I'm concerned – the direction of the game.

[Dante80]

I don't really see this as a matter of PvP either.

Lets say I'm a pirate. I want to pirate anything and everything. NPCs and players. My motives or gameplay do not change according to whether there is a gamer inside that Lakon or an NPC. I will plunder both yarr!!!

Lets say I'm a bounty hunter. I want to hunt anything and everything. NPCs and players. My motives or gameplay do not change according to whether there is a gamer inside that Krait or an NPC. I will kill both muhahah!!!

So, it really makes no sense to me to instantly know if that ship belongs to a player or an NPC. It actually makes the game even more immersive and "dangerous", since that blip on the map could be anything. From a mundane Anlavian buckaroo AI to a Deadly rated Peruvian ace PC in his mancave.

Having said that, a hail or an advanced scan could help me identify more things about my adversary. But not instantly, and not with ease/room for abuse.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

Simply put its because its a more rewarding experience to engage with other humans and is quintessentially part of a multiplayer game.

I understand there are plenty of people that think this way. I can assure you, however, that the person that you attacked does not necessarily agree that it is a rewarding experience. I certainly would not think it was rewarding, even if I was good enough to beat you (which I doubt, since I will not be spending much of my game time honing those skills).

Consensual PvP: terrific. All for it. I want the game to attract as many players as possible. But as you know, I want a game where I can interact with other players, but people are doing stuff that makes in-game sense. And randomly attacking another player does not make in-game sense.

It is not easy: if it were, we would not have long threads going round in circles trying to reconcile points of view that are not really reconcilable. Supporting what you want will diminish my game considerably, and possibly make me feel that I have to run away and hide in single player, which I do not want to do. Clearly you do not want the game that I want. Coming up with a compromise that both sides feel OK about will be non-trivial.

 

[VR jefranklin18]

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

Rubbish. You can stick to the stable core systems just trading and never fire a weapon in your entire (game) life. When starting Frontier, that is exactly the path I take, slowly building my trading routes.

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

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.

+1

I see this mechanic as one of making pilots actually think about where they are and what they're doing, and how they plan on treating other blips on the radar.

Having all the info handed to you on a silver plate is too easy. But with this feature the pirate has to think. He has to learn the flight behaviors of his prey and figure out who's who. Is it an npc, a trader, or a bounty hunter?

The same mechanic now makes a miners life more interesting. He can no longer ignore that blip on the radar that pops up amongst the rocks, dismissing it as a scripted npc that his escort can take care of.

The trader has to decide whether those ships ahead are just other traders going about their business - or are they something a little more unpredictable. Will they allow me to pass?

The mechanic makes the player think and not take stuff for granted. Even the most mundane of journeys become a journey of unknowns.

 

[Cosmos]

Rubbish. You can stick to the stable core systems just trading and never fire a weapon in your entire (game) life. When starting Frontier, that is exactly the path I take, slowly building my trading routes.

You never had a fight in Frontier? Really?

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

I don't really see this as a matter of PvP either.

Lets say I'm a pirate. I want to pirate anything and everything. NPCs and players. My motives or gameplay do not change according to whether there is a gamer inside that Lakon or an NPC. I will plunder both yarr!!!

Lets say I'm a bounty hunter. I want to hunt anything and everything. NPCs and players. My motives or gameplay do not change according to whether there is a gamer inside that Krait or an NPC. I will kill both muhahah!!!

So, it really makes no sense to me to instantly know if that ship belongs to a player or an NPC. It actually makes the game even more immersive and "dangerous", since that blip on the map could be anything. From a mundane Anlavian buckaroo AI to a Deadly rated Peruvian ace PC in his mancave.

Having said that, a hail or an advanced scan could help me identify more things about my adversary. But not instantly, and not with ease/room for abuse.

And I agree, of course. But that's because I want to play the game by making in-game decisions that make sense in-game.

The problem that I see is that there are players who do not want to play that way. They want to fight other players, because that's fun for them. They don't care that it makes no in-game sense, because that is not what motivates them.

So it seems to me to not be PvE vs PvP, but role-playing vs playing.

 

[Dante80]

Consensual PvP: terrific. All for it. I want the game to attract as many players as possible. But as you know, I want a game where I can interact with other players, but people are doing stuff that makes in-game sense. And randomly attacking another player does not make in-game sense.

It is not easy: if it were, we would not have long threads going round in circles trying to reconcile points of view that are not really reconcilable. Supporting what you want will diminish my game considerably, and possibly make me feel that I have to run away and hide in single player, which I do not want to do. Clearly you do not want the game that I want. Coming up with a compromise that both sides feel bad about will be non-trivial.

If you are a trader and get attacked by a pirate, then its non-consensual regardless of whether the pirate is a player of an npc.

Moreover, if you are a trader I think you would never want to be attacked by a pirate.

The NPC vs PC aspect governs the relative difficulty of the engagement.

The game rules regarding griefing and mechanic abuse govern the relative playfield in which PCs operate.

So, if the game rules are good and there are consequences for every behavior, saying that you are against non-consensual interaction in the game is like saying you don't want to play a trader. At all.

THE GAME MUST HAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR EVERY BEHAVIOR, since the universe is ONE for all players. This also includes players that are averse to interaction but still want the same amount of influence in the PU.

 

[DoctorDanny]

For me this game was never about multipleyer. I will start out in the all group and hope to have lots of fun. If multiplayer turns out to be not much fun I can allways go and play solo. Win win I suppose!

 

[Memnoch]

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.

Because some players seem to be into PvP purely for its competitive aspect.

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.

We don't know enough, yet, about jump ranges and things like that to judge really. A 200LY distance could be covered in 10 jumps or less. Halve that if they agree upon a midpoint. Those that will be travelling out to truely massive distance, or think they will at least because I don't quite see it yet, won't be interested in grouping anyway as they pursue this aspect of the game.

Those that are interested are likely to be in that sphere of humanities influence, and therefore more likely to be within some acceptable distance from each other.

I've sat around for ages in MMO games before waiting for another player to group up as they are on the other side of the world. If I have to fly for 20 minutes to reach someone to play with I would consider that acceptable.

One side of the inhabited galaxy to the other though, and then halving it? That could be quite a trek. Perhaps you could arrange to meet up later in that play session or maybe even the next day, but as I say without hard evidence its difficult to guess how long these journeys are really likely to take.

 

[metatheurgist]

Awesome! I hope this makes it into the game. I suggested it in the very first PvP/PvE thread so I'll take credit for it!

When you meet a ship in space you should meet a ship in space. Not a PC/NPC/Trader/Pirate/Explorer/Courier/Escort.

You find out what it is by how it behaves. Either by how it responds to coms or by how it chooses to interact with you.

I've no doubt certain PCs will become famous for their activities in time for their ship names (or even their ship if decals are available) to become recognisable on sight. That will be an achievement by itself.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

If you are a trader and get attacked by a pirate, then its non-consensual regardless of whether the pirate is a player of an npc.

Moreover, if you are a trader I think you would never want to be attacked by a pirate.

Only sort of. Sure, I would very much prefer that they did not attack me. But I accept that part of the danger of a trading role is that you might get attacked by a pirate. So it is consensual in the sense that I have accepted that risk when I choose to make that journey. And FD are putting processes in place ("stand and deliver") to clearly differentiate a pirate attack from someone who wants to have a dogfight with you for 'fun' whether you want to or not.

 

[Zio]

I don't really understand why people think they'll never bump into others whilst playing the game, even though the universe is huge. I know when I used to play Frontier and FFE, although I would do a a fair bit of exploring, I'd end up in Alioth, or Sol, or Achenar fairly often. I'd have thought this will be no different. In fact I can see Sol becoming like Earth Starbase in Star Trek Online - always rammed full of PCs. Some systems are likely to be constantly busy, I'd have thought.

Personally, I really like the opt-in proposal and I don't really see what the big deal is. People here seem to be saying that they don't want to grief others but they do specifically want to know who's a PC and who's an NPC... why would you want to know this for any reason other than griefing? If someone wants to just mind their own business in the online space for a bit and opt-out of being identified as a PC, why would anyone want to force them into having to identify themselves and having to engage with others? Why would that even be fun to deliberately target someone who's not interested in playing that way?

Besides which, it seems to me that all we're talking about here is identification. We're not suggesting that players who opt-out will be totally safe from consequences - other players can still target and kill them. We're just saying that the other player won't have known whether it was a PC or an NPC they've just killed.

And also, if you think the Elite series is primarily geared towards combat, it seems to me you've probably not played any of the previous Elite games. Combat was always just one aspect of the game - even in the original Elite to a degree.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

1. How will we form relationships with players who aren't part of our pre-established social network?

I believe that FD have said they are not keen on system wide comms channels ("shout" channels) which I agree with. Given that then, to me it would make sense to allow free chat channels inside stations as a compromise. If this was accepted it would also make sense to allow you to know who was in the station (player wise) with ease, whilst outside you need to "do" something.

My opinion on this then is that the majority of your interactions and new acquaintances will be made in the stations whilst looking at job boards; the market etc; and needed people to fly with. It's only when you fly outside into space that the unknown should come into play.

---

My main objection, as others have alluded to, is to be caught flying somewhere in space amongst a crowd of NPCs and an aggressor appearing on screen who makes an obvious and direct beeline for me for no other reason than I am human. That's not realistic in the slightest. If a player determines that I am human from my flight pattern, or from a scan (that has a range) I am OK with that. Just so that the aggressor has to do something to know I am human.

Also, as others have said, multiplayer does not mean combat. I do not agree with the premise that Elite was all about fighting and everything else secondary - it's down to the individual to determine what's priority as the game is a sandbox offering opportunities for many walks. Some are here to marvel at the wonders the ED universe has to offer, some to make a million or two, some to become a hotshot pilot, others just to waste time socialising ... there is no right or wrong way to play this game.

 

[VR jefranklin18]

You never had a fight in Frontier? Really?

I played multiple characters in Frontier, depending on my mood. Arnold J R i m m e r was a coward who gained fame and fortune, or at least fortune, doing a combination of trading in legals and illegals, package deliveries and passenger runs. One day he went off the rails, fired all his crew bar one and downgraded from a Panther clipper to an Asp explorer. He planned to explore the outer frontier but rumour has it he crashed into a gas giant while learning how to fuel scoop.

 

[Dante80]

Only sort of. Sure, I would very much prefer that they did not attack me. But I accept that part of the danger of a trading role is that you might get attacked by a pirate. So it is consensual in the sense that I have accepted that risk when I choose to make that journey. And FD are putting processes in place ("stand and deliver") to clearly differentiate a pirate attack from someone who wants to have a dogfight with you for 'fun' whether you want to or not.

Thats the spirit! Thats why I talked about the game rules aspect that governs griefing.

Let me give you another example. An assassin gets a contract from a competitor merchant to kill you and then hand him over your cargo. That guy is extremely hostile to you because maybe you outbid him somewhere, or did something wrong to him. And thats why he paid money to put a contract on you. If you have played EF2 or FFE, you are accustomed with what I'm talking about ("you will regret........")

The player comes in and tries to kill you to fulfill his contract. I'm pretty sure that is not something you would like to happen, right?

Should he be able to do that? I think yes. After all, assassinations were a BIG part of the previous Elite games.

Should a player be able to randomly and without motive kill maim and destroy everything in a AU radius? I think not. Thats where the game rules come, and where gamer consequences matter.

 

[Memnoch]

Depending on how sturdy and combat worthy these trader craft are I would relish the chance to try them out. From what I have seen so far in the Alpha however they are sitting ducks to a well planned out assault, even by a single ship.

I would hope that some common sense will prevail with the pirates and not just mindlessly slaughter their trader targets if they give up some of their cargo.

Think of it like this: if you keep destroying those big ships isn't there a small chance that their number may dwindle. Like a parasite, isn't it better to nibble at your prey rather than outright kill them? If you keep wiping them out they could reach a point where they cannot afford to replace their ship, and then you have no target to prey on in future. An unlikely situation but entirely possible.

 

[Cosmos]

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".

I think this is splitting hairs. We are going to be dong a lot of hyperspacing so I think describing it 'at will' is a fairly accurate way to put it.

 

[Harrimon Hoxx]

Wow, just read through 13 pages and the thread kept accelerating. Not sure if someone has covered this already but -

1) All ships, NPC and Player are referred to on screen by a unique registration number

2) A scan (basic or detailed?) determines whether the ship is NPC or Player

3) Players can purchase stealth modules to trick scanners into thinking they are not what they really are....in other words, a player looks like an NPC ship when scanned by another player.

Problem solved?

PVPers would have scan to identify players and even then would not know if the scan return on an npc was really an npc. PvErs could gain a little valubale time to defend, flee or fight if they have a stealth module fitted.

Again, apologies if this has already been stated or suggested but playing massive catch up with a very active thread right now.

 

[jabokai]

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.

You keep saying I make no sense, please stop! We obviously have a very different mindset - I tried explaining in the other thread but I guess you didn't see it.

Anyway I wrote this in the DDF thread -

To me making PCs and NPCs appear the same actually highlights the difference because I would always be wondering who was what. If I instantly know then that knowledge puts the wondering out of the picture and I would just play the encounter from there. As mentioned before, perhaps it's a lack of imagination, I don't know, but I'd simply spend more time thinking about "is it NPC, is it PC" if I didn't know, and less time forgetting the difference.

Also, I feel that PC encounters would be more enjoyable/rewarding/fulfilling/emotionally affecting than NPC encounters. Because interacting with real people, even if the AI opponents/comrades were top notch, is simply betterer (sic)! Again, as I wrote previously, I will get more satisfaction from helping a human, from killing a human pirate, and even from being pirated by a human than from an NPC. We have two real stories there, not just one. If I don't know, well, it seems disappointing. I agree that there are a lot of ats in the human player population that break that whole experience and I would like to see a fairly strong mechanism to ensure mindless PKing was reduced - but via consequences rather than hiding.

Basically, in solo player mode I won't have to wonder who is who, and this is preferable. Obviously my first choice is just to have it so we know who is what. Opt-in/out mechanism is a distant 3rd place.

Hope that answers your question. :smilie:

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

Let me give you another example. An assassin gets a contract from a competitor merchant to kill you and then hand him over your cargo. That guy is extremely hostile to you because maybe you outbid him somewhere, or did something wrong to him. And thats why he paid money to put a contract on you. If you have played EF2 or FFE, you are accustomed with what I'm talking about ("you will regret........")

The player comes in and tries to kill you to fulfill his contract. I'm pretty sure that is not something you would like to happen, right?

Should he be able to do that? I think yes. After all, assassinations were a BIG part of the previous Elite games.

Yes, and no. If assassination contracts are in game, and I have one on me, then it makes in-game sense, so I would not object. However, the mechanic you describe is one that I cannot support, because it is another griefer's charter: Ruin someone's day potentially for no good reason, just because you can. So I would want to see that mechanic very carefully controlled, if it is going to be allowed. If the game engine has a way to know that the grudge is in-game reasonable (say you reneged on paying your wingman), then it seems more reasonable. But some random player putting a hit contract on you (or a bounty, which amounts to the same thing), I feel uncomfortable with, because it may not be for 'a good reason'.