I'm concerned – the direction of the game.

[Robert Maynard]

Combat is a core element of the game. Arguably everything else is optional, combat is not.

If combat is avoidable, it is indeed optional (largely, with care).

Gaining a bounty by simply destroying ships may not be profitable in the long run unless the player also trades the stolen goods at enough of a profit (taking into account fuel, damage and ammunition) to be able to pay the bounty off with some credits left over. So, trade is still core....

Bounty hunters are the only players who can destroy ships with impunity - even then, only if the pilot has a bounty.

 

[fourty6to3]

So I'd like to open up a discussion to the wider community with reference to a growing concern I have for a direction the game is possibly going to take.

In essence this relates to a little bit to how some perceive griefing and a bias towards PvE at the expense of player adversity which is a popular play-style present in many online games. I'm not here to talk about griefing which has been discussed at huge length by the community as a whole. I'd like to discuss the PvE and PvP element of the game.

Now as background to this situation I'd like to point out that the game is going to be rather unique in allowing players to isolate themselves from others, be it single-player mode, single-player online and private-online groups and Iron-Man. Its also going to be possible for a player to ignore any other player which will have the result of it being highly unlikely they would be placed in the same instance together.

Whilst I have some reservations about this, partly because I think its going to mean we don't see many other players in the game, I do acknowledge that its important for a good number of people who don't particularly enjoy conflict or encounters with other players but these systems will certainly offer a player the chance to simply avoid anyone they don't wish to have contact with, even to the extreme of not seeing anyone but a close bunch of friends, or playing entirely on their own. There is also the option to switch between these groups at will at pretty much any time in the game.

Its also worth remembering that should a player chose to perform a criminal act there are in game consequences for these actions and whilst I think its a bit over the top the result of this is that this also is going to act as a deterrent for certain behaviours.

So the 'All-Group' is the only presently described place for those to play who want to fully experience encountering other players. One of the reasons I backed Elite Dangerous was because of multi-player; and was rather looking forward to encountering other players either as adversaries or as allies. I find that many single-player games don't come close to the experience one can find in an online game where we engage with other players and one of the strengths of a sandbox game is that the players themselves create their own content by their actions which enriches what there is to do in game beyond what scripted or defined stories the developers themselves create; this of course helps to increase the longevity of the experience.

However, its recently come to my attention that living in the 'All-Group' is likely not going to be even a shadow of the experience I thought it could offer. I am now hearing that there are possibly further moves are a foot to reduce these opportunities that I and so many other players of the game were looking forward to. So in addition to all the game systems I've mentioned there is now a possibility that even in the all-group we might not be allowed to see who other players are; imagine if you will , in the extreme, not being able to identify a player from an NPC, a player being able to hide their status as a real person from the entire game or having to scan every single NPC to establish who is a player and who is not.

I certainly do understand that others might not want to be 'hassled' by other players but for those who do enjoy encountering others I feel we are going to not going to have those experiences because the game design seems intent on further catering to those who already have many many ways of finding a good portion of the things they want from ED. I'd like to see the game bustling with players with the opportunity to make allies and enemies and my view the huge bias towards PvE is going to seriously undermine the gameplay which could negatively effect how the game is received by the larger gaming community and a poor performance in sales.

So a long post and thanks for taking the time for reading it. I'd really like to hear your thoughts..

I agree with you 100%. Multiplayer was one of the reasons I am really excited for this game as well, and to hear that it will be a watered down experience is really disappointing.

Social features and online, i.e. multiplayer, is one of EVE Online's strengths, and despite what people think of that game seeing another player while out exploring an unknown system gives the universe its own feeling. Being able to pop in and out of the All-Group at will divorces the game from the conflict that naturally makes the game engaging - like wars and rumors of wars, trade escorts because group A is a known pirate faction in the area, etc.

 

[Space_Killer69]

See, I'm getting all confused again. And this time I haven't even been on the pop yet.

Pro PVP Argument:

"Killed by an NPC or PC - there's no difference, you're still dead."

Pro PVP Argument:

"It's really, really important that we can tell the difference between NPC/Players for PVP."

Sod this I'm off for a pint.

 

[Adept]

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.

EVE meaning of "sandbox" is a very narrow one. A game can be a sandbox entirely without PvP. Actually, when you look at children at a sandbox the experience is rarely a good one if it involves any PvP.

GTA games are classic sandbox games (even though they are single player). Minecraft is another. Shooting at each other does not a sandbox make.

 

[jabokai]

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.

That's fair enough... just pointing it out. And there's a very good reason most games identify player as such and that's because people want to play with other people and know it, not have to guess.

I think it would be a big mistake to make it the default for the game, however I'd have no objection to FD creating a whole open group based on the premise of "no ident"... and I'd be interested at the levels of participation in that and an open ident group.

The "compromise", to me, is a messed up solution that doesn't bring the best of both worlds, just makes a big pile of fudge!

This is different, and more ambitious.

And wants to take it's much lauded new killer feature of MULTIPLAYER and hide it under a cushion? Good job!

 

[Dante80]

EVE meaning of "sandbox" is a very narrow one. A game can be a sandbox entirely without PvP. Actually, when you look at children at a sandbox the experience is rarely a good one if it involves any PvP.

GTA games are classic sandbox games (even though they are single player). Minecraft is another. Shooting at each other does not a sandbox make.

What I am trying to say man is that there is no such thing as a sandbox where you click baddies away with a button to circumvent PvP.

Its like going to a cave in minecraft, and when you hear a zombie sound from down the cave you go to the options and turn the game to peaceful. Really nice...

Is it a sandbox? yes.
Does it make sense? no.

Will I play it? Hell yeah. I'm not the developer, nor should FD listen to what I want. I can only tell them what feels wrong for me.

Regarding identification though, I really feel that not knowing if a ship belongs to an NPC or a PC has a lot of merit. I see no reason for this not to be that way, it preserves immersion and also makes you feel the risk in every encounter.

....unless you are playing without other players that is...

 

[-o-]

If only ...

ED was primarily a SP game (like its heritage) which had MP capabilites like the old days. You know, you create a local server and a few of your actual friends join in.

Why did they have to go down this p2p, restrictive, instanced, complicated route. Can't see how the scope of the game matches the MP gameplay on a massive scale, so why design it that way in the first place.

You can't design an entire galaxy as the gameworld, and then expect (or even worse, force) people to interact on an incidental basis.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

And wants to take it's much lauded new killer feature of MULTIPLAYER and hide it under a cushion? Good job!

But this is totally new kind of MP what FD aims for. As Adept said, this is rare case when someone tries to do something new. It makes true to bone PVPers sad pandas at the moment? True. But that's because they kling to their old ideas of how MP should be.

 

[Adept]

And wants to take it's much lauded new killer feature of MULTIPLAYER and hide it under a cushion? Good job!

That type od multiplayer is an old hat. When Elite came out it was groundbreaking. No score. No three lives and then start over.

I don't think David is at all worried over doing his own thing. Something new.

Playing online with tens of thousands of others (at the same time, hundreds of thousands overall I suspect) without knowing immediately whether another human is flying any given ship is a very exciting thought, and will keep us on out toes.

 

[xyphic]

I disagree that ED's proposed multiplayer implementation is "watered down" at all. In fact, I think it's likely to be more nuanced and emergent than the majority of games that plant their feet firmly on one side of the fence.

If you're feeling particularly social, head to a secure system and turn on your transponder. As long as the instancing engine prefers to group transponder-on players with each other, there should be plenty of opportunity to interact with real players. If you're planning on traversing an anarchy, turn your transponder off to avoid PKers from targeting you with impunity.

The main downside (or upside depending on your perspective!) to the transponder idea is really that you can't *prefer* to play with real people. Any ship you encounter might be an NPC or a PC, but unless their transponder is on you can't know. But I would argue that in a combat situation, all that matters is that ED's AI is adequate to provide an interesting and challenging encounter.

 

[jabokai]

But this is totally new kind of MP what FD aims for. As Adept said, this is rare case when someone tries to do something new. It makes true to bone PVPers sad pandas at the moment? True. But that's because they kling to their old ideas of how MP should be.

Yeah, we can call it "sort of multiplayer, but not really, you'll just have to guess"... can't think of a good acronym at the moment though.

I'm not a PvPer, have no interest in killing any real person (I'm a fairly poor pilot) and it makes me sad too.

 

[Riedquat]

That type od multiplayer is an old hat. When Elite came out it was groundbreaking. No score. No three lives and then start over.

I don't think David is at all worried over doing his own thing. Something new.

Playing online with tens of thousands of others (at the same time, hundreds of thousands overall I suspect) without knowing immediately whether another human is flying any given ship is a very exciting thought, and will keep us on out toes.

I agree with this.

I would of voted for a basic scan.

 

[Adept]

Its like going to a cave in minecraft, and when you hear a zombie sound from down the cave you go to the options and turn the game to peaceful. Really nice...
...

Ah, so that is what you meant. Isn't being able to switch between solo and all groups a separate topic? Even in the most extreme case I doubt you can make the mean pirate go away during the encounter like that :smilie:

 

[Gibbonici]

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.

The ranking systems aren't based on mass murder, we won't all be flying heavily armed spaceships, and combat is totally optional. Remember, Elite is a free-form sandbox, not a straight up combat game.

That said, I'm not really into the idea of this opt-in hide-your-player-status thing. As a means of preventing griefing it's a great idea, but the cost in other aspects of the game (including genuine PvP) are too high.

Now THAT said, I kinda like the idea of not knowing Players from NPCs by default from an immersion point of view, and can see how knowing who's a player straight off gives a massive advantage to the player hunter over those who are doing other stuff.

Maybe a compromise solution would be that no ships flag up as players or NPCs until you do an area scan. When you do your scan you immediately get to see who is a player and who isn't, but you also flag up as a player on everyone else's scopes.

From that point, everyone can take evasive action if they prefer, or just carry on as they were, or roll out the cannons and prepare for action.

 

[Abel]

As I understand the people who want to immediately identify all PCs - they want to fight with them because it is more interesting to fight with PCs than with NPCs.

But I would assume that players who do not like to be easily identified as PC more often are playing in a more peaceful style and thus are not good fighters.

So if you want to fight really good fights with PCs, than you are not missing anything, when some have opted out of being identified. They most probably will not be a match to you anyway.

Ambitious PVPers will not hide. So if the opt in/out actually shows you the other ambitious PVPers, want would you want more ? This seems to me to be the perfect solution

 

[fourty6to3]

I disagree that ED's proposed multiplayer implementation is "watered down" at all. In fact, I think it's likely to be more nuanced and emergent than the majority of games that plant their feet firmly on one side of the fence.

If you're feeling particularly social, head to a secure system and turn on your transponder. As long as the instancing engine prefers to group transponder-on players with each other, there should be plenty of opportunity to interact with real players. If you're planning on traversing an anarchy, turn your transponder off to avoid PKers from targeting you with impunity.

The main downside (or upside depending on your perspective!) to the transponder idea is really that you can't *prefer* to play with real people. Any ship you encounter might be an NPC or a PC, but unless their transponder is on you can't know. But I would argue that in a combat situation, all that matters is that ED's AI is adequate to provide an interesting and challenging encounter.

For me this is the definition of it being watered down. If you can just avoid consequences at will then Elite Dangerous might just as well not have had Multiplayer in the first place.

I personally will be playing the Ironman mode, specifically because you can't change groups at will to avoid the consequences of not paying attention to situational awareness (pirate system), or illegal actions against other players. The experience is all the more intense because of it. I just wish there was some sort of middle ground - as the cost of losing is much, much, higher than EVE.

 

[Daeron]

This is quite an exhaustive read. It is a bit hard to say now how the various systems will interact in reality. I think certain events in the game might be able to gather players into tighter interaction. So it might not be so bleak as imagined, with barely no detectible signs of (player) life. It would of course help to be at least be moderately successful, come the mythic time of *gasp* release.

After playing Star Trek Online with heavy instancing, I can relate to how limited or closed grouping might lead to isolation. STO is the closest thing to a single player online game I've been in yet. Although there is bound to be worse examples. You don't need to encourage players to avoid interaction, it is enough to provide the opportunity.

 

[Dr Wookie]

Seeing this thread led me to make a suggestion in the DDF topic:

--- There is an in-game reason for PCs to be distinguished from NPCs, because they are all members of the pilot federation

--- One solution that was proposed is that players could have a transponder that they can turn on or off; if it is on, then they can identify any other player with it turned on also

--- It could be mandatory for anyone in the all group to have their transponders turned on

Having said that, I would be entirely happy for most human interaction to be arranged before hand... meeting up with some guys at a station, possibly in answer to a bulletin board ad, then going off into the black. Seeing distress calls from someone you don't know, it would add an extra frisson if you didn't know whether they were people or not... until you talked with them . Of course, that goes double for attacking someone!

 

[Stachel]

For me this is the definition of it being watered down. If you can just avoid consequences at will then Elite Dangerous might just as well not have had Multiplayer in the first place.

I personally will be playing the Ironman mode, specifically because you can't change groups at will and avoid consequences. The experience is all the more intense because of it. I just wish there was some sort of middle ground - as the cost of losing is much, much, higher than EVE.

You can I'm afraid. IM players can still jump in to private groups and back in to IM at will.

 

[Cosmos]

As I understand the people who want to immediately identify all PCs - they want to fight with them because it is more interesting to fight with PCs than with NPCs.

But I would assume that players who do not like to be easily identified as PC more often are playing in a more peaceful style and thus are not good fighters.

So if you want to fight really good fights with PCs, than you are not missing anything, when some have opted out of being identified. They most probably will not be a match to you anyway.

Ambitious PVPers will not hide. So if the opt in/out actually shows you the other ambitious PVPers, want would you want more ? This seems to me to be the perfect solution

Doesn't the proposed group system and ignore feature not already cover this?

For the record, in the poll, I voted for a player identity to be revealed upon a Basic Scan.