"The path of least resistance"

[Cathy]

The hypothetical "hardcore" skilled PvE-only player could even be the one getting interested in trying out PvAll at a later point. Think about it, if you are the most bad-ass PvE pilot taking on every AI robot of the galaxy single handedly, wouldn´t you at least try to move on from shooting scripted AI to taking on human players some day for more challenge?

Whether a move "on" (which implies superior) or move sideways, which is just different, some will and some won't. The current group system supports this anyway.

Wouldn´t the territory segregation make it easier for you to put specific missions into the playstyle specific territories?

That's a good reason not to go this route: more ghetto building.

4. Path of least resistence: What keeps me from running valueable cargo only in solo/private group, then switching back to all-group when I have nothing of value on board?

Nothing, provided you don't attack players while in the all-group. If you want the challenge there, fine. If you're seeking challenge elsewhere, also fine.

Which trader would even take the risk to run cargo in the all-group, if you can make your life a little easier without consequences for adapting your circumstances by switching groups.

I would The path of least resistance argument leaks like a split watering can. It's loses content quickly because there's difference between gaming and real life. Gamers seek challenge. The path thingy only really holds up where competition between players is very direct, like combat.

ED should encourage riskier gameplay involving multiplayer, because at the end we know it is the superior game mode.

This is the nugget in a very long post, Fromhell. There is no should, no all and no know about these things. What you find "superior" is not everyone else's find. Some people just don't like multiplayer. Some love it. Some enjoy both. Ease of opportunity is the key - the best of flexibility.

 

[Caribou]

(Yeah feels like a 180 but to be blunt I am just ****** off with the whole thing ... 1 galaxy - space is hostile - deal with it)

I gave up on PvE a long time ago, and I'll happily support your claim for PvP - I'm not scared of it I just don't think the grouping system as it stands will allow me to do what I want. So I will be in the ALL group anyway - killing all these youngsters for breathing the wrong way ;P

 

[_Jael]

I would The path of least resistance argument leaks like a split watering can. It's loses content quickly because there's difference between gaming and real life. Gamers seek challenge. The path thingy only really holds up where competition between players is very direct, like combat.

Are you speaking for all gamers there?

I'm definitely guilty of the path of least resistance sometimes. I remember X-Wing, or maybe it was Wing Commander, where I found a cheat mode and could blow up targetted enemy ships just by pressing one button.

It made the game a bit pointless, and I mostly avoided using it. But sometimes, in moments of difficulty or impatience to reach the next part of the story, I would reach for it. I'd have probably preferred to not know of its existence, but once pandora's box was opened I couldn't always resist it.

I'm sure I'm not alone in this. I'm sure that if there were exploits to be had by switching groups then people would take them. I'd curse them for it, but I bet I succumb occasionally. After all I want to see that marshmellow moon someone was talking about and I've given up trying to reach that system in the 'all group'.

 

[Cathy]

Are you speaking for all gamers there?

No. I would have said "All gamers seek challenge" if that were so.

And different gamers seek different challenges even within the same game Bugs like the one you describe aren't really a counter to this; they're bugs.

My point being that the path of least resistance armument leaks because we are not all the same. Which is not a bad thing. It is important that a game provides equal opportunity of experience, not the same experience for all

 

[Andrew Sayers]

Surely they would have been able to earn the same amount of money on the main account by using the same amount of time to it? There's no reason to use an alternate account for such purpose.

That's true. I was trying to point out that "amount of time spent outside the all group" is a fine example of a common trap - a measure of desirable behaviour that's extremely accurate right up until the moment you use it, at which point it's immediately gamed to death.

As you say, ordinarily players would have no incentive to make a special alt just for grinding. But imagine FD added a rule like this:

Players can ignore people who spend a significantly different portion of their time in the "all" group - for example, competitive players may want to block people that grind solo, while co-operative players may want to block people that drop out of the all group looking for prey to grief​

That would create plenty of reason to abuse alts this way, so you could get all that juicy forbidden content.

However, in my haste to explore this gap, I did make a mistake...

Is this written anywhere? As far as I recall there was no limitation confining Ironmen to their main group. In fact, here's a line about private groups from the Groups proposal - "Players can only invite other players of the same type (normal, iron man) to a group".

Oops - I was reading "ironman mode" as "ironman group" and confusing myself. I'll edit my post to prevent further confusion.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

while co-operative players may want to block people that drop out of the all group looking for prey to grief

Reasonable, apart from this - you can't drop out the all group looking for prey as there is no one there

 

[Fromhell]

I found the solution.
Since this is an unsolveable problem, can we just get an "Elite Dangerous: The Tabletop Board Game" instead?
1-4 players, for ages 12-99 ?

 

[Cathy]

I found the solution.
Since this is an unsolveable problem, can we just get an "Elite Dangerous: The Tabletop Board Game" instead?
1-4 players, for ages 12-99 ?

Heh, many a notion voiced in jest . In addition may come to pass - my children have been having some fun with that make your own monopoly thing. Once I get them into ED...

Community Chest: Go to the Federation penal colony. Do not pass Lave. Do not collect 200 credits.

Chance: you found a Thargoid. Collect 10 credits from each player.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

I found the solution.
Since this is an unsolveable problem, can we just get an "Elite Dangerous: The Tabletop Board Game" instead?
1-4 players, for ages 12-99 ?

Does an officially sanctioned tabletop RPG count?

 

[Cathy]

Does an officially sanctioned tabletop RPG count?

WHY have I not seen that before? :smilie:

 

[Fromhell]

WHY have I not seen that before? :smilie:

Haven´t seen this either!

 

[DarkWalker]

For those that keep saying that turning off PvP will make such a difference for progression that it will prevent PvPers from competing with PvE players: do you even think in a game where the death penalty is to just respawn in an identical ship, with the same equipment you had, and either pay a fee that is a small percentage of the ship's value or do a NPC mission to repay that fee (see http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5323 ); where, given the universe's size, staying out of the central systems would already make PvP encounters quite rare anyway; and where playing solo will increase NPC count and difficulty (see http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=138055&postcount=22 ); going solo, or into private groups, to avoid PvP will make much difference for progression?

It sincerely seems to me that whoever professes to prefer PvP, but would change to solo play for farming, is merely choosing a game mode that he says to not enjoy in order to have a negligible advantage, if any.

 

[Nagual]

For those that keep saying that turning off PvP will make such a difference for progression that it will prevent PvPers from competing with PvE players: do you even think in a game where the death penalty is to just respawn in an identical ship, with the same equipment you had, and either pay a fee that is a small percentage of the ship's value or do a NPC mission to repay that fee (see http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5323 ); where, given the universe's size, staying out of the central systems would already make PvP encounters quite rare anyway; and where playing solo will increase NPC count and difficulty (see http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=138055&postcount=22 ); going solo, or into private groups, to avoid PvP will make much difference for progression?

It sincerely seems to me that whoever professes to prefer PvP, but would change to solo play for farming, is merely choosing a game mode that he says to not enjoy in order to have a negligible advantage, if any.

If, to summarise, you mean that there is likely to be little difference on the long run, I agree.

 

[[VR] Shadowman]

For those that keep saying that turning off PvP will make such a difference for progression that it will prevent PvPers from competing with PvE players: do you even think in a game where the death penalty is to just respawn in an identical ship, with the same equipment you had, and either pay a fee that is a small percentage of the ship's value or do a NPC mission to repay that fee (see http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5323 ); where, given the universe's size, staying out of the central systems would already make PvP encounters quite rare anyway; and where playing solo will increase NPC count and difficulty (see http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=138055&postcount=22 ); going solo, or into private groups, to avoid PvP will make much difference for progression?

It sincerely seems to me that whoever professes to prefer PvP, but would change to solo play for farming, is merely choosing a game mode that he says to not enjoy in order to have a negligible advantage, if any.

So, similarly by not turning it off (and looking at the opposite side of the coin) it will make little difference to PvE, yes? Therefore why argue for it?

 

[Tiwaz]

For those that keep saying that turning off PvP will make such a difference for progression that it will prevent PvPers from competing with PvE players: do you even think in a game where the death penalty is to just respawn in an identical ship, with the same equipment you had, and either pay a fee that is a small percentage of the ship's value or do a NPC mission to repay that fee (see http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5323 ); where, given the universe's size, staying out of the central systems would already make PvP encounters quite rare anyway; and where playing solo will increase NPC count and difficulty (see http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=138055&postcount=22 ); going solo, or into private groups, to avoid PvP will make much difference for progression?

It sincerely seems to me that whoever professes to prefer PvP, but would change to solo play for farming, is merely choosing a game mode that he says to not enjoy in order to have a negligible advantage, if any.

Better question would be, in this same sense...
Is PvP "harder"? Assumption that human opponen is always "better" is flawed. Vast majority of players in ANY given game are at best average. In most cases way below average. Computer can quite easily be harder opponent than average player.

But of course, this path of least resistance (shooting people who are not good at shooting back) is why large number of people want to PvP without giving others option to choose not to PvP. They do not want to lose, so they want to have as many people who do not enjoy PvP in their environment as possible, to have easy targets.

Despite what is being said, in little while in games like this PvP stops being about challenge and being about AVOIDING challenge by using whatever means you have at your disposal to assure that you are not challenged but instead given easy victory.
And in games like ED it is possible. WoT which is sometimes given as "proof" of how PvP works is not compatible, there it is even playground with everyone being out there to shoot stuff up. And all vehicles are for purpose of shooting up stuff, be it light tank relying on speed to hit from behind, heavy going for frontal battle or arty trying to be really far from everything using it's range. Game is balanced to have reasonably even playground in combat by presenting handicaps and benefits in it.

ED is not balanced in combat, mining ship or transport just is not combat ship, period. Combat ship is not handicapped in combat under any circumstances by lack of mining laser or cargo space.

So, similarly by not turning it off (and looking at the opposite side of the coin) it will make little difference to PvE, yes? Therefore why argue for it?

Big difference for PvE actually. People do not want the environment PvP creates. Lots of people.

Despite what is being claimed here, ED style games have not been successful when they have gone down the PvP route. EVE is only exception but it has had benefit of monopoly, something ED will not have.

In competed markets, attempts to create game which relies on forced PVP for it's multiplayer experience have not gained large long term success.

Even with planned P2P structure Frontier plans, it is not going to be cheap to keep the game rolling. And forced PvP-crowd when split between 3 games (ED, SC and EVE as they all overlap one another at least partially) has to be really loaded to keep three games floating.

At least one, more likely two of them would have to crash and burn to leave one economically viable.

 

[Cathy]

So, similarly by not turning it off (and looking at the opposite side of the coin) it will make little difference to PvE, yes? Therefore why argue for it?

... because it's not about turning negligible advantage on/off, it's about turning a mode on/off.

I 'm not fussed about flagging - I will go in a private group with friends for some very fierce pvp, so that we know we don't attack by accident other players who don't want to fight players. I will also go in private groups with family who won't attack each other - effectively pve-only. I'll go in the all-group when I want things unpredictable

 

[DarkWalker]

To complement:

Better question would be, in this same sense...
Is PvP "harder"? Assumption that human opponen is always "better" is flawed. Vast majority of players in ANY given game are at best average. In most cases way below average. Computer can quite easily be harder opponent than average player.

It might not matter at all. Like I said, death penalties seem to be small, looks like PvP action will be somewhat rare, and the PvE content that actually will make most of the gameplay both for PvP and PvE players seem to be tuned to be harder for solo/PvE players. The end result might very well be neither play style having any meaningful advantage as far as progression speed goes, no matter how harder PvP might be.

WoT which is sometimes given as "proof" of how PvP works is not compatible, there it is even playground with everyone being out there to shoot stuff up. And all vehicles are for purpose of shooting up stuff, be it light tank relying on speed to hit from behind, heavy going for frontal battle or arty trying to be really far from everything using it's range. Game is balanced to have reasonably even playground in combat by presenting handicaps and benefits in it.

World of Tanks can't be compared for one far more important, and fundamental, reason: all PvP in there is consensual, since the only reason to log at all is to fight other players.

The same is true of every single PvP-only game and game mode, including LoL, DotA2, Mechwarrior Online, TF2, etc; for the player to engage in PvP he has to intentionally sign up for it, so it's always fully consensual PvP.

In contrast, the PvP being asked for in this thread is non-consensual PvP, where it's possible for one or more of the players involved to not actually want to take part.

That distinction, for me at least, is like day and night. I like fully consensual PvP and play PvP-only games regularly, but I never engage in non-consensual PvP and tend to leave games that force that play style on me.

 

[STABB666]

Magnetic personalities...

To complement:



It might not matter at all. Like I said, death penalties seem to be small, looks like PvP action will be somewhat rare, and the PvE content that actually will make most of the gameplay both for PvP and PvE players seem to be tuned to be harder for solo/PvE players. The end result might very well be neither play style having any meaningful advantage as far as progression speed goes, no matter how harder PvP might be.



World of Tanks can't be compared for one far more important, and fundamental, reason: all PvP in there is consensual, since the only reason to log at all is to fight other players.

The same is true of every single PvP-only game and game mode, including LoL, DotA2, Mechwarrior Online, TF2, etc; for the player to engage in PvP he has to intentionally sign up for it, so it's always fully consensual PvP.

In contrast, the PvP being asked for in this thread is non-consensual PvP, where it's possible for one or more of the players involved to not actually want to take part.

That distinction, for me at least, is like day and night. I like fully consensual PvP and play PvP-only games regularly, but I never engage in non-consensual PvP and tend to leave games that force that play style on me.

The Ironmen baddies among us will be wanting to be vewy, vewy careful...shhhhhh!

If I choose to be in the All group, then I'm assuming that I've signed on for PvP. Certainly in Ironman mode, I expect to be shot at every opportunity.

 

[FrogsFriend]

Isn't the point of Ironman mode that people are less likely to shoot on sight due to the risk of also getting killed in the process?

More likely to circle each other and carefully back away.

 

[STABB666]

Arr, indeed, arr...

Isn't the point of Ironman mode that people are less likely to shoot on sight due to the risk of also getting killed in the process?

More likely to circle each other and carefully back away.

I suppose it will depend on who's got the biggest... whatevers. But since I plan on being on the not so right side of the law, I expect very much to be requiring sheilds and boosters. And when the bounty hunters come lookin', all I can do is run, unless I can talk some buddies into being a little bit crazy with me.