I'm concerned – the direction of the game.

[Cosmos]

Hmm.. this is indeed all rather troubling and depressing..

One of the things I've observed whilst being a member of this community is that whenever something like PvP is ever mentioned there is an extremely hostile and negative response. We hear much about the differences between SC and ED communities but often I see much of what is suggested bad about SC community happening here whenever PvP is mentioned.

I fully understand PvP is not everyones cup of tea but it seems insane to me that those who aren't into that sort of thing appear to want no trace of it in game or to stunt it in the most handicapping of ways even if it wouldn't affect their gameplay at all. I honestly despair.

There are tens of millions of gamers who enjoy PvP in games, not talking about griefing, and you know those people are going to look at this game and potentially go elsewhere if its seen to be non friendly to reasonably facilitate that kind of play-style or at least offer something they could find interest in.

I don't quite understand why people can get off on endlessly and repetitively killing NPCs all day long. To me, its nothing compared to the engagement with other players with opportunities to meet adversaries and allies. However, I accept that for many here that is the case. Okay, no problem.

When I wrote the initial post I did so because for the first time since I ever got involved with the KS I've begun to develop a poor feeling about Elite Dangerous. Its my strong view that the game needs to genuinely offer both PvE and PvP centric game play opportunities and with the latter not stunted by those advocating a PvE only style of game.

Offering this will only benefit the game more. The more sales, the more resources that can be further allocated to the continued development and so we all benefit. I just wish people could see that.

 

[Malicar]

Just a thought but hardcore mode in the ALL in group could hide player names as added difficulty. ED seems like perfect game for that Ironman\Hardcore option. It would only make sense to hide player names and require active scanning to see who it really was up close and personal.

 

[deusx_ophc]

Offering this will only benefit the game more. The more sales, the more resources that can be further allocated to the continued development and so we all benefit. I just wish people could see that.

everyone sees and knows that cosmos. "they" might just not accept it for their vision of ED.

and while they admit that an even more fragmented game experience is deterimental for all, they will cling to their healthy & saftey rules.

i have faith in FDEV and Mr. Braben for one, though i do not claim to have his allegiance.

the big topics of miscotransactions, pvp/pve and player non-obfuscation will have to be decided soon. the discussion we are having here is mainly due to the demographics of this tiny part of the final ED fleet and secondly due to the very singular alpha experience to date.

cheer up buddy ^^

 

[Jorlin]

I'm not against PvP at all...even if i'm not planning to take part in PvP-Combat regularly (if i can avoid it). I don't want a PvE only game...even playing the market is PvP.

The discussion splitted in the beginning in two different ones:
- PvP/PvE
- tell NPC from PC

Not everyone taking part in the second one had his opinion related to the first one. So it's quite difficult to tell about PvP/PvE majorities.

Edit: What i simply do not want to happen is PvP getting out of hand and turning into a gankfest like EvE did (a game i really liked to play). This would lead to many players going single-online, which would be a shame
But at least i have the option to do so if the frustrating moments are getting the upper hand... i don't have to abandon the game as a whole.

 

[CMDR Texas Stu]

FWIW, Cosmos, despite how engaged members get, we backed Elite and gave General Braben the power to bring his vision to life. Even if he takes a smidgen here or there from members I completely believe all the excitement we all may have will have little effect on Elite: Dangerous. Other than to reinforce how popular and well loved the concept is. Great thread for engagement tho!

 

[Malicar]

One of the things I hate about EVE online is the system chat which shows everyone in local. Simular to that of Freelancer which again also shows everyone in the current system via chat. So you know someone is there time to deploy the probes etc etc.

The same can be said of the starmap in EVE which shows activity every 5-7 minutes or whatever they have it set at now. This provides tactical information that allows you to make critical decisions without ever having to scout or scan down anything. Again I hate stuff like this. It takes away the sense of exploration and scouting roles. It also promotes blobbing or staying in a station among other things.

The idea to not see players names is not a bad one really. As it does mask everyone in a veil. The balance to that is to make players actively scan targets down to find out more information and you could also show player names in your current group or what not. You can expand on that with corps or guilds if you want as ships could carry custom id chips etc etc.

It's a good point though. If I'm playing all in and minding my own business and another pirate just happens to be near and sees my player name then you can assume I just became priority number 1. I would definantly not want to see player names in a hardcore mode with perma death. At least not until he's actually scanned me.

 

[Ixnatifual]

I can see the point of having NPCs and PCs look the same to preserve the illusion, but I could also imagine it being a hassle when wanting to communicate with or team up with other players. They might experiment with both during Alpha and Beta to see what's best for the game.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Hmm.. this is indeed all rather troubling and depressing..

One of the things I've observed whilst being a member of this community is that whenever something like PvP is ever mentioned there is an extremely hostile and negative response. We hear much about the differences between SC and ED communities but often I see much of what is suggested bad about SC community happening here whenever PvP is mentioned.

I fully understand PvP is not everyones cup of tea but it seems insane to me that those who aren't into that sort of thing appear to want no trace of it in game or to stunt it in the most handicapping of ways even if it wouldn't affect their gameplay at all. I honestly despair.

There are tens of millions of gamers who enjoy PvP in games, not talking about griefing, and you know those people are going to look at this game and potentially go elsewhere if its seen to be non friendly to reasonably facilitate that kind of play-style or at least offer something they could find interest in.

I don't quite understand why people can get off on endlessly and repetitively killing NPCs all day long. To me, its nothing compared to the engagement with other players with opportunities to meet adversaries and allies. However, I accept that for many here that is the case. Okay, no problem.

When I wrote the initial post I did so because for the first time since I ever got involved with the KS I've begun to develop a poor feeling about Elite Dangerous. Its my strong view that the game needs to genuinely offer both PvE and PvP centric game play opportunities and with the latter not stunted by those advocating a PvE only style of game.

Offering this will only benefit the game more. The more sales, the more resources that can be further allocated to the continued development and so we all benefit. I just wish people could see that.

As many, many game developers have discovered, free-reign PvP is turns off the majority of players. Besides the obvious problems (player-killers and the ease of pure-griefing), there are two other barriers that keeps PvP from being popular with most gamers.

The first is that PvP requires a huge time investment. Besides the obvious time investment in simple practice, it also requires a larger commitment to the game simply to keep and preserve the "best" equipment. Many players simply don't have the free time for such an investment. They have families and jobs, among other things, and this puts them at a disadvantage vs a dedicated PvPer.

The second is the so-called "meta-game." Also called min-maxing, rule-lawering, or loophole abuse. Many players don't enjoy doing that kind of thing, they prefer to play in ways that make sense in-universe, and this also puts them at a disadvantage to a dedicated PvPer.

PvP isn't the core of this game. The Elite Universe is the core of this game, any PvP in this game needs to serve that core. Until we get a better handle on how criminal behaviour in the game will be punished in the game, PvP is a threat to disrupting the core game experience for many players.

Not instantly identifying players (unless they choose to be identified as such) helps dilute that threat, by allowing players who may not mind the occasional PvP encounter, but doesn't want to spend every precious gaming session being "pwned" by player-killers.

It is my hope that once missions go live in the game, it will permit the type of PvP combat PvPers enjoy, without the consequences that criminal player-killing should bring.

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

Cosmos, I think you chose the lesser of two evils to put your time and energy in to opposing.

Really, this transponder ID feature pales into insignificance as to what impact it'll have compared to the ability to group switch out of multiplayer and into solo play, and back again, almost whenever one feels like it.

That alone fractures the multiplayer community into countless pieces. That alone throws up all sorts of issues of exploitation of the game, loopholes, and paths of least resistance. Its the one feature that makes a mockery of a multiplayer gameworld.

Personally speaking I like the transponder feature because of the immersion factor that has been mentioned. But also I don't want to live in a sanitized gameworld where I know I'm safe here, or there, thanks to having all the info I need handed to me wherever I go. I hated Trammel in UO - don't want to see it in ED. I don't want to be able to distinguish real players from npcs because I like the idea of the added tension it brings when encountering blips on the radar.

I've been vocal in the past about providing a more traditional multiplayer gameworld and stressed the points that a game this size never really needed layers of safety nets for those who hate pvp. 400 billion destinations. How much more room do people need to avoid player interaction?

So I don't buy this argument that transponder IDs will somehow ruin multiplayer and make it seem like singleplayer. The argument holds no water for me while the ability to drop out of MP and into a parallel solo universe exists. That feature alone ruins immersion for me. Transponder IDs restores some of the immersion since I can now simply imagine every blip I see as an active entity sharing this gameworld, doesn't matter whether its an npc or real player that may vanish into his own little universe, just like an npc will vanish once the instance closes. When I want real player interaction I could list dozens of other ways for me to get it (some I've already listed in a previous post).

TL-DR
Transponders aren't just about PvP.
They're about immersion.
They don't stop you from having multiplayer interaction because there will be plenty of other ways to get it.
Subgroups in a multiplayer gameword are a far far bigger issue.

 

[Globusdiablo]

As many, many game developers have discovered, free-reign PvP turns off the majority of players. Besides the obvious problems (player-killers and the ease of pure-griefing), there are two other barriers that keeps PvP from being popular with most gamers.

The first is that PvP requires a huge time investment. Besides the obvious time investment in simple practice, it also requires a larger commitment to the game simply to keep and preserve the "best" equipment. Many players simply don't have the free time for such an investment. They have families and jobs, among other things, and this puts them at a disadvantage vs a dedicated PvPer.

The second is the so-called "meta-game." Also called min-maxing, rule-lawering, or loophole abuse. Many players don't enjoy doing that kind of thing, they prefer to play in ways that make sense in-universe, and this also puts them at a disadvantage to a dedicated PvPer.

PvP isn't the core of this game. The Elite Universe is the core of this game, any PvP in this game needs to serve that core. Until we get a better handle on how criminal behaviour in the game will be punished in the game, PvP is a threat to disrupting the core game experience for many players.

Not instantly identifying players (unless they choose to be identified as such) helps dilute that threat, by allowing players who may not mind the occasional PvP encounter, but doesn't want to spend every precious gaming session being "pwned" by player-killers.

It is my hope that once missions go live in the game, it will permit the type of PvP combat PvPers enjoy, without the consequences that criminal player-killing should bring.

What he said.

 

[Cody]

Subgroups in a multiplayer gameword are a far far bigger issue.

I've been trying hard not to even think about the 'groups' thing. <reaches for basket>

 

[Bob_H]

I can see the point of having NPCs and PCs look the same to preserve the illusion, but I could also imagine it being a hassle when wanting to communicate with or team up with other players. They might experiment with both during Alpha and Beta to see what's best for the game.

This would be the correct approach, given the diametrically opposed views laid out in this thread (and several others). I'm all for giving FD's planned design a good crack of the whip regarding actions Vs consequences but I'd like to see them try out different options as well during Beta given the content of this thread. How FD implement this is ultimately up to them.

 

[Skulldugg3ry]

Gaming play style is a spectrum. From hardcore immersive role playing simulation to hardcore competitive battle arena domination.

The former prefer to lose themselves in an alternate world; to forget as much as possible that they are playing a game (even though they obviously know they are). They enjoy all the game has to offer, but require it to "make sense" in-fiction. While many on this side of the spectrum play PvE, they may still enjoy PvP as long as it doesn't break that immersion. These players sometimes revert to playing solo or in small groups to ensure their immersion stays intact, and that they aren't forced into "the game" by others.

The latter prefer the thrill of competitive battle vs others; they have no need to "forget" they're playing a game - in fact, that's the point. They desire to engage in the excitement of dominating an opponent in a contest of skill that can only be provided by another human; to rise up the game's leaderboard or win the spoils of war. Many on this side thrive in PvP but may also enjoy some PvE elements as long as it doesn't detract from the competition. These players sometimes participate in large groups to maximize potential opponents.

Between the two ends of the spectrum is everything in between, which is where most of us fall. I tend to lean toward the RP/sim side; I like a lot of sim in my simulation, and I want everything to "make sense" in fiction. I'm the same with the movies I prefer. However, I often enjoy competitive battle as well, and I don't shy away from a good popcorn flick now and then. I slide back and forth depending on the game and the day. To that end, I like the idea of not initially knowing whether a ship is a player - not knowing certainly preserves immersion ("a player" in-fiction doesn't really make sense). It could also add to the challenge, not knowing what you're going up against when deciding to pick a fight. But that's just my opinion and it may not match yours.

This spectrum, like religion, politics and sports - can be very divisive. Nothing starts an argument faster than faith vs faith (or lack thereof), liberal vs conservative, team vs team, PvE vs PvP. The challenge for FD is, wherever you fall on the spectrum, you want to play your way. You don't want to be forced to slide one way or the other. FD can hardly stand to win if the goal is to satisfy everyone. But they are creatively designing options into the game that allow you to group with others like you. You won't see (or presumably know about) the players you won't see. So while you may not see me in your game and vice versa, as long as there are enough of us, you should still encounter plenty with your play style. The best way to ensure this is to get as many players in the game as possible.

Alpha 4/Beta should tell us a lot more, and constant feedback from all play styles is needed so that FD can continue to craft and hone.

TL;DR: You won't see the players you won't see, so encourage players to play and provide feedback. Everyone wants what they want, and there are limited options in a game to provide it to them - it's a real challenge. In the end, you may have to decide whether you're willing to slide a little, or whether you need to find another game.

 

[jabokai]

The argument holds no water for me while the ability to drop out of MP and into a parallel solo universe exists. That feature alone ruins immersion for me.

:S Makes no sense. I know you don't like the group mechanism for various reasons but how does that affect the holy "immersion"? Don't use it. Others that use it - well, how the heck do you know they are when they cannot switch while they're interacting with others? Everyone you encounter is, by definition, not using it. And if they do, on occasion, then how would that be any different from them being logged off, or in other systems to you?

 

[Bob_H]

Cosmos, I think you chose the lesser of two evils to put your time and energy in to opposing.

Really, this transponder ID feature pales into insignificance as to what impact it'll have compared to the ability to group switch out of multiplayer and into solo play, and back again, almost whenever one feels like it.

That alone fractures the multiplayer community into countless pieces. That alone throws up all sorts of issues of exploitation of the game, loopholes, and paths of least resistance. Its the one feature that makes a mockery of a multiplayer gameworld.

Personally speaking I like the transponder feature because of the immersion factor that has been mentioned. But also I don't want to live in a sanitized gameworld where I know I'm safe here, or there, thanks to having all the info I need handed to me wherever I go. I hated Trammel in UO - don't want to see it in ED. I don't want to be able to distinguish real players from npcs because I like the idea of the added tension it brings when encountering blips on the radar.

I've been vocal in the past about providing a more traditional multiplayer gameworld and stressed the points that a game this size never really needed layers of safety nets for those who hate pvp. 400 billion destinations. How much more room do people need to avoid player interaction?

So I don't buy this argument that transponder IDs will somehow ruin multiplayer and make it seem like singleplayer. The argument holds no water for me while the ability to drop out of MP and into a parallel solo universe exists. That feature alone ruins immersion for me. Transponder IDs restores some of the immersion since I can now simply imagine every blip I see as an active entity sharing this gameworld, doesn't matter whether its an npc or real player that may vanish into his own little universe, just like an npc will vanish once the instance closes. When I want real player interaction I could list dozens of other ways for me to get it (some I've already listed in a previous post).

TL-DR
Transponders aren't just about PvP.
They're about immersion.
They don't stop you from having multiplayer interaction because there will be plenty of other ways to get it.
Subgroups in a multiplayer gameword are a far far bigger issue.

If you take this argument a step further you have fairly good grounds for removing at least one group - Solo Online - by implementing the transponder opt out. (I think it would have to be a case of everyone opted in to seeing all players and be seen by other players by default). The whole point of Solo Online is to remove the PvP aspect while still taking part in the persistant universe. If the transponder opt out is there those that would normally vear into solo online will now be able to participate in the All Online group and even partake in PvP whether they realise it or not without the worry and stress of active PvP participation being forced on them through the anticipation and fact of being singled out due to their player status.

 

[Cosmos]

As many, many game developers have discovered, free-reign PvP is turns off the majority of players. Besides the obvious problems (player-killers and the ease of pure-griefing), there are two other barriers that keeps PvP from being popular with most gamers.

I think something to the effect of the system in EvE might turn off players but I totally disagree that the majority of gamers dont like PvP.

The evidence says otherwise. 60 million registered world of tanks users, Dota2 is one of THE most played PC games there is with 20+ million players, DayZ has sold nearly 2 million copies and its still in Alpha, Battlefield 4, Counter Strike... I could go on.

With the options people have already stated in game to avoid others or ignore them I am really baffled by some backers objections.

 

[jabokai]

If you take this argument a step further you have fairly good grounds for removing at least one group - Solo Online - by implementing the transponder opt out. (I think it would have to be a case of everyone opted in to seeing all players and be seen by other players by default). The whole point of Solo Online is to remove the PvP aspect while still taking part in the persistant universe. If the transponder opt out is there those that would normally vear into solo online will now be able to participate in the All Online group and even partake in PvP whether they realise it or not without the worry and stress of active PvP participation being forced on them through the anticipation and fact of being singled out due to their player status.

No point removing it though. Any player can create a private group and invite as many (or as few) people as they like. So whether there's a hundred, or 2 or 3 (or 1) there's no real point in removing it as it's just reusing the same mechanism.

Also, even without PC/NPC identification you'll still get the odd at, perhaps even more than usual, as they will be able to stand out as being human by actually behaving outrageously!

 

[Olrik]

One of the things I've observed whilst being a member of this community is that whenever something like PvP is ever mentioned there is an extremely hostile and negative response

Not really.

Allow me to refresh your memory. Quoting David Braben,

What I want is the sort of game that you play with PVP enabled, so players can kill other players, but it happens only very rarely.

Again quoting,

Food for thought - a quote from EVE forums,

Quote:
Started off enthusiastically backing.

Read this by Braben.

"What I want is the sort of game that you play with PVP enabled, so players can kill other players, but it happens only very rarely."

Withdrew funding.

I don't quite understand why people can get off on endlessly and repetitively killing NPCs all day long

I can´t follow your line of reasoning.I don´t quite understand why people can gett off on endlessely and repetitively killing PCs all day long.

 

[popuptoaster]

I think something to the effect of the system in EvE might turn off players but I totally disagree that the majority of gamers dont like PvP.

The evidence says otherwise. 60 million registered world of tanks users, Dota2 is one of THE most played PC games there is with 20+ million players, DayZ has sold nearly 2 million copies and its still in Alpha, Battlefield 4, Counter Strike... I could go on.

With the options people have already stated in game to avoid others or ignore them I am really baffled by some backers objections.

I suspect most of the objections are from the more mature players who see no reason to be able to single out a player over an NPC.

Obviously i will generalise here but i reckon these are the guys who want to play the game and if they have to fight someone they will fight and it makes no difference to the if it's an NPC or a real player because it's the SITUATION that drives the combat not whether the opponent is a real person or not.

I reckon most of the players who want to be able to tell instantly are the ones who will have come from games that have achievements and those players will be looking to rack up their players kills and somehow think they are more valuable than NPC kills.

It's a different outlook, the difference between people who want to play the game as a wholistic experience and those who want to play it to get better numbers or more badges than some one else.

Personally im for playing the game and experiencing it as my story and not as a game that I want to compare my score to others, so i want to appear just the same as an NPC.

if you want to attack my ship for a real, game related reason that's fine, but i just don't want someone attacking me just because i'm a player when there are juicier or more tactically advantageous NPCs about.

i doubt you will ever reconcile the two play styles so i'm just hoping the DB has a similar outlook to mine, if he doesn't and i think i'm getting attacked for the reasons i stated above then I'll just drop out into a group where i only ever meet my friends.

random attacks for no reason have drievn me away from many games in the past or at least onto the PvE servers anyway.

 

[Cosmos]

I can´t follow your line of reasoning.I don´t quite understand why people can gett off on endlessely and repetitively killing PCs all day long.

Who said that would be the case? However, other players offer a more interesting experience than NPCs generally offer and if the choice is battling with an AI for the millionth time or doing so with a human I'll opt for the latter (with a genuine motive that is). If you solely want to encounter NPCs all day the game is going to offer that in a plethora of ways.

David Braben isn't right about everything you know and even if destroying another persons ship is to be a rare thing attacking them surely isn't going to be especially if one takes the roll of a pirate.