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

[DigitalDuck]

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?

Sure. But the choice is only down to the player pointing the laser. The player being targeted has no say in the matter.

Similarly, the standard PvP-consensual only gives the choice to the player being targeted. The player pointing the laser can only shoot if the other player allows it.

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.

People want to meet other players and don't ever want to shoot or be shot by them.

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.

False.

If, at any point, you want to shoot a player, or be shot by a player, you choose PvP. Then, when that scenario arises, you have the several possibilities open to you.

To players who don't want PvP, every single one of those options except one is entirely unpalatable. One of them isn't even your choice anyway! To a PvE player, there was only ever one choice all along. The others aren't options to someone who dislikes PvP.

Again, going back to the "vegetarian" analogy; asking customers at a restaurant to tick "Vegetarian: [ ] Yes [ ] No" doesn't reduce their choice, but it does improve their eating experience. Instead of ordering from the menu of "Steak, Bacon, Spam, or Fennel" and risking someone else buying them Spam, they just get Fennel, because that's what they would've ordered anyway.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

- 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.

Absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Having more credits != more skill.

If it means that there will be more heavily armed players in PvP .. then (as a pirate) great - no easy kills for me which means more of a challenge - bring it on!

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

You're presuming there will be game breaking timers - I don't know of any so point me where FD said there would be and I will concede this one. That said, I will run with 1 account but 2 commanders - Pirate and Trader/Explorer .. does this mean I will exploit ?

- 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.

I am a pirate who would prey on such people and I don't care. Considering that killing NPCs will be your meat and potatoes anyway these players will be more of a challenge - see above.

- 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.

Are there mobs that spawn and are worth camping ? Or is this fear based upon your experiences of other MMOs ?

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.

That's assuming that the 4 things he mentions are "exploits" - Are they simply irrational fears based upon previous experience in other games ? Personally I see nothing wrong with any of them .. Not everyone will behave as he suggested - I for one will always be in All Pilots group (Ironman) and so will many others. (Basically don't judge everyone based upon what you fear)

 

[Juniper]

Sure. But the choice is only down to the player pointing the laser. The player being targeted has no say in the matter.

He or she has the same choice as always. Fight or flight.

False.

If, at any point, you want to shoot a player, or be shot by a player, you choose PvP. Then, when that scenario arises, you have the several possibilities open to you.

To players who don't want PvP, every single one of those options except one is entirely unpalatable. One of them isn't even your choice anyway! To a PvE player, there was only ever one choice all along. The others aren't options to someone who dislikes PvP.

Again, going back to the "vegetarian" analogy; asking customers at a restaurant to tick "Vegetarian: [ ] Yes [ ] No" doesn't reduce their choice, but it does improve their eating experience. Instead of ordering from the menu of "Steak, Bacon, Spam, or Fennel" and risking someone else buying them Spam, they just get Fennel, because that's what they would've ordered anyway.

Sorry, but your vegetarian analogy doesn't work. If you tick 'Yes' for a vegetarian option, the accurate analogy here would be for the waiter to say:

"Sorry, sir, but if you want vegetarian food you need to go to this other restaurant we own across town."

If the person you are with wants steak and chips, then you're eating in different restaurants.

How is that fun?

Let's get to the root of why some people "dislike PvP". I think it's because they've had a bad experience of it in other games (they've been ganked) and don't want the same to happen in E: D. This is fair enough, but it's entirely missing the point. Ganking = griefing to all intents and purposes, and FD's efforts would be better spent trying to combat that by putting in safeguards etc than splitting off the userbase.

Maybe one of the PvE evangelists can enlighten me if I'm wrong.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

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.

Play in the PvP universe or get off the server .. That's nice of you

Let's get to the root of why some people "dislike PvP". I think it's because they've had a bad experience of it in other games (they've been ganked) and don't want the same to happen in E: D

I can give you 1 reason why I enjoy playing on PvE servers - it's less stressful and I don't have to think as hard. Sometimes when I come home from work I am knackered and simply want to play with randoms but not have to think about combat; strategy; etc .. NPCs on the whole are predictable whilst players require brainpower and I don't always have some spare.

Ganking is NOT griefing - it's a dishonorable tactic that's all, but makes sense - safety in numbers

 

[Telstar2001]

This is all very simple : If PvP should exist, lets just have a go-around for those who do not want it, like myself, I quite Eve for this very reason and if it's anything like the old Elite things will be fine with me

 

[DigitalDuck]

Sorry, but your vegetarian analogy doesn't work. If you tick 'Yes' for a vegetarian option, the accurate analogy here would be for the waiter to say:

"Sorry, sir, but if you want vegetarian food you need to go to this other restaurant we own across town."

If the person you are with wants steak and chips, then you're eating in different restaurants.

How is that fun?

... Well, not exactly, but fair enough.

It's more like a restaurant where everyone on the table has to eat the same thing, and if one person wants meat they all get meat. Not good on the vegetarian, they'd rather sit at the vegetarian-only table, which serves only fennel.

Maybe the friend wants steak and chips. In that case, the choices are:
1. Have steak and chips with the friend.
2. Have fennel and force the friend to have fennel too (vegetarian table).
3. Have fennel with strangers (vegetarian table).

Options 2 and 3 are only there because of the vegetarian table. Removing the vegetarian table does not increase choice.

Let's get to the root of why some people "dislike PvP". I think it's because they've had a bad experience of it in other games (they've been ganked) and don't want the same to happen in E: D. This is fair enough, but it's entirely missing the point. Ganking = griefing to all intents and purposes, and FD's efforts would be better spent trying to combat that by putting in safeguards etc than splitting off the userbase.

Maybe one of the PvE evangelists can enlighten me if I'm wrong.

But they're not splitting off the userbase - those who would play in a PvE universe are those who would otherwise play single player. You're not splitting them off, you're grouping them together. Not to mention that it's a relatively simple thing to do (the Ironman split already exists, all that's needed is to remove the ability to kill players, either by making lasers have no effect, or making them not fire, or other possibilities) and therefore very cost-effective.

Yes, they should be trying to combat griefing. Unfortunately, that's a war that can never be won by the developers. They can reduce it to a tolerable level for most, but there will always be people who don't want it to happen ever, not once, nada, zilch. Anti-griefing measures also usually have more impact on legitimate players than griefers.

Additionally, there are people who dislike the thought of possibly ruining somebody else's game experience in any way because they're like that. Some of these people will play single player, but some of them want to meet like-minded players.

Again, it's an option that has no effect on the already open group but pleases others for a very low cost. I don't see why it shouldn't be done.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Ganking = griefing to all intents and purposes, and FD's efforts would be better spent trying to combat that by putting in safeguards etc than splitting off the userbase.

How do you propose FD stop players from forming squadrons and flying around together ? Do you honestly think I will be flying solo ?

Take another look at one of the Dev Diaries that had 3 Anacondas and some defenders being attacked by pirates (DB / Michael and a 3rd FD staff).. That is how I imagine ED to be.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Splitting into separate groups is undesirable.

PvP is a very misleading phrase in my eyes.

ED is essentially a PvE game but the addition of real players makes the E far more interesting and varied.

If I'm bounty hunting, I won't be making any distinction between NPC pirates and player pirates - I might just expect the players to put up more of a fight.

 

[Juniper]

Play in the PvP universe or get off the server .. That's nice of you

Well, not exactly... but the whole reason this ever became any kind of an issue is because those who don't want PvP combat would play offline otherwise, which is generally undesirable is it not?

My view here is that E: D is both an online and an offline game. Offline it's you against the computer - i.e. PvE. You can't restrict what players do in an online universe without crippling the game for everyone (IMO) or splitting the user base (again) & making two completely separate rule sets that need to be independently balanced & maintained by FD.

I think that's a fundamentally bad idea, and that the solution will be to allow PvP everywhere, but have safe areas within the game where you WILL get destroyed by the police if you engage in unprovoked combat with another player.

Massive presumption .. Your comments are getting worse Juniper - time to take a step back ?

Whether you agree with me or not, there's no need to make it personal.

I can give you 1 reason why I enjoy playing on PvE servers - it's less stressful and I don't have to think as hard. Sometimes when I come home from work I am knackered and simply want to play with randoms but not have to think about combat; strategy; etc .. NPCs on the whole are predictable whilst players require brainpower and I don't always have some spare.

I can relate to that completely - and in my scenario I would suggest then you stick to the safe areas I mention on those occasions. I know I will.

Ganking is NOT griefing - it's a dishonorable tactic that's all, but makes sense - safety in numbers

I suspect we are at cross purposes here. My reference to ganking is of the kind you'll sometimes find in EVE, where a group of (or even a single) high level player will destroy a low level player just for kicks. In my eyes, that is definitely griefing.

 

[Minti2]

I can give you 1 reason why I enjoy playing on PvE servers - it's less stressful and I don't have to think as hard. Sometimes when I come home from work I am knackered and simply want to play with randoms but not have to think about combat; strategy; etc .. NPCs on the whole are predictable whilst players require brainpower and I don't always have some spare.

Hmm not sure about this part of your comment. Your tired after work so dont want to come across a real player as requires more brainpower if it came to combat.

Ok i agree, and have said before Human players give you unpredictability combat wise, but even if you have played against NPCs in combat situations for some time, you still need a strategy to finish them off.
They are not just going to roll over, and am guessing that there will be varying degrees of levels of hardness in ED with the NPCs.

What if for instence you get ambushed by three pirates(NPCs) your gonna need all your brain power to get out of that one!

Also while i have always said Human players can be more dangerous then NPCs, they can also be the most stupid to(i include myself in that, fingers and thumbs sometimes!)

You come up against me attacking you, yet you have an easy kill because i did a stupid tactical move or hadn't bought that ECM yet? The variables of Human players and their ships will make the combat experience that much more fun, and at times unexpected in the outcomes.

People wont be armed to the teeth in every encounter, yet will still attack.

Am not having a go, just saying that thinking is required whether its Human or NPCs, if you have found that magic pattern in defeating all NPCs, then to me your gaming experience isnt that much fun, but before you jump on me! if thats your thing, fair enough.

I hope there's a good outcome in the end that makes it fun for all, i know what i want, and hope you get what you want.

Edit...sorry mate hadnt seen your post about NOT flying solo was to busy writing this post! so fair enough....i for one will play solo myself most of the time, but on occasions fly with friends.

 

[Juniper]

How do you propose FD stop players from forming squadrons and flying around together ? Do you honestly think I will be flying solo ?

Take another look at one of the Dev Diaries that had 3 Anacondas and some defenders being attacked by pirates (DB / Michael and a 3rd FD staff).. That is how I imagine ED to be.

Now who is making presumptions - I never suggested any such thing.

But a squadron of experienced pilots like yourself, armed to the teeth, destroying a new player or a defenseless trader for no reason other than your own personal enjoyment?

Yeah, I can see why that wouldn't be fun for the victim.

 

[Fromhell]

Sure. But the choice is only down to the player pointing the laser. The player being targeted has no say in the matter.

Do you know this is an online space sim with armed ships, called "Elite Dangerous" and not "Geneva Convention Online" ?

Maybe you should look into some less violent games.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Now who is making presumptions - I never suggested any such thing.

Ganking = griefing to all intents and purposes, and FD's efforts would be better spent trying to combat that by putting in safeguards etc than splitting off the userbase

Course you didn't

ETA:

Yeah, I can see why that wouldn't be fun for the victim.

Completely agree .. but in that instance the sole unlucky pilot won't be killed .. beat them up a little; force surrender; take cargo and leave. It's not my aim to blow up unlucky people but I believe that 5 pirates breathing down your neck is far more intimidating than 1. <shrug> Don't fly alone is my advice .. I know I won't be (my trader that is - going to need some wingmen btw )

 

[Juniper]

Options 2 and 3 are only there because of the vegetarian table. Removing the vegetarian table does not increase choice.

But the meat eaters don't see the vegetarian table at all. The vegetarians don't see the meat eaters. They may as well be in different restaurants.

But they're not splitting off the userbase - those who would play in a PvE universe are those who would otherwise play single player. You're not splitting them off, you're grouping them together. Not to mention that it's a relatively simple thing to do (the Ironman split already exists, all that's needed is to remove the ability to kill players, either by making lasers have no effect, or making them not fire, or other possibilities) and therefore very cost-effective.

So because I want Elite: Dangerous where there is a chance I will be attacked by another player (or I can do the same), I won't see these people? Why not just have one single universe, make the core worlds effectively safe. and let the PvE folks try it? The Ironman split is bad enough. Let's not make it worse - please.

Yes, they should be trying to combat griefing. Unfortunately, that's a war that can never be won by the developers. They can reduce it to a tolerable level for most, but there will always be people who don't want it to happen ever, not once, nada, zilch.

Really, the only way to ever prevent that is to play offline. People are people, and will do what they choose at the time. Unless you cripple the game so they can't.

Anti-griefing measures also usually have more impact on legitimate players than griefers.

This is a real and valid concern, and one where playtesting & alpha & beta will help.

Additionally, there are people who dislike the thought of possibly ruining somebody else's game experience in any way because they're like that. Some of these people will play single player, but some of them want to meet like-minded players.

I would count myself in that group - with the caveat that I think the PvP adds richness to the game. It's hard to properly RP when you're basically a eunuch.

Again, it's an option that has no effect on the already open group but pleases others for a very low cost. I don't see why it shouldn't be done.

I wouldn't like it, because in my opinion, it changes the feel of the whole game for the worse. IMO it's an unnecessary split, and the issues can be solved through other means than this.

 

[DigitalDuck]

But the meat eaters don't see the vegetarian table at all. The vegetarians don't see the meat eaters. They may as well be in different restaurants.

That wasn't the part I was disagreeing with...

So because I want Elite: Dangerous where there is a chance I will be attacked by another player (or I can do the same), I won't see these people? Why not just have one single universe, make the core worlds effectively safe. and let the PvE folks try it? The Ironman split is bad enough. Let's not make it worse - please.

Because then you restrict PvE players to certain areas if they want to play online. You're saying, "Yes, you can play... but only in this ballpit. No, not that one, this one. This one."

Additionally, PvE players are more likely to try it (you're assuming they haven't, but I'll roll with it anyway) if they're already playing in an open multiplayer universe.

And once again, you're not making a bigger split. You're collecting a group of otherwise single players together. You're actually making the split smaller.

Really, the only way to ever prevent that is to play offline. People are people, and will do what they choose at the time. Unless you cripple the game so they can't.

Then why not let people choose to cripple their own game? It doesn't affect yours.

I wouldn't like it, because in my opinion, it changes the feel of the whole game for the worse. IMO it's an unnecessary split, and the issues can be solved through other means than this.

How does it change the feel of the whole game? The only difference it'll make to anyone playing PvP is that instead of seeing:

[ NORMAL ]
[ IRONMAN ]
[ PRIVATE ]
[ SOLO ]

on the play menu you'll see

[ NORMAL ]
[ IRONMAN ]
[ CASUAL ]
[ PRIVATE ]
[ SOLO ]

and your play experience is otherwise completely unchanged.

(I honestly couldn't care less what they're called, so replace them with whatever names you like.)

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

if you have found that magic pattern in defeating all NPCs, then to me your gaming experience isnt that much fun

Yup - but sometimes that's needed.

- Want some meaningful* action : PvP
- Want some "switch off cos you had a poor day at work" and want to smack something around and feel like a god : PvE



*Not implying that PvE isn't meaningful .. its all down to what you (individual) want.

 

[Juniper]

That wasn't the part I was disagreeing with...

But clearly you missed the part I was getting at. You split the user base, you have less players in each user base.

Because then you restrict PvE players to certain areas if they want to play online. You're saying, "Yes, you can play... but only in this ballpit. No, not that one, this one. This one."

A reasonable and fair point, however, whether you're playing PvE or PvP or whatever - if you venture out into the outlying anarchy worlds, you will be attacked. You don't go there unless you're ready & willing to fight. You won't get to sit there minding your own business in an ore belt mining away & not expect to have rats on your tail (sic) on a regular basis.

Additionally, PvE players are more likely to try it (you're assuming they haven't, but I'll roll with it anyway) if they're already playing in an open multiplayer universe.

I'm assuming they haven't tried it because the game only exists on paper at this point for everybody here.

And once again, you're not making a bigger split. You're collecting a group of otherwise single players together. You're actually making the split smaller.

You're potentially making instance sizes smaller for those playing SP online. That's all.

Then why not let people choose to cripple their own game? It doesn't affect yours.

Because it does affect my game. And yours. And Liqua's. And everyone else's. These players will then no longer be part of my game at any point.

When I start playing, I'll likely start with SP online. Why? Because I want to get a feel for the game first - learn the mechanics, learn the whys and wherefores of how things occur, in other words - explore the environment, before I attempt multiplayer. But I will do multiplayer.

I'm guessing a lot of others will do the same. It's been a long time since FFE, and E: D is going to be huge. Daunting in fact.

So you make a split between the two playstyles (rather than just handle them in game) there is a large number of players I will never see. And you will never see.

I think that's bad design. Doesn't matter if other games do it that way or not - this is Elite and a multiplayer game being designed for the 21st century. We can do better.

 

[Fromhell]

Fine, so by using the arguments of PvE-only extremists, I also have the right to hate PvE NPC robot ships because I generalize that they are predictable and dumb, like the PvE-only folks generalize "getting griefed" in PvP all the time.

I don´t want non consensual enounters with NPCs, I only want to meet real players and I demand my special PvP game filter mode too.

I´ll better get my real-player-ships-only filter option, if ED is supposed to "make everyone happy", because when I come home from work, and I´m tired I only want to meet nice people from my alliance, I don´t want to meet soulless NPC bots who attack me non-consensually.

So can I filter out NPCs from my gaming experience?

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I also have the right to hate PvE NPC robot ships because I generalize that they are predictable and dumb

They are on the whole predictable and dumb. However, you need them ... the galaxy is HUGE and there won't be that many players to fill it .. want to fly in areas whereby you meet nothing ? What if you play at the wrong hours due to time zones - empty servers ? That sounds fun

 

[DigitalDuck]

But clearly you missed the part I was getting at. You split the user base, you have less players in each user base.

And my point was you don't have fewer players in each user base because without the vegetarian table those guys stay at home. They're not going to say, "well, vegetables are out, guess I'll eat meat".

I'm assuming they haven't tried it because the game only exists on paper at this point for everybody here.

Oh you. You know full well what I meant.

Because it does affect my game. And yours. And Liqua's. And everyone else's. These players will then no longer be part of my game at any point.

Those players will not be part of your game at any point anyway. The alternative to open PvE isn't open PvP, it's solo.

So you make a split between the two playstyles (rather than just handle them in game) there is a large number of players I will never see. And you will never see.

You will never see those players anyway, because without a PvE group they'll be playing solo.