I'm concerned – the direction of the game.

[Gibbonici]

Who says NPCs won't deliver the same information, if they're a sociable and friendly NPC? You might run into a unsociable NPC that ignores your hails. Guess what? the same thing could happen with a PC! They might feel like ignoring you or they'll give you a canned response. Won't it be awesome when you discover after some responses that you've found a real human from the friendly chat?

I'll probably be playing a "good guy" and will help out when I can. Whether it's an NPC being attacked or an PC being attacked. Won't it be great when after the fight instead of getting a canned "thanks" response you discover you've found a player! You fly to the station together, do some trade routes, form a co-op, get rich, get poor then have a horrible argument and never see each other again! Yay, MP!

The chances of that happening are much reduced if players don't know which other ships are players. Not only that but it will actively discourage interaction between players because the default experience is that there aren't any. It will feel like a single player game and most people will play it as such.

I do like the idea of players being the same as NPCs, but the more I think about it the more it seems like a great idea on paper but a bad one in practice. It's too much of an obstacle to social play for not enough payoff. There's already the solo online and private group modes for people who are OK without social play, and I think it'll be a mistake to bring elements of that into the all group.

 

[deusx_ophc]

Thank you indeed for making the case for player obfuscation.

so i have to a) scann and then b) find it was a pointless exercise?!

as opposed to not having to scann and being able to ingore npc's (unless i want not to)

where is the argument?!

you know a wise man once said npc's are npc's are npc's. the pretence even in sandros ddf question title is wrong. we will not need much of a test to figure npc from human player ability/behavior (given time) in a computer game any time soon.

 

[jabokai]

That comment was more about the "do anything you like but with consequences" stuff which is so against what many of the PvPers seem to want and expect. Cosmos is even floating the idea of a mode where the penalties are much reduced to facilitate that.

There are several separate topics running through this thread (and Cosmos' mind). While I completely agree with Cosmos on the subject of obfuscating humans I completely disagree with stance on the game at large being easier/better for PvPers. I seem to stand somewhere in the middle!

I want a galaxy that makes sense - I want in game actions to make sense. If I have an empty hold, no bounty, and no faction allegiance at the time and I'm attacked by a player then I will be pee'd off. I want the reasons I'm attacked to have some grounding in the background story and my current state. Piracy, from a human, is as perfectly a fine reason as it is from an NPC, if it makes sense (i.e I have stuff to steal). But I want piracy to have it's downside that (roughly) balances them out with traders and so on - they get free stuff but the costs involved (bounties, fines, ship repairs/replacement) should keep them "honest" so they don't just become random psycho killers.

If all the game mechanisms I'd like to be in place worked, including the one I mentioned a few posts ago of not allowing a player to delete a character that is in debt, then there should be no real griefer issue (which seems to be one of the major reasons for this obfuscation). Yes, there'd be the odd spate, but by and large it would be a fairly rare occurrence. To be honest, I've never found it much of an issue in other games - people talk as if it's a daily occurrence - like they log in and are insta-pwned by by a 10 man gank squad! Yes, it's an issue, but not something to change so many features of a game for when it can be handled in other (IMHO, more elegant) ways.

I do accept, of course, that there are people who simply want this obfuscation for game world reasons and I cannot really argue with that as it's just a different point of view, not right or wrong. I would say that I only sympathise with those who want to not know the difference for the depth of game it will bring them. I do not sympathise with those who just want to use it as another metagame tool - e.g. "I'm going to pretend to be an NPC and then get the jump on xyz", etc.

Anyway, I need a cuppa!

 

[Andrew Sayers]

I'm curious to know people's estimates for the percentage of players that will play in different modes. Assuming Frontier can fix the most obvious problems (revealing your playerness isn't a death sentence, leaving the "all" group isn't an easy route to profit, etc.), what percentage of people do you think will join the "all" group, and what percentage of them do you think will reveal their identity? Here's my guess to start us off:

• if playerness cannot be signalled by any in-game mechanic: 50% not in the "all" group, 40% hiding their identity in the "all" group, 10% revealing their identity through some agreed ritual in the "all" group
• if playerness is signalled by an optional in-game mechanic: 30% not in the "all" group, 20% hiding their identity in the "all" group, 50% revealing their identity in the "all" group
• if playerness is signalled by a mandatory in-game mechanic: 69% not in the "all" group, 1% using stealth to skulk in the "all" group, 30% revealing their identity in the "all" group

Feel free to just quote this post and replace the numbers above with your own guesses, but please remove the [quote] tags so I don't look too schizophrenic. I'm particularly interested in the opinions of people with strong opinions for/against a "reveal" mechanic, as I suspect it might be the driving force behind some of the passion in this discussion.

 

[JeffRyan]

I'm curious to know people's estimates for the percentage of players that will play in different modes. Assuming Frontier can fix the most obvious problems (revealing your playerness isn't a death sentence, leaving the "all" group isn't an easy route to profit, etc.), what percentage of people do you think will join the "all" group, and what percentage of them do you think will reveal their identity? Here's my guess to start us off:

• if playerness cannot be signalled by any in-game mechanic: 50% not in the "all" group, 40% hiding their identity in the "all" group, 10% revealing their identity through some agreed ritual in the "all" group
• if playerness is signalled by an optional in-game mechanic: 30% not in the "all" group, 20% hiding their identity in the "all" group, 50% revealing their identity in the "all" group
• if playerness is signalled by a mandatory in-game mechanic: 69% not in the "all" group, 1% using stealth to skulk in the "all" group, 30% revealing their identity in the "all" group

Feel free to just quote this post and replace the numbers above with your own guesses, but please remove the quote tags so I don't look too schizophrenic. I'm particularly interested in the opinions of people with strong quote qopinions for/against a "reveal" mechanic, as I suspect it might be the driving force behind some of the passion in this discussion.

I have no idea.

 

[Gibbonici]

Says who? We haven't seen how the comms will work yet. But I doubt you will have to know the name and phone number of any ship you want to communicate with before you can do so.

Says this.

Having to hail every single ship in the vicinity to find a player who you can share information with is a bigger obstacle than it needs to be. And you will need to share information with other players when approaching potentially dangerous systems.

Not only that but by actively hailing all nearby ships you may be giving away the fact that you're a player to the very people you don't want to appear as a player to. And you won't know if they're a player or not.

The more I think about it the less I like the idea. It takes away too much for too little. There has to be a cut-off point between solo online/private groups and the all group, and this idea will make the all group too much like the others.

 

[jabokai]

• if playerness cannot be signalled by any in-game mechanic: 50% not in the "all" group
• if playerness is signalled by a mandatory in-game mechanic: 69% not in the "all" group

I think this is way off. Perhaps your figures are reasonable for us old, hardcore Elite fans, but I do not think the wider audience will buy into the whole player obfuscation thing. I think this is one case where us rabid fans (as a collective) are off course. I think the bulk of people will want to play in a game where they can tell who real people are - it's what they've come to expect and it's what they've come to expect for a reason. Not saying there is not a market for the whole idea, but I suspect it's niche, rather than mainstream.

 

[Robert Maynard]

so i have to a) scann and then b) find it was a pointless exercise?!

as opposed to not having to scann and being able to ingore npc's (unless i want not to)

where is the argument?!

you know a wise man once said npc's are npc's are npc's. the pretence even in sandros ddf question title is wrong. we will not need much of a test to figure npc from human player ability/behavior (given time) in a computer game any time soon.

.... and again for further reinforcing the case.

Some players do not wish to be prey to other players who only target PCs.

 

[deusx_ophc]

• If you're a bounty hunter you're going to scan ships prior to shooting them to determine if they have a bounty or not.
• If you're a pirate you're likely to scan ships prior to attacking to ensure they have cargo - no point attacking them otherwise
• If you're a psychopath and about to commit murder you won't care.
• A trader will be docked a fair amount of time scouring the commodities board - allow people to meet n greet in the stations
• An explorer won't care .. they're off in a remote corner of the universe ermm .. exploring

Ergo - a normal person is going to scan things as a result of their role, and those that don't will meet in other places (most likely). The "bored of scanning" is a non starter.

ops, that is a poor list built on a poor argument, terribly exclusive...

i have yet to scan a single ship... and why should i do so every single encounter in the finished game?! yes, once in while i will do to know more about them.

but only to know if the encounter is human or not?!

as i said, i play the game to play with or against humans. the ones shaping the ED galaxy. i have no stock in npc's, they are likely to be fodder on the way to elite. not much else.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Having to hail every single ship in the vicinity to find a player who you can share information with is a bigger obstacle than it needs to be. And you will need to share information with other players when approaching potentially dangerous systems.

Not only that but by actively hailing all nearby ships you may be giving away the fact that you're a player to the very people you don't want to appear as a player to. And you won't know if they're a player or not.

So on one hand you want to know who the players are in an area (to be able to communicate with them) and on the other hand you do not want to reveal the fact that you are a player to other players in the area?

 

[deusx_ophc]

.... and again for further reinforcing the case.

Some players do not wish to be prey to other players who only target PCs.

ahh luckily FDEV have already considered that stance. solo offline, have fun with it

obviously in that game mode you will not mind to encounter npc's whose sole purpose is to prey and attack only pcs, right?!

 

[Gibbonici]

So on one hand you want to know who the players are in an area (to be able to communicate with them) and on the other hand you do not want to reveal the fact that you are a player to other players in the area?

Me, no. I'm OK with everyone knowing I'm a player and knowing that everyone else is a player.

What I'm saying is that one of the arguments for hiding players (to stop other players targeting them for being players) goes out of the window if you actively have to give away the fact you're a player just to find someone to communicate with.

 

[ElGuappo]

I still haven't seen any justification for wanting to know who's PC and who isn't beyond 'because I don't want to waste my time messaging an NPC' and for most of those the word 'messaging' can safely be said to read 'attacking'.

Personally I want to choose if someone knows I'm a real person and frankly there are some 'mornings after the night before' when I'm not sure myself.

Just an idea, but why not limit NPC pilots to a short list of possible responses when hailed? When a PC player is hailed he gets to choose from the same list. If you want to incorporate it into the mechanics of the game have an 'auto-response module' or something because most captains are too busy or too lazy to respond themselves.

Even have some NPC's simply not respond at all.

Instead of making NPC's seem more like players (which I'm struggling to believe could happen), why not make it easier for players to look like NPCs?

That way if the PC player wants to respond to another one, they can do so. If not, they can maintain the illusion of being an NPC. Might make things interesting for those who attack because they think it's an NPC only to find out differently.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

This thread is going around in circles because we base our opinions on assumptions about quality of NPC AI, how frequently we will meet others, etc. FD has identified what they would like to see, but they also did a thread and a poll. As it is very small change, then I think I will just wait and see. I have expressed my wishes that NPCs are up to task "being humans" as much as they can. Because in the end we will spread out and meeting other humans will be very very hard. That leave us with NPCs, so they *must* be good for the game to succeed.

Ok, I am off It was nice discussion btw. Thanks.

 

[Robert Maynard]

ahh luckily FDEV have already considered that stance. solo offline, have fun with it

obviously in that game mode you will not mind to encounter npc's whose sole purpose is to prey and attack only pcs, right?!

That's very generous of you.

I have no problem being attacked in game by PCs or NPCs, for in game reasons. I do have a problem with simply being attacked because the human attacker preferentially seeks out human opponents.

Hopefully the bounty / law enforcement response systems will deal with such attacks (if there is no in-game reason for them occurring in the first place).

Players in the All Group with the transponder off will still get attacked - but the attacker (if another player) will not have been explicitly told that their target is a player.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Me, no. I'm OK with everyone knowing I'm a player and knowing that everyone else is a player.

What I'm saying is that one of the arguments for hiding players (to stop other players targeting them for being players) goes out of the window if you actively have to give away the fact you're a player just to find someone to communicate with.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your post. The communications issue could be dealt with to some extent by not having to be in the same system as the ship that you are calling - I cannot remember what the maximum range of comms is but I believe that it will have to be over large ranges if out-of-game comms are not to provide an advantage.

 

[jabokai]

I still haven't seen any justification for wanting to know who's PC and who isn't beyond 'because I don't want to waste my time messaging an NPC' and for most of those the word 'messaging' can safely be said to read 'attacking'.

Then you've not read the thread, and reading "messaging" as "attacking" is basically just making stuff up to try and bolster your own PoV.

 

[Wolf]

ahh luckily FDEV have already considered that stance. solo offline, have fun with it

obviously in that game mode you will not mind to encounter npc's whose sole purpose is to prey and attack only pcs, right?!

Yes, but NPCs will always act coherent to ingame lore. PCs not so much.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

The fact that Elite Dangerous's galaxy is mindboggingly big is probably the best argument I've seen against this further fragmenting of players.

Agreed.

I know several of you think I'm a PitA, and I'm not even being so for my own benefit. Since I expect to spend much of my time exploring (once they have padded out the features) I don't expect to come across griefers or people who attack 'just for fun' very often at all. In the DDF poll, I voted for 'never be told'. In fact, the opt-in mechanism would be more advantageous to me (and players like me). Sure from a personal PoV it is just the same as opt-in: I never see anothe PC identified, and other PCs never see me identified. But if I am flying in an instance with several PCs, some of whom have opted in, then if there is a "Wheee, pew, pew" type in there, then the chances of me being attacked are actually very much reduced, since they will target one of the other opted in PCs. But I voted for 'never' because I don't want to encourage the "Wheee, pew, pew" types (as well as it being 'right' in my game view - the status is an out-of-game thing, and thus should not be visible).

Says this.

So, if you want to speak to me, target me and speak. It is unlikely that I will have you on ignore.

Having to hail every single ship in the vicinity to find a player who you can share information with is a bigger obstacle than it needs to be.

This I would agree with based on those proposals. I think that a relatively short range hail option makes sense. I agree that a galaxy wide hail cannot be supported, but one that is only heard by ships in your immediate vicinity (details TBC) makes sense to me. That and the ability to reply without having to hail everyone in return.

Personally, putting a 'flashing blue light' on my head, to get around the lack of a hail vicinity has far too many downsides for the upside it gives.

 

[deusx_ophc]

I do have a problem with simply being attacked because the human attacker preferentially seeks out human opponents.

that problem will stay with you, regardless of any game rules.

and in my humble opinion, that is also the crux.

and just to highlight my problem, i have a problem with not being able to freely and instantly interact with humans (i will not kill human players unless provoked, even a bounty will not be enough of a shallow excuse)