What do you mean by griefing?
I'm concerned – the direction of the game.
- Thread starter Cosmos
- Start date
What do you mean by griefing?
There are so many great points in this thread. My head was kinda swimming after the first couple of hundred, but here are some things I don't think have been mentioned yet.
First, and I can't stress this one enough: for the love of KumByar and all that is tidy, please show 40 posts per page in your account options. You'll fill up the Internet browsing in the default mode.
Back on topic, remember that a game is just a tool for players to get what they want. It sounds like a lot of people want it to be as easy as possible to identify other human beings, so they'll find a way no matter what Frontier do - if they have to fly round all day blinking out "shave and a haircut" with their headlights, there'll be a script to automate it before you can say "two bits". But another lot of people find that offputting, and will find a way to avoid it even if it means giving up the other social experiences they'd like. All Frontier can do is offer more convenient ways for people to get what they want, so if you're only interested in consensual encounters, nothing they can do will reduce your ability to get what you want.
Development is a messy process, and ED is leading the way in showing the sausage being made. Some of the problems we're seeing lately are about being shown things as they're implemented rather than when they're ready to tell a balanced story - for example, we've seen a lot of complaints because PvP exists in Alpha 3 but crime isn't yet punished. One of Frontier's guiding principles is "freedom with consequences", which in practice means figuring out which freedoms are important to people then later balancing them out with appropriate consequences. The choice to identify yourself is clearly an important freedom to some, and will likely be balanced with the inability to detect other PCs and a consequent reduction in friendly encounters. Frontier will undoubtedly keep metrics on the number of people in the "all" group with their transponder disabled, so they can the watch the numbers and change the consequences if the graph goes too far in either direction (I'd say 20% of people opting out is a reasonable goal). Maybe the first implementation will be way off and 50% or 5% of people will hide their identity, but that's what gamma is for.
Oh and by the way...
First, and I can't stress this one enough: for the love of KumByar and all that is tidy, please show 40 posts per page in your account options. You'll fill up the Internet browsing in the default mode.
Back on topic, remember that a game is just a tool for players to get what they want. It sounds like a lot of people want it to be as easy as possible to identify other human beings, so they'll find a way no matter what Frontier do - if they have to fly round all day blinking out "shave and a haircut" with their headlights, there'll be a script to automate it before you can say "two bits". But another lot of people find that offputting, and will find a way to avoid it even if it means giving up the other social experiences they'd like. All Frontier can do is offer more convenient ways for people to get what they want, so if you're only interested in consensual encounters, nothing they can do will reduce your ability to get what you want.
Development is a messy process, and ED is leading the way in showing the sausage being made. Some of the problems we're seeing lately are about being shown things as they're implemented rather than when they're ready to tell a balanced story - for example, we've seen a lot of complaints because PvP exists in Alpha 3 but crime isn't yet punished. One of Frontier's guiding principles is "freedom with consequences", which in practice means figuring out which freedoms are important to people then later balancing them out with appropriate consequences. The choice to identify yourself is clearly an important freedom to some, and will likely be balanced with the inability to detect other PCs and a consequent reduction in friendly encounters. Frontier will undoubtedly keep metrics on the number of people in the "all" group with their transponder disabled, so they can the watch the numbers and change the consequences if the graph goes too far in either direction (I'd say 20% of people opting out is a reasonable goal). Maybe the first implementation will be way off and 50% or 5% of people will hide their identity, but that's what gamma is for.
Oh and by the way...
... the word you are looking for is "flexiplayer"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 would say that the npc's in pve serve more to keep the universe feeling busy and populated, but pvp keeps the world exciting and organic. Some people would be happy with routine interractions though, so each to their own.
I can only express my enthusiastic support for not making PCs and NPCs appear differently on screen/scanner/whatever.
Not because I'm worried about being harassed by players seeking PvP but because I will certainly find it much more interesting if I don't automatically 'know' everyone and everything instantly upon spotting them.
Not because I'm worried about being harassed by players seeking PvP but because I will certainly find it much more interesting if I don't automatically 'know' everyone and everything instantly upon spotting them.
Not going there in this thread as that is a completely different (though partially related) subject to the OP.
I have to agree I think it would be a good thing not being able to easily tell which ships are player controlled and which are NPC controlled.
I especially hope that the NPCs will be intelligent enough to only attack ships that are enemies to them, and maybe even help defend ships that have good standings with them. Not like other games where the NPCs just attack any player ship that enters the system.
I especially hope that the NPCs will be intelligent enough to only attack ships that are enemies to them, and maybe even help defend ships that have good standings with them. Not like other games where the NPCs just attack any player ship that enters the system.
You know what we need - RP servers with the above as standard, and regular servers with name plates. Freedom of choice ftw!
I disagree on the "inherently" part. All that is required is that the person in a limited group meets equal numbers to NPCs compared to the NPC+players number a similar player in the all group meets.
I don't think it follows that in the all group you have the same number of NPcs. Actually it's safer to assume that crowded instances with many players have fewer NPcs than somebody playing in a limited or solo group. And that actually makes any "easy mode" problem go away
Just for the record, from the DDF poll and the conversation in this thread it seems like the 'make 'em all the same' guys have won this argument.
And that makes me really unhappy because for me this is make or break ED as a multiplayer experience for me.
And playing a multiplayer game where I can't tell it's a multiplayer game just seems like a waste of bandwidth, networking issues and the rest for me.
If this opt in and opt out compromise gets implemented I WILL be playing singleplayer online. No itch.
And that makes me sad.
I really can't understand the support for the other side of this argument, but that might be my failing.
And that makes me really unhappy because for me this is make or break ED as a multiplayer experience for me.
And playing a multiplayer game where I can't tell it's a multiplayer game just seems like a waste of bandwidth, networking issues and the rest for me.
If this opt in and opt out compromise gets implemented I WILL be playing singleplayer online. No itch.
And that makes me sad.
I really can't understand the support for the other side of this argument, but that might be my failing.
Im struggling to see exactly how the opting-in or out process would work - would players essentially be invulnerable to pvp attack? That would be kind of dumb. If they just didnt appear as players then they would be fair game like any npc
Imho, the front page of the frontier site states that Elite: Dangerous is a multiplayer game, so the concept of playing entirely single player seems odd to me
Just to make sure we're all on the same page, can you confirm you're aware most people that would turn their transponder off still want the capability to identify (and be identified by) other players, but would prefer something more involved and skill-lead than just being told? Not asking you to agree, just that I couldn't tell from your posts what you were trying to say.
If an analogy would help, I get the impression people see it as like saying "all weapons should be gimballed all the time, or you might as well not have combat - why would you want to shoot at someone if you didn't want to hit them?". To be honest even now I still don't have a strong opinion about that argument, but hopefully understanding it will help
That does not follow. You just won't be attacked for being a player. Being singled out and treated different because you have the CMDR tag is what annoys people. A PvP attack that happens for an in-game reason. Piracy, blocade, assassination of my passenger is exciting and fun. An attack that happens because of the CMDR tag is a very annoying reminder that people can't get into the spirit of things, and just want some pew-pew vs humans.
I hope there is an arena and maybe some blood sports for that. I just don't want to see that in normal gameplay, and I'm _really_ keen to take my chances n the all group.
Im struggling to see exactly how the opting-in or out process would work - would players essentially be invulnerable to pvp attack? That would be kind of dumb. If they just didn't appear as 'players' then they would be fair game like any npc
Imho, the front page of the frontier site states that Elite: Dangerous is a multiplayer game, so the concept or even discussion of playing entirely single player seems odd to me:
"The spectacular new multi-player installment in the seminal open world series of space games that started with Elite."
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
....would players essentially be invulnerable to pvp attack? That would be kind of dumb. If they just didnt appear as players then they would be fair game like any npc
Not at all - players who chose to disable the ident transponder would appear to be NPCs to others, that's the point - they would still take damage when hit.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Missed this the first time around - excellent solution to throwaway characters bounties.
Er, you may be misunderstanding something here. The "not knowing whether somebody is human or NPC" will not survive an actual conversation.
If somebody messages me in game, and I write back or accept voice coms I will out myself as human. If I'm feeling sociable, I will do that. If not, I will just send back whatever reply an NPC ship could do.
The idea that PC status is not readily apparent is about not being picked for target or avoided because of the flashing sign. It's not about never communicating with the other players at all, of course.
If you opt-in, then you immediately see all other opted-in players as PCs - perhaps like the alpha where PCs have hollow squares or triangles, and NPCs have solid ones. You see opted-out players as if they were PCs. If you opted out, everyone sees you as if you were an NPC, and you see everyone as if they are NPCs.Im struggling to see exactly how the opting-in or out process would work - would players essentially be invulnerable to pvp attack? That would be kind of dumb. If they just didnt appear as players then they would be fair game like any npc
I think the difference between the two sides is how we see ED.
There's the 'PvP playground' (for want of a better phrase) view where the the word Multiplayer means teams of players fighting each other with little regard to the background game environment other than the mechanics they use to fight each other. Everyone that enters the game wants to shoot at, or be shot at by, other players. The NPC's and everything associated are merely a means to an end. That end is shooting each other in the face.
The other side views ED as a fully functioning environment that they share with other players. They accept that PvP of some kind may or may not be involved but they're there to experience the game environment and accept the game mechanics as a means of interacting and influencing that game environment. The fact that other players are also inside the same environment is a very nice thing but it's secondary to the actual environment.
The first group sees 'multiplayer' and thinks "great! I get to shoot people in spaceships! Awesome!" while the second group sees 'multiplayer' and thinks "Great! I can share this amazing game with others! Wait - look at that planet! See ya later peeps!".
Just to make sure we're all on the same page, can you confirm you're aware most people that would turn their transponder off still want the capability to identify (and be identified by) other players, but would prefer something more involved and skill-lead than just being told? Not asking you to agree, just that I couldn't tell from your posts what you were trying to say.
If an analogy would help, I get the impression people see it as like saying "all weapons should be gimballed all the time, or you might as well not have combat - why would you want to shoot at someone if you didn't want to hit them?". To be honest even now I still don't have a strong opinion about that argument, but hopefully understanding it will help
I think the basic scan is... palatable to me if not perfect.
I just feel...
One of the things I DO love about EVE is that massive shared universe and I was saddened when because of networking issue Elite Dangerous was to be restricted to 32 players per instance instead of the hundreds I can see in EVE. But okay... I can live with that and accept it as a networking limitation because we're 'real time'...
Then there was the single player offline and I can agree with that, some people aren't interested in playing online... so okay.
Singleplayer online. Well... you want the advantage of the evolving universe, but not the players... okay...
Then ironman is singled out from the main group, because some people don't want instadeath... okay...
Then some people want to play with their friends, but not with anyone else...
okay...
Then some people want...
Then some people want...
I feel like that first rich experience I was imagining with every blow was getting weaker and weaker, the only one I really can get to grips with is single player offline, maybe singleplayer online...
And now a lot of people are strongly arguing for their to be NO distinction... and not being able to tell at all that people are people...
THAT is why I'm so strongly upset by this, it's the last straw for me in multiplayer elite dangerous...
CC: DDF Flash Poll as well.
Last edited:
And you may be misunderstanding something, too. If you sometimes respond like a PC, and sometimes like an NPC, then you are gaming the system. If you always respond as an NPC would (which is what I would do if hailed directly) then you are merely trying to keep the 'all ships are the same' thing going for as long as possible,
If there was a general hail (calling all ships near XXXX), then I might choose to respond if I was feeling sociable. But to me that would be an in-game action. Deciding whether to respond as a PC or a pretend NPC is an out-of-game action, to me.