It's a big universe. Chances are they will be. If not, then IMO Elite is not the game for them.
The Tri-poll: What does multiplayer mean to YOU?
- Thread starter Sandro Sammarco
- Start date
- Status
It's a big universe. Chances are they will be. If not, then IMO Elite is not the game for them.
If not, then IMO Elite is not the game for them.
<sigh>
There are PvE-only lobbyists here?
I posed a version of this question in the DDF, but you guys might get some interest out of it too...
I find being killed by other players annoying, but not a deal-breaker so long as they have the decorum not to then kick me when I'm down. However, I have no interest in killing other players - my brain simply doesn't reward me with the rush some people experience on beating another person.
That means I can lose the most dangerous game or break even - the only winning move is not to play. What can you offer to make a universe where people are allowed to kill me a more rewarding experience than one where they're not?
I find being killed by other players annoying, but not a deal-breaker so long as they have the decorum not to then kick me when I'm down. However, I have no interest in killing other players - my brain simply doesn't reward me with the rush some people experience on beating another person.
That means I can lose the most dangerous game or break even - the only winning move is not to play. What can you offer to make a universe where people are allowed to kill me a more rewarding experience than one where they're not?
Heh! I give it about 1 day after launch until some oik invents the spaceship version of teabagging. Kicking you when you're down is all about proving who's BEST, remember? In that giant bully kid's playground in space. They'll bring their friends just in case you're bigger than they are, too.
Very good question, nicely put. I would love to know the answer myself. [no, "increased realism" or "greater immersion" or "higher risk" don't satisfy, for me at least! I'm looking for pure relaxing fun in my games, not heartpounding nerve-wracking adrenalin-pumping controller-breaking frustration, and don't much care about living in a fully believable universe, give me gameplay fun over "immersive" realism any day]
NPCs are behaving according to the game design, which should be tuned to selflessly maximise fun for everyone. Players behave as they choose, and are tuned to maximise fun for themselves, which generally will minimise fun for me.
Put it this way, it's unlikely FD will design in NPCs that go out of their way to make life miserable and awkward for you when you're carrying out a mission / mining / flying a trade route etc. Yes, there will be NPC encounters, yes, sometimes they'll stop you achieving what you were trying to do, but they will be tuned so that it's possible for you to overcome then. Players however will generally be way beyond your capabilities to beat if you're not a PvPer yourself, so won't be fun as there's no "risk" involved in suicide.
I'm saying "way beyond your capabilities" in the assumption that a) you're not an active PvPer so don't have the latest PvP tactics off by heart and b) you are in a ship equipped suitably for NPC combat and general trading / missioning. As soon as you introduce PvP elements, everyone needs to go around in PvP-tuned ships and equipment at all times, or they'll just be cannon fodder. I'm assuming here that the best way to equip a ship vs a player is most likely to be different from vs NPCs [it works out that way in pretty much every other PvP&PvE game - players just use different tactics to NPCs].
If I lose to an NPC, the game has beaten me, mea culpa. If I lose to a player in PvP then I've been beaten by someone I'm unlikely to ever be able to beat. There's no fun in that. If you're not competitive by nature (I'm not) then it's just not fun to be forced to compete against others.
In a galaxy of 100,000,000,000 systems, who exactly is forcing you to compete against other players?
Not being funny - but this is something that the PvE advocators simply gloss over or refuse to answer. And it's pretty critical to the whole debate.
This is an important question, one I feel the heated nature of the debate has skipped over.
As I posted before I assume the killing isn't the issue. but the percieved 'they will be better than me' or the 'they will keep comming after me' mindsets.
The first, the 'they will be better than me' will apply anyway to NPCs as, as far as I know, Elite : Dangerous will not be a skills levelled game. The only diference is the more difficult NPCs may only be generated away from start locations (but as most of these are random I expect they could be found anywhere). Therefore this is probably not a PVP / PVE issue, if they are better than you, NPC or otherwise, RUN!!!
The 'they will keep comming after me' is the griefing scenario. On this point players will have to rely on FD's management and policing within the game. It's a risk I will be willing to take and I can imagine that if the majority of players find the controls don't work there will be a lot of pressure to put them right.
I have heard some statements discussed that PVP players will spend all their time looking for other PVP players to fight for the challenge. I feel I am safe in saying that the vast majority of us will just be playing the game as normal, we will enjoy these encounters when they present themselves but will be happy with the NPC interaction most of the time.
Now I wonder if I can get any measured feedback / non passionate responses to this??
Last edited:
Although I'm sure that will happen, I suspect some will see this as part of the spice in PvP. To quote a line from a great movie:
Norman Stansfield said:
I reckon some people will see banter as the main indicator of the prestige they were fighting for. They may hate being on the receiving end, but they wouldn't value victory without having borne the brunt of it, and might even feel dishonest hiding their emotions when they win. That's just a guess from observing those people in action - I would be curious to know if that actually rings a bell with anyone.
That's a really interesting point.
NPCs don't improve - they're as good today as they were yesterday, no more and no less. That means if I lose to an NPC today, I can reasonably assume I will improve to a point where I'll beat it another day.
PCs do improve, so if I'm beaten handsomely by one today, what are my chances of passing them in future? If they started playing after me, chances are they're improving faster and I'll never beat them. If they started playing before me, they might be improving faster or they might just have a headstart. So for a game that's increasing in popularity (i.e. players join faster in future than they did in the past), most people that beat me will always beat me no matter what I do.
Not critical in the slightest. The PvEers want freedom to roam everywhere (not just dead places, or safe places) and have combat encounters with NPCs only. They WANT to encounter other humans but for all those encounters to be benign. You don't understand this and, seemingly, never will... your question is meaningless.
That's a fair question, and maybe it will be possible to run off into the wild black yonder and never meet another person. But then what have I gained from allowing people to kill me? What enticement have I been given for clicking the button? Why wouldn't I just click "single player online" and have the run of the universe without having to even worry about other people?
As I said above, I'm really not opposed to a single universe with PvP enabled. I just want to hear a unique selling point. The evolving universe is a compelling offer that will convert offline single players to online single players - what's the equivalent offer that will get people to play in a world where they can be shot at?
It does raise an interesting question though - what is the game mechanic that is going to ensure the opportunity for encounters? (or not)
Nowhere has it said the NPCs will be levelled. so where an NPC my not improve after creation the NPCs may not be created in a levelled manner with your character.
Consider, you jump into an instance with a range of experienced pilots. Who do the NPCs get leveled with, the most exerienced (bad for the beginners), least experienced, (bad for the advanced players)? I assume the middle ground will be used or they will be random. So someimes even in PVE you will have to learn to RUN!
Those other players?
Erm... run? This is Elite. Once you're in combat, you pretty much have to fight, because any attempt to flee leaves you shipless.
Now I wonder if I can get any measured feedback / non passionate responses to this??
You're talking to the side that gives measured feedback.
The problem is, you can't "run", unless your ship is an order of magnitude faster than theirs, and you can only run to one place, and that's the station. Bearing in mind anyone attacking you is likely to be a pirate, they'll have a relatively fast ship themselves to help with police combat, and they'll have intercepted you and will be placed directly between where you are and where your safety is.
And that's assuming there's only one of them.
I think I know the answer to this one.
Is it whichever player attacks the PVE'er?
ETA: Arsebiscuits - didn't see the Duck beat me to it!
Last edited:
True in a mass locked situation i.e. near a massive ship, spacestation or a planetary body. but anywhere else you can hyperspace away if you can keep them off your tail long enough.
They can choose to follow you but that damages their ship and sheilds or they will need a tracking device but that doesn't guarentee emergence in the exact same location.
These mechanics are designed to allow someone the chance of fleeing a better adversary PVP or PVE.
They can shoot back?
To be honest, I'm not overly bothered about PvP, and I can see the arguments against it. But the solution proposed simply cripples the game and turns it into Elite: Fluffy, so I think that is far far worse.
You are in danger of being attacked wherever you are in lawless space by NPCs, and in a fair fight with players it makes absolutely zero difference (apart from the challenge). Plus, people are assuming what it will be like - when the real fact of the matter is, we do NOT know, because none of us have played the game!
Players who then take it too far are griefers - plain and simple, and should be treated as such. A griefer is someone who sets out to ruin another player's gaming experience... all this ego nonsense and kicking people when their down falls into that category IMO.
There are 100 billion systems. If you don't want to be found by another player, you won't be. It's as simple as that.
Shortened for brevity, but there's a lot of ifs involved.
You can escape from another player via hyperspace IF:
- you can survive for a small amount of time against them
- you have enough fuel to hyperspace somewhere else
- they don't have a tracking device
- they are unlucky
And even then, you still have to make your way to another space station...
Simply saying "run away from PvP" isn't viable; a lot of the time it isn't possible, most other times it's only possible at a massive cost of time and fuel to the player, and all of the time it's unwanted.
Explain?
You mean it's not possible to accidentally run into other players?
What's the point of open multiplayer, then?
Because a game without danger (infinite lives and no PvP) takes everything that is "Dangerous" out of Elite: Dangerous.
PvP should be a risk for a PvEr. Not a certainty.
Let's say E: D does spectacularly well in sales and sells a million copies. That's potentially a million players all playing at once.
1,000,000 into 100,000,000,000 leaves 100,000 systems that each player has for themselves. And that's if the game does really well and everybody is playing at once.
It's impossible to properly answer your question though - because we don't know what the new free flight system will be yet. However, we do know that FD have a matchmaking system, we also know that there will be equipment that allows you to track down players. But we also know about the instance sizes, and how we simply won't see players which are not in our instance of (max) 32 players.
So a lot of unknowns. But given the sizes I mention, I think randoms are going to be very very hard to find, and if you want to lose yourself in a PvE haven and still talk to other players in game, it will be very easy to do without crippling the game or removing the choice of PvP combat from everybody in the game.
*cough*
Last edited:
This seems to be an argument with no end. Personally, I don't care for competitive gameplay and will probably aim to be an Elite humanist (helper of the weak, protector of the unprotected) when the game is out.
But not caring for competitive gameplay does not mean that I'm afraid of losing or being attacked and destroyed by a PvP player. After all, the universe is supposed to be a dangerous place and it more or less comes with the territory that I will be attacked and blown up every now and then.
So, I voted for the first option.
However, the reason I may be playing in a closed group or in single-player is the fact that I fear that most of the players will not be roleplaying their characters and I'd hate to see people discuss last night's TV episodes or sports scores when I'm supposed to be living in the year 3300 or so.
But not caring for competitive gameplay does not mean that I'm afraid of losing or being attacked and destroyed by a PvP player. After all, the universe is supposed to be a dangerous place and it more or less comes with the territory that I will be attacked and blown up every now and then.
So, I voted for the first option.
However, the reason I may be playing in a closed group or in single-player is the fact that I fear that most of the players will not be roleplaying their characters and I'd hate to see people discuss last night's TV episodes or sports scores when I'm supposed to be living in the year 3300 or so.
- Status