They've already said that if you start an offline game, you won't be able to switch to online with the same character. That was established early on in the Kickstarter.
that´s cool - didn´t see that info. Great decision.
They've already said that if you start an offline game, you won't be able to switch to online with the same character. That was established early on in the Kickstarter.
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).
In-game penalties do not work against griefers.
many of us do not want in-game group switching
*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!
that´s cool - didn´t see that info. Great decision.
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.
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...Gary and Fred have just earned 50 credits from nothing for a couple of minutes' work.
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.
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.
Make it work. FD´s job. Otherwise ->banIn-game penalties do not work against griefers. See post above.
Except, and I'll put this in big letters because you've missed it several times already...
many of us do not want in-game group switching
Can you read that? Is that big enough for you? I've posted it ELEVEN times in this thread, and you've apparently failed to read it eleven times.
Gary the Griefer - 100 credits.
Fred the Friend (of Gary) - 100 credits.
Gary kills Fred.
Gary has to pay money to Fred.
Gary the Griefer - 0 credits.
Fred the Friend - 150 credits.
Gary deletes his account.
Gary creates a new account.
Gary the Griefer - 100 credits.
Fred the Friend - 150 credits.
Gary and Fred have just earned 50 credits from nothing for a couple of minutes' work.
No. Makes zero sense.It doesn't make sense that less pirates = more traders = more griefers?
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.But why not have a PvE online? You still haven't explained, except by claiming it's somehow immersion breaking though apparently Ironman, private groups and solo groups aren't even though they're all abstractions of the same thing.
It doesn't filter out everyone else from your Universe. It gives priority seating to your friends.
Good to know. At least you're attempting to respond to my posts for once.
They can't take an OFFLINE single player to another group, but they can take a single player ONLINE character to another group.
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
![]()
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.
DUEL OPTION ALWAYS POSSIBLE
You can hail another ship, in all systems (except high traffic homeworlds) and request a duel. If the other ship agrees, no repercussions will apply. Special titles ("Elite Duelist"), high rewards for successful Duelists.
If a third ship intervenes without officially joining the duel, it will be considered as "unlawful" activity, making the intervening ship "criminal".
Up to 32 ships can join a duel, but the same number of ships has to be on both sides. (e.g. 2 vs. 2, 4 vs. 4, etc.)
And I agreed to that about 10 posts ago, you are either blind or think that the switching is the only problem.
what´s a genuine pirate? Everyone can´t be a pirate, all traders will switch to PvE, including myself - as soon as I have anything precious on board - switcheroo I´ll do the PvE trick like everyone else, yay! Immersion FTW
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.
yeah it´s useless. It can still be a list of friends, doesn´t mean it filters out everyone else from your universe
It doesn't filter out everyone else from your Universe. It gives priority seating to your friends.
you can still have friends and meet them in game without filtering out everyone else from the universe.
It doesn't filter out everyone else from your Universe. It gives priority seating to your friends.
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.Nobody commented on it when I posted it the first time, but since it's relevant again...
What's the difference between being killed by a player or an NPC?
When you get killed by an NPC - it doesn't hurt!![]()
I find being killed by other players annoying, but not a deal-breaker so long as they have the decorum not to then kick me when I'm down. However, I have no interest in killing other players - my brain simply doesn't reward me with the rush some people experience on beating another person.
That means I can lose the most dangerous game or break even - the only winning move is not to play. What can you offer to make a universe where people are allowed to kill me a more rewarding experience than one where they're not?
Although I'm sure that will happen, I suspect some will see this as part of the spice in PvP. To quote a line from a great movie:
Norman Stansfield said:I take no pleasure in taking a life if it's from a person who doesn't care about it.
Once again.If you agreed to that about ten posts ago, then why do you keep saying
I said repercussions are against ACCOUNTS, not commanders. Then you were talking about "NEW ACCOUNTS" as a way out for griefers.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.
And ladies and gentlemen, now it's time for the main attraction:
and apparently it's my eyesight that's bad.
Because a game without danger (infinite lives and no PvP) takes everything that is "Dangerous" out of Elite: Dangerous.
PvP should be a risk for a PvEr. Not a certainty.
I would doubt that very much... but as anyone will tell you, a human player will always be more challenging to defeat than a computer following a limited set of AI rules.
In a galaxy of 100,000,000,000 systems, who exactly is forcing you to compete against other players?
Not being funny - but this is something that the PvE advocators simply gloss over or refuse to answer. And it's pretty critical to the whole debate.
They've already said that if you start an offline game, you won't be able to switch to online with the same character. That was established early on in the Kickstarter.
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
![]()
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.