I'm concerned – the direction of the game.

[AnnuverScotinExile]

I disagree with both of these points.

I want the experience of taking the dangerous trade route off the coast of Somalia for higher profit. I'll be flying either a well equipped "armed merchantman" like a well tooled up Cobra mk 3, or hiring a couple of escorts if I'm flying the classic fat mechantman. I want to make it through the trade run, but it doesn't mean I don't welcome the danger and the challenge.

I think you're simplifying this a little too much. I doubt the "traders" as a general group want to just fly between trade hubs with nothing ever happening. They just don't want the whole thing to turn into a frustrating and demotivating series of getting robbed time and again. Danger and opportunity in the right mix is the key.

I don't mind being robbed time and again, as long as I am being robbed 'fairly'. So pirates who do the "stand and deliver" and do not rush to me as soon as I appear on their radar because I'm identified as a PC. If I'm getting (fairly (yes, quite) ) robbed regularly, I'm probably doing something really stupid.

Before you HS, you check your fuel levels, set all power to the engine and then...turn right into your cockpit where the cheat panel is and press the DELETE ALL PLAYERS FROM UNIVERSE LOL button.

This is a straw man. There is no "DELETE ALL PLAYERS FROM UNIVERSE LOL" button, and you seem to be the only person discussing one. If you want that, then you fly in the solo mode, and never meet anyone. What we are discussing is when you are flying in an instance populated with potentially multiple PCs, whether those PCs get told you are a PC or not. If there is not auto-ID, nothing is stopping them from targeting you, they just are not getting a flashing blue light telling them to go after you, instead of the other prospective targets.

Why not have an option for differentiating PCs/NPCs - yes/no. All the 'no' folks can live happily in their world, not knowing who is who and all the yes folks can do the same, clearly identifying each ship. Except... the 'no' folks want the 'yes' folks to not have that option, is that right?

Sort-of. I suspect the No folks (and I can only speak of myself) would prefer that the yes folks would not have the option (because they think the game is better that way) but would happily accept the suggested opt-in/out approach. The Yes folks would probably not want the no folks to have the option, because they seem to want to attack them, even without good reason. Most would, I suspect, accept the opt-in/out option if they had to, because at least they would then insta-ID some humans, but not all of them.

Unfortunately the poll in the DDF did not follow-up on such things. There were 5 choices. Undoubtedly the 'No' camp will have seen that as one very good one, one they could live with, and three they disliked, with at least one of those being intolerable. Whereas the Yesses probably saw one as very good, another as intolerable, and 3 that were somewhere on the scale between acceptable if pushed to not very happy.

 

[Stoo]

You can't please everyone, all of the time....

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

You can't please everyone, all of the time....

Indeed. Let's hope that in an attempt to do so, FD do not end up with a solution that pleases no one, all the time.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You can't please everyone, all of the time....

My job entails carving out a compromise between a number of potentially conflicting requirements when setting out particular performance parameters for the subject of the project at hand.

I prefer to <insert euphemism for annoy here> off all of the stakeholders equally - that's fairer after all.

The mutual ident option seems to be that compromise here.

 

[Bob_H]

Maybe there's a compromise.
../snip
I guess though I see this game as galaxy with people in it who I may or may not meet, all doing their thing, than an arena style Multiplayer experience. The blending in for me is part of the charm as like I said, it changes behaviours in an interesting and potentially more genuine manner.

That said, if it was kept as is in current Alpha I would NOT move out of the ALL group.

I agree with this. I do respect and agree with a lot of things the OP says but on this occasion I feel Cosmos (and everyone who is thinking his way) is pretty much misunderstanding what DB and FD are intending with the multiplayer aspect of ED. The 'All Online' group shouldn't be regarded as a PvP playground but an open world where we all just happen to be. The universe won't be a cold and dangerous environment because other players are there sharing it. It'll be cold and dangererous whether other players are there or not and the player base will be just one small aspect of why it is such a place.

Now, having said that, I'm all for choice. While my personal preference would be that ships are never identified by the game as being flown by another player or NPC I do see the argument for the PvP playground (players being able to see other players and react accordingly either by challenging to fight, saying 'Hi!' or just instantly attacking for no other reason than 'because').

I think the transponder 'opt in' option is a, to some extent, bad compromise but it's the only one that I can see that will work long term. My reason for saying that is that it gives options. The players that want the PvP 'challenge' of attacking other players out right will be able to opt in and happily blast away at each other - other game mechanics permitting - while those that prefer the associated tension of not knowing can opt out and play through the game without the 'personal' aspect of attacking or being attacked that blatent or not sensible in game PvP can induce.

I would much prefer that everyone just accepts that the open universe is not going to revolve solely around them and the rest of the player base and that not knowing who or what you come across should be part of the open world and the concept of one pilot in one small ship against the stars only knows what's waiting at the other end of the hyperdrive jump.

This thread is evidence that that isn't the case though. so the opt in will give those players who want it, the ability to shoot other players on sight PLUS the possibility of shooting players in the face that they don't know are other players while those that opt out can keep the tension and fear of not knowing regardless of who or what is shooting regardless of whether their predator/prey has opted in or out.

 

[Stoo]

Indeed. Let's hope that in an attempt to do so, FD do not end up with a solution that pleases no one, all the time.

Well said

 

[JeffRyan]

but on this occasion I feel Cosmos (and everyone who is thinking his way) is pretty much misunderstanding what DB and FD are intending with the multiplayer aspect of ED. The 'All Online' group shouldn't be regarded as a PvP playground but an open world where we all just happen to be.

Now I'm not at work I can respond more fully. As I mentioned in an earlier post (probably lost in the noise) that whilst I have no problem with pvp and might engage in it at some point, I'm not a proponent of it and I'm heavily in the anti-griefing camp. I'm also the person who when the poll hits the DDF Archive you'll see fought the longest and hardest against this sort of proposal. So being in Cosmos's camp in this argument has nothing to do with wanting to PvP.

I don't have a long drawn out argument, I don't have logic points to score. For me it's very simple. If I'm playing a game where the NPCs are indistinguishable from the PCs, why on earth am I playing a multiplayer game.

Long drawn out argument follows:

Someone mentioned they want to avoid seeing other players but they want the vitality of a living universe impacted by PEOPLE as their argument against Cosmos, but there's already an option for that. There's the Solo Online Mode. Where you have that meaningful universe without having to deal with players.

If you want to just play with a small group of friends you can create your own little group already. I understand the argument about immersion, I want to play the game without having to deal with whether this person is an NPC or a Player. For me (and this is the weakest point in my argument) why not just play single player online? If you feel so strongly about immersion and not worry about players at all.

This 'I want to play with people but not know they're people' group I find baffling and their argument for me comes down to why bother playing with people if you don't want to know they're people?'

The playerbase is divided already with groups, ironman and the like. Can't you just leave the all open group as the all open group? Where everyone who wants to play with anyone can play with anyone instead of yet another diluting. If I'm having to guess everytime someone appears on my screen if that person is an AI or a person I'm not really going to be having fun and it will break my immersion.

If I know if that person is an AI or a Person I just accept it and move on, if I'm having to guess continously it'll be like an irritating itch. ALL THE TIME.

 

[Y2K]

If I'm playing a game where the NPCs are indistinguishable from the PCs, why on earth am I playing a multiplayer game.

Spot on. We dont want PvP 100% of the time, just the option to do so in whats supposed to be MULTIPLAYER.

Being attacked - not being attacked is a huge part of the game and adds to the atmosphere. Wheres the excitement factor in knowing you WONT be attacked. I dont get the logic, it makes no sense.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The desire to remain indistinguishable from NPCs, at least in part, stems from the existence of players who will preferentially select targets based on whether the pilot is a player rather than an NPC.

We'll need to see how private groups are created / managed / etc before we can be content that they are an adequate substitute to the All Group.

Players who do not wish to partake in PvP might simply want to co-exist with other like minded individuals and have the opportunity to meet them. Can't do that in a private group as by implication you already know who else is in the group.

We're talking about how best to implement the All Group for the benefit of all players, not how to segregate off non-PvP players - when did the All Group become the property of players with a particular play-style?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Spot on. We dont want PvP 100% of the time, just the option to do so in whats supposed to be MULTIPLAYER.

Being attacked - not being attacked is a huge part of the game and adds to the atmosphere. Wheres the excitement factor in knowing you WONT be attacked. I dont get the logic, it makes no sense.

Multi-player does not necessarily equate to PvP.

NPCs will vastly outnumber PCs in the game - you will get used to being attacked by NPCs, there is no "knowing you WONT be attacked".

 

[jabokai]

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.

That sounds absolutely brilliant, and I dearly hope they make the game work like that. It willl make the immersion that much greater, and will go a long way to getting the game working like David has advertised his goals for it to be.

When somebody hails me (and I think they are human) I want the option to respond in a way that makes it clear I'm a human, or to use a canned response that leaves them wondering.

So, do you really want immersion as you claim - blurring the lines between human and NPC for the sake of a "believable" galaxy - or do you just want to use it for game purposes?

As much as I don't empathise with it, I can understand the pure view of those who never really want to know who is human and who is AI. Just using it as another game device "I'm going to pretend to be an NPC" isn't really anything to do with immersion though - it's just gaming the system.

 

[Olrik]

I'll say one thing - as a solo online player, this would be one feature that might just tempt me into the All group.

Same here

Yup, great isn't it. No silly immersion destroying flashing blue light, players making decisions on the basis of what makes sense in-game, rather than just looking for a PC they can attack.

Exactly.

 

[ak785]

How can you be concerned, genuinely concerned, feel any concern at all, even contemplate being concerned when the final game is not out yet.

I'm concerned, very truly concerned that your concerned when the game is not even at GM stage. That concerns me very much indeed.

 

[Mazhurg]

Now I'm not at work I can respond more fully. As I mentioned in an earlier post (probably lost in the noise) that whilst I have no problem with pvp and might engage in it at some point, I'm not a proponent of it and I'm heavily in the anti-griefing camp. I'm also the person who when the poll hits the DDF Archive you'll see fought the longest and hardest against this sort of proposal. So being in Cosmos's camp in this argument has nothing to do with wanting to PvP.

I don't have a long drawn out argument, I don't have logic points to score. For me it's very simple. If I'm playing a game where the NPCs are indistinguishable from the PCs, why on earth am I playing a multiplayer game.

Long drawn out argument follows:

Someone mentioned they want to avoid seeing other players but they want the vitality of a living universe impacted by PEOPLE as their argument against Cosmos, but there's already an option for that. There's the Solo Online Mode. Where you have that meaningful universe without having to deal with players.

If you want to just play with a small group of friends you can create your own little group already. I understand the argument about immersion, I want to play the game without having to deal with whether this person is an NPC or a Player. For me (and this is the weakest point in my argument) why not just play single player online? If you feel so strongly about immersion and not worry about players at all.

This 'I want to play with people but not know they're people' group I find baffling and their argument for me comes down to why bother playing with people if you don't want to know they're people?'

The playerbase is divided already with groups, ironman and the like. Can't you just leave the all open group as the all open group? Where everyone who wants to play with anyone can play with anyone instead of yet another diluting. If I'm having to guess everytime someone appears on my screen if that person is an AI or a person I'm not really going to be having fun and it will break my immersion.

If I know if that person is an AI or a Person I just accept it and move on, if I'm having to guess continously it'll be like an irritating itch. ALL THE TIME.

The whole point of the proposal, and the angst surrounding it has more to do with instantly knowing players from AI, and has nothing to do with permanently hiding that fact.

Just like anything else, there should be is a 'fog of war' surrounding your player, requiring further actions - information - to determine a course of action. Not having this promote biasé game play, simply because it permits overriding the game mechanics.

Sure, the game will punish aberrant behaviour and will tend to restrict the behaviour however not providing this obfuscation will always push aggressive players to ignore their environment and always target others players - even if it would be more profitable to target the AI instead. And this while staying within the game rule-set.

 

[Yaffle]

This 'I want to play with people but not know they're people' group I find baffling and their argument for me comes down to why bother playing with people if you don't want to know they're people?'

...

If I know if that person is an AI or a Person I just accept it and move on, if I'm having to guess continously it'll be like an irritating itch. ALL THE TIME.

For me, at least it's not that I don't want to know, I don't see why I need to know instantly.

There is a thing in fiction, and it's very important. Mystery is the secret. The corpse at the bottom of the stairs is no longer interesting once you know who it was, who killed them, and why. The dark room with the busted light isn't scary once you know what's in there. Mystery keeps (me at least) interested. How many people would watch Morse if at the start you were told who was to die and who the murderer was? Bruce Willis discloses he is a ghost in his first scene etc. How many players would choose to explore if they knew what every system held already?

As we have seen in Alpha commanders of all persuasions behave differently to NPCs and PCs. Some camp in the asteroids and just shoot commanders. Some avoid human contact, preferring the allure of the digital. If neither of those knew until contact (either by hail, laser, wing waggle) then it makes a new game dynamic.

I also don't understand the need to guess. A blip on the screen I am about to fly past at supercruise, why do I care if it's a PC or an NPC? If a juicy bounty jumps into the system why do I care? If there is a trader in a hopelessly underarmed Lakon ahead of me, why do I care?

To restate, mystery is important.

 

[Lestat]

I think it should be determine by systems. Maybe have them different colors. Green might be more technical advanced so everyone scanners will show if it a Player or NPC. Red system might not be technical advanced or dose not wish to disclose what the ship is NPC or player. So people could use that for their advantage or disadvantage. It give the user a choice.

Now explorers because some systems have not been explored only system they have to go back to get fuel and supply's would have color code

 

[JeffRyan]

The whole point of the proposal, and the angst surrounding it has more to do with instantly knowing players from AI, and has nothing to do with permanently hiding that fact.

The most popular result from the flash poll (by a LONG way) was exactly that. All people are in the ALL group but can only be identified as players if both players involved have opted in to the IDENT system proposed. If you haven't opted in, you're PERMANENTLY indistinguishable from an NPC.

This would also create problems for 'famous' pcs. You're indistinguishable, you know that Space Ranger Ryan is a famous explorer. He has no way to know you're a PC.

 

[jabokai]

Now I'm not at work I can respond more fully. As I mentioned in an earlier post (probably lost in the noise) that whilst I have no problem with pvp and might engage in it at some point, I'm not a proponent of it and I'm heavily in the anti-griefing camp. I'm also the person who when the poll hits the DDF Archive you'll see fought the longest and hardest against this sort of proposal. So being in Cosmos's camp in this argument has nothing to do with wanting to PvP.

I don't have a long drawn out argument, I don't have logic points to score. For me it's very simple. If I'm playing a game where the NPCs are indistinguishable from the PCs, why on earth am I playing a multiplayer game.

Long drawn out argument follows:

Someone mentioned they want to avoid seeing other players but they want the vitality of a living universe impacted by PEOPLE as their argument against Cosmos, but there's already an option for that. There's the Solo Online Mode. Where you have that meaningful universe without having to deal with players.

If you want to just play with a small group of friends you can create your own little group already. I understand the argument about immersion, I want to play the game without having to deal with whether this person is an NPC or a Player. For me (and this is the weakest point in my argument) why not just play single player online? If you feel so strongly about immersion and not worry about players at all.

This 'I want to play with people but not know they're people' group I find baffling and their argument for me comes down to why bother playing with people if you don't want to know they're people?'

The playerbase is divided already with groups, ironman and the like. Can't you just leave the all open group as the all open group? Where everyone who wants to play with anyone can play with anyone instead of yet another diluting. If I'm having to guess everytime someone appears on my screen if that person is an AI or a person I'm not really going to be having fun and it will break my immersion.

If I know if that person is an AI or a Person I just accept it and move on, if I'm having to guess continously it'll be like an irritating itch. ALL THE TIME.

Completely understand and agree with what you're saying... again... just like the time we had this discussion in the DDF... and probably the same as next time we have it, and the time after that... :smilie:

 

[Bob_H]

Think of a trader that gets hit by pirates going to the system, or a pirate waiting for prey to come by and gets blue balled, or a bounty hunter waiting to kill said pirate. Or a trader that reaches the station only to find that the price went down from ghost players bypassing the blockade.

Again, its an extreme example, that really doesn't have to do with pvp in the strict sense.

In any case, I think we are off topic for some time now. Sorry for that Cosmos, I didn't want to derail. Powering down <o

Err... the solo online trader will still have to run the blockade. There just won't be any PC's in the blockade (s)he will be going through. Like wise in the All Online group the blockade won't be only PC's but a few (maximum 31) PC's plus a whole shed full of NPC's. Also the ships running the blockade won't be just PC's but a whole shed full of NPC's with a few PC's thrown in every now and then.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

If I know if that person is an AI or a Person I just accept it and move on, if I'm having to guess continously it'll be like an irritating itch. ALL THE TIME.

This is the same argument that jabokai used. I find it baffling that knowledge of something which should be outside the game (i.e., PC vs NPC) can make you feel more immersed. To me it is the exact opposite: since in-game the PC vs NPC distinction makes no sense, then being told that status breaks the immersion.

But, to each his own, and all that. Whilst your justification is baffling to me, I acknowledge your right to have that perspective and to voice it.