Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Pann

Who are these people: 2015 Survey results, pt. 1 - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

TL;DR -

To me the Crowfall design takes what many view as a black and white choice, PvP/PvE and blurs the line so it doesn't actually matter where you fall.

This is utterly wrong. The reason why EK and rulesets like God's Reach and The Infected exist is because they're isolating those who'd rather PvE or Soft-PvP and those who are FFA (including PvE). The only thing people share is the economic flow and the name of the game. So it's indeed a black and white choice. 

 

This designs' only purpose is to attract certain mainstream players and shield them from PvP players griefing/scaring/melting/dominating them away from the game.

 

​Games like Ultima Online pre-Trammel or Darkfall are examples where both things were connected, as players themselves created every economical flow, "safe spaces" and other things for which Crowfall has artificial boundaries in place.

​TL;DR: Crowfall creates murder chambers for PvPers and safe spaces for PvErs, while connecting them only through an economic flow to create the illusion of a "borderless, interconnected realm". If this will turn out to be a good thing, remains to be seen in the Beta stages.

Edited by Qbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is utterly wrong. The reason why EK and rulesets like God's Reach and The Infected exist is because they're isolating those who'd rather PvE or Soft-PvP and those who are FFA (including PvE). The only thing people share is the economic flow and the name of the game. 

 

This is an example of semantics, what you are describing is the same thing I just said but from a PvP perspective. So thank you for agreeing with me.

 

 

It doesn't matter where you fall in the PvE/PvP spectrum, Crowfall (the game as a whole) lets you choose your level of PvP through choosing worlds. 

As you can't escape either PvP or PvE, your only choice being how intense, it effectively blurs the lines between the two and allow people to try different intensities as the mood hits them. 

 

Yes, you can't change within a single campaign, but campaigns are fleeting so you can be a murdercrow one campaign and a cuddlecrow the next

 

 

 

This designs' only purpose is to attract certain mainstream players and shield them from PvP players griefing/scaring/melting/dominating them away from the game.

 

 

I wouldn't word it that way, but in essence I agree. The designs purpose is to provide different modes for different players. This is simply the MMO version of choosing your difficulty.

 

Whether or not that is a good thing is a matter of opinion. I certainly think its a good thing as games can only survive so long as they are earning money. To earn money you need as many players as possible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The designs purpose is to provide different modes for different players.

Wrong, again. I'll try to explain it to you in a simple way;

 

PvP players have no problem playing with PvE players, as they are walking loot bags, whereas PvE players (newer generations of gamers) have a problem playing with PvP players, because they are afraid to lose their poorly made socks and be challenged "unwillingly". -simple as that.

 

It's not much of a problem of game mechanics but the change in mentality of players over the years. Back in the days, PvE players would accept the danger that comes from playing sandbox ffa mmos but they would be smart enough to avoid situations which could endanger them or utilize social skills to get their way. "Modern players" on the other side feel entitled for the game to support their playstyle and enforce artificial rules.

​This was the beauty of past sandbox mmos, which be a copy of real life relationships within the game, having players create rules and structures. With game industry shifting towards instant gratification and "entitlement", the need for structure enforcing mechanics arose, thus the need for isolating players or even creating different games but for virtually the same playerbase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this:

 

PvP players have no problem playing with PvE players, as they are walking loot bags, whereas PvE players (newer generations of gamers) have a problem playing with PvP players, because they are afraid to lose their poorly made socks and be challenged "unwillingly". -simple as that.

 

Different than this:

 "The designs purpose is to provide different modes for different players"

 

Using your example, these modern PvE players want less risk (easy mode). The PvP players want more freedom / risk (Hard mode)

 

I'm not posting a value judgement on whether or not this is good, it is simply how the market is today and is something Crowfall has come up with a very clever solution to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this:

 

 

Different than this:

 "The designs purpose is to provide different modes for different players"

 

Using your example, these modern PvE players want less risk (easy mode). The PvP players want more freedom / risk (Hard mode)

Because you contradict yourself. On one side you say "wheeeeuuu, It's not black and white", but then you agree with me "wheeeeuu, it's the same a black and white". By multitude of game styles it comes down to the cliche that the new generation of PvE players don't want to play in an environment where PvP might occur, while PvP players don't mind playing with any other types of players. This is a duality, not 50 shades of playing diversity.

Edited by Qbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you contradict yourself. On one side you say "wheeeeuuu, It's not black and white", but then you agree with me "wheeeeuu, it's the same a black and white". By multitude of game styles it comes down to the cliche that the new generation of PvE players don't want to play in an environment where PvP might occur, while PvP players don't mind playing with any other types of players. This is a duality, not 50 shades of playing diversity.

 

I believe our disconnect is a matter of perception. Remember, the very first thing I said was we seem to be agreeing with each other!
 
I feel like a politician saying this, but it feels like we have different understandings of black and white ;)
 
First off we need to scrap our use of PvP and PvE. Those terms are just muddying the water. 
PvP and PvE style game-play is not the issue here. No one seems to be arguing with me that Crowfall ties PvP and PvE together. You are competing factions of players (PvP) looting the world (PvE).
 
The issue we are actually discussing is player personality and risk aversion. (obviously, as this is the demographics thread, but sometimes we need to explicitly state the obvious)
 
My understanding of your stance is that you see it as a black and white divide, you are either a God's Reach or a Dregs player and things are only loosely tied together by economy. It is looking at each world as a box and not looking at the bigger picture.
 
Yes, each individual campaign has its own settings and level of risk. Yes, that campaign itself doesn't have more than a tenuous connection with other campaigns (that we know of yet), but that doesn't mean its not connected. 
 
We are all playing eternal heroes and that is the glue that holds everything together and why its shades of gray. 
 
A person can start in God's Reach, build up their skills and move to the dregs in a future campaign. 
 
A person could start in the dregs and then move to God's Reach to start training a new character (or take a vacation). 
 
Add to that the fact that you have multiple characters and you could even be playing in multiple risk-level campaigns depending on your mood. 
 
That is why its a shade of gray, anyone can play in any level of world they want. Yes, some will stay in one world or another, and to them Crowfall will seem black and white. That doesn't mean that Crowfall as a game is black an white, just that their experience is.
 
TL;DR - Individual player's experiences may be black or white, the game isn't. Crowfall's design makes it possible for you to change your level of risk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe our disconnect is a matter of perception. Remember, the very first thing I said was we seem to be agreeing with each other!
 
I feel like a politician saying this, but it feels like we have different understandings of black and white ;)
 
First off we need to scrap our use of PvP and PvE. Those terms are just muddying the water. 
PvP and PvE style game-play is not the issue here. No one seems to be arguing with me that Crowfall ties PvP and PvE together. You are competing factions of players (PvP) looting the world (PvE).
 
The issue we are actually discussing is player personality and risk aversion. (obviously, as this is the demographics thread, but sometimes we need to explicitly state the obvious)
 
My understanding of your stance is that you see it as a black and white divide, you are either a God's Reach or a Dregs player and things are only loosely tied together by economy. It is looking at each world as a box and not looking at the bigger picture.
 
Yes, each individual campaign has its own settings and level of risk. Yes, that campaign itself doesn't have more than a tenuous connection with other campaigns (that we know of yet), but that doesn't mean its not connected. 
 
We are all playing eternal heroes and that is the glue that holds everything together and why its shades of gray. 
 
A person can start in God's Reach, build up their skills and move to the dregs in a future campaign. 
 
A person could start in the dregs and then move to God's Reach to start training a new character (or take a vacation). 
 
Add to that the fact that you have multiple characters and you could even be playing in multiple risk-level campaigns depending on your mood. 
 
That is why its a shade of gray, anyone can play in any level of world they want. Yes, some will stay in one world or another, and to them Crowfall will seem black and white. That doesn't mean that Crowfall as a game is black an white, just that their experience is.
 
TL;DR - Individual player's experiences may be black or white, the game isn't. Crowfall's design makes it possible for you to change your level of risk. 

 

 

​No. You're describing use-cases but this doesn't change the mentalities and behaviors of players who play the game. Sure, a PvP player will do some things to pimp their player character with vanity or play around with EK, and a PvE player might check out some PvP but this doesn't change neither of their mentalities on the long run or how they spend 99% of their game time. By your logic WoW or GW2 would be the best games out there, because you can do tons of poorly made socks - yet, most PvP players hate it, so do PvE ones.

​True, the distinction of PvP vs PvE is shallow but this is the duality it comes down to due to conflicting mentalities as a result of the entitlement PvE players usually field. Like i said, It's not a fundamental problem of game mechanics but change in mentalities of players over time. PvP players usually do combat the environment to benefit their game style thus are always PvE players at the same time but PvE players are not always PvPers. Small but important little difference, which makes it all come down to: "Your PvP ends where my feelings begin".

​That's why, no matter how diverse a game will be in terms of possible activities, there will be a conflict of PvE players wanting to isolate themselves, because they're more afraid of PvP than PvP players from PvE.

Edited by Qbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe our disconnect is a matter of perception. Remember, the very first thing I said was we seem to be agreeing with each other!
 
I feel like a politician saying this, but it feels like we have different understandings of black and white ;)
 
First off we need to scrap our use of PvP and PvE. Those terms are just muddying the water. 
PvP and PvE style game-play is not the issue here. No one seems to be arguing with me that Crowfall ties PvP and PvE together. You are competing factions of players (PvP) looting the world (PvE).
 

 

I did in my last post when I stated I was curious as to the results of the survey in regards to why PvE type players are even here. We all know this a PvP game that features different types of PvP. So yeah as I said I think its fair to say this game will not offer very much to PvE based players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it:

 

Why? Why do you see it that way? What possible evidence in the statements by ACE gives you any reason whatsoever to see it that way?


I mean, I'm assuming "fluffer" is just another pjorative term for carebears, whales, etc. Of course, I could be incorrect, but I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread though.

  • PvE players will go to the Dregs to get better loot and equip people they're in cahoots with.
  • PvP players will go wherever they want to: this might be the Dregs for maximum winnings potential or another band to support their clan/be guaranteed at least something/etc.
  • Then you'll get an entire spectrum of people who fall somewhere in the middle. This might be a very small guild where everyone needs to pull double-duty, players who want to feed themselves in the wild, crafters and merchants who don't want to be useless in a fight, etc.

We really won't know how the dynamic shakes out until we start getting more gameplay. ACE still has plenty of time to tailor things to the type of experience they envision. And when the game finally releases, they'll be pulling the strings from the background in order to maintain the balance: they can offer whatever rulesets they want, in whatever combination they want, to drive interest. That's sort of the whole idea behind Crowfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

​True, the distinction of PvP vs PvE is shallow but this is the duality it comes down to due to conflicting mentalities as a result of the entitlement PvE players usually field. Like i said, It's not a fundamental problem of game mechanics but change in mentalities of players over time. PvP players usually do combat the environment to benefit their game style thus are always PvE players at the same time but PvE players are not always PvPers. Small but important little difference, which makes it all come down to: "Your PvP ends where my feelings begin".

​That's why, no matter how diverse a game will be in terms of possible activities, there will be a conflict of PvE players wanting to isolate themselves, because they're more afraid of PvP than PvP players from PvE.

 

I think this may be closest we come to understanding each other's stances, as we are at least agreeing that PvP players are always PvE players and that its not an issue of mechanics.

 

Also I am not arguing that there will be PvE type players who wish to avoid PvP players. I also am not arguing that some people need to toughen up, but then again, some people need to ease up as well.

 

Aside from that, my stance is Crowfall encourages a portion of the PvE crowd to be more open to PvP as they can chose their level of risk. It allows for both styles of players to compromise on the PvP risk level. 

 

Your stance is that there will always be a disconnect between the two groups, and that one group will never accept the other. It effectively vilifies (or coward-fies might be a more fitting phrase) PvE players without admitting that some PvP players are also at fault. It doesn't allow for compromise, it only looks at the extremes.

 

"Your PvP ends where my feelings begin" - Honestly, Yes.

That doesn't mean you can't go around slaughtering people without mercy. That doesn't mean you can't go around robbing people blind. That also doesn't mean you can't go backstabbing your "allies". If a person has a problem with this, they can choose a safer campaign (or toughen up).

 

What it does mean is you don't teabag them when they are down. You don't insult someone's skills, beliefs, or personality. You don't camp their spawn point just to be a jerk (camping to prevent reinforcements or what not is another story and fully acceptable). Etc. This type of player, despite being a small portion of the PvP crowd, is why so many people are terrified of PvP. The only one who benefits from this type of behavior is the player doing it.

 

Crush them, but don't hide behind the anonymity of the internet to be a jerk. Be respectful. (Disclaimer - if you know the person out of game and they are cool with it, then that's another story entirely.)

 

 

 

I did in my last post when I stated I was curious as to the results of the survey in regards to why PvE type players are even here. We all know this a PvP game that features different types of PvP. So yeah as I said I think its fair to say this game will not offer very much to PvE based players.

 

"PvE type players" is different than "PvE type gameplay". As Qbs said, all PvP players engage in PvE gameplay as well. 

 

But, I can directly address your question with my own point of view.

You asked before, and I answered, what a PvE player can do. I can explore, I can craft, I can socialize, I can keep myself entertained. 

They don't need to implement boss raids for me, they don't need to add scripted events, they just need to give me a world to experience. 

 

As for why I backed, I love how it lets me choose my risk level. I also love how they do away from the Uncle Bob problem.

 

The two reasons I don't play PvP is that there are some jerks out there who take advantage of internet anonymity to actively work to ruin other people's game experience (as mentioned in my reply to Qbs) and that I can never catch up with Uncle Bob.

 

As a married / working professional my game time is limited. I don't want to deal with those players and their immaturity. I know there are great PvPer's out there from my days MUDing. Crowfall's design gives me hope that I will be able to avoid the jerks while still getting a PvP experience. The passive leveling and fresh starts in each campaign also mean that with limited playtime I can still actively contribute to my faction / guild. 

 

In my point of view, PvP isn't that different than PvE. A human player is simply more random. In a lot of games I can hide the chat interface and not tell the difference :P

 

 

 

The way I see it:

 

canvasscreen.jpg

Red: PvP

Green: PvE

Yellow: Crowfall

 

I agree. But based on my previous comments that doesn't surprise anyone :P

 

Editted for clarity.

Edited by ledeir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ if that's enough for you too consider it PvE then so be it but I have to think you're in a very small percentage (and why I think part 2 of the survey results will be more interesting then part 1). When I think PvE I think you know actual PvE content dungeons, raids, bosses dropping epic loot etc. Crowfall will have none of that. So to say this game will be a mix of both like I already said is a bit of a stretch. More like a mix of 99% PvP and 1% PvE perhaps, but 50-50? No way.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More like a mix of 99% PvP and 1% PvE perhaps, but 50-50? No way.

 

I agree, those circles I posted do not represent the amount of each style of gameplay. The PvP circle should be bigger really. Just tried to convey that Crowfall has both PvE and PvP elements in it. Thanks for pointing that out.


ZCcquVD.png

THE most active European Crowfall community. Join us now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it:

 

canvasscreen.jpg

Red: PvP

Green: PvE

Yellow: Crowfall

If you take a look at my Sig you'll see I'm excited about the EKs but I still don't see CF so evenly spilt.

 

There won't be quests or raid bosses. No special dungeons to farm lot in or similar theme park stuff going in other MMOs. The environment and monsters will be there too ratchet yup the that level already present because of other factions, guilds, and rogue players.

 

Having said all that EKs do give us the ability to form more social and PvE opportunities. But it will never be an even split.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some quotes from J Todd Coleman.

 

No, we won't be adding PvE campaigns.

We have PvE in the game, yes, but it bears repeating: the monsters exist to raise the general threat level of the universe, and to occasionally drop rare reagants. 

If you want to avoid PvP completely, you can do that by stay in the Eternal Kingdoms -- but if you do, you'll need to have a a plan to work with the players who are willing and able to win in the Campaign Worlds, because you're going to need them to provide you with resources and materials to build and craft.

There are a LOT of games where PvE is the driving force, and PvP is a secondary mechanic.  We're making a game where PvP is the driving force, and the PvE is secondary. 

That's not to say that you can't be a full-time professional crafter or run a mercantile empire -- you can! -- but you can't do it in a vacuum.

Todd
ACE

 

 

Maybe I read the OP incorrectly. It sounded to me like the question was "can we fight a Campaign AGAINST monsters instead of players?" and the answer is no.

If the question was meant to be, "can we have monsters affect the game in ways that allow for more emergent gameplay WITHIN a Campaign?"  -- meaning that the monsters are a tactical consideration to be taken into account, WHILE participating in a Campaign against other players -- then yes, of course!

For example, let's say that I am ambushed and outnumbered by another group of players.  I run away.  They chase me.  I know the Hunger has infected a village nearby.  I run into it and hide in a building.  They chase me.  I set a building on fire, to draw the monsters to my enemies.  Monsters eat them.  I tunnel through the floor and (barely) escape.

That's not a "PvE Campaign," that's using the existence of monsters to my advantage.  Yes, of course that will be an element of gamplay! 

To go back to the example of the Walking Dead.  The real threat is the other humans.  But the environmental threat (i.e. the aforementioned shambling dead) should always be a tactical consideration.

Todd
ACE

 

 

1) there are already a lot of games that offer full-time monster slaying.  and they have years of momentum, enormous budgets and large, imbedded development teams behind them.  Look at the cancellation of Titan: even Blizzard is hesitant to compete with WoW.  Never pick a fight you can't win.

2) Crafting and economy is core to the vision; it ties the disparate campaigns into a cohesive whole.  PvE (even PvE sieging) isn't necessary; we can launch the game without it still have a robust game experience.

3) Every game is defined by two things: what it claims to be, and what it claims NOT to be.  if you claim that a game is everything, and you end up with a fuzzy mess that will appeal to no one.  (which almost doesn't matter, because you'll likely never launch it, anyway.)

On your second point -- of PvE sieging being a fantastic niche to fill -- you might be right!  It does sound like you could build a game around that idea.

but that doesn't mean we should change our vision to try and fill that niche, too.  if we do, we risk success in our first niche.

 

 

Yes, there will be PvE, but it is entirely secondary to the driving force of the game-- PvP.

 

Players who want to avoid PvP can do so, but they should probably understand that they are taking a fringe path, that they will be missing out on the core gameplay that ACE is spending most of their effort on, and they will in some way or another be reliant on PvPers for the materials needed to build up EKs and craft stuff.

 

If anyone is hoping that ACE will make a PvE experience that is anywhere near as robust as that offered by the big themepark games, they may well be disappointed. I think it would be foolish to expect great PvE from a company that is saying PvE will be secondary.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between PvE and PvP players is simple. When out of MMO, a PvP player will play games where you play against other players (FPS, RTS, MOBA etc.). A PvE player will play a solo or co-op game.

Edited by arkh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said all that EKs do give us the ability to form more social and PvE opportunities. But it will never be an even split.

 

I never said it was evenly divided between the two, but I agree I was not clear enough about it. I already clarified above your post though.


ZCcquVD.png

THE most active European Crowfall community. Join us now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ if that's enough for you too consider it PvE then so be it but I have to think you're in a very small percentage (and why I think part 2 of the survey results will be more interesting then part 1). When I think PvE I think you know actual PvE content dungeons, raids, bosses dropping epic loot etc. Crowfall will have none of that. So to say this game will be a mix of both like I already said is a bit of a stretch. More like a mix of 99% PvP and 1% PvE perhaps, but 50-50? No way.

 

That's why I realized (too late) that we shouldn't have been using those terms to discuss the player base as it is possible to have very different interpretations of PvE. 

 

I'm really eager to see the second set of results as well! 

 

 

If anyone is hoping that ACE will make a PvE experience that is anywhere near as robust as that offered by the big themepark games, they may well be disappointed. I think it would be foolish to expect great PvE from a company that is saying PvE will be secondary.

 

I expect a world to explore, no fancy dungeons, I simply expect a world ;)

That's enough for me!

 

And you better believe I'm going to try and make monsters fight my battles for me :P

 

The difference between PvE and PvP players is simple. When out of MMO, a PvP player will play games where you play against other players (FPS, RTS, MOBA etc.). A PvE player will play a solo or co-op game.

 

I take offense that you are calling me a PvP player! (Joking on the offense part) :)

That may be true for some people, but not all. I'm a big fan of RTS and one on one games. I'm probably 50/50 in playing competitive games vs solo games.

 

This is a conclusion / discussion we should save until they post more results!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said it was evenly divided between the two, but I agree I was not clear enough about it. I already clarified above your post though.

Yeah saw you sneak your clarification in while I was typing up my post lol

 

The difference between PvE and PvP players is simple. When out of MMO, a PvP player will play games where you play against other players (FPS, RTS, MOBA etc.). A PvE player will play a solo or co-op game.

Oh I'm defiantly a PvE type. That's Player vs EVERYTHING. (FPS, RTS, Co-op, Platformers, Action, RPGs, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...