Should there be an 'Open' Player Vs Environment Option on the Login Screen

[DHMeyer]

OK, not small Let me rephrase:
Over half the people who bought the game didn't look at what they were purchasing beforehand.

-------
Please all have a read of this (very long) exchange between the senior designer of Diablo 2 and a vocal fan of the game who was unhappy with some game design decisions: http://www.diablowiki.net/Player_Kill#Max_Schaefer_Defends_PKing

I realise it's long, so let me pull some choice quotes out and paste them here inline:

"I disagree. Even the PKs in Diablo are engaging in a role-playing fantasy. I would hope that they aren't out killing people in real life.
Sure, some people will not welcome this aspect of the game, and would rather not have to deal with it. They can, with passworded games, single-player, and LAN games. I'll explain later why a PK switch would disallow real choices.
I'm fascinated by the sociological aspects of this game genre. In a sense, this is a less artificial environment than many real-life social constructs. People can really choose to be whoever they want to be in an on-line game. No matter how anti-social, no matter what "crimes" people commit, it's just a game, and when you're done, nothing is gained but memories, and nothing is lost but time."

"I take responsibility for the game-play results. The emotional reactions of the players are not my responsiblitly, however. People choose to play this game, and it is obviouly not necessary for survival. We have simply added the option of playing Diablo to people's lives. Nothing more."

"But yes, we do think we know what's best for our customers. We have to, we make games for a living! We're not putting out questionaires and making games based on the result. We're indulging in our own preferences and fantasies, and then making them public for those who choose to participate."

"Correct, the customer is not always right. We have no animosity towards anyone, but we feel we do know better than our customers how to make games. Perhaps it's arrogant, but how could we confidently enter three-year+ development cycles if we didn't think this way? Not that I'm comparing us to the masters, but did Picasso consult the public before painting? Was he a failure if the public didn't like his work? Obviously, what we do isn't near as important or historically significant as Picasso, but this is our creative expression, and as such it's a little self-indulgent."

"Here's the short version of why I think this doesn't work: We implement a PK switch, and the message is sent that the games that don't have PK turned off are specifically for PvP, and the others are PvM. PKers will all only invade the no-PK-switch games, rasing the percentage precipitiously, and upsetting the natural balance. People will think that if they want to play normally (fight monsters), they must use the PK switch. And their games will be just a tad more flat as a result.
We have a theory in the office that if we added the option of a button that made your character invincible, nearly everyone would push that button. They'd rampage accross the lands, killing everything with nary a worry. Then they'd get bored and put the game on the shelf, never to play again."


All of his statements can equally be applied to Elite.

No, it can't

1. You are mentioning a game that's been made 15 years ago. In a genre extremely different than Elite.
2. It's multiplayer community was about as healthy as a pack of rats ridden with lice and rabies. A bunch of cheats and exploiters. Not the best example of what Elite should become.
3. If Elite is being criticised for, supposedly, "lack of depth", it is still Mariana Trench compared with Diablo...

Back in 2000 multiplayer games were but few. The genre was young and game designers were still learning it. Quoting a game designer / community manager back from 2000 is like quoting Malleus Maleficarum and stating it's an example of some absolute truth. In the past 15 years multiplayer games changed a lot, together with developers' approach towards communication with players. What an almost teenage kid could say back in 2000, he would think twice about saying today.
Developers' approach towards PVP has changed as well. Dozens of multiplayer games have a very clear divide between PVP and PVE and do their best to keep both groups separate in some way. Simply because they know their onions and are not so naïve as to believe they will miraculously manage to have PVP and PVE game where everybody respects any rules that are not hard-coded into the game's mechanics.

The bottom line is that there isn't really a way to force PVE players to go for PVP anyway. Multiplayer is the easiest way there is to provide players with game content as players are surprisingly good at finding things to do together. A significant part of them will be interested only in PVE type of gameplay. But of course, it's Frontier's decision and choice. It's a question of whether they want the money from PVE players or not. If yes and if they decide against creating some form of hard coded PVE environment, they better have some amazing solo game content coming up.

 

[eza]

As far as the boycott...this is no different than creating a public poll to vote on. If there was a way to do this without all the problems such things have...at least on these forums...that would be just as acceptable.

It has all the problems of a public poll (confirmation bias and people not knowing the poll exists) with none of the benefits (publically visible results) and has been shown in the past to make no difference at all.

As far as your question to Eve goes, that a nice ironic use of the example, since from the opening of these forums the cry has been 'If you want to play Eve go there..this isn't Eve.'

I don't see the irony here.
You said "The idea of a mixing of PvE and PvP was not something that was going to last...it never has in the past 30 years of gaming."
I simply asked whether EVE Online doesn't count, as a game that mixes PvE and PvP and has been going since 2003.

The devs of UO stated that the game was slated to close...that the opening of a PvE server saved the game...and that they could never bring back the original PVE players they lost.

As I said, this is a historical case study. Things MIGHT be different now...but, as a business person, I wouldn't want to risk my business on this possibility. Fdev can see the issue differently. It is their call at this point..

It's true that that's a fair and reasonable argument for the open PvE cause

They have always said that this game would be a niche game. There expectations of NOT supporting the idea of PvE modes would limit the game to people that can accept this idea.

However, if that was the case..then I would expect more emphasis on real PvP...and not the current model of PvE trophy collection between groups...basically, something similar in structure to PvP arenas and Eve..rather than what we have currently. Time will tell...and their ultimate response to the community will be telling.

Indeed... It's the "will they? won't they?" that keeps me coming back to this thread

So the removal of the public auction house and the subsequent retooling of the game of Diablo 3 was because they designed that to be the way the game was meant to be from the start!

I believe that's covered in the "In many cases, we've changed our minds after hearing compelling arguments." part of the quote.

LOL! Really great example there.

Thanks! I thought so too!

 

[Roybe]

"Being safe from evil is, in my mind, an uneven tradeoff for the fact that you don't get to be heroes anymore, in that you can just opt out of fighting evil. It may be nobody wants to be heroes except when it doesn't count, when it isn't challenging, that people would rather fight 'pretend evil' than the real thing, but I don't personally believe that. I still think people are better than that."
-Ralph Koster, Ultima Online

At least he knew that PvP was evil! <bad joke...but I know people still laughed!>

 

[Roybe]

It has all the problems of a public poll (confirmation bias and people not knowing the poll exists) with none of the benefits (publically visible results) and has been shown in the past to make no difference at all.


I don't see the irony here.
You said "The idea of a mixing of PvE and PvP was not something that was going to last...it never has in the past 30 years of gaming."
I simply asked whether EVE Online doesn't count, as a game that mixes PvE and PvP and has been going since 2003.


It's true that that's a fair and reasonable argument for the open PvE cause


Indeed... It's the "will they? won't they?" that keeps me coming back to this thread


*I believe that's covered in the "In many cases, we've changed our minds after hearing compelling arguments." part of the quote.


Thanks! I thought so too!

Wondering why the Eve question is ironic..well this community has been passionate about NOT Eve at all costs. In other words, trying to 'be like Eve' is generally accepted as a reason for NOT doing something in and of it's own accord.

My only extra point to this is that because of the modes...what we have is what we have. Since the modes are non-negotiable...PvP will remain what it is.

*RIF on my part...again, the current conversation is showing that there is a demand for PvE players to have options...I have not disagreed that ultimately it is up to FDev on what they are going to do. Where the question comes in on this discussion is where the community will come down on the issue. In the past...real griefing was unacceptable...and has been promised that there would be results from the devs in response to it. The community has always said that 'Eve like gameplay is unwanted.'

There is still plenty of room for cutthroat activities within the scope of the game...however, those activities are clearly not meant to be primarily through Direct PvP. They never appeared to be so. There was no way to attack anyone in the game in a manner that was constructive to any part of the game...now, there is...I am confident, by Zac's response they are not happy about this occurring...but are powerless to stop it, currently. The community is unhappy because there was no response to the devs belief that this is griefing.

This can either mean they have come to the point that they will provide robust tools for Private groups and a PvE mode...or as you appear to be hoping that PvE people have no real PvE environment to play in. <shrug> It's their game..we only play in it.

Play or play not. Every day decision for every game we all own.

 

[eza]

No, it can't

1. You are mentioning a game that's been made 15 years ago. In a genre extremely different than Elite.
2. It's multiplayer community was about as healthy as a pack of rats ridden with lice and rabies. A bunch of cheats and exploiters. Not the best example of what Elite should become.
3. If Elite is being criticised for, supposedly, "lack of depth", it is still Mariana Trench compared with Diablo...

The game involved is immaterial. The point of those quotes is to point out how:
1. no matter what "crimes" people commit, it's just a game
2. we feel we do know better than our customers how to make games
3. implement a PK switch, and the message is sent that the games that don't have PK turned off are specifically for PvP

(you know - the bits I bolded in the first place)

I don't believe that those core concepts are any different today to fifteen years ago.

Back in 2000 multiplayer games were but few. The genre was young and game designers were still learning it. Quoting a game designer / community manager back from 2000 is like quoting Malleus Maleficarum and stating it's an example of some absolute truth. In the past 15 years multiplayer games changed a lot, together with developers' approach towards communication with players. What an almost teenage kid could say back in 2000, he would think twice about saying today.
Developers' approach towards PVP has changed as well. Dozens of multiplayer games have a very clear divide between PVP and PVE and do their best to keep both groups separate in some way. Simply because they know their onions and are not so naïve as to believe they will miraculously manage to have PVP and PVE game where everybody respects any rules that are not hard-coded into the game's mechanics.

The bottom line is that there isn't really a way to force PVE players to go for PVP anyway. Multiplayer is the easiest way there is to provide players with game content as players are surprisingly good at finding things to do together. A significant part of them will be interested only in PVE type of gameplay. But of course, it's Frontier's decision and choice. It's a question of whether they want the money from PVE players or not. If yes and if they decide against creating some form of hard coded PVE environment, they better have some amazing solo game content coming up.

I think that the two bits of your post that I emboldened are the key:
Many multiplayer games have a clear divide because they want the money from PvE players, and for these games makers when money is pitted again their vision, then money wins.

I would rather Frontier are less concerned with money and more with their original vision.

(I'm afraid I don't know who Mariana Trench and Malleus Maleficarum are... I should go and google them... Or are you describing the same concept as quoting Sun Tzu today, for instance?)

 

[Rampant]

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



Aye but needs to be more than that, just toggle for advantage.

Eh? What "advantage". What are you smoking? In context, quite CLEARLY, the proposed toggle would switch damage off both ways. Stop poisoning the well.

Cheerz

 

[eza]

Wondering why the Eve question is ironic..well this community has been passionate about NOT Eve at all costs. In other words, trying to 'be like Eve' is generally accepted as a reason for NOT doing something in and of it's own accord.

This is my favourite post of all time to demonstrate that point

The irony there, for me, is that EVE has a much more robust security and reputation system than Elite does right now.
Elite at the moment is more like EVE than EVE

My only extra point to this is that because of the modes...what we have is what we have. Since the modes are non-negotiable...PvP will remain what it is.

*RIF on my part...again, the current conversation is showing that there is a demand for PvE players to have options...I have not disagreed that ultimately it is up to FDev on what they are going to do. Where the question comes in on this discussion is where the community will come down on the issue. In the past...real griefing was unacceptable...and has been promised that there would be results from the devs in response to it. The community has always said that 'Eve like gameplay is unwanted.'

There is still plenty of room for cutthroat activities within the scope of the game...however, those activities are clearly not meant to be primarily through Direct PvP. They never appeared to be so. There was no way to attack anyone in the game in a manner that was constructive to any part of the game...now, there is...I am confident, by Zac's response they are not happy about this occurring...but are powerless to stop it, currently. The community is unhappy because there was no response to the devs belief that this is griefing.

This can either mean they have come to the point that they will provide robust tools for Private groups and a PvE mode...or as you appear to be hoping that PvE people have no real PvE environment to play in. <shrug> It's their game..we only play in it.

Play or play not. Every day decision for every game we all own.

All of that's perfectly reasonable and logical.

It's not that I hope that PvE people won't have a PvE environment to play in... it's that I would rather that Frontier don't compromise their vision. A vision which never mentioned the word PvE.

I simply feel that a robust security and reputation system is a better direction for the game's development than a mode where damage is disabled for certain special ships (aka player ships).

 

[DHMeyer]

It has all the problems of a public poll (confirmation bias and people not knowing the poll exists) with none of the benefits (publically visible results) and has been shown in the past to make no difference at all.


I don't see the irony here.
You said "The idea of a mixing of PvE and PvP was not something that was going to last...it never has in the past 30 years of gaming."
I simply asked whether EVE Online doesn't count, as a game that mixes PvE and PvP and has been going since 2003.

Can you attack, destroy a player and survive in high sec system in EVE? If not, then you have a clear separation of PVE and PVP gameplay in Eve. Whether it's done by NPC authorities blowing you into space dust upon your aggression on another player or you not being able to deal damage to another player are really two versions of the same thing: PVP free zone. So Eve is not an example of a game in which PVP and PVE are mixed freely in one game mode in the way it is in current Open mode in ED. It's an example of a game which allows various gameplay styles (PVP and PVE), but separates them in a very clear way.

We can discuss which option is better, but in the end, it's discussing our personal preferences and in the end it's all hypothetical without input from Frontier's staff. Whatever happens with the issue though, it doesn't change the fact that large part in the playerbase is interested in having multiplayer PVE environment to play in.

 

[Roybe]

This is my favourite post of all time to demonstrate that point

The irony there, for me, is that EVE has a much more robust security and reputation system than Elite does right now.
Elite at the moment is more like EVE than EVE


All of that's perfectly reasonable and logical.

It's not that I hope that PvE people won't have a PvE environment to play in... it's that I would rather that Frontier don't compromise their vision. A vision which never mentioned the word PvE.

I simply feel that a robust security and reputation system is a better direction for the game's development than a mode where damage is disabled for certain special ships (aka player ships).

Since there was discussions and descriptions of Public groups with rulesets, it's not a far jump to expect that one of the rules would be 'friendly fire off'....basically a PvE group...not a PVE open solution...but one that makes a lot more sense than what we currently have.

 

[DHMeyer]

quoting Sun Tzu today, for instance?)

Sun Tzu writings are pretty much as relevant today as they were those two millenia and a bit before.

 

[Rampant]

Or we could reframe it differently. Players are part of the environment, and hence other players must be extra careful and be on the lookout for such possible dangerous scenarios. Imagine these players as NPCs with "Real Elite" skills. If you reframe your mind this way, you will find ways how to enjoy the game without being interfered by "very high level NPCs".

"Real Elite skills".

Is everyone in this thread who is opposed to an ifficial PvE mode smoking something?

It is the disparity of equipment that creates such imbalance and Ill feeling.

For my own part of I was flying an a-rated PvP optimised FdL or FAS or Anaconda in PvP combat against myself in a less than optimal equipped Sidewinder or Cobra or Asp, then the FdL flying version of Me would kick the other Me's ass. No question. It us as certain an outcome as gaming gets. Since it us Me versus Me, there is unequivocally no skill involved here. Exactly equivalent skill level, yet certainty of outcome assured. It is solely down to in game affluence.

This is one of the greatest issues for PvE enthusiasts and cannot be overcome by any means in a truly Open environment.

Consider also that a single PvP combat clown can influence hundreds of gamers to avoid Open. A single player. A single overpowered PvP clown can have such a huge impact on such a massive number of other players that they use as cannon fodder. Not using skill, though. Oh no. Using equipment to be overpowered, instead.

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[eza]

Can you attack, destroy a player and survive in high sec system in EVE? If not, then you have a clear separation of PVE and PVP gameplay in Eve. Whether it's done by NPC authorities blowing you into space dust upon your aggression on another player or you not being able to deal damage to another player are really two versions of the same thing: PVP free zone. So Eve is not an example of a game in which PVP and PVE are mixed freely in one game mode in the way it is in current Open mode in ED. It's an example of a game which allows various gameplay styles (PVP and PVE), but separates them in a very clear way.

We can discuss which option is better, but in the end, it's discussing our personal preferences and in the end it's all hypothetical without input from Frontier's staff. Whatever happens with the issue though, it doesn't change the fact that large part in the playerbase is interested in having multiplayer PVE environment to play in.

If that player steals loot which you own from you, then yes, you can attack and destroy them in high security space.
If that player has a low reputation with the controlling faction, then they become 'flashy', and again yes, you can attack and destroy them.
If you don't mind being blown up (eg. flying high-dps cheap ships like a Catalyst) then you can attack and possibly destroy them before CONCORD gets you, and have a friend swipe the loot.

(A friend of mine who still plays EVE told me last week that he stole an Orca (industrial ship which can hold other ships) from another player without firing a shot. The other player had left their big expensive ship without a pilot sitting in space. Then he did it again to the same player three days later.)

NPC authorities blowing you up quickly and not being able to deal damage to the other player might have a similar end result, but the defining difference is that the former is "plausible and consistent game rules" and the latter is a gamey crutch.

 

[Defector]

At least he knew that PvP was evil! <bad joke...but I know people still laughed!>

I played Ultima Online before the Trammel, Felucca split. It was mostly a response to WOW's PVP free utopia. When they did that, I left. I wasn't a PK. I just enjoyed the threat of PVP, and I enjoyed hunting PKs. Felucca used to be THE WORLD. A living, breathing world full of all kinds of different people. Now, it's just a shark tank full of murderers nobody dares enter.

In open, sometimes I go to community goals and follow pirates after they've interdicted traders. I shoot the pirates, and the trader gets away while the pirate deals with me.


If there is a PVE mode, not only will there be no villians there, but there will be no heroes in Open either. Instead of trying to take out gameplay, we should be adding to it.

 

[eza]

Since there was discussions and descriptions of Public groups with rulesets, it's not a far jump to expect that one of the rules would be 'friendly fire off'....basically a PvE group...not a PVE open solution...but one that makes a lot more sense than what we currently have.

If they finally gave us Open Groups mode and custom rulesets, but 'FF off' wasn't one of those, would you accept that, or start afresh with a new boycott/poll?

 

[eza]

For my own part of I was flying an a-rated PvP optimised FdL or FAS or Anaconda in PvP combat against myself in a less than optimal equipped Sidewinder or Cobra or Asp, then the FdL flying version of Me would kick the other Me's ass. No question. It us as certain an outcome as gaming gets. Since it us Me versus Me, there is unequivocally no skill involved here. Exactly equivalent skill level, yet certainty of outcome assured. It is solely down to in game affluence.

This is one of the greatest issues for PvE enthusiasts and cannot be overcome by any means in a truly Open environment.

How is this different from an A rated NPC in a powerful ship also being able to destroy a weak ship quickly?

I've had PA-spewing NPC Anacondas destroy my Fed Assault Ship in seconds with lucky module hits.

Like Sandro said: "ship destruction is part of the intended risk of flying a ship in Elite: Dangerous"

 

[Jockey79]

I don't see the irony here.
You said "The idea of a mixing of PvE and PvP was not something that was going to last...it never has in the past 30 years of gaming."
I simply asked whether EVE Online doesn't count, as a game that mixes PvE and PvP and has been going since 2003.

Ok, you got me - where is the PvE area in EVE - as the years I played it, the whole of space was a big PvP zone.

 

[DHMeyer]

NPC authorities blowing you up quickly and not being able to deal damage to the other player might have a similar end result, but the defining difference is that the former is "plausible and consistent game rules" and the latter is a gamey crutch.

Doesn't damage my feeling of immersion in any way, but I am totally happy with either solution. Be it immediate heavy beating from the authorities or no damage to players outside of PVP zones. And it doesn't damage my feeling of immersion if similar measures do not apply to NPCs. Still, without changing current Open to follow this model.

If that player steals loot which you own from you, then yes, you can attack and destroy them in high security space.
If that player has a low reputation with the controlling faction, then they become 'flashy', and again yes, you can attack and destroy them.
If you don't mind being blown up (eg. flying high-dps cheap ships like a Catalyst) then you can attack and possibly destroy them before CONCORD gets you, and have a friend swipe the loot.
QUOTE]

If somebody steals loot from you, they are the ones breaking the law in the first place, so they have to consider the consequences of their actions.
If they have "low reputation", so a bounty in the system, again, they broke the law in the first place, they are a wanted criminal. They shouldn't be surprised somebody wants to collect the bounty.
If you follow that suicide mission scenario, that's basically using an exploit.

But yeah, we are talking about hypothetical solutions here and that is down to Frontier. As well as deciding in what way they want to address the situation.

If there is a PVE mode, not only will there be no villians there, but there will be no heroes in Open either. Instead of trying to take out gameplay, we should be adding to it.

There won't be heroes in Open anyway. Few players will hunt down griefers and that's very commendable. Enjoyed doing that in some other games as well. But the fact that some people enjoy that type of gameplay doesn't mean everybody else will be interested in following their footsteps.

 

[eza]

Ok, you got me - where is the PvE area in EVE - as the years I played it, the whole of space was a big PvP zone.

That's the beauty of it: there is no PvE area.
There is a galaxy, with rules, and there are both PvE and PvP activities for you to do.

Similar to Elite really.

Can't there be two games in the world that try and do something differently, or does everything have to become a homogenised WoW clone?

 

[Sapient6]

I would rather Frontier are less concerned with money and more with their original vision.

I'm on board with this, too.

At the same time I think they should continue to listen to their customers and remain open to evolving their vision as their understanding of their customer base matures. I certainly don't think that Open PvE should be added to the game just because I want it. I don't even know if I think they should add it just because around half of the community wants it. I do think that they should consider it, whether it would benefit their overall vision, and whether it would result in a more enjoyable game for everyone.

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

That's the beauty of it: there is no PvE area.

Sure there is. Example: you will never be able to engage me in PvP in Elite no matter what you do. Edit: reading comprehansion for the win? You were talking about Eve. I guess I could say that the pve area there is "I don't play eve and never will", but the truth is that I just didn't follow the context of your post clearly enough before jumping in to respond.

 

[Defector]

Doesn't damage my feeling of immersion in any way, but I am totally happy with either solution. Be it immediate heavy beating from the authorities or no damage to players outside of PVP zones. And it doesn't damage my feeling of immersion if similar measures do not apply to NPCs. Still, without changing current Open to follow this model.

If that player steals loot which you own from you, then yes, you can attack and destroy them in high security space.
If that player has a low reputation with the controlling faction, then they become 'flashy', and again yes, you can attack and destroy them.
If you don't mind being blown up (eg. flying high-dps cheap ships like a Catalyst) then you can attack and possibly destroy them before CONCORD gets you, and have a friend swipe the loot.
QUOTE]

If somebody steals loot from you, they are the ones breaking the law in the first place, so they have to consider the consequences of their actions.
If they have "low reputation", so a bounty in the system, again, they broke the law in the first place, they are a wanted criminal. They shouldn't be surprised somebody wants to collect the bounty.
If you follow that suicide mission scenario, that's basically using an exploit.

But yeah, we are talking about hypothetical solutions here and that is down to Frontier. As well as deciding in what way they want to address the situation.



There won't be heroes in Open anyway. Few players will hunt down griefers and that's very commendable. Enjoyed doing that in some other games as well. But the fact that some people enjoy that type of gameplay doesn't mean everybody else will be interested in following their footsteps.

I'm not saying everyone should. I don't necessarily like trading, but I'm not asking for it to be stripped from the game. It takes all kinds to make a world feel alive. Every decent story needs good and evil. Instead of wanting a seperate mode, why not form a protection coalition that can escort traders. Add to the game. And I can confirm there are heroes in Open. Whatever twisted view of open that some people have on this thread is not what I've seen.