able to fly >100M Cr Trade ships hauling Millions of Cargo for countless Factions or Governments - but outside of slapping Class 1 weapons of questionable defensive capabilities or some basic Utilities on them, there's nothing even a very wealthy Trader could do?
Makes no sense to me.

I would have countered such a missing link right at the start of Development.

And seeing how well NPCs escort their lead at least in normal space - I see no reason why they couldn't do it in all situations for a Player, too.
They already seem to have all they'd need for a job like that, with the need to stick to them in/out of SC and HyperJumps being the only exception.
I don't see why this couldn't be done.

It sure would help alot - and in turn even make sense owning multiple ships.
Buy some, equip them, hire NPCs to fly them alongside you as protection. Can't afford it? Take a 100% rental contract, smaller but cheaper escort ships. May still rent a full Python in a wealthy HighTech Economy I'd reckon - if you pay the price.
I'm sure you could trust a good ship to a Dangerous or even ELITE NPC - maybe take two or three if you can afford it.

If I was a trader netting a Billion Cr at my hands - why not spend some of the profits on having some good (possibly my own) ships with capable NPCs come with me on my route?
Looking out of the Cockpit of i.e. a Type-9, I'd sure like some company of that sort - and see my own assets at work.

+10 for that post right there, if I could rep you more I would fine sir.

 

[Commander Silex]

But this bit didnt come about from their desire to pvp or be pirates, this bit came about due to their attitudes and comments here in the forums.. same would have been for pve people, except they didnt react the same way.

There is a marked difference in discussion style, preference for name calling, trash talking and trolling, between the two groups.

Are you really surprised that people dont want to play with trash-talkers?

I'm sorry but you're white washing the situation. I've seen hyperbole and lack of reason on both sides of the argument, and some fairly reasonable and eloquent arguments from those who believe in game player piracy can be a benefit to the game and the community. Just because many PvPers have a more abrasive manner of communicating doesn't make it ok to make spurious claims about that entire aspect of the community. There have been numerous threads starting in the very first instance by labelling anyone in playing the game to be pirates as 'griefers', which are obviously started by PvEers. Whilst I don't exactly condone the nature of the responses, I can't actually blame a lot of players for sounding in with grievances about those making such claims. There are plenty of righteously indignant and very angry people on the other side of this argument. They may communicate differently, but the honest truth is they're as guilty of failing to listen to their counterparts as they claim the PvPers are.

There must be a dearth of high horses at the stables lately.