I'm concerned – the direction of the game.

[AnnuverScotinExile]

How did the opt-in idea come about in the first place? , did people want this?, or was it suggested by FD in the initial proposal ?

Couldn't you have a compromise where all players are unidentified until scanned, at which point they are entered into your 'ship database' and are recognisable from then on.

I don't recall. Someone would need to trawl the thread that triggered the poll. Some on here have said that Sandro is in favour of hiding the PC/NPC status, but that is not how I recall it (though at my age my memory is very suspect). My (possibly faulty) recollection is that Sandro was a bit surprised that there was a strong desire in some people to hide that knowledge, and so did the poll. After all, as everyone keeps telling me, knowing the PC/NPC status is 'the norm'.

There were compromises offered in the poll choices that involved scanning. I still do not like them, of course, because the fact that a ship is piloted by a PC not an NPC is not an in-game fact, so there is no sensible in-game reason for that information to be available. And I want to play a game where people do stuff for good in-game reasons. Clearly there are plenty of people who do not agree with my perspective.

 

[Cody]

I want to know if the ship is human after an ADVANCED scan 5.36%

This would have been my choice, I think - but I have no say in these matters.

 

[jabokai]

In the "two PCs in an instance with fifteen NPCs" example earlier, the mechanisms will almost certainly act too late to stop the PvP-PC preferentially selecting the other PC as their target.

How so? If the "PKer" does this often he will have a massive bounty and/or police presence chasing him in lawful systems. If it's something he does once in a blue moon, again, who cares, it's not exactly outwith the bounds of the game for SOME random violence.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

What I hate is somebody attacking / challenging me because I'm a human player and not an NPC. I can not emphasize this too much.

This^^^^.

There's tons of competitive MP games out there. I will guess FD doesn't plan to add another one to that list. It's a sandbox, not a sparing contest.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

How so? If the "PKer" does this often he will have a massive bounty and/or police presence chasing him in lawful systems. If it's something he does once in a blue moon, again, who cares, it's not exactly outwith the bounds of the game for SOME random violence.

If he wants to wreak havoc, why exactly he wants/needs to attack human pilots?

 

[Robert Maynard]

How so? If the "PKer" does this often he will have a massive bounty and/or police presence chasing him in lawful systems. If it's something he does once in a blue moon, again, who cares, it's not exactly outwith the bounds of the game for SOME random violence.

If someone is playing the game as CoD in space, I'm not really interested in interacting with them - this game is about so very much more than combat.

 

[JeffRyan]

I really don't get the 'I want to play with other people but I want to ignore them' argument. Or 'I want to play with other people, but I don't want to KNOW they're other people'. It's like the old 'want my cake and eat it' and there are already MANY options for avoiding people. The one open world game we're having where people who don't want options like this is getting one imposed on it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I really don't get the 'I want to play with other people but I want to ignore them' argument. Or 'I want to play with other people, but I don't want to KNOW they're other people'. It's like the old 'want my cake and eat it' and there are already MANY options for avoiding people. The one open world game we're having where people who don't want options like this is getting one imposed on it.

Players in the All Group can form alliances of like minded individuals - even if they don't want to be identifiable as PCs to others outside the alliance.

The options that you allude to involve separating from the All Group. Who reserved it for pure-play PvP?

 

[Cosmos]

If someone is playing the game as CoD in space, I'm not really interested in interacting with them - this game is about so very much more than combat.

Combat is a core element of the game. Arguably everything else is optional, combat is not. I planned on exploring all the game has to offer but I really don't understand why people would want to play a game where we pilot heavily armed spaceships with a ranking system based upon mass murder and cry fowl when people expect to have combat experiences.

Its like buying a racing game and complaining the cars go too fast.

I'm not motivated by the desire to hone in on every player but fighting AI is a dull experience compared to one that humans can offer.

 

[Dante80]

This^^^^.

There's tons of competitive MP games out there. I will guess FD doesn't plan to add another one to that list. It's a sandbox, not a sparing contest.

There is no such thing as a sandbox if you have the option to remove other players (without any justification needed) from your game with a button. Its just a glorified MP theme-park.

Sorry, but this must be told.

 

[FragMonkey]

Separate characters for separate groups. There is no other way that will work fairly.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

Yes, it's about IDing, but not with your silly, hyperbolic "blue flashing light" which exaggerates your argument.

Let me ask... how many multiplayer games do you play where you cannot tell NPCs from PCs?

If Cosmos can use his hyperbolic "hysteria", then I'm sure I can use my hyperbolic "flashing blue light".

It is all shades of grey, and levels of compromise. The least bad compromise I have heard suggested is the opt-in/out route. Then those that want to know immediately can do so, and those that do not ever want to be told, will never be told. Other compromises lean one way or the other (well, all one way, actually, since anything that makes your status available with effort from another player, even when you don;t want it to be available, leans towards the IDers, not the non-IDers).

So, if you offered me the choice between immediate ID as soon as I resolve on the scanner (for which you would presumably accept that the flashing blue light is not hyperbole), and an ID that involved a series of actions including a scan (for which the fbl is hyperbole), then clearly I would prefer the non-immediate one.

And, yes, I am aware thet identifying PCs and NPCs is the norm. So what? I still don't want it, and have articulated what seem to me (and to several others) to be good reasons why not.

 

[Adept]

Doesn't this defeat the point of a multi-player, unless its really only going to be a co-op game? Its pretty well acknowledged that we're possibly going to rarely see other players as it stands and if being able to hide is implemented in the 'all-group' thats only going to appear worse.

Of course it doesn't. It will only look like that if you think the only point of Elite being multiplayer is fighting other humans.

It is a huge shared sandbox. The actions of all those other humans effect the world around you. They are doing trades, accepting missions, pirating / escorting shipping... You are in a world simulation, just like in Frontier but 15 years on (yey!) and so is everybody else who are playing with you.

Sometimes you interact directly, in co-operation or opposition. Sometimes fighting back to back, sometimes as enemies. I fully expect the mission generator to bring humans together in many ways.

***

If the main interest for you is PvP for it's own sake, I'm afraid you are probably in a small minority here. There are a _ton_ of games that are about PvP and nothing else. That has been done, and is actually quite easy as world simulation and high grade AI isn't the problem there.

What Frontier are trying to do.... _this_ is rare and hard.

Let me ask... how many multiplayer games do you play where you cannot tell NPCs from PCs?

This is different, and more ambitious.

 

[Stachel]

Well having read the thread I am surprised to find myself agreeing with the proposal re: obfuscating players from NPC's. I think it will indeed aid immersion. However there are a few causal effects of this policy and the others mentioned: grouping, ignore lists, severe punishments for aggression etc. Many of which I think might be detrimental to social play.

A few quick questions/thoughts:

1. How will we form relationships with players who aren't part of our pre-established social network? It seems that a lot of these ideas are aimed at 'sheltering' others from player aggression. Yet all they seem likely to achieve is to discourage anyone from attempting to form or expand social networks in-game.

2. A heavily focused PVE game is fine but if you remove World PVP then I can't see what differentiates ED from TES Online or LOTR Online or any of the legion NPC grinding games. These games suffer from a pervading sense of being lost in a crowd that destroys the appeal for a lot of people. I find those games frustrating and surreal at times - seeing people buzzing around like flies never engaging, all hell bent on some 'task' or 'purpose' with no reason to even speak to others let alone interact with them. I'd have to be on anti depressants to endure that for long. It is literally existentially soul destroying and I avoid it like the plague ..

At the higher end of the scale you have players banding together to bash NPC's. The only game I have played recently with that was WOW and EVE with 'Incursions'. Raiding etc. A massive boring soulless grind imho. Limited initial appeal, zero long term appeal.

3. Which leads on to .. A game that provides an ostensibly 'safe' environment (ie no world PVP) can only offer AI as challenge. There is no real satisfaction (for me) from slaughtering NPC's en masse ad nauseam. I'll go so far as to say that I can't see any reason to play a game which just has me doing that. What exactly is the point? I could spend that time on a dozen other things that aren't inherently anti social.

Personally, and I am veering wildly off point here so take with a pinch of salt, I too backed ED because I wanted a social multiplayer experience. I don't derive any particular pleasure from most MMO's. I find them sterile experiments in autism by and large. I want to embrace the challenges and risks of interacting with others - and I need to feel a sense of ever present danger to enjoy myself and to make the experience matter. No adrenalin for me just means no point.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I really don't get the 'I want to play with other people but I want to ignore them' argument. Or 'I want to play with other people, but I don't want to KNOW they're other people'. It's like the old 'want my cake and eat it' and there are already MANY options for avoiding people. The one open world game we're having where people who don't want options like this is getting one imposed on it.

I don't want to ignore them, but I don't want big, red flashing sign on my hull "human pilot here". If they will attack me, ok, fine, I will fight back, run away, drop cargo, cool. If that's a friendly, I will stay and chat. However, if I move along, and there's big crowd of NPCs, I don't want to be selected from hundreds because I am just human. It feels wrong.

I like idea of random chance of interacting with human pilots. You want to ignore rest of universe and rush to human pilot. Mostly to kill. So....sorry, I don't understand it either.

edit: also we don't know how voice/text chat comms will work. If you want to genuinely meet someone in big crowd of NPCs, you just hail everyone (I am sure there will be broadcast option), and see if you get some ping back.

 

[Jorlin]

There's tons of competitive MP games out there. FD doesn't plan to add another one to that list. It's a sandbox, not a sparing contest.

true...BUT...
I can understand the question then: When it's not competitive...and not cooperative...what IS IT?
My personal answer would be: The game i'd like to play
Sure, it would almost be like single player offline. But a purely AI driven universe would not be the same. Players affecting it make it more unpredictable...and "alive".

But i can understand, that i'm with the minority there. It's just not the way a onlinegame is likely to be seen.

 

[jabokai]

If someone is playing the game as CoD in space, I'm not really interested in interacting with them - this game is about so very much more than combat.

I agree... that's why the in game mechanisms could/should deal with this. You shouldn't get away with randomly killing many people - you'd be dealt with way before then. So, at most you commit a few random acts of violence, get caned for it and then you have debts/bounties to pay off. Tie those debts to an account, rather than character and it's sorted.

Combat is a core element of the game. Arguably everything else is optional, combat is not. I planned on exploring all the game has to offer but I really don't understand why people would want to play a game where we pilot heavily armed spaceships with a ranking system based upon mass murder and cry fowl when people expect to have combat experiences.

Its like buying a racing game and complaining the cars go too fast.

I'm not motivated by the desire to hone in on every player but fighting AI is a dull experience compared to one that humans can offer.

While I agree with some of your views, this I do not. I intend to avoid combat as much as I can! Explorer/trader will be my role, and "runner" when things look dodgy.

The rating system is not tied to "mass murder" but the destruction of ships with bounties on them... i.e. you have an in game reason for killing them.

 

[Dante80]

Obfuscating PC from NPC is vital to preserve immersion and validity to gameplay.

The problem is changing game modes on the fly without consequences. Even SC has a PvP slider that if you put down it gives you less money on a mission.

The persistent online universe is ONE. So people should not play without risk or consequences from other players IF they affect the universe in the same amount.

 

[Cosmos]

Of course it doesn't. It will only look like that if you think the only point of Elite being multiplayer is fighting other humans.

It is a huge shared sandbox. The actions of all those other humans effect the world around you. They are doing trades, accepting missions, pirating / escorting shipping... You are in a world simulation, just like in Frontier but 15 years on (yey!) and so is everybody else who are playing with you.

Sometimes you interact directly, in co-operation or opposition. Sometimes fighting back to back, sometimes as enemies. I fully expect the mission generator to bring humans together in many ways.

***

If the main interest for you is PvP for it's own sake, I'm afraid you are probably in a small minority here. There are a _ton_ of games that are about PvP and nothing else. That has been done, and is actually quite easy as world simulation and high grade AI isn't the problem there.

What Frontier are trying to do.... _this_ is rare and hard.

Frontier the game certainly had its charm but it was widely critiqued as boring largely due to the Newtonian combat system. I'm not convinced I am in the minority because we have yet to hear from many other people but even if I am, I feel my points stand based upon strength of argument.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Separate characters for separate groups. There is no other way that will work fairly.

No one talks about being "fair". Balance just needs to be around center, and no id serves this purpose rather well. It doesn't remove any aspects of PvP. It just makes approach to player hunting much much interesting and harder. I wonder why none of PvPers don't like that angle.