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

[Aewarin Jameson]

DB himself commented about the chance meeting of anther pilot in space and the uncertainty of the outcome - friend or foe basically. This in part agree's with your stance on the hostile universe argument (and FWIW I also prefer the PvP environment and my choice is catered for via Ironman), however note that the KS main page has this to say that may have attracted a lot of plegers:

Multiplayer: you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends as you choose.

(source)

This quote can be read in a number of ways depending upon your view point. To me though it talks about tailoring the universe to include certain types of players that are compatible with your play style and specifically mentions "perhaps friends" .. It does not say only your friends .. the key word is "perhaps".

The crux of the argument in this thread is the starting point when you join the game - who is there by default ?

• Initially it was everyone
• FD sectioned off Ironman after it was requested by the player base (I think - or they had it in mind anyway)
• What's left are players who want PvP and players who don't (see the poll results: 23%)

The PvP players then are at an advantage as they will be seeking conflict, whilst the PvE players will not be, and playing in fear of something you don't want detracts from the game play experience. In your mind that adds to the excitement - the drama of not knowing if you're going to be blown up or not, but that's not how they see it .. you can empathize with them right because the Devs do:

Secondly this is a multiplayer game and fairness is extremely important and it does become an issue if someone else you interact with can have an unfair advantage over you because they selected some option you didn't.

Whilst not talking specifically about PvAll vs PvE it demonstrates that the Devs are very switched on regarding fairness and balance:

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.

Mike would prefer an Ironman only all-pilot group but he recognises that they can't due to the wording and promises of the KS campaign - that's why the 23% of votes who want segregation from PvP and that's why I am here trying to give them a voice to be heard and represented like I was when asking for Ironman mode.

TL/DR - Let's be realistic .. ED currently has around 27K backers: 6K of them want pure PvE which leaves at least 21K players who want a mix, combined with more on the way post release it sounds like it's going to be fun

 

[Elrawkum]

Let's be realistic

Why? The thread asks "in a perfect world", so why shouldn't we go with that premise? Why not answer that question as fully, honestly and as 'wishfully' as we want and then let FD work out the best way to make as many people happy as possible, rather than putting limitations on the question asked and shooting people down based on what we know they can/can't do at the moment.

Let's be realistic later, not now.

Dream.

 

[jabokai]

Why? The thread asks "in a perfect world", so why shouldn't we go with that premise?

In a perfect world...

... the nearly 1 in 4 people that want an open PvE/co-op group will have it.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Why? The thread asks "in a perfect world", so why shouldn't we go with that premise? Why not answer that question as fully, honestly and as 'wishfully' as we want and then let FD work out the best way to make as many people happy as possible, rather than putting limitations on the question asked and shooting people down based on what we know they can/can't do at the moment.

Indeed it does say "in a perfect world" to which many of the people posting here would do well to remember that .. however the arguments have gone quite strongly and fairly extreme.

The TL/DR comment was aimed at the PvP people who seem quite keen on having all and sundry in their sights without consideration for the others who don't want that .. my "realistic" comment was for the lazy readers stating that they shouldn't stress so much - when FD work it out if the PvE crowd are protected, as they should, then based upon the poll there will be plenty of targets left for PvAll's to shoot.

Our start was not the greatest so I will expect you to judge my posts in a negative light for some time yet

 

[Elrawkum]

In a perfect world...

... the nearly 1 in 4 people that want an open PvE/co-op group will have it.

Yes they will. Again, where have I (or most others) suggested they shouldn't? I'm genuinely confused.

 

[jabokai]

Yes they will. Again, where have I (or most others) suggested they shouldn't? I'm genuinely confused.

Don't know if you have (by your words here, you have not), but MANY others have suggested such a group should simply not exist. :smilie:

 

[DigitalDuck]

Read the title of the thread. It isn't for you to tell others that what multiplayer means to them is wrong. It's bullying and rude. And. So. Is. Repeating. The. Same. Thing. Over. And. Over. Like. This. Is that how you address people face to face? Do they respond well?

That is how I talk to people face to face when I've actively proven them wrong through logic and they completely ignore it, yes. No, they don't respond well. Too bad.

If someone says, "orange is a shade of blue" and I show them a colour wheel and point out that orange and blue are exactly opposite each other and therefore one cannot possibly be a shade of the other, when they go on to make an argument based on the fact that orange is a shade of blue then I'm going to have to repeat myself.

Similarly, if someone themselves has agreed that orange isn't a shade of blue, but then go on to make an argument based on the fact that orange is a shade of blue, then what am I to do? All I can do is repeat the fact that orange isn't a shade of blue.

I said I was tactless. But "orange is a shade of blue" isn't an opinion, it's just wrong.

If some of us think that multiplayer means a level playing field and 'mixing modes' within the same galaxy sounds unfair, that's a perfectly valid point of view and a valid answer to the question posed.

At no point have I done anything more than "disagree" that "mixing modes" within the same galaxy sounds unfair. I've even suggested you start a new thread about it! That's you twisting my words.

I said it has nothing to do with PvE. And it doesn't. I've actively proven this logically.

If I remove PvE from the equation, does your argument for completely separating modes change? No.

If I remove mode separation from the equation, does my argument for a PvE group change? No.

These are two separate arguments. They should not be treated as the same argument. This is not an opinion.

Let people have their say.

I've let people have their say. There have been some good points made, on both sides, that are relevant to the discussion.

For balance, some good and valid arguments against the creation of PvE group:

1. Other alternatives may bring the PvE players into the PvP group (e.g. optionally removing the PC/NPC identifer?)
2. Defining the difference between "Player" and "Environment" on things like escort missions may result in a massive increase in griefing in this mode.
3. ... I definitely had a 3 when I started typing. Erm... this is embarrassing.

What will we do with PvE griefers?

Insult their mother and then mute them?

 

[Elrawkum]

The TL/DR comment was aimed at the PvP people who seem quite keen on having all and sundry in their sights without consideration for the others who don't want that

May I respectfully suggest you're not reading them right. Mixed modes in the same galaxy is the problem, i.e. an imbalanced playing field. Nobody, as far as I can tell, is saying that PvE/solo/private groups shouldn't be catered to at all. Just that having everyone in the same universe operating under very different rules seems to fly in the face of basic fairness.

Our concerns may be baseless. FD may have it all under control. But the concern is valid until FD say it's not.

 

[Elrawkum]

Don't know if you have (by your words here, you have not), but MANY others have suggested such a group should simply not exist. :smilie:

Well, if that's truly the case, then they're just being selfish. They must be catered for, of course, but there are issues that need to be resolved and concerns that need to be eased if the shared universe concept is to remain balanced for all.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

May I respectfully suggest you're not reading them right. Mixed modes in the same galaxy is the problem, i.e. an imbalanced playing field.

I was not understanding correctly or you were not explaining it very well, either way this specific comment is crystal clear and I suspect we were actually in agreement all along

Segregation of the modes (my argument) but on different back end servers (your argument)

If this is the case then I 100% agree.

- Solution for the PvE crowd & PvP crowd
- Universes are fair and segregated
- Everyone wins

 

[Elrawkum]

I've even suggested you start a new thread about it!

Why? It's my answer to the question in this thread.

You can shout me down all you want. You can present all the 'infallible' logic that my answer crosses over into other areas, but it's still my answer to the question asked in this thread.

If you don't like it, then to quote yourself "too bad".

 

[Elrawkum]

I was not understanding correctly or you were not explaining it very well, either way this specific comment is crystal clear and I suspect we were actually in agreement all along

Segregation of the modes (my argument) but on different back end servers (your argument) If this is the case then I 100% agree.

- Solution for the PvE crowd & PvP crowd
- Universes are fair and segregated
- Everyone wins

Now we can have a group hug.

Not because you agree, I should be clear, but just because you understand me correctly. That's something at least.

Once again (DDuck) I'm not arguing against PvE at all, just concerned about 'universal fairness'.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

Mixed modes in the same galaxy is the problem, i.e. an imbalanced playing field.

That's true - in fact ironman commanders already face this problem. If you only have one life and you choose to run a blockade, there's a good chance you won't make it. If you can die and try again, it's just a matter of time until you succeed. Then again, those guys have asked for a harder challenge so it's a bit different.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with FD plugging that hole by saying "PvE commanders are 10% more likely to get through blockades, private groups 15% more likely, solo players 20% more likely, so we'll reduce their overall contribution to match".

Completely splitting the universes makes some sense in terms of combat, but would limit a ton of non-combat stuff. For example, say you found a frontier system in PvE mode and traded it into a regional superpower. It strikes me as more fun to improve the system's security until the police presence drives PvP players elsewhere than having to tell people "oh yeah, Elrawkum's Refuge only exists in PvE. In the PvP universe it's a cesspit some griefer renamed to Elrawkum's a silly-head".

 

[DigitalDuck]

Why? It's my answer to the question in this thread.

You can shout me down all you want. You can present all the 'infallible' logic that my answer crosses over into other areas, but it's still my answer to the question asked in this thread.

If you don't like it, then to quote yourself "too bad".

Okay, I think I see what's happened. Allow me to start again.

When you initially posted it, you seemingly presented it as an argument against having a PvE group. As you appeared in the midst of others who were also presenting similar things as an argument against having a PvE group, this didn't really help. (Among other things, there was something about players being able to fade in/out at will, which was rather weird.)

Since then, you've made it clear that you're not presenting it as an argument against having a PvE group, but as an answer to the question. This should've been obvious to me, and it wasn't. I'm sorry for not realising this sooner.

I'm also sorry for "shouting you down"; I didn't realise where you were directing the question, and took it the wrong way. As such, I thought you were actively ignoring what I was saying (something that has also been done a lot) when you were trying to tell me that I was being silly. Next time that happens, just shout me down back. I'm a dog, I cower in fear at that.

Having said all that, I still believe it'd be better brought up in a separate thread; this one has effectively become about PvE, and I feel your issue is about a wider facet of the game that may get more deserved attention in a different thread.

...

Can I go back to being a tactless, snarky **** now?

 

[Elrawkum]

"In a perfect world", yes, all the balance and fairness issues will be resolved and we'll all be able to share the same universe. If not, I'd personally prefer a complete separation and have different back-end servers for each. The former is far more desirable, but only if those issues can be resolved.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

That's true - in fact ironman commanders already face this problem. If you only have one life and you choose to run a blockade, there's a good chance you won't make it.

That will be a death worthy of a damn good drink!

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with FD plugging that hole by saying "PvE commanders are 10% more likely to get through blockades, private groups 15% more likely, solo players 20% more likely, so we'll reduce their overall contribution to match".

No thanks - you survive based upon your piloting skills; ship composition; and a bit of luck ... no arbitrary balancing of damage ... for one keeping the universe rule sets (of combat) identical is easier on the Devs to develop and debug, plus the PvE guys need a challenge as well

Completely splitting the universes makes some sense in terms of combat, but would limit a ton of non-combat stuff.

True to an extent ... if more people play in the PvP world (as indicated by the poll) then it's more likely that the galaxy there would advance quicker than the separate PvE one. An easy way round this, as suggested in the DDF, would be to proportionally affect the galaxy based upon population - that way the code for trading (and other areas) would be the same for all modes of play (offline / online) as each unit of cargo delivered would be worth more or less relative to the population as a whole.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

When you initially posted it, you seemingly presented it as an argument against having a PvE group. As you appeared in the midst of others who were also presenting similar things as an argument against having a PvE group, this didn't really help.

Combine that with the "This is Elite Dangerous" comment from you and our beloved ex-member who had the same signature logo and your entrance into this thread was marked from the start. Quoting yourself and arguing against it (my perception) when it initially looked like you had multiple accounts and forgot to switch only seemed to confirm this (I have a few accounts here so why shouldn't he as well ? ) ... it all looked like the same person playing games. Perhaps I was quick to judge and that was my failing, with the only defense of being rattled by said individual to the point that "we didn't burn him*" sprang to mind





*League of Gentlemen - "Local Shop for Local People, we have nothing for you here!"

 

[Elrawkum]

Okay, I think I see what's happened. Allow me to start again...

Thank you DD. We're cool.

Having said all that, I still believe it'd be better brought up in a separate thread; this one has effectively become about PvE, and I feel your issue is about a wider facet of the game that may get more deserved attention in a different thread.

I may certainly do that too. Hopefully though, the 'noise' in this thread should be enough to let the devs know it's an issue for some already - although I'm sure they were never unaware of all the potential issues the different modes might raise.

Can I go back to being a tactless, snarky **** now?

Yes. I can handle that.

 

[DigitalDuck]

Combine that with the "This is Elite Dangerous" comment from you and our beloved ex-member who had the same signature logo and your entrance into this thread was marked from the start.

Yeah, it's the whole "judging a book by its cover" thing; unfortunately, when there are a wide range of covers on the internet to choose from, when two people choose similar covers and one joins at the exact time the other leaves, then... well, it's hard to unsee it, really.

Thank you DD. We're cool.

We most certainly are.

 

[withnail]

I hope that the PvE people get what they want.

However I do think that it is a shame though because we will all end up on separate servers and never meet up. We would all be posting on the forums about different games

If we are on separate servers FD are going to have a headache because they will be injecting events into universes that are slowly going to diverge. They'll end up with 2 scenarios to deal with.