The Tri-poll: What does multiplayer mean to YOU?

[jabokai]

<reasonable points snipped>

Yeah, but it's "just a game" - actions and consequences are also "just a game". It may seem more realistic in a way but ALL of us are going to destroy ships and not care whether the occupant lived or died in the game... is that realistic? Are we all casual, uncaring killers? No, it's just a game so people's actions, reactions, and consideration of consequences are also not going to be "realistic".

 

[Kerrash]

All I can think of is: Vigilantes Against Griefing and IN game Abuse.
But that acronym is just terrible

Still my point stands, if I saw someone attacked on the street; I would help. If I saw a griefer in game, I would kick their ass

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Hi, there, I haven't said much in these forums, but as an older player who likes to dip in and out of a game depending on what type of day I've had, I've opted for option 2 in this "survey".
As a veteran of "Eve Online" , one of the most annoying parts of the gameplay, was when you were attacked without provocation or worse "War" was declared on you, and you were then forced to fight everywhere you went regardless whether you wanted to or not, even if you were in a non combatant ship, if thats the right word for it.
At the risk of upsetting those who say well "thats the game" man up or leave, "Multiplayer" to me means just that, so an area where you can enjoy the game knowing your'e not going to lose what youv'e just spent the last couple of months saving your hard earnt credits for would be nice, yes I agree in real life we may not always have that luxury, but this for me is escapism from reality, and if I want to go out and engage in PVP then I would prefer to be given an option to take part, not have it forced on me, or if I did decide to take my nice shiny new ship out and through "risky" territory I do so knowing the consequencies.
I'm not whinning, just putting my opinion out there, I may be a "Carebear" in some peoples opinion, but it is only "my" opinion! and I will abide and play by whatever rules David Braben and his team finally come up with.

 

[Elrawkum]

We also had some unwelcomed visitors a few weeks back who represent the rather nastier side of the internet

From my perspective, some of your posts and that of other 'regulars' represent the 'nastier side of the internet' - bullying, twisting our words, accusing and ridiculing us to the point where our voices are drowned out or we leave in disgust and frustration.

I'm now slightly concerned that design decisions will be led by those with the loudest voices and those who might be a little intimidated by the same are not heard.

I'd request that the devs at least make extensive use of polls on important decisions so those of us who would rather not be exposed to 'bullies' don't have to be subjected to them.

 

[DigitalDuck]

I'd request that the devs at least make extensive use of polls on important decisions so those of us who would rather not be exposed to 'bullies' don't have to be subjected to them.

You know, there's a way that those who would rather not be exposed to 'bullies' don't have to be subjected to them in the game too... [/not appropriate at this point in time]

I fail to see how we have been the "bullies" in this case - it has gotten heated, and rather snarky, but we have actually been responding to posts; when something is posted, we do actually respond to what's being said, and make some attempt to equate that to reality.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

From my perspective, some of your posts and that of other 'regulars' represent the 'nastier side of the internet' - bullying, twisting our words, accusing and ridiculing us to the point where our voices are drowned out or we leave in disgust and frustration.

I'm now slightly concerned that design decisions will be led by those with the loudest voices and those who might be a little intimidated by the same are not heard.

I'd request that the devs at least make extensive use of polls on important decisions so those of us who would rather not be exposed to 'bullies' don't have to be subjected to them.

Hi Elrawkum,

First up, I'd like to apologise again on behalf of the regulars. This debate has exposed what I consider to be an open wound in the gaming community, and well-meaning people approaching it can easily find themselves infected. It hadn't occurred to me before, but in a conversation that attracts new people to the forum, I see how expressions of anguish from beleaguered regulars can look like bullying to someone new to the place.

In my experience, Liqua is a nice guy whose honesty sometimes outpaces his tact (and I say this as a frequent receiever of that honesty ). There really do exist people whose stated purpose is to derive joy from ruining the Internet for other people - see for example this article in Wired - and part of the DDF conversation involved diving into how that mentality would be reflected in ED. When you're talking in one thread about how to spot those guys, it's easy to open another thread and see them where they don't exist - that's not an excuse, but hopefully explains how the paranoia is an unwanted side-effect of a necessary process.

In a comment back in the Kickstarter, Michael Brookes described his hope the DDF would become "a focus group of admittedly the more hardcore fans to bounce ideas off", which I think has been pretty accurate. I would hope a quick look through the Design Decision Archive will show how we're making an honest attempt to be the voice of the players. The in-system travel discussion is particularly enlightening, as it shows how much we need a group of people able to shout loudly when the state of the art falls far below player expectations.

Having said that, it hasn't gone unnoticed that option 1 in this poll has steadily lost ground since the newsletter went out. We already kinda knew there was a correlation between people willing to get stuck into a dangerous universe and those willing to get stuck into a lively forum, but the evidence shines a light I expect Frontier will play close attention to. Remember a poll is not a referendum - they're a canny bunch up in Cambridge, and quite able to run in novel directions with the information we give them.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

From my perspective, some of your posts ...

Find said posts and click the red Triangle to report them to the admins. Then add me to your ignore list.

 

[Slawkenbergius]

Still my point stands, if I saw someone attacked on the street; I would help. If I saw a griefer in game, I would kick their ass

Or possibly die trying... I'll definitely stand on the side of good, and vow never to attack the weak (unless they talk trash about my mama).

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

(unless they talk trash about my mama).

/off_topic

Everytime I see something like that it reminds me of Road House with Patrick Swayze (RIP) and his conversation in the bar when advising the bouncers - awesome film.

/on_topic

Yes .. defending the weak is very important .. I think you need help holding onto that shiny can of whatever in your cargo hold so if you just transfer it here my good man I will hold onto it for you

 

[Kerrash]

Or possibly die trying... I'll definitely stand on the side of good, and vow never to attack the weak (unless they talk trash about my mama).

Exactly. It will make things more interesting anyway. Historically in most games the majority tend toward good whatever the choices available.

 

[DigitalDuck]

I apologise if anyone does feel they've been bullied by me. This is absolutely not my intention; I'm a tactless, snarky **** but I don't intend to insult or rile, only to inform and discuss.


Hopefully we'll all from an anti-griefing squad whatever happens, because getting rid of those guys is fun.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Now is it time for a group hug ?

 

[CaptGrumpyPants]

The combat equivalent to the former exists already (you can ignore particular players, takes effect on instance change), doesn't seem like much of a stretch to include the latter (PvE mode).

So, I've been wondering for days...If everything is in place to allow you to PvE without having an explicit PvE mode, why waste development time on something already supported/encouraged by the current design feature set?

Griefing becomes orders of magnitude harder to do when the system flags you as a criminal, places a bounty on your head and you suddenly are on EVERYONE's list as a target (including NPCs). So if you can ignore players, leave the ALL group or create you own group already, what justification is there for the expenditure of $$ and time on a strictly PvE option?

 

[DigitalDuck]

So, I've been wondering for days...If everything is in place to allow you to PvE without having an explicit PvE mode, why waste development time on something already supported/encouraged by the current design feature set?

Because everything ISN'T in place to allow you to PvE without having an explicit PvE mode - you can't select to ignore "anyone who might shoot me", you can only ignore people after they shoot you, and even then after one of you has left the instance (which may not be until after they've killed you) at which point they've already annoyed you if you don't want player combat.

So if you can ignore players, leave the ALL group or create you own group already, what justification is there for the expenditure of $$ and time on a strictly PvE option?

1. See above.
2. Leaving the ALL group or creating your own group does not allow you to meet new people.
3. A PvE option is so, so, so little cost, especially with a group system already in place, that it's absolutely worth it to allow a significant chunk of the player population to play the way they want. This in turn, increases the number of players playing, and therefore buying the game, as well as increasing the number of players playing online, and therefore making in-game purchases.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

why waste development time on something already supported/encouraged by the current design feature set?

It is supported (groups) but not encouraged (All pilots is PvAll)

what justification is there for the expenditure of $$ and time on a strictly PvE option?

The devs have explicitly stated they want you to ask for what you want, not what you think is within budget.

A proportion of the community would like PvE to exclude the PvP types from affecting their chosen game play, just like you would prefer them there to fight against. As you're unlikely to see the PvE crowd anyway it's not going to affect you (something that a lot of people still fail to understand) so giving them an all inclusive club affects no one. They would be in private groups (being hidden affecting the back-end galaxy servers) or an exclusive all-pilots-pve group to have the ability to meet new people (and again hidden from you affecting the back-end galaxy servers)

Win-Win .. apart from those who are insistent on PvP to prey on the weak.

 

[jabokai]

Just to point out that ignoring a player is primarily for comms, it's not very effective (by design) for removing the person from your gaming experience. See here - http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

 

[PacalB]

I apologise if anyone does feel they've been bullied by me. This is absolutely not my intention; I'm a tactless, snarky **** but I don't intend to insult or rile, only to inform and discuss.


Hopefully we'll all from an anti-griefing squad whatever happens, because getting rid of those guys is fun.

Digital, don't be ridiculous, you've said and done absolutely nothing wrong here. You've no need to apologise to anyone. You stated your "valid" opinions that's all. If others can't deal with that "new or old" I'd say, tough .. let em get on with it!

Also, others here need to get a reality check. If the game allows for an open free universe like some are going on about, it "will" lead to abuse [FD know this thankfully]. No hoping or wishing will make a blind bit of difference if the "Oh but we want a totally open sandbox" brigade get their way.

It's nothing to do with paranoia, its pure fact and has been shown time and time again in the past, if given total free reign they act like utter ats to each other. Anonymity lets to people being ****s, and then there are those that see, make and use that as part of their game at others expense.

That's the reality of a total free sandbox game.

 

[CaptGrumpyPants]

2. Leaving the ALL group or creating your own group does not allow you to meet new people.
3. A PvE option is so, so, so little cost, especially with a group system already in place, that it's absolutely worth it to allow a significant chunk of the player population to play the way they want. This in turn, increases the number of players playing, and therefore buying the game, as well as increasing the number of players playing online, and therefore making in-game purchases.

2- As you'll start in the CORE systems (which are also likely to remain the most heavily populated systems) which are heavily policed I think this point is moot. You'll meet plenty of people here and can begin building your groups there.

3- This is an opinion and has no basis in fact.

I am still seeing everyone using WOW type terms (PvE and PVP) to define gameplay for ELITE: Dangerous. I don't think applying the same terms, restrictions or play styles to a completely different type of game makes much sense. Those terms don't apply to COD type games and shouldn't be applied to ELITE, either (this IS an opinion but is also, at least lightly, based in fact)

 

[CaptGrumpyPants]

Adding features and changing gameplay for the sake of making more money is a misguided approach. If the goal is to add features or playstyles to get more types of players then pretty soon you have diluted the core gameplay experience such that the gameplay suffers and you lose players instead of building a stronger base. I'll try the game in it's final form but if it winds up that the design has changed such that PvALL (or PvP) has become the place you only go to dogfight others then I'll have to pass. I'd like to be able to prey upon other REAL players from time to time if the situation is profitable and not just be forced to dog fight all day because only people wanting to attack others all the time for no reason because suddenly there are two styles of gameplay that are derived from the design:

CO-OP ONLY
DOG FIGHT ONLY

I don't imagine that's what DB or the design team had in mind when they started and I hope they don't go that way. I am fully confident that the design a proposed will balance everything and make play enjoyable, though occasionally VERY TENSE for everyone. With distress calls, ignore lists, bounties, police and naval forces, private groups and offline play and other design features to alleviate griefing I think we're just fine the way we are. It may not seem like it to those seeking a pure PvE experience but doing so will indeed limit gameplay for everyone, whether intended or not, for the worse.

 

[Elrawkum]

You know, there's a way that those who would rather not be exposed to 'bullies' don't have to be subjected to them in the game too... [/not appropriate at this point in time]

I agree. At no point have I suggested those players be ignored. I don't think anyone has. Some are concerned about the effect mixed modes have in a non-level playing-field shared universe is all. It does not add to the conversation if you keep repeating the same basic misconception. Plus see the bit in my post you quoted about 'twisting words'.

I fail to see how we have been the "bullies" in this case

That's clearly part of the problem. You don't even know you're doing it.

Read the title of the thread. It isn't for you to tell others that what multiplayer means to them is wrong. It's bullying and rude. And. So. Is. Repeating. The. Same. Thing. Over. And. Over. Like. This. Is that how you address people face to face? Do they respond well?

If some of us think that multiplayer means a level playing field and 'mixing modes' within the same galaxy sounds unfair, that's a perfectly valid point of view and a valid answer to the question posed.

People shouting "You want to take my dummy away from me!!" (for that's how it comes across) is not helpful, accurate or the point, because nothing about the above remotely suggests taking anything away from anyone. Read the underlined italic part. The question asks us "in a perfect world..." and even if what we think is not possible, it still doesn't invalidate our ideas of "what multiplayer means to us".

Nobody wants to take anything away from anyone. We just want the game to be fair.

If there's nothing to worry about, let the devs tell us that, not you (who are you again?). Tell me, how many people in this thread have you 'shot down' (shouted down?) so far?

Let people have their say.

Hi Elrawkum,

First up, I'd like to apologise again on behalf of the regulars.

Thank you Andrew. Yours seems like a genuine response. I'm not quite so timid that the behaviour here has 'frightened me off' completely, but I've certainly been discouraged from posting if some of the behaviour I've witnessed so far is typical. Passionate discussion can be fun, but when it devolves to baseless accusations, snide insinuations, twisting words, shouting people down and general poor manners, I just find it stressful and very discouraging. Who needs it?

In my experience, Liqua is a nice guy

Unfortunately, not in mine.

Find said posts and click the red Triangle to report them to the admins. Then add me to your ignore list.

I did that. I don't know about the ignore list, but I can ignore you just fine without.

Now is it time for a group hug ?

No. Despite what Andrew said, you seem like a thoroughly unpleasant person. If this isn't accurate, some self-reflection might be in order.

I apologise if anyone does feel they've been bullied by me. This is absolutely not my intention; I'm a tactless, snarky **** but I don't intend to insult or rile, only to inform and discuss.

Cool. Apology accepted. Hopefully you'll take my comments above in the spirit they're meant and we can move on.

Hopefully we'll all from an anti-griefing squad whatever happens, because getting rid of those guys is fun.

What will we do with PvE griefers?