Read First Poll: How are you planning to play ED?

[Cosmos]

Why? If you die and you find that too stressful for you, simply move your dead guy to the all players group where he will be all alive again.

Just tempted.. by the challenge.. you know, putting it all up on the line.

I think I am great.. Am I really? :S

 

[Boardwalker]

All players group, easily. For older gamers, there was a time where single player was pretty much the only option, so I've had my fill playing by myself. I want to share the universe with others

 

[Lorenzo]

I prefer PVE but after some time farming and fighting npc's will get old so i vote All Players Group, i want to have some danger when i go out in space i want that trill of watching over my shoulders every sec.

 

[nats]

Havent voted because I honestly dont know yet. I dont like multiplayer games because other players do stupid things like crash into you on purpose or turn on you for no reason. Whereas single player for me would be the way to go but I cant help feeling I would miss the involvement of other players if they are like me and want to play for the experience.

So I dont know I will probably try both and see which I like the most, I honestly cant see multiplayer being very different to single players though because the game is going to be so large. If there are only 32 players per server thats nothing, chances are I will never meet any of them in my game.

I would prefer to have it like Rise of Flight where you can choose servers depending on how you like to play - for example go to dogfight servers if thats all you want to do all the time, or go to dedicated realism campaign servers to play enjoyable campaign games with like minded people. But I dont know whether that wll be the kind of thing on offer, I dont know much about online gaming to be honest.

 

[Barns]

If there are only 32 players per server thats nothing, chances are I will never meet any of them in my game.

Slight clarification, it's 32 players per instance, and there will be multiple instances per star system. So you'll have up to 32 players in a local area (say surrounding a station, or an asteroid field, or whatever). That's quite a lot.

 

[tooterfish]

There aren't any servers. The player limit is for instances, which are created dynamically and seamlessly as you play.

The all group will contain tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of players. You could potentially meet every single one of them.

 

[Sav112]

All players group, easily. For older gamers, there was a time where single player was pretty much the only option, so I've had my fill playing by myself. I want to share the universe with others

So very true back in the 80's MP was only a dream.....Prestel was as good as it got.

 

[Barns]

So very true back in the 80's MP was only a dream.....Prestel was as good as it got.

I strung a homemade RS232 cable from my bedroom window, high over next door's drive and into my friend's bedroom to connect our two Amiga 500s to play Stunt Car Racer multiplayer. Ahh happy days. That was my first "networked" multiplayer experience.

 

[Sav112]

Well played!

 

[BoldRover]

Reading the thread above, seems like a lot of people are inclined to switch groups, depending on what gives them an advantage. My native language is not English, but moreover it seems from the reactions above that a lot of people, even those in the "all" group, consider piracy or even pvp as "attery" and antisocial behaviour.

Is FD taking steps to counter this type of metagaming (group switching , or blocking users, as a means to get an advantage)?

A simple solution could be to make group choice permanent for a single character, and to restrict the effects of blocking to comms only, without restricting chances of encounters.

 

[Seonid]

Is FD taking steps to counter this type of metagaming (group switching , or blocking users, as a means to get an advantage)?

A simple solution could be to make group choice permanent for a single character, and to restrict the effects of blocking to comms only, without restricting chances of encounters.

Why would they need to take steps? if you find someone being a pain, for whatever reason, put the account on ignore and you will probably never see them again. This puts the choice in the hands of the player, rather then your solution of imposing your solution on all players.

 

[Stachel]

All. I can understand people wanting to play in private groups or solo and totally support it. But they should be required to use different profiles/characters for that and not be able to game the nuts out of it as will inevitibly happen.

 

[BoldRover]

Why would they need to take steps? if you find someone being a pain, for whatever reason, put the account on ignore and you will probably never see them again. This puts the choice in the hands of the player, rather then your solution of imposing your solution on all players.

I don't know how you got the idea that I'm imposing anything on anybody. I'm all for free choice of gaming mode, but it should be somehow permanent to avoid metagaming.

I can see the use of an ignore-list as well for people in chat channels, but not in the actual game itself. If you can be "harassed" in game by a game mechanic (again it's my impression that some people consider PvP as "harassement" rather than a game mechanic), than the design of the game itself allows for it. If people don't like that, then people should refrain from playing said game according to the ruleset permanently (eg. by choosing "solo mode", permanently).

The way the grouping and ignore mechanics are conceived now, as I understand it, is that people can use group switching, and the ignore list, to avoid PvP when it suits them, then switch back for the same reasons. In the current setup, I see a risk that people partake in PvP, then switch to another play mode, or ignore the pilot they agressed, in order to avoid retaliation by the same.

 

[rgb_astro]

The way the grouping and ignore mechanics are conceived now, as I understand it, is that people can use group switching, and the ignore list, to avoid PvP when it suits them, then switch back for the same reasons. In the current setup, I see a risk that people partake in PvP, then switch to another play mode, or ignore the pilot they agressed, in order to avoid retaliation by the same.

Read Design Discussion Forum's threads re player groups -- it's all there regarding the issues you have raised.

 

[deMangler]

Didn't vote because no option, but Ironman for me too. I won't repeat why, people are probably fed up with hearing me go on about it.

 

[Seonid]

I don't know how you got the idea that I'm imposing anything on anybody.

You have concerns on possible actions if some players switch groups and you propose a solution that affects all players, regardless of how they play. As rbg_astro says, the DDA covers all this from the perspective of FD.

 

[BoldRover]

You have concerns on possible actions if some players switch groups and you propose a solution that affects all players, regardless of how they play. As rbg_astro says, the DDA covers all this from the perspective of FD.

Seonid, Astro thanks for your feedback.

@seonid:
The solution I propose does indeed affect all players, as does any good/honest ruleset for that matter, and so does FD's own solution. So again, I respect the choice of game mode, I just prefer the rules to be the same for all at all times. So with everyone having a choice, and not "à la carte" (most suitable) ruleset according to the mindset or situation of the moment.

If with DDA, you are referring to:
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

Then this is the original source for my concern.

As I understand it from that thread:
1. switching groups is possible at any time:
- They can change this option at any time

2. "ignoring" people impacts chances of encountering them ingameeople on others ignore lists will not be favoured if a choice exists when match making players together

@astro:
If I understand the design correctly, this opens the door for the exploit mentioned above. Especially given the fact multiple persons in this thread openly voice their intended usage (which is quite normal since it is designed this way), albeit in vague terms.

I don't see this being mitigated in the thread you mention and which i did study before posting (maybe I'm referring to the wrong thread?).

 

[Barns]

Months ago, when the possibility of a non-pvp "all" group was being discussed as a place for pvp-averse players, the ability to temporarily drop to "Solo online" for those play sessions when you just didn't want to pvp was given as a solid reason not to have a separate non-pvp "all" group. If the switching is removed, we would need to reevaluate the pvp situation for players who want to be in a social "all" group but not engage in non-consensual pvp.

Also, I believe that the current proposal means that if you have a bounty against you, you are stuck in "all". So you can't kill another player then go "hide" in solo mode, if that was one of your concerns.

 

[Seonid]

Not only that:

If a person earns a bounty their ignore list and friend preferences won’t affect matchmaking, and bounty hunters will still be able to encounter the player, even if the bounty hunter is on the player’s ignore list

 

[BoldRover]

Also, I believe that the current proposal means that if you have a bounty against you, you are stuck in "all". So you can't kill another player then go "hide" in solo mode, if that was one of your concerns.

Not only that:

Thanks for clarifying guys. System already looks much better like this