The Tri-poll: What does multiplayer mean to YOU?

[Marsman]

Originally Posted by Mike Evans
If it were entirely up to me I would only have an iron man all players group However we said there would be ways for players to play with their friends only on the KS and I don't see how we could get away with taking that particular feature away.

I'm sure the final game won't please all of the people all of the time, but I'd be very surprised if it was for nefarious reasons

Dont see the problem with this quote.
They can give the single player offline mode to the ones who want it, but no one said they will be able to take their credits or ships of that character into online playground! It should be impossible to get the creds/ships online afterwards. If they dont lock in single player and PvE mode somehow it would be completely unfair to the ones playing in harder online modes.
I would not play the harder modes with PvP possible if there is no benefit if someone gets everything in easy mode then enters the online universe!!!
Also they can add to single player mode LAN mode, bingo "co-op with friends".
Same restrictions for credits and ships.
Everyone get what was promised and they can make the online universe realistic not worry about balancing and unfairness. No PvE/LAN single player credits/ships allowed to enter the online sandbox- problem solved

 

[jabokai]

No PvE/LAN single player credits/ships allowed to enter the online sandbox- problem solved

A PvP player can create/join a PvP sub group with friends or alone, and effectively be in a PvE game, and then rejoin the main PvP group. The same "issue" already exists.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

They can give the single player offline mode to the ones who want it, but no one said they will be able to take their credits or ships of that character into online playground! It should be impossible to get the creds/ships online afterwards. If they dont lock in single player and PvE mode somehow it would be completely unfair to the ones playing in harder online modes.

100% agree with you - offline mode and online mode should never mix, ever.

Offline will definitely be mod'd by the community (there are a lot of smart people out there) and this will cause issues with the online game.

There is nothing wrong of course with starting an online pilot and also having an offline one for when the servers are down.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

A PvP player can create/join a PvP sub group with friends or alone, and effectively be in a PvE game, and then rejoin the main PvP group. The same "issue" already exists.

True .. but he mentioned about LAN (offline) and PvP (online) modes. They can't (or shouldn't be allowed to) mix.

 

[Marsman]

A PvP player can create/join a PvP sub group with friends or alone, and effectively be in a PvE game, and then rejoin the main PvP group. The same "issue" already exists.

get rid of the groups then.
also real player danger is always harder, even if one downgrades to Only-PvE you do not unbalance anything, a AI ships won't care, but upgrading from SP or pve mode to real player mode is a giant exploit, devs can't overlook this for sure.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It doesn't say "Any way you choose, we'll gladly change the game to support whatever you like)".

Agreed.

ELITE is ELITE.

Indubitably.

If you don't like the game in it's natural form then don't play it.

Elite is PvE.

But please don't ask them to change it so that it is crippled.

Define crippled.

Multiplayer ELITE is ELITE with people. What happens, happens. RISK is part of the trading model and always has been.

Obviously; Truly; Absolutely, respectively.

I don't think it should be separated into PVP and PVE....

Yours is not the only opinion here.

as those are terms that simply don't apply to ELITE.

See above.

This separation creates two different games, neither is ELITE:

1) I can trade and talk to people but no one can ever shoot me unless they area bot
2) I can shoot other people but now that's all there is as this is now called PVP so the only thing that people will do is attack each other-- that's just not ELITE

1) That would be PvE.
2) That would be PvP.

The concern of the PvE minded player could be considered to be that of being subjected to immersion breaking (non-consensual) PvP. I say immersion breaking because if all players played the game as if they only had the one life that each of us has in RL, the game would be very different. Conversely, players with multiple re-spawns and anonymity may play the game very differently.

The effectiveness of measures put in place by FD to limit the inconvenience of players addicted to PKing are yet to be experienced.

As to the universe and the apparently unwanted effects that a separate PvE mode would have on the economies in the galaxy, NPCs are (probably) going to outnumber PCs by a large factor - therefore the effects of the background simulation of NPC influence on the economy will probably be much greater than that of players in a different mode.

Don't forget that there will also be a "one-life-and-you're-dead" mode as well.

So there are already two confirmed modes, each split into many instances. Adding another mode will not really affect players in either of the confirmed modes.

If some are of the opinion that a PvE mode will detract from the PvP mode experience then I can only assume that they are not best pleased at the prospect of less prey flying about the galaxy.

 

[Marsman]

Elite is PvE.

If some are of the opinion that a PvE mode will detract from the PvP mode experience then I can only assume that they are not best pleased at the prospect of less prey flying about the galaxy.

Elite is/was single player offline 20 years ago ,it is what was possible at this time. It WAS realism in a way which was possible.

What is realism TODAY if the ships are all real players online is that everyone is attackable because everyone who is log in to the universe exists in the universe.

tell one realistic reason, why I should be allowed to switch off a player threat with a group switch in a menu and how does the Elite universe explain this to me? can we jump between dimensions, easy ones or hard ones? when I get into trouble I go easy mode? how is this Elite lore?


I suggest two locked in servers then, switching of characters and credits from one mode to the other NOT POSSIBLE

1. Elite Classic/Novice Mode Server also for single player offline sync: PvE only

2. Elite Realism Mode Server: Everyone is attackable, +100% credits rewards for everything, Ironmans exist there too but if they get killed they are standard commanders, offer special titles, special weapons and exclusive ships, think about good incentives for people to play the cool realism mode

 

[Robert Maynard]

Elite is/was single player offline 20 years ago ,it is what was possible at this time. It WAS realism in a way which was possible.

Agreed.

What is realism TODAY if the ships are all real players online is that everyone is attackable because everyone who is log in to the universe exists in the universe.

Yes, but we also experience players who suffer from GIFT who will do things online, safe in the anonymity of their home, that they would never even consider in RL as they would likely be arrested. How to control the sociopathic urges of these players is one of the challenges that FD faces. If they manage to contain / segregate / ban these players then maybe I would consider playing in the all players group.

tell one realistic reason, why I should be allowed to switch off a player threat with a group switch in a menu and how does the Elite universe explain this to me? can we jump between dimensions, easy ones or hard ones? when I get into trouble I go easy mode? how is this Elite lore?

Players in PvP mode will not encounter players in PvE mode and vice-versa. Players in IronMan mode will not encounter any players who are not also playing in IronMan mode.

If players wanting to play in PvP mode do not want a PvE mode to exist, I would ask that specific reasons be offered. "It's more realistic" is not enough - invulnerable escape pods exist in PvP mode - that is not particularly realistic.

The players wanting to play in a PvE mode accept that the PvP and IronMan modes have already been confirmed. There is no wish to alter that. All that is asked is that players with a different point of view are also granted a mode that best suits their gameplay preference.

All that the denial of a PvE mode will do is force players to play in ad-hoc groups of like-minded players with all of the inconvenience that that entails. .... or force them to play Solo (in the same on-line galaxy).

 

[Kerrash]

The game HAS to have both modes of play. If you choose to switch to an easier mode of play, because you are fed up of getting beat, then that is YOUR choice to make. Only you are losing or gaining from the situation, no one else.

What makes games fun, especially Elite, is choice.
If players are forced to play Elite in only one way or another because WE decided it should be like that; then it will simply appeal to fewer people. I for one do not want to be in anyway responsible for this game being a commercial failure, just because I don't want to share my toys with others.

TL: DR, leave the choice upto each player, not us.

 

[DarthLuca]

Knee-jerk initial choice of '2'. Why, because I hate being ganked by other players who think they are 'Elite' elect and gods gift to the universe and whatever other reason they come up with (Usually there's arrogance of some sort in there).
Started reading posts and got to page six before I ran out of time. I will read the rest soon I promise.
Anyway it has no doubt been said already but here goes anyway:-
People who object PvP are generally saying that they don't want to be shot at by other players (or ganked).
BUT, you can't go flying around the galaxy doing all sorts of 'Elite' style things without attracting attention from somebody AND getting shot at. It doesn't have to be other players, sooner or later someone, be it pirates, aliens or whatever is going to shoot you! If you don't like it stay on Earth or whatever home planet you claim to be from. It shouldn't really make a difference whether it's a human shooting you or an NPC shooting you, in fact if the AI is done well you may not even know which is which.
The point is, and I did read this in other posts, the penalties for randomly shooting or attacking (or ramming) someone should be deterrant enough, either through police action, criminal status or whatever.
So I guess my vote has been moved to option 1 but where really 'bad' or 'anti-social' behaviour should be deterred by the penalties involved. As it would in a 'real' future.

 

[Elrawkum]

The game HAS to have both modes of play. If you choose to switch to an easier mode of play, because you are fed up of getting beat, then that is YOUR choice to make. Only you are losing or gaining from the situation, no one else.

Nay, nay and thrice nay! (unless you mean in Singe player offline, in which case, knock yourself out)

If you're fed up of getting beat, get better! Or find somewhere less dangerous.

You can't have an 'easy mode' because your actions affect the whole universe - so making things easier for you effectively gives you an advantage over and greater influence than other players, even if they're better than you. That just can't be right. It's the same argument as 'skill levels' - your piloting skill should be based on your skill as a pilot, not whether you've bought Pilot6 at a knockdown price, chosen PvE because the npc blockade is much easier to run than the PvP blockade, or whether you've decided to click 'easy' and have all damage reduced by 50%.

YOUR skill is the difficulty mode (and how big your ship is). That should be the only factor in how much influence we have on the galaxy, not choosing an easier mode.

Easy mode is "buying a bigger gun", easy mode is playing in SP offline with all the options turned to "*****". At best, easy mode is nestling in an asteroid cluster well off the beaten path with your power turned off. Or parked just outside Earth orbit.

What part of "Dangerous" don't people understand?

You must have a level playing field in the evolving galaxy or it will be unbalanced. It's kind of logical Jim.

 

[DigitalDuck]

OK. So what you are saying is that every game must be built to accomodate your playstyle, even if the game concept needs to be redesigned so you can play your way instead of the way the game was intended to be designed.

I'm sorry, the way the game was intended to be designed?

Let's take a look at the ways you can play at the moment:
Online PvP - can play with everyone else in this group, can shoot anyone
Online Ironman - can play with everyone else in this group, can shoot anyone, death removes the player from this group
Private - can play only with invited members only, can possibly choose between being able to shoot players and not being able to shoot players (unknown as of yet)
Solo - can only play alone, and therefore cannot shoot other players

And yet, "the game concept needs to be redesigned so I can play my way instead of the way the game was intended to be designed" because I want

Online PvE - can play with everyone else in this group, cannot shoot other players


Honestly, it's less different than Ironman.

I don't think it should be separated into PVP and PVE as those are terms that simply don't apply to ELITE. This separation creates two different games, neither is ELITE:

1) I can trade and talk to people but no one can ever shoot me unless they area bot
2) I can shoot other people but now that's all there is as this is now called PVP so the only thing that people will do is attack each other-- that's just not ELITE

No, 2 is completely false. If you think the name is the problem, then don't call it PvP. Call it "normal mode", "immersion mode", "whatever the hell you like mode", it doesn't matter. This is the mode that already exists. If this isn't Elite, then what we already have isn't Elite, because what we already have is exactly the same thing.

He's also wrong. Unless there's a completely separate PvE server, his and other PvEers actions WILL affect my, our, everyone's game. Isn't that the whole point?

What we do matters.

1. I'll be playing PvP.

2. The addition of a PvE group will not affect anyone else's game, as the alternative to the PvE group is Private or Solo modes, which equally affect your game.

What if a large group of PvEers decided to terrorise a system? Only npcs could stop them, and the PvP players could do nothing but sit back and wait for it to be over. They are effectively powerless to prevent the system falling into anarchy. That just ain't right.

[...]

At the moment, I don't see how you can have PvE in a dynamic, evolving universe on the same server and remain remotely fair.

This has absolutely nothing to do with PvE. Replace "PvE" with "Private" or "Solo" modes and you have exactly the same argument. So this is not a valid argument against PvE.

I suggest two locked in servers then, switching of characters and credits from one mode to the other NOT POSSIBLE

1. Elite Classic/Novice Mode Server also for single player offline sync: PvE only

2. Elite Realism Mode Server: Everyone is attackable, +100% credits rewards for everything, Ironmans exist there too but if they get killed they are standard commanders, offer special titles, special weapons and exclusive ships, think about good incentives for people to play the cool realism mode

So... option 4, then?

What part of "Dangerous" don't people understand?

What part of "NPCs are still dangerous" don't people understand?

You must have a level playing field in the evolving galaxy or it will be unbalanced. It's kind of logical Jim.

You seem to be under the impression that players can radically alter the galaxy to benefit themselves; this really isn't the case, judging from the proposals. What will happen is much more subtle changes that end up as a self-balancing scheme.

There will be no competition going on between PvP players and PvE players in any way; while they can both contribute towards the universe, neither can "blockade" (no, really. Even in PvP mode, player number 33 will just have a clear ride to the space station, and I imagine police etc. will do their best to clear up any actual blockades that occur) and neither can dramatically influence the universe to a negative effect for the other party.

So given that, it's entirely unnecessary to balance between the two.

 

[Listeri69]

So what are tje pve players going to do about text griefers? If you say just ignore them why not assume the same logic for people shooting you in pvp, I can see a lot of text griefing happening in a pve world from pvp players popping over to wind players up. Personally I,ll be somewhere in the middle of nowhere in pvpso it's not going to bother me

 

[DigitalDuck]

So what are tje pve players going to do about text griefers? If you say just ignore them why not assume the same logic for people shooting you in pvp, I can see a lot of text griefing happening in a pve world from pvp players popping over to wind players up.

Most chat clients have an explicit "ignore" option which completely removes that users' text from your screen, and you can usually close the chat entirely.

The combat equivalent to the former exists already (you can ignore particular players, takes effect on instance change), doesn't seem like much of a stretch to include the latter (PvE mode).

 

[Listeri69]

Most chat clients have an explicit "ignore" option which completely removes that users' text from your screen, and you can usually close the chat entirely.

The combat equivalent to the former exists already (you can ignore particular players, takes effect on instance change), doesn't seem like much of a stretch to include the latter (PvE mode).

But if you can ignore players why do you need a separate pve mode I guess I just feel pve takes the fun out of the game

 

[DigitalDuck]

But if you can ignore players why do you need a separate pve mode I guess I just feel pve takes the fun out of the game

If you can ignore players in chat, why do you need the option to remove chat entirely? Answer: because some people don't like chat, full stop.

And if you feel PvE takes the fun out of the game, that's perfectly fine. To a fair extent I'm with you on that one. As long as players behave it'll always be PvP for me, but others have different opinions.

 

[Elrawkum]

2. The addition of a PvE group will not affect anyone else's game, as the alternative to the PvE group is Private or Solo modes, which equally affect your game.

Everyone's game affects everyone else's game. How many times must this be said before you stop saying it doesn't? It does. That's the entire point of the shared dynamic universe. What you do matters. It doesn't matter how much effect you have. It all counts. If you explore a system in PvE and find a valuable resource, and I'm in the same system and looking for it too, I can't stop you from getting it. I should be able to. It seems self-evident that you should not be able to just take it without a fight (I know you said you'll be PvPing, just using the you/me form for argument's sake).

This has absolutely nothing to do with PvE. Replace "PvE" with "Private" or "Solo" modes and you have exactly the same argument. So this is not a valid argument against PvE.

All of which I've argued DO imbalance the game, because some players have an easier ride than others. So the argument is still valid.

Edit: I can just about see the argument for one solo player's influence being so negligible (if they can never group) that it doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things, but on the other hand, in the big scheme of things, 10,000 solo players will certainly have a noticeable effect.

You seem to be under the impression that players can radically alter the galaxy to benefit themselves...

No. I'm under the impression that over a long period of time, the cumulative small changes people make can radically alter the galaxy. And that PvE players cannot be stopped from influencing events by other players, when PvP players can. And from which I can foresee 'problems' (e.g. rampaging PvE groups, with PvPers powerless to stop them, which you still didn't quite counter - dismissing it as being the same as some other imbalance is not exactly compelling 'proof' it isn't imbalanced...).

If some players have an easier ride of it than others, it's not fair. It's that simple.

If there can be no blockading, what would be the point of blockades then? I chose that example because David mentioned it in one of the design videos - and he made a point of saying that players WILL be able to influence things and either hold the blockade or break it and this would then influence the direction of the system. Has this now been changed? If both PvP and PvE players are involved in that blockade (however it's played out) and one side can be influenced by other players and the other cannot, it's not fair.

And it doesn't matter if player 33 gets a clear run initially as the first player in the new instance because player 34 can stop him. In PvE, nobody can. Throwing up examples where the occasional PvP player ends up in a similar situation is a fallacious argument. He can still be stopped by another player. He isn't granted a 'free pass' by default (I'm deliberately not taking npcs into account because they're superfluous to the argument - this is about the imbalance between different players).

Anyway, I'm not going to keep belabouring the point. If you can't see how the 'fairness' issue is an issue, I don't know what else to say. I trust FD to look at all the issues and either find a way around them, come up with a way to make everyone happy without making everyone unhappy, or, alternatively, screw it up and get screamed at a lot.

What part of "NPCs are still dangerous" don't people understand?

Ask the guys asking for an easy mode.

 

[DigitalDuck]

Everyone's game affects everyone else's game. How many times must this be said before you stop saying it doesn't? It does. That's the entire point of the shared dynamic universe. What you do matters. It doesn't matter how much effect you have. It all counts. If you explore a system in PvE and find a valuable resource, and I'm in the same system and looking for it too, I can't stop you from getting it. I should be able to. It seems self-evident that you should not be able to just take it without a fight (I know you said you'll be PvPing, just using the you/me form for argument's sake).

You missed the point...

Yes, me playing in PvE will affect you playing in PvP. However, me playing in Private will equally affect you playing in PvP. Me playing in Solo will equally affect you playing in PvP.

The addition of a PvE group does not affect you, because anybody that would be playing in PvE would otherwise be playing in Private or Solo, which has an equal and identical effect.

If I stuck an elephant on one end of the seesaw, it has a massive effect on the other end of the seesaw. If I replace that elephant with a 4 tonne weight, it has exactly the same effect on the other end of the seesaw. Therefore, whether there's an elephant or a 4 tonne weight on the other side of the seesaw makes absolutely no difference to you.

The argument is therefore not about whether you can replace the elephant with a 4 tonne weight or not, but about the fact that you're sticking something else on the other side of the seesaw.

Similarly, the arguments you're making are about the grouping system, not about PvE.

All of which I've argued DO imbalance the game, because some players have an easier ride than others. So the argument is still valid.

See above. This is an argument about the grouping system as a whole, not about PvE.

No. I'm under the impression that over a long period of time, the cumulative small changes people make can radically alter the galaxy. And that PvE players cannot be stopped from influencing events by other players, when PvP players can. And from which I can foresee 'problems' (e.g. rampaging PvE groups, with PvPers powerless to stop them, which you still didn't quite counter - dismissing it as being the same as some other imbalance is not exactly compelling 'proof' it isn't imbalanced...).

You're going to have to explain "rampaging PvE groups" to me. It's not like you'll even encounter them if you're playing PvP, so other than the potential influence issue (which I do acknowledge, by the way - just disagree) I don't see where the problems lie.

If some players have an easier ride of it than others, it's not fair. It's that simple.

So if a game allows people to choose between EASY and HARD, that's not fair either?

Am I the only person playing this game because I want to have fun?

If there can be no blockading, what would be the point of blockades then? I chose that example because David mentioned it in one of the design videos - and he made a point of saying that players WILL be able to influence things and either hold the blockade or break it and this would then influence the direction of the system. Has this now been changed? If both PvP and PvE players are involved in that blockade (however it's played out) and one side can be influenced by other players and the other cannot, it's not fair.

I don't recall this being said... got a link?

Anyway, I'm not going to keep belabouring the point. If you can't see how the 'fairness' issue is an issue, I don't know what else to say. I trust FD to look at all the issues and either find a way around them, come up with a way to make everyone happy without making everyone unhappy, or, alternatively, screw it up and get screamed at a lot.

I've said previously that I believe "fairness" is an issue, I don't believe that the addition of a PvE group is any less fair than the current proposal.

 

[Elrawkum]

About to go off to sleep (it's gone 4am! What a sad case I am! ), but I'll just answer this one last thing

I'm not missing the point - the point is multiplayer. I was arguing about PvE specifically, but then solo and groups got thrown into the mix and I thought "yes, that too is unfair and potentially imbalancing". The arguments against PvE are valid independent of any other issues like solo and grouping, because they weren't the topic under discussion, but when they were brought up, it was a case of "well, now you mention it...". The point is imbalance and PvE will imbalance the game and be unfair on other players. If there are other areas which imbalance the game too, that doesn't invalidate the first point. Gah!

Example problem (we'll assume ship strengths are evenly matched and we'll keep the numbers simple for the sake of simplicity - and rather than fixating on the blockade being used as an example, just think of it in purely logical terms applicable to any scenario where there is a finely balanced state):

10 NPC ships form a blockade, 10 equally matched NPC ships try to break the blockade. We have balance. Stalemate. This will be the same for both PvP and PvE players so they effectively cancel each other out in either case. So from here on in, we'll discount them.

1 PvP player joins the blockade - if nothing changes the system will fall into anarchy.

1 PvP player tries to break the blockade. The outcome is now uncertain and will be decided by the most skillful player.

OR

1 PvE player tries to break the blockade. The outcome is guaranteed. He will get through, the blockade will be broken and the PvP player who tried to guard it was powerless to do anything about it. The PvE players influence was greater than the PvP players influence, and completely invalidated his efforts. This is not good.

I know it's very simplified, but the logic seems fairly clear and definitive.

You might be able to think of examples where the PvP player seems advantaged, but it will always be the case that another player could come along and remove that advantage. Not so in PvE. Using NPCs as a counter doesn't work because it's the same for both (unless FD have some wizardry that equalises it somehow, but as they'll always be 'robots' it'll never quite have the same 'uncertainty' that real people bring into the mix).

Rampaging PvEers:

A group of 10 PvE players roam the galaxy taking out outposts, causing havoc, having a lot of fun in the process (which nobody begrudges). They're well armed, well equipped, and skilful. The NPCs do their best, but these guys are too good. They conquer all before them. They become the scourge of the trade-lanes. Who can stop them, I wonder? Well, no one, as it happens. Whatever influence these 10 space dogs have on the universe, for good or ill, no other player can do anything about them. Ever.

A group of 10 PvP players roam the galaxy taking out outposts, etc., etc. Who can stop them I wonder? Well, anyone, as it happens. This way for the bounties lads!

You see the problem?

You'll have a similar problem even in PvP if the group is 32 players and we hit the instance limit, so that no other PvPers can 'join' their instance and kill them either, but I'm hoping that FD will be aware of that kind of 'exploit' and will do something to counter it (maybe maximum group size of 16 allied players per instance?)

I'm not for one moment saying "don't give people what they want" - but I am saying that you can't have PvE/solo/private groups having the same level of influence on the galaxy as PvPers and it be fair. Not without some damn clever balancing that I've not really heard yet.

For true fairness, you need to have entirely separate galaxy/servers where you're either PvE (including solo and pvt groups), or you're PvP and never the twain shall meet, nor impact on either universe.

Or the PvEers compromise and realise that it isn't really fair on everyone else for them to get an easy/easier ride and have an undue influence on the galaxy without the other players being able to counter them in any way.

Personally I'll have a solo game (offline) where I explore and play at my leisure, and a 'real' game in the full dynamic universe - which I expected by default to be unavoidably PvP.

 

[DigitalDuck]

About to go off to sleep (it's gone 4am! What a sad case I am! ), but I'll just answer this one last thing

I'm not missing the point - the point is multiplayer. I was arguing about PvE specifically, but then solo and groups got thrown into the mix and I thought "yes, that too is unfair and potentially imbalancing". The arguments against PvE are valid independent of any other issues like solo and grouping, because they weren't the topic under discussion, but when they were brought up, it was a case of "well, now you mention it...". The point is imbalance and PvE will imbalance the game and be unfair on other players. If there are other areas which imbalance the game too, that doesn't invalidate the first point. Gah!

But that's still not an argument against PvE!

The addition of PvE doesn't create any more imbalance. Removing the ability for other groups to affect each other would fix the fairness issue regardless of whether PvE exists, and PvE solves the problem of allowing players that option regardless of whether groups can affect each other or not.

They are two entirely different issues. You're arguing against the idea of differing groups affecting each other, which has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that there should or should not be a PvE group.

Gah!

Example problem (we'll assume ship strengths are evenly matched and we'll keep the numbers simple for the sake of simplicity - and rather than fixating on the blockade being used as an example, just think of it in purely logical terms applicable to any scenario where there is a finely balanced state):

10 NPC ships form a blockade, 10 equally matched NPC ships try to break the blockade. We have balance. Stalemate. This will be the same for both PvP and PvE players so they effectively cancel each other out in either case. So from here on in, we'll discount them.

1 PvP player joins the blockade - if nothing changes the system will fall into anarchy.

1 PvP player tries to break the blockade. The outcome is now uncertain and will be decided by the most skillful player.

OR

1 PvE player tries to break the blockade. The outcome is guaranteed. He will get through, the blockade will be broken and the PvP player who tried to guard it was powerless to do anything about it. The PvE players influence was greater than the PvP players influence, and completely invalidated his efforts. This is not good.

I know it's very simplified, but the logic seems fairly clear and definitive.

You might be able to think of examples where the PvP player seems advantaged, but it will always be the case that another player could come along and remove that advantage. Not so in PvE. Using NPCs as a counter doesn't work because it's the same for both (unless FD have some wizardry that equalises it somehow, but as they'll always be 'robots' it'll never quite have the same 'uncertainty' that real people bring into the mix).

And the point is, PvE is irrelevant. Replacing "PvE" with "Solo" and "Private" will have exactly the same effect, and players that would play in PvE will otherwise be playing in Solo and Private.

This really has absolutely nothing to do with PvE. Honest! We already have Solo and Private groups confirmed within the game, and the addition of PvE will change nothing in this regard. You're arguing that different groups shouldn't be able to affect each other, this is an entirely independent issue.

Rampaging PvEers:

A group of 10 PvE players roam the galaxy taking out outposts, causing havoc, having a lot of fun in the process (which nobody begrudges). They're well armed, well equipped, and skilful. The NPCs do their best, but these guys are too good. They conquer all before them. They become the scourge of the trade-lanes. Who can stop them, I wonder? Well, no one, as it happens. Whatever influence these 10 space dogs have on the universe, for good or ill, no other player can do anything about them. Ever.

[...]

I'm not for one moment saying "don't give people what they want" - but I am saying that you can't have PvE/solo/private groups having the same level of influence on the galaxy as PvPers and it be fair. Not without some damn clever balancing that I've not really heard yet.

For true fairness, you need to have entirely separate galaxy/servers where you're either PvE (including solo and pvt groups), or you're PvP and never the twain shall meet, nor impact on either universe.

Okay, I'll agree. I don't believe ten space dogs can have such an influence on the universe that it gives them any sort of an advantage, but I'll happily say they might. In which case you need to campaign that different groups shouldn't have any influence on each other.

It still has absolutely nothing to do with PvE, though.