"The path of least resistance"

[DarkWalker]

Here a quick mock up of a working risk vs. reward system

surprise-> no grouping system necessary!

And completely misses what I want from the game: the hardest PvE combat the game has to offer, without any forced PvP.

At least I'm assured to be able to just join a group of like-minded players, or even go solo, if the open multiplayer game ever becomes like that.

Countless people are waiting for an EvE type sandbox MMO with joysticks. ED could be that if it would not try to be a game for people stuck in the 80ies or thinking in WoW paradigms

It would have to betray the KS pledgers to achieve that, though. We have been specifically promised to be able to choose who we play with while playing online, and to be able to change this option without having to re-roll the character; in other words, we have been promised, from the start, a mechanism that, indirectly, allows us to completely avoid PvP. Doing an "EVE with joysticks" would require rendering that promise null and void.

yeah.. no, don´t agree, widest possible playerbase already smells like fail, sorry.
Dark Prophecy -> went the way of the Dodo, dead and shutdown - had everything for the "widest possible playerbase".
EvE-> very much alive, "niche" half a million paying subs
Star Conflict -> only very basic lobby PvP, very much alive, making loads of cash from the ingame store

Dark Prophecy was PvE only on the starting newbie zones, outside those it was a PvP game (or PvPvE, as you seem to prefer). It was also widely criticized for lack of content.

EVE is the big exception whenever full PvP, with player looting, is concerned. It's the first - and only - game with open PvP and player looting to ever reach 100K players since UO removed open PvP back in 2000.

Star Conflict, being a lobby PvP game, is only about fully consensual PvP. Just like LoL, DotA2, TF2, World of Tanks, Mechwarrior Online, and dozens other PvP-only games that are successful out there.

You would be better off asking CCP to develop a new pilot based combat model for EvE than asking FD to rehash EvE in Elite: Dangerous.

I think you would have more success in achieving your aim.

As PascalB showed with his linked videos, CCP already have a working prototype of a fighter game in the EVE universe, called EVE-VR and demoed at this year's E3. There's even a petitioin to get CCP to release that game (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/release-the-eve-online-oculus-rift-space-shooter/).

Re-watching that episode made me think about DiRT 3 (again). There are these awful Gymkhana sections, where you have to do donuts, spins, drifts, etc. with each trick scored depending on how well you pull it off. You're actually forced to do the events if you want to unlock the next race, so I've taken to dropping the difficulty level so I can win without trying, and get back to playing the bits I actually enjoy.

This shows, in a nutshell, why I prefer when PvP does not have rewards, and instead is played just for fun.

Extrinsic rewards -> players are more interested in the rewards than in the content, so they do whatever it takes to get the reward, even if it involves destroying the fun for themselves and, often enough, for everyone else involved.

Intrinsic rewards ("just for fun") -> players are actually interested in playing the content and having fun.

Don't know about the countless, but I coulda sworn I was waiting for Elite Dangerous.

Yeah, completely agree

 

[Fromhell]

And completely misses what I want from the game: the hardest PvE combat the game has to offer, without any forced PvP.

I like challenging PvE too. In my proposed territory map you can get that. They could even crank up the PvE difficulty in some police guarded parts, doesn´t crash the system.

And I can get my seamless PvPvE in the other territory. You can go there any time or simply stay out. All optional, so where is the problem?

At least I'm assured to be able to just join a group of like-minded players, or even go solo, if the open multiplayer game ever becomes like that.

wrong mindset, you want a one man convertible monster truck powered by water and retractable wings so it can fly - I´d like that too but it doesn´t work.

It would have to betray the KS pledgers to achieve that, though. We have been specifically promised to be able to choose who we play with while playing online, and to be able to change this option without having to re-roll the character; in other words, we have been promised, from the start, a mechanism that, indirectly, allows us to completely avoid PvP. Doing an "EVE with joysticks" would require rendering that promise null and void.

No betrayal at all! You can do all of that with seperate ruleset territories. As far as I remember they never mentioned 400 billion star systems during the KS or any other fixed number of star systems, so it might as well be 200 billion systems for PvE-only playstyle and 200 for PvAll. And you know very well demanding 400 instead of 200 would be completely ridiculous because you can´t even visit 0.1% of one billion systems in your entire lifetime..

Dark Prophecy was PvE only on the starting newbie zones, outside those it was a PvP game (or PvPvE, as you seem to prefer). It was also widely criticized for lack of content.

lol.. it had PvE raids, it was focused on PvE and NPC missions, PvP was "optional" and there were no PvP rewards. But nice try to twist reality. Dark Prophecy failed. Hard.

EVE is the big exception whenever full PvP, with player looting, is concerned. It's the first - and only - game with open PvP and player looting to ever reach 100K players since UO removed open PvP back in 2000.

500 K...paying subs

Star Conflict, being a lobby PvP game, is only about fully consensual PvP. Just like LoL, DotA2, TF2, World of Tanks, Mechwarrior Online, and dozens other PvP-only games that are successful out there.

doesn´t matter if it´s consensual or not, those are most played games and they are centered on PvP. By the way going into a PvAll area is consensual PvP too! No one forces you to got there, so it´s consensual.

As PascalB showed with his linked videos, CCP already have a working prototype of a fighter game in the EVE universe, called EVE-VR and demoed at this year's E3. There's even a petitioin to get CCP to release that game (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/release-the-eve-online-oculus-rift-space-shooter/).

I saw and even tried it with Oculus live on EvE fanfest and it kicks ass. Went primarily there to see the secret WoD presentation though. Hopefully they build a complete game out of EvE-VR, connected to the EvE universe like Dust 514.

This shows, in a nutshell, why I prefer when PvP does not have rewards, and instead is played just for fun.

that´s rich.. reward your PvE-only playstyle and make PvPvE and PvP completely meaningless and tacked on.

Extrinsic rewards -> players are more interested in the rewards than in the content, so they do whatever it takes to get the reward, even if it involves destroying the fun for themselves and, often enough, for everyone else involved.
Intrinsic rewards ("just for fun") -> players are actually interested in playing the content and having fun.

fun is relative - my fun is destroyed by an always looming "path of least resistance" group switch and no higher rewards for more challenging player vs. player gameplay.

 

[Out2lunch]

Your map model isn't going to happen it's already been decided.

Open PvP isn't consensual in any form if you have to go through that area even by choice. Think Eve choke points of 1 lowsec system on a profitable trade route of hisec jump gates. You are forced into PvP not by choice but by a broken game mechanic for lazy gankers who sit on the gate.

BTW I agree with you ask cars are clones of the first automobile. They pretty much work the same way but with better comfort and milage.

By having groups you eliminate they type of game you don't want to play. I will be a member of the following group 'over 40s 2 kids and only have an hour to have some fun' why should you spoil my fun by making me open PvP in a game that I want to play for fun. Call me a carebear or what ever you like this is a game to be played the way we want to play it, not all of us find PvP fun.

 

[Slawkenbergius]

I'll be playing in the 'all' group most, if not all, of the time, despite the lack of extra 'PVP' rewards. Because I'll find the game more fun that way.

 

[Fromhell]

Your map model isn't going to happen it's already been decided.

after the tri poll didn´t they say nothing is set in stone..?

Open PvP isn't consensual in any form if you have to go through that area even by choice.

you don´t have to go through, you would be free to stay in your guarded playstyle 200 billion system territory - no one forces you to enter the other territories where PvP would not be punished.

Think Eve choke points of 1 lowsec system on a profitable trade route of hisec jump gates. You are forced into PvP not by choice but by a broken game mechanic for lazy gankers who sit on the gate.

We don´t have jump gates right? So how can there be choke points? Btw the "lazy ganker" waiting for you somewhere between 400 billion systems, isn´t that a rather unlikely scenario if missions are spread across the galaxy? "Gankers" would spend a long time of waiting...

BTW I agree with you ask cars are clones of the first automobile. They pretty much work the same way but with better comfort and milage.

every space sim is a clone of Elite anyway, why should ED not take revenge and steal something back

By having groups you eliminate they type of game you don't want to play. I will be a member of the following group 'over 40s 2 kids and only have an hour to have some fun' why should you spoil my fun by making me open PvP in a game that I want to play for fun. Call me a carebear or what ever you like this is a game to be played the way we want to play it, not all of us find PvP fun.

The problem with PvE-only folks is they want to keep their cake and it eat it too.
Still not getting how the territory map I proposed keeps you from playing exactly the way you want. You could do all of that, just as described by you.

 

[dannysquid]

I'll be playing in the 'all' group most, if not all, of the time, despite the lack of extra 'PVP' rewards. Because I'll find the game more fun that way.

That's what I'll be doing too. I'm as shyly reluctant to go MMO as many others, but that seems to be the way the game is meant to played. Or at least it will be the version closest to Braben's original goals. So I'm going to give it a shot at least.

 

[STABB666]

In for dinner.

By having groups you eliminate they type of game you don't want to play. I will be a member of the following group 'over 40s 2 kids and only have an hour to have some fun' why should you spoil my fun by making me open PvP in a game that I want to play for fun. Call me a carebear or what ever you like this is a game to be played the way we want to play it, not all of us find PvP fun.

I'm not over 40, but I have more kids, so I guess I'll be applying for this kind of group. I thought I read somewhere that players could have 3 seperate save games, but I could have imagined it because I can't find it now... But if that's the case, I'd have no problem running an isolated PvE save that doesn't have any relation to my PvP save.

 

[Philip Coutts]

Elite Dangerous will be big enough, varied enough and hopefully well enough made that everyone can happily go about their business and play the game how they want.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I'm not over 40, but I have more kids, so I guess I'll be applying for this kind of group. I thought I read somewhere that players could have 3 seperate save games, but I could have imagined it because I can't find it now... But if that's the case, I'd have no problem running an isolated PvE save that doesn't have any relation to my PvP save.

It has not been fully confirmed yet by FD but I know you can have at least 2 commanders - questions answered by Michael during KS to which I badgered him about this as I wanted to play on both sides of the law

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Fromhell!

Thank you for your map suggestion. Looking at it, I think it's worth raising a few points from a dev point of view:

You equate NPC aggression with player versus player status. I personally don't think this is a reasonable correlation. I suspect that a large proportion of players who would like to avoid player versus player combat do so not because of the inherent difficulty increase. Don't get me wrong, players are always going to be less predictable in terms of how they act and how they're equipped, potentially making them more difficult opponents. However, I think dislike of player versus player combat is more likely to be because of the psychological elements of adversarial/competitive activities. Even though it's just a game, I think it can gain a personal level of psychological/social importance which some people don't want.

You also have some features that we are not supporting; player station/defence building and player controlled territories. It's possible that these features might be looked at further down the line, but there are no plans for them at the moment. The core focus of Elite: Dangerous is the experience of flying you own space ship in a vast galaxy, and the personal experiences you have doing so (which may involve other players).

So, I also have a question about the galaxy segregation in your map and I'd be interested to hear your response: If we were to use such a layout I would assume that the players who had less interest in player versus player combat would never leave the "safe areas", except perhaps to dabble at the fringes.

Assuming that such players were completely safe from player persecution in the "safe" area, how different would this be from a group system where such players could switch between "private" and "all" groups?

Taking an alternative look: if we assume that even the "safe" area is not one hundred percent safe; that police response may not be quick and powerful enough to stop an attack, even if they can punish the aggressor after the fact, then I think we both know that this will happen to some degree. So whilst statistically the chance of being attacked by humans will be low, the perceived threat will likely be much higher. In this case those who don't care for the player versus combat experience will have basically lost out, as the "safe" area would randomly not be so.

Another very interesting point about the map is the reward layers. In your map, there is a clear distinction between the potential rewards based on the risk of encountering adversarial human players. This makes perfect sense. However, it's also highly unpalatable for players that want a cooperative or single player experience, and that also makes sense.

It seems to me like you have two major issues:

Firstly, it may be the case that you are hoping for massively multiplayer features (territory control, large scale player organisations) that we aren't going to support. Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to help much on this one. It's just not Elite: Dangerous. In fairness we've not promised anything like this (to my knowledge ) I also think that what we are attempting is quite ambitious enough and nicely focused.

Secondly, it may be that you are after risk/rewards that are commensurate with player versus player skill. Basically, the more skilful players get the best stuff/"win". In this case, I would like to ask another question: If the game clearly differentiated between rewards obtained in the "all" group and "private" groups, so players could very clearly see who had trod the path more dangerous, would you be less strongly against a grouping system.

It goes without saying that nothing discussed here diminishes our committment to make player versus player interactions as cool as possible, as skill-based as possible and as filled with opportunities as possible. I'm just interested at getting as clear a picture as possible of all the issues.

 

[STABB666]

Best of both worlds...

It has not been fully confirmed yet by FD but I know you can have at least 2 commanders - questions answered by Michael during KS to which I badgered him about this as I wanted to play on both sides of the law

I would very much like this. Being able to walk different paths, and compare progress, as well as maybe get some flight time in before going online would be benefit for me personally. I doubt all those hours on FFE are going to help much with the newer physics and maps.

 

[DarkWalker]

Secondly, it may be that you are after risk/rewards that are commensurate with player versus player skill. Basically, the more skilful players get the best stuff/"win". In this case, I would like to ask another question: If the game clearly differentiated between rewards obtained in the "all" group and "private" groups, so players could very clearly see who had trod the path more dangerous, would you be less strongly against a grouping system.

My suggestion is to attempt to tune the rewards between PvP-enabled and PvP-disabled play to make progression in both cases as similar in speed as you can get, for similarly skilled players. This would remove considerations about the progression speed - or, in other words, about the "path of least resistance" - from the choice between engaging in PvP or not.

A small error in that tuning likely won't matter; players tend to be better at the play style they prefer (in no small part because that is what they usually play more), and they should also be able to keep going longer without getting bored or burned out if doing what they like, so slight efficiency differences shouldn't be enough to make the unwanted play style more efficient for each individual player. A large error in that tuning - or a lack of that tuning altogether - can, on the other hand, make players choose the play style they dislike most if that happens to be the one with the most efficient progression, resulting in players that dislike the most efficient play style being unhappy and a lot more prone to burnout.

This is why my suggestion has always been to make PvE enemies weaker, but with the same rewards, when players are effectively available for PvP. If well tuned, this should even out the progression speed between PvP and PvE, with the welcome side-effect of reducing the amount of time PvP players spend doing PvE (since they will be able to get through it faster).

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

If the game clearly differentiated between rewards obtained in the "all" group and "private" groups, so players could very clearly see who had trod the path more dangerous, would you be less strongly against a grouping system.

This is one of the things I was definitely for a while ago. Giving those who take a more dangerous path some distinct rewards for doing so (like increased reputation gains over solo players). But now I've thought about it and took on board other peoples ideas and how some are vehemently opposed to any non-consensual player vs player interaction, I'm looking at it from a different perspective. There's no need to handicap solo players and private groupers or deny them access to what mulitplayers have access to.

What I'm against are unfair advantages that the group system may bring. Its not a case of rewarding the risk takers its about making sure the risk takers aren't taken advantage of by those who'll use the 'All' group to PvAll then switch over to solo or private play to re-arm, restock, earn money to pay off fines and creditors before rejoining the All group to PvAll again.

So I don't think differentiating between rewards is a problem or is even needed - just an understanding on how the system will work to prevent the scenario above. Cathy mentioned in this thread there will be timers to stop player killers from switching between groups on a whim. What other penalties or features are there to stop someone (or a group of players) who've just been defeated in PvP combat from turning to solo play or a private group to rebuild up their rep, regain a financial clout, buy badass ships, arm them, and use it all against their adversary who never group switched at all and stayed true to a one world MP game? That to me would be an unfair game mechanic.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

If the game clearly differentiated between rewards obtained in the "all" group and "private" groups, so players could very clearly see who had trod the path more dangerous, would you be less strongly against a grouping system.

There's no need to handicap solo players and private groupers or deny them access to what mulitplayers have access to.

Just a thought - "differentiated" doesn't necessarily mean "one is better than the other". For example, ratings earnt in the "all" group could be displayed in blue, ratings from other groups in yellow*.

So if you meet a commander that's a competent trader and a deadly fighter, it's a safe bet he's been grinding in PvE and fighing in PvP.

* I know you're not supposed to convey information with colour, but I plead special privilege because blue-yellow colour blindness is rarer than total blindness

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

Just a thought - "differentiated" doesn't necessarily mean "one is better than the other". For example, ratings earnt in the "all" group could be displayed in blue, ratings from other groups in yellow*.

So if you meet a commander that's a competent trader and a deadly fighter, it's a safe bet he's been grinding in PvE and fighing in PvP.

I like this idea. Its only a cosmetic feature and doesn't level the groupings playing field, but it does give other pilots an indication of what type of player they're interacting with. I still think we need something substantial to prevent group switching abuse.

 

[_Jael]

Apologies but can someone remind me, or point me to the appropriate thread explaining it, what has been decided with these ALL, and PRIVATE groups?

Is there a PvP and a PvE flag?

What happens when PvE people encounter each other? Can they shoot each other? Do bullets have no effect or pass through?



I'd initially thought groups were just "everyone" "me and selected mates" and "solo". Which equates to "pvp", "pvp between me and selected mates but mainly PvE" and "PvE, alone". Is that right?


Surely you can't flip between groups at a whim? You could use it as a losing battle technique. Or fly to a dangerous place on PvE, do some great trading, and then switch back to PvP. I think you define the type of game you want when you start and stick to it?

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

Apologies but can someone remind me, or point me to the appropriate thread explaining it, what has been decided with these ALL, and PRIVATE groups?

Is there a PvP and a PvE flag?

What happens when PvE people encounter each other? Can they shoot each other? Do bullets have no effect or pass through?

Surely you can't flip between PvP and PvE at a whim? You could use it as a losing battle technique. Or fly to a dangerous place on PvE, do some great trading, and then switch back to PvP. I think you define the type of game you want when you start and stick to it?

I'd initially thought groups were just "everyone" "me and selected mates" and "solo" and within those groups it was pvp.

The way I understand it is the only full PvE gameworld is the solo play game since you'll never meet another human player.

Private groups and the All group are both PvE and PvP.

Private groups are made up of people you personally chose. So if you meet nice people you can add them to your own personal private group and they'll be the ones you're more than likely to have interaction with in your travels. (I'm not 100% sure on this one, so someone correct me if I'm wrong )

The All group is what I'd term a true multiplayer gameworld. You'll interact with all sorts of people and personalities. Non-consensual PvP will be inevitable at some point in your travels (unless you fly off and find your own personal kingdom amongst the 400 billion stars out there - no one will find you )

You can switch between groups as often as you like - although there are timers (I think).

 

[_Jael]

Thanks. Good overview.

I've just found the discussion in the ddf archives so I'll read through it. It's a hefty beasty tho!

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

Thanks. Good overview.

I've just found the discussion in the ddf archives so I'll read through it. It's a hefty beasty tho!

If I'm wrong or its changed let me know - its been ages since I read it

 

[Slawkenbergius]

So if you meet a commander that's a competent trader and a deadly fighter, it's a safe bet he's been grinding in PvE and fighing in PvP.

* I know you're not supposed to convey information with colour, but I plead special privilege because blue-yellow colour blindness is rarer than total blindness

Because it's blue against a dark-grey background, I find it very difficult to read. It melts into the background.