I'm concerned – the direction of the game.

Hate that idea, and it is nothing like a compromise.

So if I want to prepare myself should I be attacked, I get a flashing blue light saying "PC over here"? Or I have to fly around with out defences, and have my shields shot out and hull down to 50% before I have deployed my weapons and can fire back?

Completely agree. Hate the original idea - definitely not a compromise.
 
I'm afraid this is the bit where you lose me. Nobody wants it to be impossible to tell people are people, or believes it ever could be. The people you're arguing against agree with you that would be both a rubbish and nonsensical idea.

Read the thread andrew. A lot of people want there to be NO way to distinguish PCs and NPCs, both in this thread and the previous threads.

And the IDENT Opt In/Out will allow just that, if you Opt Out you can no longer tell the difference between players and AI. And even if you're opted in, there will be players that you can never tell are players.
 
So what stops us going down town in real life and attacking a real person. The law. If FD get this part of the game right, the law enforcement it wont matter if theres a huge glow around a PC ship with flasing lights and a huge sign saying CMDR!!! You know the law will respond to any act of aggression in a law enforced part of space. In unchartered space u take your chances like everyone else. To me thats how it would really be.
 
Read the thread andrew. A lot of people want there to be NO way to distinguish PCs and NPCs, both in this thread and the previous threads.

And the IDENT Opt In/Out will allow just that, if you Opt Out you can no longer tell the difference between players and AI. And even if you're opted in, there will be players that you can never tell are players.
We are arguing that the game should not tell you. And in my case, I will not try to work it out (though I undoubtedly will, from time to time). But if you hang around a ship long enough, it will be obvious whether it is a PC or an NPC. FD are not going to write an AI that passes the Turing Test, though they may write one that keeps you guessing for a while.
 
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.

It's quite simple. The reason why I like the idea that I won't have a neon sign crying out, "There's a player here!" is because I want to live in the Elite universe, not in the Deathrace 3300 universe.

Piracy, assassins, and bounty hunters, among other dangerous characters, are a part of the game, and I'll fight or run from PC pirates, assassins, and bounty hunters just as gleefully as I would from NPC ones. This form of PvP would be fun, like encountering an elite pirate, rather than a run of the mill one.

But I have no desire to be the victim of player killers or griefers. I've played that game before, and it isn't an experience I'd care to repeat.
 
And the IDENT Opt In/Out will allow just that, if you Opt Out you can no longer tell the difference between players and AI. And even if you're opted in, there will be players that you can never tell are players.

So you treat all ships with respect, and initially the same - with caution, unless you are confident you completely outclass them.

The façade between player/non-player may start to drop, or drop completely, as you hail them, depending on the nature of their response.

Likewise it may drop when/if you open fire and they prove an immense challenge, turning the tables on you with flying unfortunately not possible by the AI.

It my be obvious after a K-Warrant scan - and you recognise the commander name, depending on what is revealed in the scan.

Or it may not. You may destroy them, or they you, without never being certain.

As it should be IMHO. :)

All far better than - Oh look, there's a player, kill or avoid. No?
 
Having read all the way through this entertaining thread I'm still firmly in the 'no identification of Players as opposed to NPCs other than by their behaviour' camp.
I like the mystery :)

I feel this would make the Players I do encounter, both good and bad, more important and memorable, as I'd probably interacted with them in some way. Also it would help alleviate the usual in-game effect of relegating all NPCs to being some sort of second-rate, predictable background fillers; to be generally ignored if there are real Players about.
 
So lets for arguments sake say that NPC and players are not distinguishable from one another in the all-group. Given we've got umpteen group categories all catering to various play-styles would it be reasonable to have another group, call it pvp-group (for the want of a better expression) - pretty much like the all-group but where players are identifiable to one another instantly when within a reasonable range, perhaps even with a slightly less punitive law system?

Would this be acceptable? Everyone has an option to choose a particular play-style that suits?
 
Last edited:
Read the thread andrew. A lot of people want there to be NO way to distinguish PCs and NPCs, both in this thread and the previous threads.

And the IDENT Opt In/Out will allow just that, if you Opt Out you can no longer tell the difference between players and AI. And even if you're opted in, there will be players that you can never tell are players.

Right, then I understand the issue. It is true that people want the game's mechanics not to flatly state "this blip is a player". Instead they want the game's dynamics to present it as a puzzle for them to solve.

It's also true that making it a puzzle will let some hide people better than you can seek (like the stealth mechanics already do), and it's perfectly reasonable to dislike the idea on that basis - once you start adding dynamics to create random little challenges, it's a slippery slope down to Tetris mini-games for stacking your hold. It's just a different issue than taking the other players out of a multiplayer game.
 
It's also true that making it a puzzle will let some hide people better than you can seek (like the stealth mechanics already do), and it's perfectly reasonable to dislike the idea on that basis - once you start adding dynamics to create random little challenges, it's a slippery slope down to Tetris mini-games for stacking your hold. It's just a different issue than taking the other players out of a multiplayer game.

I see where you are going with that, and I'll have to hold my hand up and say, that whilst you are technically correct, I think I'd find playing 'Turing Test' with other ships a little more interesting and rewarding than Tetris. ;)

Also, don't we already have somewhat artificial, but believable-in-context mini-games in the cargo scooping, and the K-warrant 'keep within 1000 metres' scanning?
 
One of the reasons I play multiplayer is for the social aspect of it. And the social aspect of Elite Dangerous is getting weaker and weaker to the point it's almost becoming non-existent.
 
Would this be acceptable? Everyone has an option to choose a particular play-style that suits?

The grouping system feels a bit heavy-handed, but preferentially matchmaking players based on their ident transponder setting (and perhaps the probability of attacking PCs vs. NPCs) could definitely work.
 
One of the reasons I play multiplayer is for the social aspect of it. And the social aspect of Elite Dangerous is getting weaker and weaker to the point it's almost becoming non-existent.

May I ask what social aspects you are expecting? Surely the very nature of being a lone trader/explorer/whatever in a pretty infinite galaxy, is going to be a bit anti-social, outside of the core systems?

Social aspects may come through the availability and types of missions (e.g. protection or attack scenarios like the Federal Bond), or grouping for protection (e.g. get 5 friends together for protection on that trade run into an anarchic system), or asking for help in distress - rather than random interactions with other pilots going about their normal business in space.

And social for me, definitely isn't painting a big 'player here' target on your ship, which is what we have now. To be fair though, I've noticed that players in E: D do seem to be more reluctant to fight than in other multiplayer games I've experienced. Not so much of a 'must kill other player on sight' mentality.
 
Last edited:
Right, then I understand the issue. It is true that people want the game's mechanics not to flatly state "this blip is a player". Instead they want the game's dynamics to present it as a puzzle for them to solve.
That is certainly NOT what I want. The puzzle as you put it, is not an in-game thing. If I was really there, flying my ship, I would not be looking at that other ship wondering if it is a PC or an NPC. I would be wondering if it is friendly or hostile, whether I should think about preparing a hyperspace jump, just in case, whether they follow the same faction as me, whether they may be interested in going on trading runs together for mutual defence, and so on.

The LAST thing I want is your puzzle :)
 
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: Rog
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.
Indeed, a NPC character represents a living entity in the gameworld. ;)


To me the middle ground proposed by FD solves the issue - the opt in transponder.

  • If you opt in, and so does your aggressor, you "see" each other.
  • If one of you does not opt in then neither of you "see" each other (until scanned perhaps)

A compromise ... a fair one imo.


I'm not keen on the opt in/out idea - I'd much prefer no definitive ID until contact/scan (at some level).

I am undecided. Entre les deux mon coeur balance :)

BUT,
According to the poll, the winner is,
I want to know if the ship is human if we have both opted in to an IDENT TRANSPONDER service 73 43.45%

------

So many great posts, but the honorable mention goes to...:D

... the word you are looking for is "flexiplayer" :)
 
That is certainly NOT what I want. The puzzle as you put it, is not an in-game thing. If I was really there, flying my ship, I would not be looking at that other ship wondering if it is a PC or an NPC. I would be wondering if it is friendly or hostile, whether I should think about preparing a hyperspace jump, just in case, whether they follow the same faction as me, whether they may be interested in going on trading runs together for mutual defence, and so on.

The LAST thing I want is your puzzle :)

In context, all your actions above are part of the risk / reward puzzle. In that sense, it is a puzzle.
 
That is certainly NOT what I want. The puzzle as you put it, is not an in-game thing. If I was really there, flying my ship, I would not be looking at that other ship wondering if it is a PC or an NPC. I would be wondering if it is friendly or hostile, whether I should think about preparing a hyperspace jump, just in case, whether they follow the same faction as me, whether they may be interested in going on trading runs together for mutual defence, and so on.

The LAST thing I want is your puzzle :)

If I may say so, with all due respect, you don't seem to wish to give any ground at all. :(
 
So lets for arguments sake say that NPC and players are not distinguishable from one another in the all-group. Given we've got umpteen group categories all catering to various play-styles would it be reasonable to have another group, call it pvp-group (for the want of a better expression) - pretty much like the all-group but where players are identifiable to one another instantly when within a reasonable range, perhaps even with a slightly less punitive law system?

Would this be acceptable? Everyone has an option to choose a particular play-style that suits?
Doesn't the opt-in system give you that?

Or you could just go into an anarchy system and shoot anything that moves.

Look, I want this game to be a success, and therefore to satisfy all different play styles. Even yours :). As long as I am not forced to play a way I don't want to. But I also don't really want to split a fragmented player base any more if it can be avoided.
 
One of the reasons I play multiplayer is for the social aspect of it. And the social aspect of Elite Dangerous is getting weaker and weaker to the point it's almost becoming non-existent.

Considering we don't know to what extent there will be social aspects in the game, I don't see how you can say that. We are talking about whether or not a scanner shows a different type of symbol in essence. Whether it does or not does not change the 'social' aspects of the game one bit.

We will still be able to be as social or not in the game regardless ... Sorry I cant see where you are coming from currently with such a broad statement.
 
Considering we don't know to what extent there will be social aspects in the game, I don't see how you can say that. We are talking about whether or not a scanner shows a different type of symbol in essence. Whether it does or not does not change the 'social' aspects of the game one bit.

We will still be able to be as social or not in the game regardless ... Sorry I cant see where you are coming from currently with such a broad statement.

How can the game be social IF I CAN'T SEE ANYBODY?!
 
Back
Top Bottom