that´s cool - didn´t see that info. Great decision.
The Tri-poll: What does multiplayer mean to YOU?
- Thread starter Sandro Sammarco
- Start date
- Status
that´s cool - didn´t see that info. Great decision.
The difference is that in single player PvE you are not stopping anyone doing something. You are not forcing someone's guns arbitrarily off in some mickey-mouse immersion breaking "game" rule, just because you might not want to get shot at (even though you can run away or fire back, that seems to be lost on you).
Erm...
1. You're not stopping anyone doing something in open PvE either. Everybody else you see will also be playing open PvE, and therefore will also have chosen to have player combat turned off. You're mistaking it with mixing PvP and PvE players together, which of course is where the problems start.
2. It's almost impossible to run away, and players who want PvE do not want to fire back. That seems to be lost on you.
PVE Group = a flag for a player for grouping with similar flag players
All Group = groups players to this player based on their flags.
Solo Online = flag for a player for no grouping
Private Group = flag for player to group with preferences
Seems simple really...
Jump about as you wish when docked... I see no issues to immersion when someone is PVE to a PVP player.. as they can't see them anyway..
So IF you can jump to online solo OR private group... then the issues toggling PVP are the same as toggling to these two groups..
SO that argument works both ways..
IF you can jump from these play styles... DO you need a PVE group?
I think yes... to allow for continued play with other like minded players...
All Group = groups players to this player based on their flags.
Solo Online = flag for a player for no grouping
Private Group = flag for player to group with preferences
Seems simple really...
Jump about as you wish when docked... I see no issues to immersion when someone is PVE to a PVP player.. as they can't see them anyway..
So IF you can jump to online solo OR private group... then the issues toggling PVP are the same as toggling to these two groups..
SO that argument works both ways..
IF you can jump from these play styles... DO you need a PVE group?
I think yes... to allow for continued play with other like minded players...
I agree with that... the only way to deal with griefers is an online account ban.
From what I've read of FD's agreed proposals, I think "many of us" are going to be disappointed, because that's exactly what we are getting. For good social reasons I might add, not for this PvE / PvP nonsense.
*Sigh* (if you can do it so can I...
The difference is that in single player PvE you are not stopping anyone doing something. You are not forcing someone's guns arbitrarily off in some mickey-mouse immersion breaking "game" rule, just because you might not want to get shot at (even though you can run away or fire back, that seems to be lost on you
NPCs can shoot you. Why not players? I'd rather play as an NPC... at least the gun that I've worked hard to obtain actually works!
You're not one of those 10,000 single player PvE guys... why do you care what they can do or what YOU consider realistic/immersive when they get together - it doesn't touch you!
They can't take an OFFLINE single player to another group, but they can take a single player ONLINE character to another group.
(I agree on the social reasons, but for the sake of this argument it needs to be made clear that it is, in fact, possible to have such modes without the free switching such that the necessity of the switch can be discussed.)
If the in-game careers are so low-margin that you can't make considerably more than 25 credits / minute profit once you've paid off your startup costs, I'd be extremely surprised. The previous games you'd make more profit than that off a single cargo canister on a good trade route. Especially if you scooped that canister off someone else...
I'm in agreement with you that it's not a useful way to stop griefers, but if that's the size of the best money-making exploit the game has, I think Frontier will be doing amazingly well.
Exactly. All players together. I don't want the multiplayer base to be smaller than it can be. I don't consider it a problem with the game. The problem lies with the player.
Not lost, just a bit irrelevant (to me). For one thing, we don't know if it's going to be practical to run away or not - so scaremongering about that isn't helping. Secondly, you can call on friends / allies / randoms to help. Thirdly, depending on the circumstances of the attack, it can be classed as griefing and appropriate punishments should be meted out. Fourthly, if you're not playing Ironman, you get your ship back straight away if you're blown up, so why would you care if your ship is destroyed by either a player or an NPC?
Says who? I've already said I'm not overly bothered about PvP - my concern is the game as a whole, and splitting the userbase further into PvE and PvP groups harms the game. That's why I'm arguing against it. I'll continue to argue against any ideas which threaten to dumb down or sanitise the game in this way.
True enough.
Make it work. FD´s job. Otherwise ->ban
And I agreed to that about 10 posts ago, you are either blind or think that the switching is the only problem. I don´t want GROUPS... AT ALL.
Sure, how many GAME accounts will they buy? That´s great, FD will make millions alone from the griefers... 49$ per game account, that will make ´em rich. 100 credits is totally worth paying 49$ each time.
Btw, have you heard about IP adress lockouts?
No. Makes zero sense.
Because the peristant universe needs global rules and rewards for everyone and a risk vs. reward model. If some group (let´s call it PVE-only players) have a way to make equal money with less risk (no chance of PvP happening), it´s an exploit and will force others to go PvE-only too. Again, as I said, I will go for the quickest way of least resistance (PvE-only) although I like the chance of PvP.
Gaming psychology. People will cripple their own gameplay to chase the carrot.
you can still have friends and meet them in game without filtering out everyone else from the universe.
which I did several times, but your blindness seems to get worse
That is with a big margin the most ridiculous game mechanic idea I have ever read about or seen in any game.
Single player online
That is with a big margin the most ridiculous game mechanic idea I have ever read about or seen in any game.
Single player online
Ironically, it was brought in precisely because people said they just wanted to play against the game and not always other players.
But actually it makes complete sense when the online system works using groups. If there's nobody in your group, then you are a single player online.
See, now this is a legitimate argument (well, at least that third sentence, anyway).
Let's look at the alternatives:
- Doing PvP-only will disappoint PvE players and they'll either play offline or not at all.
- Doing PvE-only will disappoint PvP players and immersionists, and they leave.
- Doing PvP-consensual will disappoint some PvP players and immersionists, and they leave.
- Attempting to bring PvE-only game style into PvP space will disappoint PvE players, PvP players, and immersionists, and they leave.
- Making separate universes (one for PvP players and immersionists, and one for PvE players) keeps all three groups happy, and they don't leave.
But I agree, it could be improved upon, with an extra group:
You still have the PvP/PvE option, plus a third option (PvAll?) which will assume you don't care which side you're playing. You can be matched with players in either group, and any PvAll players that are in the same instance can engage in combat if desired.
If you're in an instance that contains PvP players, this will act as normal. However, if you're in an instance that contains PvE players, the PvE player will not be able to shoot or be shot by you.
This means all (non-Ironman) players can appear in the PvAll group, increasing the number of players there, while those who want immersion can still stick to PvP, and those who don't want player combat can stick to PvE. The PvP and PvE groups still cannot meet, as explained before, but I think allowing players to choose to appear in both should keep all the advantages of a separate PvE group while also bringing PvE players into the "full" game, if you like.
Nobody commented on it when I posted it the first time, but since it's relevant again...
A bit tangential to PvP, but I think this sounds rather neat. Deciding a matter of honour at dawn over a planet's equator sounds very Imperial, and having some type of in-game recognition (newsfeed article, medal, etc.) would be an easy way to encourage it.
If you agreed to that about ten posts ago, then why do you keep saying
when you've already agreed that it shouldn't have a switch? You won't be able to switch to PvE if there isn't in-game switching. So it's not a valid argument against PvE mode.
Erm... what?
Fairly sure you won't have to buy the entire game again whenever you lose your commander. I know you're all for that, but I'm not, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Sure, and that's not an in-game penalty, which means it might work. Shame it's only effective after they've done the damage, though.
Foxes and rabbits.
It's possible to play the game solo. The "exploit" (note that if there's no group switching, which you've already agreed to, then these groups will never see each other anyway, so it doesn't exist) is completely irrelevant to the existence of a PvE mode. So it's not a valid argument against a PvE mode.
That's their choice.
********************
********************
And ladies and gentlemen, now it's time for the main attraction:
Remember when I said that thing about you not responding to my posts? Yeah, this is what I mean.
If I can respond to your post with exactly the same quote and have it make sense as a relevant response both times, you're not paying any attention to what's being said.
So my response to that is just going to be
and apparently it's my eyesight that's bad.
It's an interesting idea, but I suspect the main problem is that it will make the definition of "environment" even more tangled than it is.
Is an NPC "environment"? Is an NPC escorting/being escorted by a player "environment"? Is an NPC attacking a player "environment" from the point of view of an unrelated player? Is an NPC ally of a player who is currently logged off "environment"? Is a cargo pod which another player is in the process of extracting from an NPC "environment"? (Do we need multiple PvE groups with different answers to those questions? [1])
I can't see an easy way to answer those questions which doesn't leave the PvE group open to some sort of exploit where you don't shoot another player, you just hire some NPCs to do it for you - but mixing players with different rulesets in the same physical space just makes it impossible.
[1] This is why I'm in favour of keeping the basic ruleset for the game PvP but having private groups (probably very large ones) to join if you want a particular PvE style, and if you can't stick to the rules you get booted out. Some of those groups might regard attacking your NPC comrades to leave you vulnerable to NPC bounty hunters as even worse than just shooting at you directly; others might feel that entire pirate groups becoming invulnerable just because one player joins them makes it really hard for them to make a bounty-hunter's living.
I'm dividing my wall of text into two posts more or less divided by topic.
Knowing that NPCs are mindless opponents made just to entertain me, and so an integral part of the game; while other players are (hopefully) intelligent beings that consciously choose to attack me.
Besides, players engaged in non-consensual PvP typically go for cheap tactics where they only attack when they are guaranteed to win, making the conflict far less fun for their victims. As someone that never attacks without being sure that my "target" is willing to engage, this means that I typically only get the "not fun" fights in situations with non-consensual PvP.
From a psychological point of view, this too
More or less my case too. I do like PvP when it's fully consensual, more akin to a friendly sparring match than a war, mind you.
The difference is that I never trust in the player base as a whole. If not kicking me when I'm down is left to the players discretion I will simply not play the game. If the game prevents me from being kicked while I'm down - by not having much in the way of death penalties, for example - then I usually can still play it despite the fact I never attack unprovoked.
And I also don't see anything positive for me, personally, in other players being able to attack me. I might play a game despite that if the rest of the game is really good, but I've never seen a game where non-consensual PvP ever added anything positive for me, personally.
Which is exactly why I tend to suicide myself instead of fighting back. It often removes most of the fun for the players that attacked me in the first place.
Knowing that NPCs are mindless opponents made just to entertain me, and so an integral part of the game; while other players are (hopefully) intelligent beings that consciously choose to attack me.
Besides, players engaged in non-consensual PvP typically go for cheap tactics where they only attack when they are guaranteed to win, making the conflict far less fun for their victims. As someone that never attacks without being sure that my "target" is willing to engage, this means that I typically only get the "not fun" fights in situations with non-consensual PvP.
When you get killed by an NPC - it doesn't hurt!
From a psychological point of view, this too
More or less my case too. I do like PvP when it's fully consensual, more akin to a friendly sparring match than a war, mind you.
The difference is that I never trust in the player base as a whole. If not kicking me when I'm down is left to the players discretion I will simply not play the game. If the game prevents me from being kicked while I'm down - by not having much in the way of death penalties, for example - then I usually can still play it despite the fact I never attack unprovoked.
And I also don't see anything positive for me, personally, in other players being able to attack me. I might play a game despite that if the rest of the game is really good, but I've never seen a game where non-consensual PvP ever added anything positive for me, personally.
Norman Stansfield said:
Which is exactly why I tend to suicide myself instead of fighting back. It often removes most of the fun for the players that attacked me in the first place.
Once again.
I hate the grouping concept.
If they absolutely insist on keeping the grouping concept (which I hate), the very least they should do to is making the selection permanent. No switching of groups, ever.
Got it this time? That still doesn´t make me a fan of the grouping concept and I´d still like to kill it with fire.
I said repercussions are against ACCOUNTS, not commanders. Then you were talking about "NEW ACCOUNTS" as a way out for griefers.
Changing scenario again to make your concerns seem more logical?
They are not. Accounts cost money and they have an IP on it.
yeah funny, with missing context.
If you are online taking part in the persistant universe, and you select who you see and who you don´t see, it´s still a filter which filters everyone else out of the universe, you can twist it positively and call it "priority seating for you friends" if you want, but it´s still a priority credits mill/easy mode option.
And boy I´m going to use it all day long ruining my own fun until I quit and move on.
I'm dividing my wall of text into two posts more or less divided by topic. This is part two.
1. PvP is not the only way to provide danger.
2. A risk of non-consensual PvP very much removes most of my enjoyment in a game, with a few narrow exceptions that tend to remove even more of the danger than allowing me to avoid PvP.
3. Private groups online will allow players to opt out of PvP anyway, bringing the exact elements you don't want even if there is no PvP/PvE separation.
Not true at all. This only seems so in games because opponent AIs in computer games are very much built from the ground up to lose.
Also, most of the player base tend to not be actually skilled in the game anyway, typically far easier to defeat than the NPCs designed to actually be a challenge.
Heck, pick an average skill player in most of those online games that provide bots for practice and ask him if he can defeat the hardest difficulty bots; most of those players will answer no. This is the same for Counter Strike, Starcraft 2, Scrolls, online board games like chess and checkers, and almost every single game where the devs actually decided to provide a bot that a skilled player would find fun to play against; an average skill player simply has no chance against a bot meant to be engaging for the really skilled players. In other words, facing random players is actually LESS DANGEROUS than facing consistently hard bots/NPCs.
And how, for a player that is looking for a fight against NPCs but not against other players, is it any fun to have to avoid specific systems due to player presence? It makes the whole game worse for me and anyone that thinks along similar lines.
Also, if the chance of meeting someone to fight is so small as to not matter, why not give PvE players the assurance that other players won't fire on them? If what you point is true, it wouldn't matter anyway.
They also said that players can be online but never see any other player, or only see their friends. That was also established early on in the Kickstarter, and reinforced recently on the forums. Which, for all intents and purposes, will have almost all effects that allowing characters to jump back and forth between online and offline would have, except for not allowing outright cheats.
And, sincerely, if Frontier ever remove the ability to play online in private groups without providing a PvE-only alternative, I'm going to ask for my money back. Not interested at all in a game where I can't opt out of PvP, and the way the proposed grouping system allows me to completely avoid PvP even while playing online was a big part of the reason I pledged at all.
Also a cornerstone for Shroud of the Avatar. And also offered by Demon Souls and Dark Souls (any player that doesn't become human can't directly interact with other players, but can still see and send messages, see other player's ghosts, etc). Most Diablo 3 players (an online-only game) also only play solo, despite the fact Blizzard made playing in groups both give more rewards and give rewards faster.
It's becoming more common in MMOs, too. LotRO has solo instanced skirmishes; WoW has the solo-only Brawler's Guild content, solo instanced scenarios, solo instanced pet battles, solo instanced farming, and will be adding solo instanced proving grounds; STO has most, if not all, of the instanced episodic content soloable; DCUO has instanced solo "dungeons"; almost all instanced content in Marvel Heroes, including the whole storyline, is meant to be soloable; in GW1 players can do almost all content solo by using NPC helpers; and so on.
And being able to do most, if not all, content in the game solo is one of my requirements to actually play an online game. I actually like grouping when the chance presents itself, but I'm not willing to have my ability to do content held hostage to how many other players willing to do that same content I can find.
1. PvP is not the only way to provide danger.
2. A risk of non-consensual PvP very much removes most of my enjoyment in a game, with a few narrow exceptions that tend to remove even more of the danger than allowing me to avoid PvP.
3. Private groups online will allow players to opt out of PvP anyway, bringing the exact elements you don't want even if there is no PvP/PvE separation.
Not true at all. This only seems so in games because opponent AIs in computer games are very much built from the ground up to lose.
Also, most of the player base tend to not be actually skilled in the game anyway, typically far easier to defeat than the NPCs designed to actually be a challenge.
Heck, pick an average skill player in most of those online games that provide bots for practice and ask him if he can defeat the hardest difficulty bots; most of those players will answer no. This is the same for Counter Strike, Starcraft 2, Scrolls, online board games like chess and checkers, and almost every single game where the devs actually decided to provide a bot that a skilled player would find fun to play against; an average skill player simply has no chance against a bot meant to be engaging for the really skilled players. In other words, facing random players is actually LESS DANGEROUS than facing consistently hard bots/NPCs.
And how, for a player that is looking for a fight against NPCs but not against other players, is it any fun to have to avoid specific systems due to player presence? It makes the whole game worse for me and anyone that thinks along similar lines.
Also, if the chance of meeting someone to fight is so small as to not matter, why not give PvE players the assurance that other players won't fire on them? If what you point is true, it wouldn't matter anyway.
They also said that players can be online but never see any other player, or only see their friends. That was also established early on in the Kickstarter, and reinforced recently on the forums. Which, for all intents and purposes, will have almost all effects that allowing characters to jump back and forth between online and offline would have, except for not allowing outright cheats.
And, sincerely, if Frontier ever remove the ability to play online in private groups without providing a PvE-only alternative, I'm going to ask for my money back. Not interested at all in a game where I can't opt out of PvP, and the way the proposed grouping system allows me to completely avoid PvP even while playing online was a big part of the reason I pledged at all.
That is with a big margin the most ridiculous game mechanic idea I have ever read about or seen in any game.
Single player online
Also a cornerstone for Shroud of the Avatar. And also offered by Demon Souls and Dark Souls (any player that doesn't become human can't directly interact with other players, but can still see and send messages, see other player's ghosts, etc). Most Diablo 3 players (an online-only game) also only play solo, despite the fact Blizzard made playing in groups both give more rewards and give rewards faster.
It's becoming more common in MMOs, too. LotRO has solo instanced skirmishes; WoW has the solo-only Brawler's Guild content, solo instanced scenarios, solo instanced pet battles, solo instanced farming, and will be adding solo instanced proving grounds; STO has most, if not all, of the instanced episodic content soloable; DCUO has instanced solo "dungeons"; almost all instanced content in Marvel Heroes, including the whole storyline, is meant to be soloable; in GW1 players can do almost all content solo by using NPC helpers; and so on.
And being able to do most, if not all, content in the game solo is one of my requirements to actually play an online game. I actually like grouping when the chance presents itself, but I'm not willing to have my ability to do content held hostage to how many other players willing to do that same content I can find.
:S
So 10,000 solo PvE players join one big group where PvP is disabled... in what way does that affect you... exactly?
If you're not fussed about PvP, as you say, it gives you a big social group to join if the Ironman/PvP options end up not suiting you for whatever reasons.
If you like the Ironman/PvP option then those 10,000 soloists you'd never have encountered, and are happily playing away in their own bubble, are still never seen by you!
Now I'm not so disingenuous to say that all the PvE players would come from solo groups, some would come from the Normal group, sure. But a limited number and even then, if it improves their game, to the very slight detriment to yours, isn't that worth it?
I believe you're actually wrong that it harms the game - it gets MORE people playing together (albeit in 3 rather than 2 main groups) and it would be a big sell for the game. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, whatever your (and my) personal views, whatever Frontier do, there are many people who will not even try the game without seeing a multiplayer PvE option. They've formed their opinions and tastes over years and won't read this argument, won't care that Frontier have created "revolutionary at limitation mechanics" - they'll simply see the options and put the box down/click on another game link.
- Status