Game loses something by not forcing Open play

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
too repetitive with more dangerous random (not persistent) NPS, but it's my personal opinion. I didn't stay in Solo long enough to support this point.
 
Please allow me to label you, RedruM-X, as the idealist. You're proposing certainly interesting player generated content and I wish I will see it happening. However, MMO reality is much different. Victims aka carebears are often attacked because they represent the juicy target with no back up. The main reason why it happens is because they treat MMO as a single-player game and then they're surprised they're hit with overwhelming force. Gankers aka griefers are tend to be more involved in MMO aspect. They're often more organized and they're the ones who actually gang up and play as a group. They also do not travel much, group traveling can get tricky. So "gankers" stick to familiar systems and attack using their intel network. Gankers are territorial. Once a player is familiar with what's going on in the surrounding systems and what to be expected, avoiding being attacked is trivial. On the other hand if a player wanders into unfamiliar waters in an unarmed ship full of goodies there is really no one to blame for his own death. Raging on forums only make gankers being proud of themselves.

What I described is the healthy eco-system that exists in many PVP oriented open world sandboxes and if it happens in Elite they're definitely moving in the right direction. Same principles happen in the forest or coral reef where nature is unforgiving and merciless.

I do not mind such a label, as it is a compliment.
I don't see your point though at all for the rest.

You seem to forget that there are really a TON of people, alone at home, playing, who are NOT interested in joining a clan, nor joining a group, nor even contacting other players even if they meet them in game. And it is their complete right to do so. When you say that your MMO reality is different, and poeple who are the juicy target are the ones with no back-up, you literally elimiante all the people who I just mentioned from happily playing the game.
And you don't have the right to do so at all just because that is your way of thinking how an MMO should be played etc.

MMO's have NOTHING do to with playing in a guild, or playing with other people specifically. Being alone is just as fine as playing in a guild, just like in the real world, if someone decides to be alone and not converse with others on the street, it is his full right to do so, it's called liberty in doing what you want!

Being hit with overwhelming force is always lame, and has nothing to do with rage at all, that point I didn't get either. It IS literally lame when a player who has been working happily in a game for days and weeks for something, suddenly gets shot by someone just because that guy's twisted mind thought it was fun to do as he wants to show his so called power at that moment for no reason at all.
You don't make sense at all tbh. You're literally saying that after a while, such players who play alone, will know where to stay away from and thus, need to also stay away from those places otherwise they will pay for it, that makes no sense at all as you're literally saying that certain places will be off limit to certain people, hence, robbing them of the liberty of that place. Noone should ever have the power to do such a thing, and if they do, there should be repercussions and dangers linked to it!


Your last phrase I can partially agree on, but since most places are at first unfamiliar waters, it doesn't make any sense either tbh.

I see not a single valid point where such a system as I explained first, would not be positive for EVERYONE!

And I have played WoW on PVP servers etc too, I was in a guild, and it stays annoying no matter what to be suddenly ganked when doing a quest by some or other dude who does nothing but raiding day and night and has nothing better to do then pass by an area and just kill anyone in sight to disappear afterwards without any repercussions! And no they are not territorial at all. Ganking literally means someone who suddenly kills you for no reason at all, and it can happen everywhere, and thus, there should be repercussions for it.


I'm sure pirates would be a lot more careful and more organised with my system in action... so I don't see any single valid point in your explanation I'm sorry.
One doesn't need to be familiar of your surroundings to know that being killed for no reason, is wrong, always! And yes it should be possible, but when you do it, you will know that you will get in trouble, and that will be another part of the game, surviving this trouble. Because that is what it means to be a pirate.

Your explanation literally seems to defend people that group up, and thus are more powerful that way, can do what they want. It should never work that way. Grouping up should always indeed mean that you are more powerful, but not mean that you can do what you want without any repercussions. Sure power should belong to big clans and guilds etc, but not abused power, and there should be a means for single, one, alone playing players to fight such things too.

And there is no single reason to not do this, except if you're a pirate and already afraid of such a system being applied of course.

And I don't see the point in 'raging on forum's '... I suppose you're talking about other as I'm not raging at all. I haven't even played this game and in the past in MMO's I was never alone. We still never ganked people as there is literally no fun at all in doing so. Taking on people who or at least almost equal, equal, or more powerful, is something else. Ganking and griefing should ALWAYS come with repercussions. And tbh, it has nothing to do with ideals, it simple and normal logic. And this system I talked about wouldn't erase ganking or griefing, but it would make them think twice before doing so.

And the point of them being more organised... sorry??? When I was questing in PVP in WoW and such a person who ganks passed by... I never saw them being organised at all... it's just a completely random on thoughtless action by such a player. The ONLY single time I saw an organised thing like that happen was when a complete Horde guild took over an alliance town and killed all NPCS inside and stayed there with 40 ppl. And it came with repercussions, as an hour or two later, a ton of alliance players horded together against them. And then we have true gameplay. That was the only time I saw it organised. All the other times, it's pure randomness.

I have played a ton of MMO's , and gankers are never organised. I've only heard of such nonsense in EVE, which has nothing to do with this game at all tbh. And even they must carry the repercussions.

Sure my system would be IDEAL. Yep, all the reason more to apply it or create it. But I don't see a single point of yours being valid tbh.


Anyway, time for some Day Z now, me and my friend are going bandit hunting, whenver we see anyone killing freshly spawned palyers, or killing ppl for no reason at all, we hunt them down. As that is the right thing to do.
Peace out!
 
I honestly don't see what the problem is. So what if solo play is happening in the same server as open play. What possible difference does that make to anyone choosing to play in open mode?

Can someone explain this - and don't anyone use "diluting my trade run" coz that was just nonesense.
 
I've been in Open since the start of Gamma, total number of Commanders seen? One. On about the 3rd day or so. And that was only for a few seconds before they jumped, never saw them, or anyone else, ever again so far.
The galaxy is a lot larger than Stranglethorn Vale, a simple fact that appears to be causing confusion.
 
RedruM-X,

You don't find my points valid not because you can not understand them, but because you do not want to understand them. Anyways for the pure sake of entertainment I'll continue engaging into this discussion.

One of the reasons you do not want to understand my points is because you're the 'WOW' player. 'WOW' players are the special kind of animals who got used to be spoonfed with the content and demand everything to be done their 'WOW' way. If something is not their 'WOW' way it's the absolute heresy doomed to be bankrupted in a couple of months. I can assure you that you're not alone in your belief here and you can find plenty of other WOW dogma followers.

Going back to some of your statements you completely contradict yourself when you say tones of players are interested in playing alone only (very true), yet you expect them to group up and seek the revenge on the bad guys. I'm sorry if I shatter your world, but this is not going to happen. Such players are not capable on grouping up and conducting social interactions. They usually bring their points across in the offensive manner with the wall of ranting text. Their groups don't live long and everything they do in there is the demonstration of their shiny purple armor.

Sadly enough some places are off limits for us. Like not everyone can climb Everest. Some can, but they trained hard for it. If you expect every place to be easily accessible you will end up with your skull broken in half. Sometimes you can respawn and rage on forums about this unfair experience.

About Day Z, it's kind of cute, but buggy game where admins gank everyone they want on their private server. Sometimes they just teleport behind the enemy. If even then they can't achieve the victory they often ban other successful players from their server. I could join other more adecvate servers eventually, but such admin focused circlejerking concept in the game infested with bugs is not appealing to me.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Ok thks for reply, will have to try and make my own opinion anyway. Have a good time around the galaxy ! :)

Fly safe.
 
Last edited:
Please allow me to label you, RedruM-X, as the idealist. You're proposing certainly interesting player generated content and I wish I will see it happening. However, MMO reality is much different. Victims aka carebears are often attacked because they represent the juicy target with no back up.

Victims aren't carebears. You don't actually believe that do you? That's no more true than saying griefers are just PvPers. World Of Tanks is a PvP game. War Thunder is a PvP game. Battlefield and Call Of Duty are PvP games. There's very little opportunity for griefing in those games and yet they're 100% PvP, because griefing and PvP are not the same thing, just like victims are carebears are not the same.

True carebears will stick to solo play, at least until pirating becomes very risky through things like improved bounty hunting rewards and AI police (or whatever they're called in game) that can actually handle players. I'm getting this from watching youtube videos and reading some reviews. There seems to be quite a few people not happy with the ease of piracy because the incredibly weak and ineffetive AI police and the very low bounty hunter rewards that make people not want to bother.

Again, the true PvP potential in this game lies in the factions, not piracy. Attacking enemy faction members is one thing, just being a griefing is another.
 
Victims aren't carebears. You don't actually believe that do you? That's no more true than saying griefers are just PvPers. World Of Tanks is a PvP game. War Thunder is a PvP game. Battlefield and Call Of Duty are PvP games. There's very little opportunity for griefing in those games and yet they're 100% PvP, because griefing and PvP are not the same thing, just like victims are carebears are not the same.

True carebears will stick to solo play, at least until pirating becomes very risky through things like improved bounty hunting rewards and AI police (or whatever they're called in game) that can actually handle players. I'm getting this from watching youtube videos and reading some reviews. There seems to be quite a few people not happy with the ease of piracy because the incredibly weak and ineffetive AI police and the very low bounty hunter rewards that make people not want to bother.

Again, the true PvP potential in this game lies in the factions, not piracy. Attacking enemy faction members is one thing, just being a griefing is another.

Sir, you completely missed and misinterpreted my point by picking the words out of contest. If you really interested in discussing the subject please re-read the post.
 

darkcyd

Banned
It's not a PvP game. Even in open it's not a PvP game. Deal with it... there's a lot more to this game than just PvP. Players who seek combat in open OR solo, against players OR npcs are always more likely to lose their assets than players who avoid combat in open OR solo. There's still no argument for forcing people into open etc - it's just a whinge about having fewer soft targets for griefing.

I agree with you that there is no financial gain in either assault NPC's or players at the moment. It would be nice if balance would change this but until it does all arguments are based on the assumption sometime in the future it would be profitable.

Dismissing the wishes of a great many people by creating a straw man argument as to their intentions is neither honest or a fair way to debate anything.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Dismissing the wishes of a great many people by creating a straw man argument as to their intentions is neither honest or a fair way to debate anything.

Which "great many people" would that be? Those who want the game to be changed to restrict the choice of others to satisfy their desired play-style or those who already have the freedom to choose how they wish to play the game?
 
What the game loses by not forcing open play does not compare to what it would lose if it did force open play, namely a large amount of its players & after offlinegate I doubt it will ever even be considered by the Dev’s, can you imagine what the forum would be like? what about the bad publicity of losing a second advertised feature? I just can't see it happening no matter what anyone says on this subject! This thread has reached the point where the same old arguments get regurgitated over & over add nausea.
 
Last edited:
Dismissing the wishes of a great many people by creating a straw man argument as to their intentions is neither honest or a fair way to debate anything.

And yet here you are "dismissing the wishes of a great many people" by demanding that they be forced to make themselves available to be the victims that your play style demands. Ironic eh?
 
I saw a post from a Dev that seemed to imply that the reason we have Solo/Group modes is actually for the very reason of players avoiding 'perceived griefing.' That's his term not mine. Whatever your definition of griefing or ganking it is all down to the views of the recipient of the 'grief' and nothing to do with what the other player desires.

That being said, he also suggested that there should be some sort of benefit to keep players in open.

So actually, in a strange way, I agree with the OP in a weird out of the box sort of way. You definitely lose something by not forcing open play: You lose that group of players who cannot compete with the more 'combat minded' and Open becomes less richer for it. In essence, the 'perceived griefers' (not that they actually are griefers mind you, they may be, but that's not the discussion here) do Open an injustice by forcing that removal.

(disclaimer - I know the arguments about not seeing another commander for a 100ly... and the arguments for Solo mode being a sort of offline...)

The Elite Dangerous Universe is poorer for it and that should make a lot of people sad. :(
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I saw a post from a Dev that seemed to imply that the reason we have Solo/Group modes is actually for the very reason of players avoiding 'perceived griefing.' That's his term not mine.

It's one of Sandro's posts and is one of my sig links:

Griefing:

So, we've said we don't mind bad guys. In fact, we go further; we have bad guy gameplay options (piracy, smuggling etc.) By default, this includes psychopathic behaviour - randomly attacking other player "because you can".

We're currently looking at two different angles of defence: an in-game law system and private groups.

The in-game law system should be pretty robust. It allows plausible but strong responses from NPC factions to criminal activities (using authority ships, structures and factional bounties), as well as player-driven bounties (via the Pilot's Federation) and player bounty hunting mechanisms (e.g. broadcasting "sightings" of know villains to help player bounty hunters track them).

All of this should mean that that if you're being naughty you are generating additional challenges for yourself which will undoubtedly make the game harder in some ways (this applies equally whether you are attacking players or NPCs).

It won't guarantee safety, even though it guarantees additional challenges to the bad guys. Which I think is about right; we don't want to make being the bad guy impossible.

The second factor is our grouping mechanisms.

The way it's currently standing, players will be able to enter and leave private groups of some sort reasonably easily, so they will be able to control the level of perceived griefing they want to suffer.

I know this is a very contentious issue, which I have been wrestling with since I first came on to the project. The way I see it at the moment is pretty straightforward:

  • We have players that want a range of different experiences
  • All of those experiences are valid
  • Some of those experiences are mutually exclusive
So my answer is to say that we will support all of them but not to the point where one player is happy at the expense of another. And a clean way to do this is by using a grouping system.

The worst case scenario here is that a player who wants to avoid an encounter will vanish into a private group. In this case, the player will be forced to escape conventionally first (via hyperspace, docking or something similar).

In this instance, the aggressor still gets some benefit - they "defeated" their prey, and we can hopefully build on this in terms of rewarding them in various ways: via reputation, which can lead to missions and events, via player bragging rights (perhaps only players that remain in the "all group" can feature in various global news feed articles) and potentially via limited physical rewards.

If players are going to live in private groups, well, that suggests that if we had a single environment they would be playing offline or not at all, so they aren't part of the equation.

Players that dip into the "all group" after farming "private groups"; there are a few things to say about this.

  • They are unlikely to have as good player-vs-player skills as those who live in the "all" group day in day out.
  • NPCs can and will offer appropriate risks (in fact, it would not be a lie to suggest that we *could* make NPC ships significantly nastier than any human ships in the majority of situations. Not that we will, mind. But we could), so to get a tooled up advantage such players will have been facing a appropriate threat level (basically private groups should not be considered "easy mode").
  • Everyone has access to their own private group(s)

It's not perfect, but it's my best shot at the moment.

Anyway, taking these two strands into account, again, the result will again be hopefully a "very light touch".
 
Sir, you completely missed and misinterpreted my point by picking the words out of contest. If you really interested in discussing the subject please re-read the post.

I don't need to because of a fundamental flaw: you say you described a healthy eco-system that exists in many PVP oriented open world sandboxes, but this isn't a PVP oriented game. You also mention that gankers are more of the true MMO players but this isn't a MMO (30 people per instance is not massive. This is multiplayer like CoD or BF, not massive multiplayer). I haven't even played anything other than the combat tutorial and I understand that.

In all my many years of MMO experience I've come to understand a simple truth: gankers aren't interested in PVP, they're interested in ganking. They love to say they're all about PVP but it's not true. There are many games that can offer them balanced, proper PVP but they instead choose to gank people who can't fight back. They're in essence bullies. That's a simple truth some of us have known for years.
 
Somehow but they really need to separate open and solo. It ruins all the positive expirience so far. It s Elite: Dangerous right? Not Elite: Fly safe. Oh and - solo for hamsters. Cheers.
 
Somehow but they really need to separate open and solo. It ruins all the positive expirience so far. It s Elite: Dangerous right? Not Elite: Fly safe. Oh and - solo for hamsters. Cheers.

I know this is a very contentious issue, which I have been wrestling with since I first came on to the project. The way I see it at the moment is pretty straightforward:

We have players that want a range of different experiences
All of those experiences are valid
Some of those experiences are mutually exclusive

So my answer is to say that we will support all of them but not to the point where one player is happy at the expense of another. And a clean way to do this is by using a grouping system.

I am of an opinion that name calling is a sign of a weak argument.
 
I know this is a very contentious issue, which I have been wrestling with since I first came on to the project. The way I see it at the moment is pretty straightforward:

We have players that want a range of different experiences
All of those experiences are valid
Some of those experiences are mutually exclusive

So my answer is to say that we will support all of them but not to the point where one player is happy at the expense of another. And a clean way to do this is by using a grouping system.
Seems pretty cut and dry too me forced open play is not going to happen, but if solo is so boring as many have said I dare say most will migrate to open at some point in the future, I for one think a choice is alway a better option even if it comes with some downsides.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom