I'm concerned – the direction of the game.

[jabokai]

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.

Not to me, it's a thoroughly depressing thought and why I've chosen to play solo now. Multiplayer guessing game, "oooh, is he or isn't he, ooooh" - no thank you.

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.

Sadly, last time I looked you could still create private and solo sub groups within Ironman. They really should change that IMHO!

 

[fourty6to3]

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

WhaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAT!? I thought if you start in IM mode you can only preserve your character to the All-Group after you permanently die? :S

 

[Riandor]

I'm respectfully putting forward my view, that's all.

I'm glad this issue was raised again outside the DDF Cosmos, thanks.

I respect you guys and your opinions a lot on this forum and am often aligned.
However on this issue I am squarely in the other camp.

I much MUCH prefer to be in an area with ships on my radar with no immediate way to tell who is AI and who is PC, because what that means is I play the game "normally".

I base my decisions based upon my character and my environment and not based upon a character or an AI.

Essentially what happens now is:
Hyperspace into area.
Check For human CMDRs.
Immediately engage in FFA or EWar
Immediately check for bounty in Ethics or fly verrry wearily
Immediately assume all are Allies in Fed Bond.

Thus I define my behaviour immediately based upon other human players being there, I see them on radar and I act defensively or aggressively.

I understand the desire to "interact" with players, that it should be the holy grail of Multiplayer gaming and in games where there are ONLY other humans, that's fine. But in this game, where interaction might be uncommon anyway due to distances involved, i think its great if we at first glance treat every other ship/avatar (later on) as equal.

If you put the effort into identifying all your radar signatures and then still target/interact with a human player then so be it, but that initial effort should be made.

The other benefit in my eyes is for the Role of Pirate.
If I know straight away another human player is on my radar and obviously know they can see that I am human, I will likely make the assumption that they are going to target me and will change my behaviour. Why? Because I don't trust other human players in a game where there are few rules.

I love it, don't get me wrong, sandbox can be great, but in a game where shooting you up to steal your stuff is allowed, I am going to be very wary about another human player in my sights making any move towards me.

To the point where I might prefer the bounty if I pre-emptively destroy them, over the risk to my cargo (for example). Players not knowing straight away are likely to make "mistakes" and give a pirate an edge, conversely a Pirate will treat all ships on radar as potential targets rather than targeting the human because its easy, or as a matter of "player on radar, check them first".

If you are a pirate and you spot multiple ships, you might simply target the first one you like the look of, rather than looking at all of them and thus miss seeing a player.

In return that player might ignore the conflict and just carry on quickly elsewhere, leaving those 2 unknown ships to duke it out.

Another effect is if you see a player attacking an AI trading ship too easily, you might immediately add that name to your ignore list, knowing you are removing a "pirate" from your trade route.

So, this got a little long winded, but I think you get why I prefer everyone being on equal footing Ident-wise at first glance.

I do believe you should be able to tell once you have done the appropriate scans etc...

 

[jabokai]

WhaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAT!? I thought if you start in IM mode you can only preserve your character to the All-Group after you permanently die? :S

Yes, but there's nothing in the proposal stopping you create an Ironman subgroup for you and 2 friends, or for yourself, for example. So you still play by Ironman rules, just not with all the other Ironmen!

 

[Abel]

Does 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.

I am not sure. To ignore people should be the last resort from my point of view and by principle only can be done after the griefing incident has already happened.

My point was, that the opt in/out mechanism allows all players to stay in the all group (instead of having to go solo or to "PvE-only groups" to feel comfortable) and it highlights players who would like to PvP.

greetings

 

[Ayo]

I hope that it doesn't become ships passing in the night against a very pretty back drop.

I'm happy with it being ships passing in the night as far as multilayer is concerned. This isn't a battle arena and it's not DayZ. If that's all you are after there are plenty of other games that offer that. PvP WILL still happen, and if that is what you want to do, this proposal will NOT stop that. You will just have to work a bit harder for it OR you could just play the game and not worry so much about who your opponent is. PvP is not a requirement of every single multilayer game.

Playing a multiplayer game. Sorta expecting to see the other players isn't unreasonable.

You will.

This thread is exhausting to try and read. I will just say that I trust FD to do what is right when they see the results of beta testing. Compromise would be a bad result IMO (Except maybe "advanced scan" in Iron-Man and "simple scan" in All?)

 

[Abel]

The goal should be to have ALL players (PvP and PvE and in between and around) in the all group having a great time.

 

[xyphic]

Yes, but there's nothing in the proposal stopping you create an Ironman subgroup for you and 2 friends, or for yourself, for example. So you still play by Ironman rules, just not with all the other Ironmen!

There's nothing wrong with that, IMO. Where the line gets blurred is if you can change between groups frequently as a means to avoid player encounters -- it's a given that you shouldn't be able to do so during flight, but less clear whether it should be allowed if you happen to not want to encounter humans at all. I only think that becomes a problem if you view grouping in this way as entering some sort of 'easy mode', and as long as the AI is challenging enough, that shouldn't be the case.

 

[psykokow]

In terms of realism, I believe until scans are done and identities revealed ie ship name or pilot name, that you should not know whether it is a human or AI.

This means its a ship and the fact its player controlled is irrelevant to your enjoyment of the game, it adds a level of fear whenever a ship appears on your radar...

Thats awesome no?

I think we really need to try these systems to see how they work before getting worried about them, I hope it doesn't add a level of cloak and dagger griefing... but I like the idea in principal.. just need to feel it out in practise.

 

[Oss133]

In terms of realism, I believe until scans are done and identities revealed ie ship name or pilot name, that you should not know whether it is a human or AI.

This means its a ship and the fact its player controlled is irrelevant to your enjoyment of the game, it adds a level of fear whenever a ship appears on your radar...

Thats awesome no?

I think we really need to try these systems to see how they work before getting worried about them, I hope it doesn't add a level of cloak and dagger griefing... but I like the idea in principal.. just need to feel it out in practise.

Psykokow: the voice of reason.

What the hell just happened?!?!

 

[Adept]

Not to me, it's a thoroughly depressing thought and why I've chosen to play solo now. Multiplayer guessing game, "oooh, is he or isn't he, ooooh" - no thank you.

That makes no sense

You've chosen to play solo because of a suggestion (we're a long way from release, or the implementation of any of this) that human players will not be readily immediate?

Can you open up the reasoning a little. You stated earlier that your interest is not hard core PvP. Why is playing in the all group suddenly a no-no if you can't quickly tell who the players are? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Dante80]

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:

You are right, I was writing about a separate subject. Powering down..

 

[Tinman]

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.

You can't really change groups "at will". You can change groups yes, but doing it while being connected to another player you want to avoid I don't think will be possible. Group changes only happens while moving between instances (hyperspace jump or super-cruising). So while in the same instance as the other player you won't be able to suddenly "wink out of existence".

If you gain a bounty by attacking another player you will also be "fair game" to everyone in the all-group for a set amount of time:

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6276

• Multiplayer - crimes against human commanders that cause a bounty to exist make the criminal able to be matched with any other human commander present in the “all players” group
• This punishment lasts for a set amount of game time

People who have you targeted when you supercruise away will also reserve a place in your next instance so the potentially can give chase and follow you.

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=7892

• The act of engaging the FSD leaves a brilliant particle trail that dissipates over time – other vessels which match the position and vector when engaging their own FSD increase their chance of being matched in the same super-cruise session
• Any players in the session that is left will see the commander having engaged FSD dart off at an incredible speed in their initial super-cruise direction and then disappearing – enabling such a ship to be followed.
• Targeting a ship which then engages its FSD increases the chance of being matched with the vessel if engaging super-cruise within a window of opportunity

I assume these rules will more or less override any personal settings you have made in situations like this.

 

[Rog]

My personal preference would be that NPCs and human players would be pretty indistinguishable without some *considerable* effort, or unless the player chose for whatever reason to broadcast their status.

I'm really hoping that we get truly fantastic AIs with a range of human like behaviours though, because once we're outside of the core systems, MOST ships you meet will be NPC unless you've specifically arranged otherwise.

PvPers will still be catered for: they will inevitably set up in lawless systems and be able to have their non-stop human vs human fights. That's great, the galaxy's a big place, and there's plenty of room. As it stands though I feel we have enough groupings, and we don't need to split the player base any further.

 

[JeffRyan]

Not to me, it's a thoroughly depressing thought and why I've chosen to play solo now. Multiplayer guessing game, "oooh, is he or isn't he, ooooh" - no thank you.



Sadly, last time I looked you could still create private and solo sub groups within Ironman. They really should change that IMHO!

I'm actually tempted to go solo online if this goes ahead. I can't see the point of playing a multiplayer when I can't tell who the players are.

PS. I love Kow but we have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Cosmos]

In terms of realism, I believe until scans are done and identities revealed ie ship name or pilot name, that you should not know whether it is a human or AI.

This means its a ship and the fact its player controlled is irrelevant to your enjoyment of the game, it adds a level of fear whenever a ship appears on your radar...

Thats awesome no?

I think we really need to try these systems to see how they work before getting worried about them, I hope it doesn't add a level of cloak and dagger griefing... but I like the idea in principal.. just need to feel it out in practise.

I went for basic scan to reveal player identities in the poll and yet I think that I was being too considerate of others at the time.. However, I don't tend to agree that AI offers the same enjoyment or engagement as players. It becomes another grind-fest killing spiders ad nauseum.

Except with the size of the game universe when people have moved on its going to be a rather lonely experience. We'll be lucky to see anyone and if I have to spend my time endlessly and repeatedly scanning NPCs on the off chance I might see a real person I may as well just play the single-player mode or a private-group and then at best the game becomes a co-op, humans vs the AI.

Much has been suggested about a perceived intention about wanting to just pew pew with human players and I can sort of understand the point about honing in immediately on other players but we must ask ourselves why that might be the case. Simply put its because its a more rewarding experience to engage with other humans and is quintessentially part of a multiplayer game.

Its not all about battling with others. I find myself wondering how I might also hook up with other players. If I am cruising around and I see another player in trouble being attacked (by NPCs or Players) I might well come to there aid. Thats a motivation I am not going to have if I see a bunch of NPCs having a fight because its just another scripted AI experience and who really cares.

So how are we meant to hook up with other people? An in game lobby? Hardly going to work given the vast distances and game playing area.

 

[fourty6to3]

Yes, but there's nothing in the proposal stopping you create an Ironman subgroup for you and 2 friends, or for yourself, for example. So you still play by Ironman rules, just not with all the other Ironmen!

 

[Herik]

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..

Seems to me; even if they implement examination of ship/commander as a necessity, the result game wise would be a (draw) regarding game playing mode population. There would be some shifting of preference equally across both modes of play.

 

[Kris]

In terms of realism, I believe until scans are done and identities revealed ie ship name or pilot name, that you should not know whether it is a human or AI.

This means its a ship and the fact its player controlled is irrelevant to your enjoyment of the game, it adds a level of fear whenever a ship appears on your radar...

Thats awesome no?

I think we really need to try these systems to see how they work before getting worried about them, I hope it doesn't add a level of cloak and dagger griefing... but I like the idea in principal.. just need to feel it out in practise.

Agree. Just to add my opinion into it.

But i can see other sides argument. We just have to see how it all works in practice (Make interacting with other players as best as possible etc etc. But i quess thats what betas are for to iron out the details).

 

[Luniticisi]

Too many posts for me to read right now, but I would like to say that I am all in favour of not knowing the difference between NPC's and PC's in game .. it would make EVERY encounter something to consider.

For me it would add something special, increase the use of in game comm's (hailing ships) and add to the flavor of the game ... If I can see who is human and who is NPC, then to me I think some of the ingame tension (That should be there) would be lost..