Why are players treated differently then NPCs?

If the developers are trying to create an immersive experience of being a starship commander, why do we need the immersion breaking feature of representing NPC and Players differently in the game world? It serves no benefit what so ever to the majority of players but does serve to benefit one small subset of players, the PKers. Now if Elite was designed primarily as a PvP game with low death penalty costs, this would make sense, but it was not; it was designed as a multi-player game with allowed PvP.

This is one of the primary reasons why open play is just a big draw for PK focused players and why many of us why welcome the risk of PvP choose to instead just avoid open play. We accept that we could become the victim of a bit of random violence, but do not want to fly around space with huge targets on or backs. Please don't get me wrong, in no way do I want to restrict the chosen play styles for those who with to just watch the world burn. That is entirely their choice. I just don't want to stand out. Its no different then forcing any group of people in the real world to openly display their differences, thus making them easy targets for those wishing to do them harm.

The solution to this inequality could be resolved in three steps, two of which should have a low dev cost. Step one would be to replace the open icon representing players with the closed icons of NPCs. Step two would be to either remove CMDR form player pilot names or add it to NPC pilot names. After All we are all part of the same Pilots Federation. The final step would be to increase NPC traffic around stations. An additional step which would have a higher dev cost would be to add all local NPCs to the local comms screen.

It would still be possible for a player to tell the difference between an NPC and Player by bringing up the comm screen and looking at the interaction options as we can't currently open comms with NPC but it would now require a little effort to single out players from NPCs. This in itself would reduce the risk of random or targeted aggression that players face in Open Play enough, to bring many players currently playing in Private Groups or Solo, back to Open Play. I don't have a problem running a blockade to bring goods to market, but I do want even odds, just like every other in game entity.
 
Every single multiplayer game I can think of does the same thing. Players and npcs are not the same, so there is no reason to make them look like they are. Your suggestion would make open play just as boring as solo.
 
Last edited:
Every single multiplayer game I can think of does the same thing. Players and npcs are not the same, so there is no reason to make them look like they are. Your suggestion would make open play just as boring as solo.

I agree with both you and the OP, bit of a double edged one this.

Singling out PCs as identifiable pings on scanners does allow those who "just want to make the world burn" target them, however it does also give you a heads up as well - a PC is quite possibly going to be more dangerous than an NPC (although Dev-Sarah seems to be challenging this somewhat! Evil woman :) J/K ). We can't allow players to turn on and off their player markers at will otherwise it would allow them to hide as an NPC until they want to pounce and if you think it's a NPC near you then you're likely to be more relaxed than a PC. There's already "stealth" in the game for this purpose and the appropriate use of stealth takes some skill and patience to balance heat appropriately.

In my opinion it's more important that NPCs and PCs follow all the same in-game rules regarding weapon deployment and use, flight restrictions, scanning, fines and bounties and generally to have each NPC have an aim to their existence other than to be there purely to be shot at (or to be an extra like in The Truman Show, just repeating the same scripted motion path indefinitely).
 
This was discussed at considerable length in the DDF prior to game launch.

About 2/3 of the forum was in favour of not distinguishing players from NPCs, mostly citing the arguments you have also given. The rest wanted to see players.

The developers' solution was an optional transponder, switched off by default, but which could be switched on by choice. Only players who both had their transponders on would immediately see each other as players on the radar.

In the end the whole discussion was shelved when more pressing development issues arose. The system that was in place - NPCs and players being distinct - was kept, and I doubt very much that it will change.
 
Last edited:
Now if Elite was designed primarily as a PvP game with low death penalty costs, this would make sense, but it was not; it was designed as a multi-player game with allowed PvP.

This can easily be argued the opposite way. If the design idea is that players would only rarely attack other players (which it was) then we would need to know which are players and which are NPCs in order to avoid attacking players.
 
Removing player indicators would not just kill PK, but would make every other player interaction impossible as well. At this point you could just play solo.

Pretty much this and what SteveLaw says.

Why hobble the interactive side of the game just because of the OP's misapprehension that the game is mostly full of random PKers. All the random chats I've had with people would now no longer be viable and one of the most interesting aspects of playing in Open would disappear. I'd sooner that they showed a 3rd icon for those that don't want the risk or chance of combat in open with a cotton wool icon and essentially make them ghosts that have no physical existence for other players in open.
 
This was discussed at considerable length in the DDF prior to game launch.

About 2/3 of the forum was in favour of not distinguishing players from NPCs, mostly citing the arguments you have also given. The rest wanted to see players.

The developers' solution was an optional transponder, switched off by default, but which could be switched on by choice. Only players who both had their transponders on would immediately see each other as players on the radar.

In the end the whole discussion was shelved when more pressing development issues arose. The system that was in place - NPCs and players being distinct - was kept, and I doubt very much that it will change.

Maybe it's time this debate was reopened, possibly with a poll as a basis for discussion?
 
I have spent the last two weeks in open play and have yet to run across an aggressive player. So no I am not assuming that Open Play is dominated by PK focused players. I fully understand that they will tend to concentrate around the same events that draw players. I started this thread as an opener for further discussion and to present an option about a change which could draw more players back to that game mode. PK focused players want more players in general in Open Play. The players unhappy about the level of player predation want some hope of avoiding predation while still having some risk. I am sure their are many other possibilities bouncing around other people brains. One of the reasons I was drawn to Eve was that everyone played in the same world same instance. Over time the PK focused crowd left the fringes of lawless space and find ways to thrive in the areas of space which were intended to be somewhat safe for new players. My concern is that Elite is heading down a similar path.

My idea was base on a reducing risk through obscurity and would be an easy to implement bandaid. I think the fundamental issues are far deeper. We all want to have interaction with our fellow players, those in Solo being the exception. At its core I think the real issues are that a single ship loss is more than most people are willing to accept, not because it sucks, but because it represents a significant loss in time investment. For the casual player or those focused on things other that combat, a single ship loss, could represent days of recovery time during which they could be faced with the same loss again before they can make it up. For me this is a direct result of the huge scaling in the cost of ships and their modules. For a sandbox with combat ad ship loss a very real possibility on a regular basis, the costs are rather steep.

The idea I presented may not be viable. I get that. Something else might be. However before we can find a good solution, perhaps we need to discuss the end goals, the obstacles currently in our way preventing us from achieving those goals and then work towards a solution. We were trying to do this in Beta but things changed very fast with not nearly enough discussion, testing and evaluation.
 
Personally I would support the idea of not knowing who were players and who were npcs on the simple grounds that in the game universe ALL the ships are flown by people. We are just pretending to be some of those people, as are the npcs. Not knowing increases the immersion and the 'realness' of the situation because just like the aggressor would not know who was who, so the victim would not know either and therefore treat all with the same suspicion. Makes for a better game imo. The proposed transponder idea would seem to be the best and simplest solution to any of the counter arguments.
 
Personally I would support the idea of not knowing who were players and who were npcs on the simple grounds that in the game universe ALL the ships are flown by people. We are just pretending to be some of those people, as are the npcs. Not knowing increases the immersion and the 'realness' of the situation because just like the aggressor would not know who was who, so the victim would not know either and therefore treat all with the same suspicion. Makes for a better game imo. The proposed transponder idea would seem to be the best and simplest solution to any of the counter arguments.

Isn't the difference that CMDRs (players) are members of the Pilot's Federation and your ordinary pilots (NPCs) aren't? In which case it makes sense that we would be able to know the difference. If not then it makes more sense to hide the difference.
 
Last edited:
Can someone clarify the issue here? I really don't understand the problem with NPCs and Players from being distinguished.
Plus, most people have aliases, which is clearly different from Elite NPC's formal name.

And no one starts conversations like they do with NPCs, such as, "Prepare to die!" "Top o` the morning to you"
It's more like "Yo" or something like that. So, it will be obvious even if devs followed your suggestions.
 
Personally I would support the idea of not knowing who were players and who were npcs on the simple grounds that in the game universe ALL the ships are flown by people. We are just pretending to be some of those people, as are the npcs. Not knowing increases the immersion and the 'realness' of the situation because just like the aggressor would not know who was who, so the victim would not know either and therefore treat all with the same suspicion. Makes for a better game imo. The proposed transponder idea would seem to be the best and simplest solution to any of the counter arguments.

Exacly this.

At some time most combat pilots wil eventualy find npc's to be easy pray.
So when i see a npc with a bounty on his head i just think... Ahh payday... Easy money.
When i come acros a player with a bounty things are differant. Who knows how good he is? I start to get nervous(thats a good thing) and exited. And then again i think... Aahh payday... Hopefully ;)

So if i didn't know PC from NPC i would get more exitment and immersive gamplay, becouse anything i target could potentialy be a player en thus a threat to me.

I personaly would be happy if we would have the option not to see, i couldn't care less if others still could.
 
Removing player indicators would not just kill PK, but would make every other player interaction impossible as well. At this point you could just play solo.

Yeah, this false claim was used in the old discussions too.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't the difference that CMDRs (players) are members of the Pilot's Federation and your ordinary pilots (NPCs) aren't? In which case it makes sense that we would be able to know the difference. If not then it makes more sense to hide the difference.

No it makes no sense, as being a member of the PF is then just a proxy for being a PC.

POll on the transformer subject here:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=16341

Circular thread on the subject here:

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=16260
 
Last edited:
Isn't the difference that CMDRs (players) are members of the Pilot's Federation and your ordinary pilots (NPCs) aren't? In which case it makes sense that we would be able to know the difference. If not then it makes more sense to hide the difference.

Yep this is the lore reason at least. Theory being AFAIK that you do NOT mess with members of the PF. The law is corrupt and can be bought, however we PF members are meant to be a law above the average Jo, and as such get better treatment (inc insurance and such like) and the bottom line is, think twice before you kill one of us.

I see it kind of like made men in the mafia where we are seen as "untouchable" by fellow criminals, to be respected and feared.

now, to mix it up a bit, it would be nice to sometimes see AI who are also in the pilots federation, and equally I would like it if we could get booted out from it as well if our actions warranted it, and then have to work at getting back in (or we choose to fly without insurance, and other perks associated with it).
 
Last edited:
It makes sense if not all pilots are in the PF. We play the ones who are. I'm talking about making sense within the setting. In game justification. Internal logic.

But it is in-game logic for the sole purpose of an out-of-game piece of information. It does not satisfy anyone who want to role play and make in game decisions based on in game information. Now, I would have no problem with the PF being treated differently, just as long as the PF did not identify an out of game piece of information. So if some NPCs were in the PF (perhaps all those with ranking above X), and some PCs were not in the PF (And there was an in-game reason for that) then it would be fine.
 
But it is in-game logic for the sole purpose of an out-of-game piece of information. It does not satisfy anyone who want to role play and make in game decisions based on in game information. Now, I would have no problem with the PF being treated differently, just as long as the PF did not identify an out of game piece of information. So if some NPCs were in the PF (perhaps all those with ranking above X), and some PCs were not in the PF (And there was an in-game reason for that) then it would be fine.

It's not out-of-game information if there is a reason for it to be in-game information. To me this is like complaining that it's wrong that all players play soldiers in COD because some of them should play innocent bystanders. Can you play as a street cleaner in GTA?
 
Last edited:
I would like to see the world made more realistic with shifting economy etc.

I want the AI to be more realistic and acturly be able to hold there own, if players and npc's felt the same and thus the actions of NPC's groups had more power it would help reduce the massive affect that player groups are having atm with system flipping for example a player group flipping systems is going to off the group in charge of that system say its the empire or feds they can send in a battlefleet and there should be very little to no way in hell the players could defeat that.
 
Back
Top Bottom