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.
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.
Ok thks for reply, will have to try and make my own opinion anyway. Have a good time around the galaxy !![]()
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
- We have players that want a range of different experiences
- All of those experiences are valid
- Some of those experiences are mutually exclusive
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.
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.
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.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.