Cant you control amount of PVP

[AnnuverScotinExile]

As far as I can tell the hysteria over this topic is all about ego. You get killed by an NPC.. fine, you get killed by another player.. blue murder is screamed followed by epic levels of QQ. Have I missed something?

Yes, but you know that, and continue to choose to ignore it.

So: first of all, choosing to play in 'All' does not mean you have signed up to

Please feel free to attack me at any time for any reason or for no reason at all

and if it becomes that, vast numbers will leave the all group to the detriment of nearly everyone.

The really big point here is that you are not really supposed to kill anyone in E: D. OK, there are exceptions: bounty hunters who have gone through the whole scanning thing are allowed, nay even encouraged, to do so. There will probably be missions where you side with one faction and are encouraged to kill ships from another faction, again without any problems (though I would not recommend visiting the space of that other faction). There will be other cases, too. But attacking another ship at random? Not encouraged. Of course, it is allowed in the sense that you will not be prevented from doing so, but there will be in game consequences that are intended to be enough to make you think at least twice about doing such a thing.

Piracy is supported, and even encouraged (in a morally neutral way). No problems. But the way you are encouraged to do it is the old 'stand and deliver' after scanning to make sure there is enough stuff to make the risk worthwhile.

So, if you do piracy 'properly', you will not hear any complaints from me. And if I choose to try to run away, and you chase and kill me, then you will not hear me calling that griefing. Similarly, if I try to kill you for your bounty, and you kill me, then that is not griefing, even though it is still a crime (which seems daft to me).

But if you just start shooting at me, with no scan, no stand and deliver, no knowledge of what I am carrying (and no other valid in game reason), then you are a jerk, and I will feel perfectly justified in calling you a griefer. NPCs may well do all the 'proper pirate' stuff (from A4!), but they will not be programmed for the latter.

 

[Memnoch]

Honestly, totally without virtiol, I am just blown away by how anyone (again without virtriol) can not appreciate what I am advocating is the only way to do this.

I think that might be the problem, that you see this as the only way and no one else could possibly be right. There's a word for that I think.

You may well be right, but these are only your opinions and you have to accept that you may also be wrong.

I hated Eve with a passion and just didn't enjoy playing it so I don't want that. And as for COD, that series died a long time ago for me. Besides, I was more into Battlefield anyway.

From my perspective, I don't see any one player, or even a handful, could possibly upset the apple cart as it were, no matter how much money they have or how they earned it. Fair play to them.

Perhaps I am closer to those people that want a third person camera than I realise or dare to admit?!

 

[Cosmos]

Yes, but you know that, and continue to choose to ignore it.

So: first of all, choosing to play in 'All' does not mean you have signed up to



and if it becomes that, vast numbers will leave the all group to the detriment of nearly everyone.

The really big point here is that you are not really supposed to kill anyone in E: D. OK, there are exceptions: bounty hunters who have gone through the whole scanning thing are allowed, nay even encouraged, to do so. There will probably be missions where you side with one faction and are encouraged to kill ships from another faction, again without any problems (though I would not recommend visiting the space of that other faction). There will be other cases, too. But attacking another ship at random? Not encouraged. Of course, it is allowed in the sense that you will not be prevented from doing so, but there will be in game consequences that are intended to be enough to make you think at least twice about doing such a thing.

Piracy is supported, and even encouraged (in a morally neutral way). No problems. But the way you are encouraged to do it is the old 'stand and deliver' after scanning to make sure there is enough stuff to make the risk worthwhile.

So, if you do piracy 'properly', you will not hear any complaints from me. And if I choose to try to run away, and you chase and kill me, then you will not hear me calling that griefing. Similarly, if I try to kill you for your bounty, and you kill me, then that is not griefing, even though it is still a crime (which seems daft to me).

But if you just start shooting at me, with no scan, no stand and deliver, no knowledge of what I am carrying (and no other valid in game reason), then you are a jerk, and I will feel perfectly justified in calling you a griefer. NPCs may well do all the 'proper pirate' stuff (from A4!), but they will not be programmed for the latter.

As I said I really wish we'd have a PvE / PvP divide as many other games have done.. I think both camps would be happy as a result.

It seems to me creating a pre-defined set of rules for what is acceptable is a complete divergence from the concept of a sandbox game.

By this assumed logic its not going to be okay for an NPC to destroy your ship either and I think its also worth reiterating that you aren't going to be able to kill anyone in game, you'll just be able to destroy their ship. Now if then you were able to destroy their escape pod with them in it - I can see why that would upset people, but thats not the case.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

edit: and once again I notice there is this 'perceived' idea that any time someone beats you they are deriving some sick warped enjoyment from your defeat.. I've had my ass handed to me plenty of times in ED and many other games and I laugh it off, learn from the experience and use it to further develop my skills. I've also enjoyed many excellent battles with other players whom all enjoyed the challenge. Not directed at you Andrew, but I seriously suggest the problem in this area is with the individual.

Funnily enough, I actually agree with you for once. There are times when I 'just want a game', and flying around in an Elite dogfight would be fun. No consequences, no hard feelings, just a 'well done' tot he guy that beats me, and a warm fuzzy feeling (certainly nothing sick) if I should win. But that is not how I will usually want to come to the game: I will be role playing my role, skulking around avoiding danger, making careful decisions, and so on.

But that still does not mean I support a PvE and PvP split: I still want to play PvP, but on the assumption that everyone else will be playing 'properly'. I would be perfectly happy for some sort of 'arena' mode that was not tied to your commander, where you could just go and blast away, no strings attached.

 

[Roland2]

No. People can choose to play the game in any way they choose. Choice being the operative word. If they choose to create a solo-only character they are safe to do what they want. If they want to interact with others by creating a ALL group character then they must be prepared to encounter others all of the time, not just when it suits them. If that is a problem they can always just relax with a save game in one of the other groups and play in ALL another day ..

This isn't about denying people choice. Its about protecting the integrity of those who choose specific groups and levels of interaction from being undermined by those who group hop to min/max or otherwise game the system/s.

I want you to play how you want to play. Have as many save games in as many groups as you want. The caveat is: you can't grind away alone and then transfer that 'achievement' to a character in another group. You have to earn everything in each group and by requiring this everyone has a better gaming experience secure in the knowledge that they are always encountering others who have worked just as hard as they have and who they can respect and enjoy playing alongside or against.

The net result of this is that long term, the solo and co-op groups will be full of people will billions of credits, all Elite, with all the best ships etc. But those who choose ironman or ALL will be more likely to see a more balanced and long lasting representation of achievement.

You are implying that someone playing solo doesn't have to work "as hard" as someone in the all group, why?

My second question is, aside from cheaters, why do you care how "hard" someone else had to work to get the better ship/gun or whatever? It won't be given to them, they will still have to fly missions, trade or whatever to earn the upgrade, just like someone in the all group.

I like the idea of being able to move from solo to private and maybe even to all groups. If I only play in the private group once in a while, why should I loose all the upgrades I worked for so I can play with friends?

 

[Bob_H]

That is where the problem comes in, griefing does need to be dealt with.

However as the game starts, it won't be long before a list of bounty hunters appears. All pirates can just then ignore these players. Or a pirate list that is ignored by any traders, gaming the system.

This is where the problem arises, how do differentiate between these 2 examples?

My thought is that it requires some FD input and that a simple ignore system is too open to being exploited.

You're assuming it's only other players that will be bounty hunting. Yes, PvP will be easy to circumvent if that's what any particular player wants to do but don't assume that just because other players are taken out of the equation that space travel will be any less dangerous. The most likely situation is that other players, forced PvP and griefing will be the least of our worries come the full game. Mike Brookes has admitted that the current crop of NPC AI in Alpha 1 through 3 are pretty weak. No doubt because so far they're the only real source of credits. Will be interesting to see how the NPCs in Alpha 4 and Beta will behave now that other less violent income streams are being made available.

 

[Memnoch]

I too hope the AI will be more of a challenge. If the concerns of some are that only other players are going to reign in the ability of some to make untold riches in SP online, a tougher AI challenge is needed. Or some other balance changes may be required.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

As I said I really wish we'd have a PvE / PvP divide as many other games have done.. I think both camps would be happy as a result.

Definitely not sure about that. What I want is PvP with players playing 'sensibly'. You are offering 'anything goes' vs 'no other players' which is very far removed from what I want.

It seems to me creating a pre-defined set of rules for what is acceptable is a complete divergence from the concept of a sandbox game.

AKA I want 'anything goes' so everyone else should have to accept that so I get what I want. It remains to be seen whether they can get the balance right, but I applaud what FD are trying to achieve: anything goes, but with consequences. Pretty much like real life.

By this assumed logic its not going to be okay for an NPC to destroy your ship either and I think its also worth reiterating that you aren't going to be able to kill anyone in game, you'll just be able to destroy their ship. Now if then you were able to destroy their escape pod with them in it - I can see why that would upset people, but thats not the case.

Well, I have always said that the whole insurance and magic escape pod is so ridiculously unrealistic that we might have well have a screen that says 'G A M E O V E R, press any key to continue'. I have no problem being killed by an NPC if I attack it and it turns out to be a better fighter than me (though that is unlikely to happen (and not because I will be a good fighter) ). I have no problem being killed by an NPC that does the stand and deliver and I try to run away, and fail. It would be playing 'in role'. I would have a problem if they had NPCs that arbitrarily attacked and killed ships at random, but I have no expectation of those ever appearing.

 

[Mazhurg]

This is the game breaker for me. I am totally OK with group switching but only one way! If you allow people to move freely between private groups and ALL you are devaluing the game for everyone who does not. At a stroke you've taken away everyone's sense of achievement - people will be able to grind for the best ships and biggest guns in total safety and only use the ALL group to grief those who did not. Even if they opt not to grief, allowing people to flip groups for an easy ride utterly devalues the game. Its going to really ruin the experience imho.

The game is not about who has the biggest epeen. It really does not matter what someone else has, how big their credits, guns, or whatever else.

It's about what you do, what you discover, how you move forward, how you play, how you interact. With the size of the game board there is always things that you, and only you will achieve, discover, trade, destroy and mine. About the only way that the game can be diminished in how you quoted above is if you see the game as competitive (it's not really), level based (it's not) and item centric (there is some of it, but it's minor overall). There is no end game - well not within a player's lifetime anyway - and Elite status is only a stepping stone / status / achievement. There is no raid or raiding content or equipment grinding.

This is no Eve or SC, there are no killboards and the sheer size of the 'verse' ensure that those who want to avoid other players (even in the all group) can.

 

[Memnoch]

Inevitably there are going to be those that want to play this game like some kind of death-match in space.

Is that acceptable? Absolutely. Should a player have the option to play on-line and avoid people like that? Absolutely.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

I appreciate your honesty.. its something I suspect of many who are vocal about these issues. So its about ego and personal perception rather than the act of ones ship being destroyed. No offence but I find that a somewhat juvenile way to think about it and especially so if someone lets that upset them. I do find it very difficult to understand this sentiment given the age demographic of many of the games backers.

edit: and once again I notice there is this 'perceived' idea that any time someone beats you they are deriving some sick warped enjoyment from your defeat.. I've had my ass handed to me plenty of times in ED and many other games and I laugh it off, learn from the experience and use it to further develop my skills. I've also enjoyed many excellent battles with other players whom all enjoyed the challenge. I seriously suggest the problem in this area is with the individual.

I'm afraid the above isn't true. It's not about ego, and it's absolutely not a judgement against people that feel differently. It's just a different set of constants in a cost-benefit equation.

Imagine a simple game where we each put in some money, flip a coin, and whoever calls it correctly gets the total. If we both put £10 in and flip the coin, that's a tense, fair, enjoyable experience. But if you put in £10 and I put in nothing, you can only hope to break even. Similarly in combat with another player, I experience the pain of defeat but get no joy from victory, so the best I can hope is to walk away without loss. I agree this is an individual difference, but judging it a "problem" is unhelpful. It's more like an accessibility issue - some people's eyes can't see colour, some people's hands can't operate a joystick, some people's brains can't metabolise victory.

Again to be clear - I'm absolutely not advocating any restrictions against PvP just for my sake. Indeed way back in the tri-poll I voted to allow myself to be attacked specifically because I don't want to feel like people are being nice to me because they're mechanically obliged to. I'm just looking for tools that let me maximise my enjoyment without harming anyone else.

My brain is not configured to like football, politics or fighting other people, and never will be. Making combat fun for people like me involves making it more about variety (e.g. Chaos and TF2 do this brilliantly), which necessarily involves providing a different experience to those looking for risk. There will be people in the game who aren't like either of us and give honourable PvPers like you a bad name. Returning to my original question, could the stealth mechanics use those people to create variety for those that aren't into combat, or would that make the early game too boring for those that want a fair fight?

 

[Bob_H]

As I said I really wish we'd have a PvE / PvP divide as many other games have done.. I think both camps would be happy as a result.

It seems to me creating a pre-defined set of rules for what is acceptable is a complete divergence from the concept of a sandbox game.

By this assumed logic its not going to be okay for an NPC to destroy your ship either and I think its also worth reiterating that you aren't going to be able to kill anyone in game, you'll just be able to destroy their ship. Now if then you were able to destroy their escape pod with them in it - I can see why that would upset people, but thats not the case.

The thred is getting way off topic now but...

For me it's the ego of the other player that makes or breaks a PvP combat encounter. Whether my ship/avatar/whatever is destroyed by an NPC or PC makes no real odds and I can find equal amounts of fun or frustration personally dependant of the circumstances and how I think I performed. What does instantly make the event detestible though is the attitude of my opponent(s). In effect what makes or ruins my enjoyment is the egos of others, not my own.

Every game has its own unwritten 'rules of engagement' which are accepted and adapted as the game and its community matures within it so it would be presumptuous for anyone to try to write them down in stone before the game has even entered Beta. But one that is pretty much universal is 'don't ridicule your opponent'.

For the most part being killed isn't the issue. abuse, ridicule and 'smack talk' from the victor is. You don't get that (normally) from an NPC so you can look at the defeat in an objective way. As soon as another human being is involved it tends to get personal in all the wrong ways.

 

[Cosmos]

I would have a problem if they had NPCs that arbitrarily attacked and killed ships at random, but I have no expectation of those ever appearing.

It seems inconceivable there aren't going to be NPCs in game that intend to destroy your ship. Is it really believable that there aren't going to be bad guys out in space? Imagine the Incursion scenario when you are constantly pounded upon, and in the final moment they send you a warm message saying..oh just kiddnig, off yo go fella sorry for scratching your ship.:S

Is that what you want? If thats what we get I'll be chucking the game in the bin because it represents no challenge. No risk of dying = borefest. Might as well go and play solitaire.

 

[Cosmos]

My brain is not configured to like football, politics or fighting other people, and never will be. Making combat fun for people like me involves making it more about variety (e.g. Chaos and TF2 do this brilliantly), which necessarily involves providing a different experience to those looking for risk. There will be people in the game who aren't like either of us and give honourable PvPers like you a bad name. Returning to my original question, could the stealth mechanics use those people to create variety for those that aren't into combat, or would that make the early game too boring for those that want a fair fight?

I'll agree with you about football However, I'm a bit of a loss to understand why you backed the game if you dislike space game combat so much. Its been a core element of the Elite games from day one.:S

 

[Adept]

It is the down side of an aging community, it means many posters on here have not experienced any form of pvp play in modern games and have read many horror stories from forums on eve etc.

er... dude. Ok. My gaming hobbies.

Allegiance for years and years. As HC team vs. team PvP as things can get.

World of Tanks. 15 vs. 15 PUGs, 7 vs. 7 Team Battles. Competetive play in the A-series.

DOTA2. 5 vs. 5 PvP

On top of that multiplayer strategy games in the Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres.

***

So... I'm discussing anti-griefer methods because I haven't been exposed to PvP and can't handle it? What exactly is your deep grounding in the subject?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

As I said I really wish we'd have a PvE / PvP divide as many other games have done.. I think both camps would be happy as a result.

I think the PvP camp would be happy with its own servers. I think the PvE camp would not, because it's not really one camp.

The problem is that a lot of the stuff in Elite Dangerous, from the politics between the three major factions down to a pirate ambush of a trade convoy, is EvE (not to be confused with EVE!) - the environment will quite happily fight itself, even if there aren't any players about (though it will be abstracted for efficiency, I expect, while no-one's actually watching)

If E1 fights E2 (EvE), and P1 fights E2 (PvE), and P2 fights E1 (PvE) ... at this point P1 and P2 are in conflict, and their shots bouncing off each other doesn't change that. If E1 is a passenger ship, E2 is an NPC who wants the passengers dead, and P1 takes an escort contract from E1, while P2 takes an assassination contract from E2 ... is P2 allowed to destroy the passenger ship?

If yes: P1 automatically fails the escort mission as one of the attackers is invincible
If no: P2 automatically fails the assassination mission as their target is invincible

In that particular case, not allowing the second player to take on the mission could silently avoid the question, and probably no-one would notice ... but what if it's something larger like a full-scale system invasion? P1 signs up with the defending Federal forces, and suddenly P2-P75 are unable to take any contracts for the opposite side in a thirty light year radius?

The only ways, I think, to have a PvE group that works to its players satisfaction is for all of its members to be agreed on exactly what PvE means - or, perhaps more simply, to have differing views but to all be on the same "side" so those differences aren't exposed -- which is what the private/solo group system will provide. Unlike an MMO, "PvE" in Elite Dangerous is considerably harder to define/implement than "you can't attack another player".

It seems to me creating a pre-defined set of rules for what is acceptable is a complete divergence from the concept of a sandbox game.

I would say that trying to set up a PvE ruleset was that - and the exploits that trying to avoid EvE conflict implicitly being PvP will allow might be worse than just being shot at!

I wouldn't say that Frontier's vision for piracy, etc. was a "pre-defined set of rules", though. It's a sandbox, sure, but it's a sandbox in the context of political, corporate, criminal powers thousands or millions of times more powerful than the strongest player group. Frontier have decided what sorts of moralities those powers have, and therefore what consequences various actions might have. You're a grain of sand, not the kid with the bucket and spade.

You can blow up other player ships for fun and that is "acceptable" in the sense that you can press the fire button and that's what happens. But ... the governmental forces won't like it because you're disrupting profitable trade routes. The pirates won't like it because encouraging a "surrender and die" world makes their "surrender or die" business harder to do. You might find yourself rather short on allies.

 

[Cosmos]

Definitely not sure about that. What I want is PvP with players playing 'sensibly'. You are offering 'anything goes' vs 'no other players' which is very far removed from what I want.AKA I want 'anything goes' so everyone else should have to accept that so I get what I want.

I want you to have a good ED experience and be able to play the game with other like minded people. I also wanted the same for myself but with a less contrived and shackled experience. Thats why I suggested a split between the player base. From the sounds of it we'll never see anyone in game anyhow with the plethora of ways to avoid others and the size of the galaxy it might be a rather lonely experience.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

It seems inconceivable there aren't going to be NPCs in game that intend to destroy your ship.

Not to me it doesn't. Why would they attack you for no benefit, a pile of consequences, and the distinct chance that they might get killed?

Is it really believable that there aren't going to be bad guys out in space?

Of course not. I expect lots of bad guys. I don't expect any of them to attack me for no reason whatsoever.

Imagine the Incursion scenario when you are constantly pounded upon, and in the final moment they send you a warm message saying..oh just kiddnig, off yo go fella sorry for scratching your ship.:S

Irrelevant to the real game

Is that what you want? If thats what we get I'll be chucking the game in the bin because it represents no challenge. No risk of dying = borefest. Might as well go and play solitaire.

Bye, then.

 

[Cosmos]

You can blow up other player ships for fun and that is "acceptable" in the sense that you can press the fire button and that's what happens. But ... the governmental forces won't like it because you're disrupting profitable trade routes. The pirates won't like it because encouraging a "surrender and die" world makes their "surrender or die" business harder to do. You might find yourself rather short on allies.

Its going to be an exceptionally dull game if there is no risk of defeat. Pirates just ask for stuff nicely and give you the option to run away.. NPCs who aren't allowed to kill players.. We may as well do away with combat and have a space slideshow text adventure based trading game.

 

[Cosmos]

Bye, then.

How very classy.