Well, it's still more coherent than some posts. 
The Tri-poll: What does multiplayer mean to YOU?
- Thread starter Sandro Sammarco
- Start date
- Status
I think that a lot of the (heated) argument in this thread may be based on an assumption of the truth of that statement.
WILL everybody who plumps for a PvP universe be actually seeking conflict??? It might just be possible that somebody (like myself) will choose it, not because they want to go out and attack everything that moves, but because they prefer the 'reality' of the risks involved. With the original Elite, you couldn't opt out of being attacked - just trading without risk would have put an end to the game long ago, and we wouldn't be where we are now.
At risk of repeating myself, we live in a real world where we CAN be attacked without warning and without (obvious) reason, but we're not usually or often attacked (perhaps with the exception of my wife
)My preference for the E: D universe is to extend our current reality into the game, but vastly improve the justice system.
The idea of forming groups to flatten griefers is very appealing, but apart from that I would tend to shy away from 'official' groups... in my experience, groups or 'alliances' tend eventually towards internal politics, power plays and the laying down of rules and regs., followed by expulsion and destruction of recalcitrant members. Anything which restricts individual freedom is game wrecking IMHO.
Let's start out by assuming that most of us want an enjoyable game and are not immediately out to become mass murderers. Hopefully, even 'official' pirates will have a modicum of rationality about them.
At risk of repeating myself, we live in a real world where we CAN be attacked without warning and without (obvious) reason, but we're not usually or often attacked (perhaps with the exception of my wife
I understand the analogy you made but that's completely different - apples to oranges - In a game if you die you can come back to life .. there are limited repercussions to your actions and when you've had enough you can log off .. the same can't be said for real life
Combine that with the fact that games via the internet tend to be anonymous and given that some people tend to act like morons the comparison between real life and gaming widens even more.
I definitely want an enjoyable game but can't say the same about being a mass murderer .. NPCs don't cry in space
Last edited:
At risk of repeating myself, we live in a real world where we CAN be attacked without warning and without (obvious) reason, but we're not usually or often attacked (perhaps with the exception of my wife
To repeat myself too
- it's "just a game" - actions and consequences are also "just a game". I'm not going to attack some random person in the street because they have money bulging out of their wallet and seem an easy target because 1. consequences, but much more importantly 2. it's the wrong thing to do. Luckily, in real life, MOST of us are like that. In the game, morals are much reduced, if not removed. Indeed, many people will be playing character opposites to themselves - pirates, mercenaries, smugglers - just for the fun of it! It doesn't really make sense to compare real life to the game in this regard.I think you've slightly misinterpreted Liqua's post there - by that, what was meant was "those who are trying to get to Elite as quickly as possible etc. will be seeking conflict", i.e. players in the PvP universe will find it easier to get to Elite (if that's what they're going for) as there's more stuff to shoot at.
We've said repeatedly is that PvP is not just for those that want to seek conflict, but also for those that want a more immersive experience, or those who don't want to have to separate PCs from NPCs.
I think that a lot of the argument in this thread may be based on an assumption of the truth of this statement. We're not suggesting players can opt out of being attacked. We're suggesting players can opt out of attacking or being attacked by other players. It's a big difference. Similarly, players in a Solo group are also opting out of attacking or being attacked by other players, not out of combat entirely.
Others have already indicated potential solutions to this problem, from making such missions solo to preventing ships already involved as targets in missions from offering missions to defend them.
One other potential solution is banning griefers from the All PvE group; Frontier has already indicated that players can get banned from groups due to breaking the group's rules, and I do think that the kind of PvE griefing described above qualifies.
My own suggestion: only allow switching when the mission log and the cargo hold are both empty. This completely prevents switching game modes in order to "cheese" a mission or a cargo run and limits changing, without any kind of fixed cost or hard limit.
Actually, no. PvE players likely wouldn't mind, they would just choose PvE from the start and be done with it.
But players that want to sometimes take part in PvP and be able to sometimes avoid PvP would be forced to choose. And, while it's hard to say how it would go, I do believe that forcing this choice would result in less players in the PvP group than if players were able to freely change.
In Elite: Dangerous players won't be able to opt out of being attacked, even if they play in some kind of PvE group or even solo. Someone that goes to an anarchic system in a weak ship will likely get a quick lesson on breathing vacuum, no matter which group he has chosen.
Choosing PvE rather than PvP does not eliminate risk. It merely allows the players to choose the source of that risk. And, in doing so, it allows players that become frustrated whenever attacked by other players to avoid that frustration without reducing the NPC attacks.
Well, you'd be telling PvE players "you can't switch group ever because we deem it unfair even though PvP players can switch group whenever and that's doubly unfair" and that'd be bloody annoying to me. Even if I didn't want to switch groups, being told I'm not allowed to for essentially no reason...
I disagree with this - it should be quite easy to "sometimes" avoid PvP in the PvP universe. That said, I don't think the choice should be forced either way - but my point was, you can't force it on one group, it has to be all or nothing. (Okay, Ironman is an exception, but then they've deliberately made their game harder and aren't interested.)
As far as I understood, what he was asking was for PvE and PvP players to be segregated, unable to change between PvE and PvP, which is basically option 4 in the pool.
He did mention about PvE players being able to change to PvP but not the other way around, though I feel like that was either a mistake or something written without due consideration, given that is the one thing most PvP players that want the permanent segregation want to avoid: players progressing and gearing up in PvE and switching to PvP after they are already powerful.
My fault, I had a specific meaning in mind but expressed it in a confusing way. The kind of player that the permanent segregation would harm the most is those that want to engage in PvP, but at times of their own choosing. This is what I meant by "sometimes avoid PvP" - being able to choose times when no other player can attack him, without being forced into some kind of "noob land" PvP-exclusion zone to achieve that.
The way I see it is that the form of government a system has is an indication of how PvP is going to go.
For instance:
An Anarchy system is a law unto itself and PvP is expected if you dare set foot there. On the other side of the scale a Corporate state is extremely quick to deal with unwanted piracy/assassination. That being said I'd expect the Capital systems of the 3 factions to be deemed "safe zones" due to the high level of military vessels and police.
This doesn't mean there can't be "sanctioned" PvP, for instance what if a Bounty Hunter is able to buy licences to operate in a system to track and kill pirates. So you could have a corporate state or democracy or a monarchy selling permits. Likewise you could have certain governments selling privateer permits within their systems to enact piracy for the benefit of the system government.
You could also perhaps deal with "safe zones" in a widening arc from the planets. E.G in a corporate state the safe zone could stretch most of the system, whereas an Anarchy system the safe zone is only really right next to the station/planet.
PvP can add a lot to the game, but it should be a risk/reward type deal. The brave pilots will risk getting maximum profits by travelling the dangerous routes, whereas the wise pilots sacrifice maximum profit for relative safety.
For instance:
An Anarchy system is a law unto itself and PvP is expected if you dare set foot there. On the other side of the scale a Corporate state is extremely quick to deal with unwanted piracy/assassination. That being said I'd expect the Capital systems of the 3 factions to be deemed "safe zones" due to the high level of military vessels and police.
This doesn't mean there can't be "sanctioned" PvP, for instance what if a Bounty Hunter is able to buy licences to operate in a system to track and kill pirates. So you could have a corporate state or democracy or a monarchy selling permits. Likewise you could have certain governments selling privateer permits within their systems to enact piracy for the benefit of the system government.
You could also perhaps deal with "safe zones" in a widening arc from the planets. E.G in a corporate state the safe zone could stretch most of the system, whereas an Anarchy system the safe zone is only really right next to the station/planet.
PvP can add a lot to the game, but it should be a risk/reward type deal. The brave pilots will risk getting maximum profits by travelling the dangerous routes, whereas the wise pilots sacrifice maximum profit for relative safety.
In case you didn't notice, at least part of the players asking for a way to opt out of PvP actually want to fight hard NPCs. It's my own case.
I don't want safety. I want the NPCs going after me with everything they got. I want to jump into Anarchy systems and have to fight NPCs every step of the way while not being available for PvP in any shape or way.
In other words, coupling PvP with safety, for us, is not a workable solution in any shape or way. For any solution to be acceptable for me, and for others that think in a similar way, it has to prevent players - and only players - from attacking us while allowing NPCs to fire at will. It has to allow us to fight the hardest PvE challenges without being subject to PvP risk.
If anything E: D can cater for all play styles it just seems that the grouping system in E: D is still poorly understood.
To get the above experience, play in the 'only yourself' group on 'iron man' mode; and pick a hard area of the galaxy to visit. simples
Yep!If anything E: D can cater for all play styles it just seems that the grouping system in E: D is still poorly understood.
To get the above experience, play in the 'only yourself' group on 'iron man' mode; and pick a hard area of the galaxy to visit. simples
(must use at least 5 characters)
- Status