Hello Folk!
Gosh, I don't think I've ever seen my name crop up so many times in a thread!
CAVEAT: do not expect an amazing solution, or even a confirmed direction. The truth is, I'm not sure there is one, and even if there is it will have to wait until after Alpha 4.
However, that being said, I do find this discussion very interesting (and sometimes a bit baffling, but hey - that's OK) and I wanted to make a couple of comments whilst I have a quick break.
(DDF folk, be warned, there may be some repetition here from that forum thread).
It seems there are at least three very distinct issues swimming through these murky waters:
1. The ability to switch between private groups and the "All players" group makes the game unfair.
2. ID requirements/fog of war are unnecessary barriers preventing players from playing together.
3. It's unfair to be magically singled out just because you're a human and not some lines of code.
Now, as far as I am concerned, and most of you guys and gals seem to agree, all three of these concerns are valid. No-one is more right or more wrong than anyone else; these concerns are simply subjective standpoints.
So I'm a little confused by the unyielding stances being adopted - why not have another read of the previous sentence. The point i'm trying to make is that I don't think advocates of one side are really going to persuade the other - and there's been some damn fine (and damn pleasant - thanks!) debate from both.
So what are we left with? To my mind, the decision is going to be about choosing one group over the other, or try to get a compromise. This then, is why in the DDF thread I was a mild advocate of an opt-in transponder mechanism. Just for the record, here's a brief run down:
* By default, no human players can be mechanically identified and labelled as such. There is no additional camouflage either - if you reveal that you're a human player or someone works it out, you can't rub this knowledge out.
* You can turn on a transponder signal in your ship. All players piloting transponder on ships always instantly know that each other are human. This device does not offer any additional detection capabilities - you still need to be able to detect the other player's ship as normal.
* If you are in a wing (a group of allied players) any member turning on the transponder turns it on for all members of the wing.
* Once you have turned on the transponder, turning it off has no effect on ships that have already made use of the information - in the current location. The knowledge would likely only reset once that particular session had collapsed (no one present in the locale).
Right, so why did I favour this? Because I think it offers *something* to both sides in this thread. Players who purport to want to have social/game play interaction will turn their transponder on. This doesn't paint a target on them, because only fellow transponder users will see them as human, and they will be visible as human in return.
Players that want to keep the mystery keep their transponder off. They will never know who's real beyond what they can discern from ship actions.
The win for me though is the fact that both sets of people are in the same space. They can still interact - nothing stops that. Sure, either side can be sore about the fact that not everyone is playing the game exactly the same as them. But I constantly see comments like "splitting the user base is bad!" and "we want to player together!" - and well, this would be happening. Importantly, it would be happening in a relatively fair way.
And this is important, because as far as I can see, taking these thoughts into account, the only folk that presumably would take real umbrage at this system would be those that want to detect other humans for player versus activities, to attack them in some manner. Before anyone jumps on me, let me state that there's nothing wrong with this desire - there's nothing wrong with player verus player at all.
But the bottom line here *seems* to be twofold:
1. Player versus player is still completely viable, just a bit more work sometimes, and
2. If a player doesn't want to be identified, by default you are being slightly adversarial in wanting them not to have the choice. If you want to socialise, you accept that not everyone will, turn on the transponder and meet all the other players that do (and you can freely replace the word "socialise" with any player-to-player interaction). Folk play the game the way they want to play the game. If not everyone wants to player the same way as you, forcing them to is equally as likely to stop them player as change their mind.
Of course, anyone who hasn't yet fallen asleep will note that I have not addressed issue number one: the concept of private and "all player" groups. that's because I think it's a big enough issue to stand on it's own, and just complicates matters when it's brought into this discussion (though I accept that it shares many of the same concepts). what a cop out eh? Sorry, just right now I just don't have enough steam in my boiler to take that one on!
And just to be absolutely clear: my personal preference would be to never truly know who was human with the following exceptions: player friends formed through an out of game world friend system could always be visible as such, and players in game could mechanically reveal their human nature to specific targets: both of these features would help towards social gaming in a safe and controlled manner where both parties consensually agreed to break immersion for the benefit of multiplayer interactions (and both would be reversible). This stance is similar but not identical to the transponder option.
The reason I don't advocate it as the right way is simply because it is less fair, favouring one camp over the other. That's not necessarily an issue, but in this particular case I feel the improvement I perceive it would offer to the game is less than the penalty of putting off more folk even more vehemently. That's just my perception mind.
Oh, and a final point to send you all back to sleep: although I make no mention of it in this discussion (because I think it simply confuses and complicates the debate) I want to state clearly that we certainly want to introduce game play events and mechnisms that help draw players together and let them work together (and against each other).
Right, hope you find that worth reading! Remember it's just all opinion, you don't have to agree with me but please, spread the love, not the hate! Peace out!
