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

[Fromhell]

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

those who WANT, those who WANT.

What minorities want should be irrelevant, but hey, let's cater to the PvE-only extremists.. AGAIN.

Way to go, keep ED from getting 10 million users like World of Tanks and destroying the meaning of a space "sandbox".

Fine, you people demand to exclusively fight lame NPC artificial intelligece robot ships in safemode but still you demand the benefit of co-op gameplay, and I bet you also demand the same rewards as players facing players ?
Sure you want that, instant gratification WOW-type gamers always want rewards for facerolling over the keyboard. Maybe you people will even get and instant "win button" if you demand long and hard enough.

Guess I'll wait for EvE-R, at least CCP knows what a sandbox is about. As soon as they'll add small fighter joystick combat as shown on fanfest, I can finally enjoy a carebear free space sim sandbox which doesn't commit to pandering to minorities.

 

[DigitalDuck]

What minorities want should be irrelevant, but hey, let's cater to the PvE-only extremists.. AGAIN.

And... this is why gay marriage is still illegal. Comparing apples to oranges, and assuming that because you don't want it, nobody should have it, even though it actually has no effect on you.

I honestly cannot take you seriously, so I won't try.

 

[Juniper]

Thing is, if you split it, the PvP group will be all PvP.

I'm not averse to a bit of PvP sometimes. It makes it exciting... people are unpredictable. Space is dangerous. But if we all play in one universe, 99.9% of the time, the players you meet will not attack you unless you really have something they want.

The rest of the time they will leave you alone, or wave as they fly past, or be sociable with you. The criminality laws take care of the other scenario.

If there was a PvP-only group and PvE-only group, in the former I would expect to be attacked almost every time - because that's the whole point. And in PvE I might want to attack someone for perfectly valid gameplay reasons - and be prevented from doing so.

It's stupid.

 

[DigitalDuck]

Thing is, if you split it, the PvP group will be all PvP.

It won't, and you pretty much followed it up with the explanation!

I'm not averse to a bit of PvP sometimes. It makes it exciting... people are unpredictable. Space is dangerous. But if we all play in one universe, 99.9% of the time, the players you meet will not attack you unless you really have something they want.

The rest of the time they will leave you alone, or wave as they fly past, or be sociable with you. The criminality laws take care of the other scenario.

This doesn't change. People who "aren't averse to a bit of PvP sometimes" will be playing in PvP mode. They won't do it all of the time, because of the criminality laws. This scenario doesn't change.

I don't expect anybody who would play open PvP to play open PvE if it's available, precisely because those who play open PvP enjoy the benefits of it. The PvP group doesn't change, regardless of the PvE group's existence. The same players are playing in it for the same reasons.

Meanwhile, the PvE group will be comprised of those who would otherwise be playing private or solo. They'll be able to experience online play without having to suffer the 'benefits' of PvP.

And in PvE I might want to attack someone for perfectly valid gameplay reasons - and be prevented from doing so.

That is true, and that's one of the downsides of disabling PvE. If you want to combat other players, you'll have to play PvP, but the only real alternative is not getting the choice at all.

 

[Fromhell]

Hey Frontier, just read your exposé on "grouping" and the option of making the persistant universe effectively a "single player game" and some other obscure player base splitting mechanics like fading in/out other players.

Totally realistic, immersive concept... NOT.

Here, let Bill Cosby give you some feedback:
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody."

 

[DigitalDuck]

Do you, like, read your posts before you post them?

 

[Alien]

Here, let Bill Cosby give you some feedback:
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody."

I like what that guy Kennedy had to say :
You can something something some of the time,
You can something something some of the time,
You can something something all of the time,
But you can't something something all of the time.

A true visionary that Kennedy bloke ... I wonder what happened to him?

 

[OillyRag]

those who WANT, those who WANT.

Calm down Fella

What minorities want should be irrelevant,

i had to quote that it was just too funny

I think that frontier are putting a lot of thought into this at the moment and from what i can see there will be room for everyone from extreme PVP - (you) right through to PVE and single player via safe core systems and vipers through to anarchic systems and pirates. add player groups and ignore lists and i think when the dust finally settles It's all gonna be fine


.

 

[Fromhell]

I think that frontier are putting a lot of thought into this at the moment and from what i can see there will be room for everyone from extreme PVP - (you) right through to PVE and single player via safe core systems and vipers through to anarchic systems and pirates. add player groups and ignore lists and i think when the dust finally settles It's all gonna be fine

I am not "extreme PvP", all I see here is a handful of "extreme-NON-PVP" people opposed to a PvAll majority group which wants a non immersion breaking experience :
1) 1 ruleset in 1 persistant universe, governed only by police presence based on system security level
2) not discriminating between NPC and player ships
3) not fading in/out players at will and making undesired players invisible.
4) risk vs. reward, not open up all rewards to people shooting robot drone ships instead of real skilled human player pilots.


Of course for those PvE-extremists it´s not enough to already have
1) offline mode
2) single player mode

no, they need their special ruleset in the online persistant sandbox too, because they might want to "co-op" play. Fine. Go for it Frontier. With that kind of attitude, they won´t get a piece of the EvE or World of Tanks cake, in those games you log in and everyone who is there is there, no one can fade out other people at will with little filter options which bring more balancing problems than you are winning players.

I tell you what people will do!

1. Go ganking
2. set to private PvE group afterwards to prevent revenge or wait until the timer runs out, while playing your second account
3. Run precious cargo?
4. Set to PvE mode, because PvP mode is "too dangerous" at the moment. Wow, totally immersive!
5. Earn a buttload of credits in PvE mode, upgrade your stuff, then switch to PvP as soon as you feel superior enough. Even more immersive!
6. Find a ressource area where there are too many players who "might" attack you?
Well why calling your friends for reinforcements and have some unnecessary social interaction in this "online sandbox"! Way too immersive! Just fade the other players away and get the ressources in PvE single player mode!

..and so forth! Totally cool, really.


NONE of the groups will be happy, neither PvE-extremists nor PvAll players, it´s inconsistent and contra productive. Either make a PvE only game and skip PVP entirely or make NPC and Players equal in PvAll.

Why is EvE 10 years of success story, constantly growing and the second biggest subscription MMO in the western market in a market of crap MMOs going F2P left and right?

Why does a game like World of Tanks which is ENTIRELY PvP (no PvE at all) have 10 million users?

Because they carved out their niche playerbase and don´t try to be everybody´s darling, like Elite is doing.

Now Elite is doing the same thing like Star Citizen with its version of SC´s little "PVE-PVP" slider thing.
Cool, two space sims with similiar "please everybody" attitude.

CCP will be extremely happy about that because all they need to do now is finish the small fighter joystick combat EvE-R, add some avatar gameplay on ship interiors and stations within the next 24 months and still be the only realistic player driven space sim sandbox on the market.

 

[Juniper]

** wall of text **

At the moment, all FD are doing is asking users "What do you want from the multiplayer aspect of E: D with respect to PvP, PvE, etc?"

Nothing has (to my knowledge anyway) been set in stone or decided, they're trying to get a feel for what the users want before they jump one way or another. Seems fair enough to me.

They will still do their own thing, only with a bit of knowledge & pseudo-market research behind them when they do.

Keep calm, and carry on.

 

[psykokow]

The problem is the decision for them to make..

We have all made our points or we can do so..

The solutions we have offered up may not fit the game in anyway, so now they can collate it all and see ways to fix the problems /concerns raised and solutions within the game model that could solve them..

Over to DB and Team Frontier

 

[Fromhell]

At the moment, all FD are doing is asking users "What do you want from the multiplayer aspect of E: D with respect to PvP, PvE, etc?"

Nothing has (to my knowledge anyway) been set in stone or decided,

you don´t read the "Design DECISION archive"?

Grouping:
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

 

[ianw]

I really don't see what the problem is if they go for both options.

As it stands about 60% want the full gloves off experience whilst the remainder want some variant of a two system option.

IF the dudes at Front Ear decide to go with both then presumably you've got two separate options that would probably have no discernible impact on each other each populated with thousands of happy commanders doing their thang..

 

[Juniper]

This doesn't change. People who "aren't averse to a bit of PvP sometimes" will be playing in PvP mode. They won't do it all of the time, because of the criminality laws. This scenario doesn't change.

Maybe. But given that, why do we need a split at all? Why not just lump everyone in the same universe (better) and the choice to PvP or not is down to individual player encounters?

As you say, the criminality laws (and grouping) provide enough of a deterrent to ganking.

I don't expect anybody who would play open PvP to play open PvE if it's available, precisely because those who play open PvP enjoy the benefits of it. The PvP group doesn't change, regardless of the PvE group's existence. The same players are playing in it for the same reasons.

Meanwhile, the PvE group will be comprised of those who would otherwise be playing private or solo. They'll be able to experience online play without having to suffer the 'benefits' of PvP.

Thing is - we are all going to be flying space ships with big enormous guns on the front, in a massive universe, rich in detail. It is (or will be) life sim in 3300. Sometimes you will get shot at, sometimes you shoot back. I fail to see the point of a PvE mode when there are already two single player modes available where you have no chance of meeting any other player (and hence can't get blown up by another player) if you hate PvP that much. There are other types of PvP besides combat after all.

Let's say for instance I'm out exploring - effectively doing PvE, the kind of thing the PvE-only guys want - and find a nice ore belt somewhere out in an unexplored area. "Great!" thinks I, I'll just mine a few resources, take it back to civilisation along with the location to sell.

Then at that point, an unknown ship appears on my scanners and approaches... he's seen my heat signature & traced it to where I am.

What do I do? Do I protect my "investment" in finding the belt first, by blowing him up, do I risk him taking the ore I've found & bringing his friends along to strip it bare? Or maybe I make friends & share the findings.

In a PvE only mode, there is only one option. One single choice of what to do. In PvP there are several possibilities and the whole gameplay is richer.

Having the choice of a PvE or PvP option removes choices from the game - it doesn't increase them. At all.

 

[Juniper]

you don´t read the "Design DECISION archive"?

Grouping:
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

Ahem, I'm a DDF member so I participate in the threads as they happen.

Edit: also, just so you know, there are no decisions made by the forum in there. Frontier propose something, we argue about it, eventually come to some kind of a consensus, and FD decides to do their own thing anyway. Design decision forum is a bit of a misnomer.

Yes, the grouping system has been agreed, but that is nothing directly to do with a PvP or PvE toggle.

 

[W4rSkuLL]

Wow, its so nice to see a crawling forum And all the ideas and response, fantastic. I havent been to busy in here though, but I have my ideas to RL take time, hehe.

Well I like to see a mix of both PVP and AI controlled "living" in E.D universe.
Because, as we all know from playing MMO games and with the ability to PVP. People will come together and start factions and ways to exploit the universe or worlds. And AI really need to be ingame, because thats where the credits come from. Human intelligence surpasses AI in all games at the moment. So a PVP only would make it hard to make cash and would take its toll on human controlled ships. So when there are no PVP action, there needs to be a living breathing universe out there. And the better the AI universe is the less influence a player can have on it. Because if a player or faction gets to strong. He or them can dominate a system, or parts of the universe easily. By finding ways to control the credit flow. So there need to be AI that can influence the universe to. So us the PVP players dont get to strong. But there shall always be a possibility to become a mogul or a dominating faction within the game. But so should the AI, so it doesnt only become cannonfodder for the players. The credit resourse. I havent played EVE online, but what ive heard is that players there easily controls every part of the game. And can influence part of the game to much. We need a strong AI and PVP police force in E.D and options to take back power from to "wealthy" players. So they cant controll to much and become dictators ingame. Well, maybe the ability should be there "to control a system" if you become a mogul. But you easily can get thrown out of the power system to. I think it would be great to have strong A.I characters or moguls in many systems and if they are "killed" or replaced by a PVP player also can make a comeback. Like if you have a starsystem which has an A.I prince or lord. He looses his influence over a system or part of a system. They have a familly tree which will try to fight and win back the influence from a PVP player. So systems controlled by lets say King Telson will have a familly three with lets say 2 Princes and 1 princess which, if the King gets thrown down or killed. Will try to reclaim the throne or influence in the system. King Telson gets killed on a diplomatic convoy from System Telson to system Bristol. By a PVP faction or pirates. This cripples the power balance in the system and the PVP faction can take over some bases or shipyards in Telson system. While power shiftes from being A.I controlled to more player controlled. A.I prince Valdor tries to avenge his fathers death by taking back or reclaim the lost bases/shipyards by taking on the PVP players. Avenging his fathers death and regaining A.I control of the system. While these attacks can be repelled if PVP has strong enough force, they can also succeed. Making
controlling a system hard. So Prince Valdor beats the PVP faction and chases them out of the sytem and Valdor is now the new king in the system. But this can be rechallenged again by the PVP faction. And now you have an ongoing war in that system. For the power and influence over the credit flow. Like trading and techincome. Black markets should be more influenced by the pirates. A.I or PVP. So A.I has familly trees and strong connections to their heirs and they will fight for survival. This will also make PVP influence harder and make for a more living/brathing universe. So players cant get mogulstatus to fast. Controll to much credit flow and make it hard for other players to envolve. I dont think players want to be stuck in their Sidewinder as cannonfodder all the time for other better equiped and influental players. Its a balance question and should be adressed so the universe cant be "to" controlled by us PVP players Thx, any suggestions to this or replays would be nice

 

[Fromhell]

Ahem, I'm a DDF member so I participate in the threads as they happen.

Yes, the grouping system has been agreed, but that is nothing directly to do with a PvP or PvE toggle.

So, it doesn´t have anything to do with fading out players out of your universe experience, effectively preventing any player interaction whenever you want?

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5547

Even the opening statement clearly shows the "please everybody" attitude

Elite: Dangerous is a multiplayer game with a core single player component. Or perhaps it’s a single player game with a core multiplayer component. You see, in truth, we want you to be able to play the game whichever way you choose and have a bunch of fun.



Translation: E.D. is neither fish nor meat. It could be both, but who knows. Maybe it´s gonna be some meatfish, or fishmeat, but one thing is for sure, everyone just loves fishmeat!

4 quick ideas to effectively exploit those inconsistent game mechanics in an out-of-fiction way which is immersion breaking as a bonus:


- Some people will choose making tons of credits in PvE easymode and then switch to PvP investing their money into ship upgrades, by altering the universe ruleset and chosing who they want to see at any given time.

- Some will choose to have one gank account and one nice guy account to wait for timer resets.

- Some will choose to go trading in PvE safemode and change the universe ruleset again when they feel like going for combat against other players. Expect no one with precious cargo ever flying around in multiplayer mode. Why take the risk? I wouldn´t. Let´s play "Elite Safemode" instead of "Elite Dangerous" depending on situation.

- Some will realize it´s much quicker to get to resources which might be camped by switching to single player mode, instead of socializing with others or be in alliance to call for help. Just fade out the nuisance and get your stuff - quick, easy instant gratification.

 

[jabokai]

In a PvE only mode, there is only one option. One single choice of what to do. In PvP there are several possibilities and the whole gameplay is richer.

Having the choice of a PvE or PvP option removes choices from the game - it doesn't increase them. At all.

And an awful lot of people are quite happy with that... it's not a problem.

So, it doesn´t have anything to do with fading out players out of your universe experience, effectively preventing any player interaction whenever you want?

They offered solo and limited groups (for friends/families/etc) during the Kickstarter and have said they're committed to that now... which is commendable. And if you didn't like it at KS stage then you maybe shouldn't have backed the game?

I have posted elsewhere that I think they should leave it out for Ironman mode and stand by that. I think it will make Ironman more appealing to the hardcore crowd and as much as I'd like to see them add a PvE "server" I'd still like them to offer good options for the hardcores.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about World of Tanks - isn't it a very TF2 kind of game? Where it's specifically about PvP battles? Elite is (I hope) a much deeper game than that. You also mentioned WoW, which has an equally impressive user base... even more so considering it's subscription based and guess what it offers? A choice of SEPARATE PvP and PvE servers... seems like a good business model to me.

As others have picked up on, your comment about "catering to minorities" was poorly put - I hope you didn't mean it as you worded it.

 

[Juniper]

Translation: E.D. is neither fish nor meat. It could be both, but who knows. Maybe it´s gonna be some meatfish, or fishmeat, but one thing is for sure, everyone just loves fishmeat!

Actually, it's something called Jontybass.

4 quick ideas to effectively exploit those inconsistent game mechanics in an out-of-fiction way which is immersion breaking as a bonus:

I agree with you. Maybe FD will too. At the moment, they are simply asking the question.

 

[ianw]

So, it doesn´t have anything to do with fading out players out of your universe experience, effectively preventing any player interaction whenever you want?

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5547

Even the opening statement clearly shows the "please everybody" attitude

Elite: Dangerous is a multiplayer game with a core single player component. Or perhaps it’s a single player game with a core multiplayer component. You see, in truth, we want you to be able to play the game whichever way you choose and have a bunch of fun.



Translation: E.D. is neither fish nor meat. It could be both, but who knows. Maybe it´s gonna be some meatfish, or fishmeat, but one thing is for sure, everyone just loves fishmeat!

4 quick ideas to effectively exploit those inconsistent game mechanics in an out-of-fiction way which is immersion breaking as a bonus:


- Some people will choose making tons of credits in PvE easymode and then switch to PvP investing their money into ship upgrades, by altering the universe ruleset and chosing who they want to see at any given time.

- Some will choose to have one gank account and one nice guy account to wait for timer resets.

- Some will choose to go trading in PvE safemode and change the universe ruleset again when they feel like going for combat against other players. Expect no one with precious cargo ever flying around in multiplayer mode. Why take the risk? I wouldn´t. Let´s play "Elite Safemode" instead of "Elite Dangerous" depending on situation.

- Some will realize it´s much quicker to get to resources which might be camped by switching to single player mode, instead of socializing with others or be in alliance to call for help. Just fade out the nuisance and get your stuff - quick, easy instant gratification.

Suerly all four exploits could be easily addressed by not allowing you to switch a commander and assets between the two modes? Which I guess would be what they did if they do implement both modes.