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

[insanephoton]

I really didn't want to get involved in yet another PvP vs PvE thread, but seeing as people seem intent on arguing , can I just recommend that people listen to Lave Radio's Writer's Interview 008 : Kate Russell, in particular the section from around 58 minutes where Kate talks about PvP and a conversation with David Braben.

Perhaps people are worrying needlessly? And to be honest, all the points have been made ad nauseam on both sides. Unless someone has a blinding new insight, may I suggest that we leave it to Frontier to sort out?

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

can I just recommend that people listen to Lave Radio's Writer's Interview 008 : Kate Russell, in particular the section from around 58 minutes where Kate talks about PvP and a conversation with David Braben.

I don't normally listen to Lave Radio - not my cup of tea - However, nothing was ventured other than FD have thought about it, and some nonsense about becoming impervious to fire (Which I think was a misunderstanding or a misquote) Appreciate the gesture but nothing new learnt here.

 

[Fromhell]

What a lot of people that aren't PvE-extremists are also saying.

It's not.

It's not.

Doesn't prevent PvP.

In a game where you're supposed to be able to go anywhere.

1. They already exist anyway.
2. They already exist anyway.
3. You won't see players outside of your group, so no immersion broken.
4. They already exist anyway.


Danger still exists in the form of NPCs.

Congratulations! You scored 0/10.

yeah yeah, got it... Just put that in your signature:

<uncalled for - let's not get personal>

 

[DigitalDuck]

I'll be playing PvP. That's 0/11.

 

[Steve O B Have]

It's getting a little heated in here ladies and gents. May I make the suggestion that if you can't expand upon the argument or aren't prepared to accept that someone else has a differing opinion then taking the stance of 'agree to disagree and moving on is a better tactic than reverting to 'playground' sarcasm. Please make an effort to keep it civil and represent your argument with some tact and reason.

Steve

 

[Fromhell]

I'll be playing PvP. That's 0/11.

Unlikely... your continued quest to break the online sandbox experience doesn´t show much interest in competitive player interaction.

btw you´d only have 3 seconds until I shoot off your thrusters, disable your weapons and let you drift into the next sun.

Not enough time to reach for the "emergency player filter"

 

[DigitalDuck]

Not enough time to reach for the "emergency player filter"

What "emergency player filter"? You're imagining this. Seriously.

There will be no "fading in/out" of players. That doesn't exist. That'd obviously break immersion. The PvE suggestion does not affect this in any way.

There will be a matchmaking system of a kind. That already exists. Not having it would break a lot more. The PvE suggestion does not affect this in any way.

Others, including myself, want to NOT be able to switch groups at any point during gameplay. If you'd actually read what we wrote, you'd know this. But you're not reading. The PvE suggestion does not affect this in any way.

The ONLY thing the PvE group will do is take a load of people that are playing in their own separate games that you'll never be able to see, and put them together in their own game that you'll never be able to see.

Explain to me, in three sentences or less, how that "breaks the online sandbox experience" in any conceivable form. I am dying to know here, because you clearly so adamantly believe you are right that you are ignoring what other people are saying.

 

[Fromhell]

May I make the suggestion that if you can't expand upon the argument or aren't prepared to accept that someone else has a differing opinion then taking the stance of 'agree to disagree and moving on is a better tactic than reverting to 'playground' sarcasm. Please make an effort to keep it civil and represent your argument with some tact and reason.

Steve

What´s left but playground sarcasm if no one answers questions in an ordinary manner. I´m still waiting for someone to respond how player filters are:

1. not immersion breaking/not out of fiction

2. won´t keep me from getting easy rich in PvE then switching to PvAll, or back and forth. If that is desired, I´d like to know early enough if this is a valid exploiting strategy. I´d use it, but it will kill any sense of danger.

3. opening up the possibility for everyone to switch to PvE when running cargo or mine a gold asteroid and back to PvAll when we have nothing of value on board.

4. not destroying the need for social interaction and "alliance war" if you can fade out players at will when you are outnumbered


Also
- how is the risk vs. reward model for PvAll, as player ships are more unpredictable and harder to defeat than robot AI ships? More risk, more reward or more risk, no extra reward?

- why are territory based security levels and police who protect PvE-only players not enough, so that extra filter options are needed?

- why PvE-only playstyle needs to be represented in every option, offline, LAN and persistant universe, although each poll showed there are only 1/3 who want to split the playerbase?

- how does "multiplayer change everything" if people can play single player online?

 

[artic_phoenix]

Quote "btw you´d only have 3 seconds until I shoot off your thrusters, disable your weapons and let you drift into the next sun."

You just said you would kill them within the 60 police reaction time. So at any point you could begin the MASS murder of players like you just said you could, that is why we should have separate universes.

earlier you said that you could make it easy by turning PVP off. No one said that the PVE will be easy. They may increase the reaction time and strength of the NPCs to try to even it out.

NPC reaction time and flight patterns can be hundreds if not thousands of times faster than you could react Fromhell. that itself makes PVE hard But not only that NPC ships could be bolstered as well, not that I am saying they should but it could be a counter to "PVE making the easy".

 

[DigitalDuck]

I´m still waiting for someone to respond how player filters are:

1. not immersion breaking/not out of fiction

You don't see anyone who's in a different filter. They're effectively playing a completely different game from you. It's not immersion breaking when I don't see ships from EvE, Jumpgate, Halo, Mass Effect, etc. in my game, so it's equally not immersion breaking when I don't see somebody else who isn't in my game in my game.

Also, player filters are in the game regardless. The PvE suggestion does not affect this in any way.

2. won´t keep me from getting easy rich in PvE then switching to PvAll, or back and forth. If that is desired, I´d like to know early enough if this is a valid exploiting strategy. I´d use it, but it will kill any sense of danger.

Others, including myself, want to NOT be able to switch groups at any point during gameplay. If you'd actually read what we wrote, you'd know this. But you're not reading. The PvE suggestion does not affect this in any way.

3. opening up the possibility for everyone to switch to PvE when running cargo or mine a gold asteroid and back to PvAll when we have nothing of value on board.

Others, including myself, want to NOT be able to switch groups at any point during gameplay. If you'd actually read what we wrote, you'd know this. But you're not reading. The PvE suggestion does not affect this in any way.

4. not destroying the need for social interaction and "alliance war" if you can fade out players at will when you are outnumbered

There will be no "fading in/out" of players. That doesn't exist. That'd obviously break immersion. The PvE suggestion does not affect this in any way.

Also
- how is the risk vs. reward model for PvAll, as player ships are more unpredictable and harder to defeat than robot AI ships? More risk, more reward or more risk, no extra reward?

Risk/reward doesn't apply in multiplayer. If it did, then some people would have to get a bigger reward every time they try shooting someone because they're worse at combat.

Not only that, but you'd never see the other players anyway, so it doesn't matter.

- why are territory based security levels and police who protect PvE-only players not enough, so that extra filter options are needed?

Good luck exploring when you can't go anywhere!

- why PvE-only playstyle needs to be represented in every option, offline, LAN and persistant universe, although each poll showed there are only 1/3 who want to split the playerbase?

"Only 1/3". There are more players that want PvE than want a Mac version, or that want a 32-bit version, and they even outnumber left-handed players 3:1.

Why shouldn't the PvE-only playstyle be represented in every option?

- how does "multiplayer change everything" if people can play single player online?

Because when you play multiplayer, there are other people there. They have an effect on your gameplay experience, because they exist.


Now, how about explaining how PvE breaks the sandbox experience? I'm still curious on that one.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

What´s left but playground sarcasm if no one answers questions in an ordinary manner.

Sometimes nobody answers because you're right. The point about switching between PvP and PvE is a good one - I copy/pasted something you wrote into a DDF post yesterday because I couldn't think of a better way of making the argument

But the secret to making a strong forum argument is to remember the people you get responses from aren't actually the people you're talking to. The silent majority are quietly making up their own minds, and generally find it easier to agree with people that make a reasonable case once then cling quietly to the high moral ground. It took me years to teach myself that yammering people into silence was not at all the same thing as changing their minds - it turns out all that time I was just making it harder for the audience to side with me.

 

[Fromhell]

Quote "btw you´d only have 3 seconds until I shoot off your thrusters, disable your weapons and let you drift into the next sun."

You just said you would kill them within the 60 police reaction time. So at any point you could begin the MASS murder of players like you just said you could, that is why we should have separate universes.

Wrong assumptions again, he said "he will do PvP", but you and I know there is no point in PvP in safeguarded police areas if you get shot by police anyway, so there. Territory control solves all problems easily. How about you try answering above question instead of pulling hairstrings why "we" (you) should have separate universes.

Smarter NPC ships? Well make it as hard as fighting the best skilled human pilots - that would be great, it could make robot shipts actually interesting to fight.

Too bad PvE in online games is usually easy/casual/instant gratifiction(WoW type de-evolution which happened to gaming) and the most exciting thing to happen is beating up on a boss for an hour with 16 people. Tried it, no thanks.

 

[DigitalDuck]

How about you try answering above question instead of pulling hairstrings why "we" (you) should have separate universes.

How about you try reading the above post where I did exactly that?

Too bad PvE in online games is usually easy/casual/instant gratifiction(WoW type de-evolution which happened to gaming) and the most exciting thing to happen is beating up on a boss for an hour with 16 people. Tried it, no thanks.

Too bad PvP in online games is usually easy/casual/instant gratification (EvE type de-evolution which happened to gaming) and the most exciting thing to happen is sitting outside a space station ganking people. Tried it, no thanks.


See? I can generalise too.

 

[artic_phoenix]

I agree I myself will be playing PVP but I will like PVE only sometimes. For PVE I hate instant winning and no hardships the difficulty is what makes the games fun, but when you have PVP territory control it restricts the areas people move around in.

I love PVP but I don't love not having a choice I don't want to be with my friend and we suddenly get forced by 5 other people to fight, I just want all the options allowed instead of instant change of PVP to PVE (Vice versa) maybe a cool down or limit to changes per week.

I just want to have fun with my friends with no EVE Online random killing. I don't want to meet people who kill for the enjoyment of trolling I will be a caravan guard or explorer. I enjoy PVP but only when I am not a helpless cargo vessel who is being attacked by 4 different ships.

There should be some way to protect people that's all. Just posting my opinion.

 

[loststargirl]

When looking at the voting options 1 and 2 together are over 76%... Yet all I read are posts against it from the same persons :S

Really splitting the playerbase because a minority shouts about it sounds a dumb decision. Thats not how voting works.

Really if you fear griefing that much then play single player because in pure PVE you can grief too... for example when your batttling a pack of NPC fighters defending a NPC cargo ship and some other player zones in... and starts raiding that ship right under your nose and not a damn thing you can do about it.

 

[DigitalDuck]

Really splitting the playerbase because a minority shouts about it sounds a dumb decision. Thats not how voting works.

If the minority can have their way and have absolutely no impact on everyone else, it sounds a dumb decision to NOT do it.

Also, by minority you're talking about a proportion of people large enough that if they didn't back the game there would be no Elite: Dangerous.

Really if you fear griefing that much then play single player because in pure PVE you can grief too... for example when your batttling a pack of NPC fighters defending a NPC cargo ship and some other player zones in... and starts raiding that ship right under your nose and not a damn thing you can do about it.

That's not the problem.

The player base isn't being split because those that would play PvE are those that would otherwise play offline.

Griefing is far minimised in PvE, but there are other reasons beyond that (like simply disliking all forms of player combat).

 

[jabokai]

When looking at the voting options 1 and 2 together are over 76%... Yet all I read are posts against it from the same persons :S

Really splitting the playerbase because a minority shouts about it sounds a dumb decision. Thats not how voting works.

Go and look at the poll/posts in the DDF archive regarding the split to give people Ironman mode. There is MORE support in these polls for a PvE option than there was for Ironman. THAT'S how voting works - if a big enough minority want something, that has very little or no impact on the majority, then it is utterly stupid not to... and IMHO very selfish for the majority to try and deny it.

Edit: link to Ironman poll - http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5012

 

[Serpentstar]

I have suggested in all of my posts that the switch from PVP to PVE and back should be done when you log into your account.

That means that if you want to go and attack someone when you are in PVE, you have to log out first, which takes out out of your instance, and by the time you get back, the person you were considering attacking is gone.

It is also suggest that PVE players will use the option of not interacting with PVP players in order to mine asteroids and such. Did you forget about the PVE portion? The servers will spawn NPC pirates to harass you just as quickly (perhaps even more so) as a PVP pirate.

As for risks... I assume you must play all your games on easy. I tend to perish quite horribly on my own from PVE environments. Then again, I usually play them at the most difficult rating possible. My reward is not dying through the process.

Why is it that the loudest (and most annoying) voice for PVP refuses to play any form of Ironman level?

Me? I intend to do so, for as long as I can. What I won't be doing is PVP. So that almost assures me that I will no be dealing with most of the likes of those who want PVP. With all luck, I may be able to retain the ironman rating through beta... But I doubt it.

I may test the PVP waters, but have no intention in swimming in them.

That is for the younger generation, or younger than me anyway.

 

[Fromhell]

How about you try reading the above post where I did exactly that?
.

How about you read again and realize I responded to artic_phoenix and not you.

Too bad PvP in online games is usually easy/casual/instant gratification (EvE type de-evolution which happened to gaming) and the most exciting thing to happen is sitting outside a space station ganking people. Tried it, no thanks.

See? I can generalise too.

Yeah. Hehe. Only problem in this case it's far from reality.

 

[Fromhell]

I don't want to be with my friend and we suddenly get forced by 5 other people to fight, I just want all the options allowed instead of instant change of PVP to PVE (Vice versa) maybe a cool down or limit to changes per week.

I just want to have fun with my friends with no EVE Online random killing. I don't want to meet people who kill for the enjoyment of trolling I will be a caravan guard or explorer.

People always bring up these "hypothetical situations".. the poor lone guy and 5 badass pirate troll gankers suddenly showing up, raining on their parade.

If that happens 1 out of 100 times, in a space of 100 000 000 000 systems (still unlikely), would you rage quit or carry on? Set out a bounty on their heads? Get some friends or NPCs to escort you next time?

So, to prevent emotional breakdowns of some people who are not quick enough to save their necks, not skilled enough or too careless flying around with precious cargo, we need to cripple the whole game for everyone, to protect some people from flying around without taking enough precautions?

btw it´s ridiculous what people say about EvE, I played 3 years and all the inner parts of the galaxy are almost 100% PvE and they are adding more stuff to do with every update, you can mine, trade do missions for Agents, no one forces you to go to Null-Sec to be competitive. I have *never* been "ganked" in High Sec, it´s all a myth and probably happens to 1 out of 1000 players.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Highsec

High security space (also referred to as Highsec and High-Sec) is systems with a security rating of 1.0 down to 0.5. These systems are policed by CONCORD which awards some safety from pirates. While CONCORD does not prevent acts of piracy in high security space, they will quickly respond to such acts and punish the perpetrator. In many cases the response time is fast enough to save the victim from destruction. They will also punish the act by adjusting the security rating according to how high the security in the system is, the higher the system, the higher the penalty.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/0.0

0.0 space, sometimes referred to as null-sec, are lawless EVE regions outside of CONCORD control. Attacking other players in this area will elicit no CONCORD response , and there are no gate guns to fire upon aggressors. Thus, there is no protection offered to pilots beyond any allies traveling with them. Due to this lack of protection, 0.0 is highly dangerous to pilots young and old, and it is advised that pilots unaccustomed to combat steer clear or travel in groups.

PvE in EvE:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/PvE