I'm concerned – the direction of the game.

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.

You can't see far enough! ;) I am totally not interested in PvP, plan to play an explorer/occasional trader and kit my ship out for running away rather than fighting. Still, I want to play with real people and know they are real people, it simply makes all those encounters more visceral than AI, even if the AI was awesome. And not knowing who is who is an irritation I don't like.

You've made your decision it seems, and that's fine - it seems a reasonable compromise and probably is the best least worst choice over all. But it doesn't work for me so I'll be in a solo group, but online so I can see the mess people make of the 'verse! :D
 
Having read Sandro's thread and the stance they do seem to be going in, this sorta backs up what I said earlier about yes... there will be players completely hidden.

My main concern now as someone who doesn't really favour PvP but was keen to have us all in the same boat is that NOW with the transponder thingy more or less confirmed, it will be favoured particularly by the PvP group.

Non PvPers like myself will (ironically considering my arguments) probably keep it off because the likelihood that any player that has it on will be seeking PvP (it might not start that way, but that will be the way it goes eventually).

So... whilst I'm grateful Sandro stepped in with an excellent post, it sort of confirms my worst fears.

Its not exactly what I hoped for either, and I am disappointed, but I can sort of get on board with it if criminals had their transponder automatically turned on. This would boost the reason for others to turn their transponder on in my view.
 
Last edited:

Stachel

Banned
I'm all for the transponder guff if it means groups are fixed at character creation and you can't move between groups without creating new/additional characters for that particular group. Let people have as many active profiles as they like in as many groups as they like: but once set, its fixed. The only exceptions being the choice for IM players to carry on in ALL after dying.

Why are people being asked if they want peril? The vast majority of people will never vote for any kind of risk. You have to set a baseline of risk; risk from pvp, risk from griefers, risk from random drive failure, risk from jammed weapons, failed modules etc. And say, hey guys, this is simply the lowest we're going to go on this issue. Offer fair mechanics, try to balance out the potential for meta gaming and/or griefing and think of ways to structure your framework of rules within the context of the game in a believable and entertaining way. Avoid arbitrary nonsense that fragment the player base.

If people don't want the (absolutely absurdly over hyped) risk or 'confrontation' or just prefer to avoid all human interaction - play offline or create a character in a private group. Please don't try to make the game in to grind and spiders in space filled with anonymous avatars buzzing around looking for 5 zombies to kill or 'raiding' for 15 hrs etc.

You want a sandbox or not? Sandbox games are rare as hen's teeth because you can't please everyone. The designers have to be brave enough to draw a line in the sand and stick to it. Part of a sandbox is that random stuff can happen to you at any time. Nowhere is 100% safe. Blockade? Run it or go round it. Someone actively attacking people for no reason? Avoid the system or team up with friends to hunt them down. Someone struggling with pirates? Form an alliance and go turf them out.

I like the transponder ID opt/in system. I think its a really inventive and mature way to deter anti social behaviour. I really do. The group system however is a disaster as-is.

If you don't want to be sociable and work on forging relationships (good or bad) with other human players; multiplayer is not for you. It really isn't. :eek:

I want everyone to have a choice. I want everyone to enjoy what they pay for. I want everyone to be able to play how and when they want to play. But if you choose to play online, you need to be held to your choices. Don't allow group hopping etc. If someone wants to relax alone, have a character for that in a group for that. If they want to see what happens in the ALL group; that character must remain in the ALL group, ALL of the time.

Its pretty straight forward .. everyone can be happy. ;)
 
I think that is a sound proposal; however, how would a player then be displayed when targetted? Would all NPCs get the CMDR prefix then? Or only players you have identified (mutually) with the transponder?

And last but not least: What about players whose CMDR names are already known, through forum signatures, the current Alpha testing etc.? There is even a thread where people announced their CMDR names so that they can easily linked to forum accounts (I approve of this btw and participated). Those players would already be known, and have no way to "blend into the mass" any more.

Simple, use the ship ID by default, with a commander's name only as a result of a query or scan.
 
edit: And whats to stop people using this as an in game advantage?
How? The only 'advantage' that I can see is that people who want to preferentially attack PCs will have them instantly IDd. Of course, those that don't want to be instantly IDd will switch it off. And the guy who wants to preferentially attack PCs will be IDd to everyone else who has it switched on - including folks who may want to preferentially attack him.

Put another way. If there is a consensus that one state (ON or OFF) is 'better' or provides an advantage, then those that care about advantages will all migrate to the 'better' state. And those that choose a setting on a point of principle, will keep it.

Another thought.. would someone who was a criminal have their transponder automatically turned on?
Seems unfair to me, but then you all know that I think having the status visible at all in game makes no sense because it is an out-of-game status, not an in-game status.

Remember, having the transponder switched off does not make you invisible. It just means that you do not have the 'blue flashing light' to draw attention to you.
 
Its not exactly what I hoped for either, and I am disappointed, but I can sort of get on board with it if criminals had their transponder automatically turned on. This would boost the reason for others to turn their transponder on in my view.

We can take comfort whatever that is that we fought the good fight and if this doesn't work out (I really hope it does!) we can at least say we tried as hard as we could short of storming FD in Cambridge.

And sorry Sandro, but this really is a game changer for me, a big one.
 
Seems unfair to me, but then you all know that I think having the status visible at all in game makes no sense because it is an out-of-game status, not an in-game status.

Remember, having the transponder switched off does not make you invisible. It just means that you do not have the 'blue flashing light' to draw attention to you.

I was thinking with reference to the group system which I do think now needs to be seriously revised. Being put in the all-group was previously stated as a consequence for criminal behaviour and going on the theme of consequences now being moved into the all-group doesn't seem to be much of one.
 

Sandro Sammarco

Lead Designer
Frontier
Hello jabokai!

No decision has been made yet!. I'm kind of hoping we get to try a few different models, but no promises.

Anyhoos, a point I was trying to make was this:

Whilst I understand that you want to enjoy social gaming with lots of human players whenever possible, I hope you can also see that others might not want to, at least some of the time.

So I guess I'm saying that I hope the transponder option is enough of a compromise to keep more people in the "all player" group than choosing one side over the other, because it offers "something" to both sides, if not "everything".

I totally respect your right to disagree though, and only time will tell in the end!
 
First I'd like to thank Sandro for the clarification - it all seems a palatable compromise to me.

Simple, use the ship ID by default, with a commander's name only as a result of a query or scan.

Yeah - precisely this. If someone spots me on a scanner, recognises my ship name or ID and pegs me as human for a spot of pvp action - then absolutely fine - well played, Sir! CMDR tags for NPCs or players should be revealed after a scan (even the current, basic one). but I'd want to see both AI and players have the CMDR tag.

[Cue someone coming in to say that people will be scraping web info for apps to link player names to ship names... :) ]
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I was thinking with reference to the group system which I do think now needs to be seriously revised. Being put in the all-group was previously stated as a consequence for criminal behaviour and going on the theme of consequences now being moved into the all-group doesn't seem to be much of one.

Why should a PC criminal require to be identified as a PC? A scan will indicate the bounty that the ship has gained and that alone should be enough to determine for the Bounty Hunter whether the target is attractive.
 
We can take comfort whatever that is that we fought the good fight and if this doesn't work out (I really hope it does!) we can at least say we tried as hard as we could short of storming FD in Cambridge.

And sorry Sandro, but this really is a game changer for me, a big one.

I need to really think about this some more but it does cast a shadow over my view of the game in all honesty. I'll see how it goes but it also comes down to how much a pain it is to do a scan on someone. For example at present the warrant scanner you have to be really close and can be easily avoid by a decent pilot just by moving out of range.

Hello jabokai!

No decision has been made yet!. I'm kind of hoping we get to try a few different models, but no promises.

Anyhoos, a point I was trying to make was this:

Whilst I understand that you want to enjoy social gaming with lots of human players whenever possible, I hope you can also see that others might not want to, at least some of the time.

So I guess I'm saying that I hope the transponder option is enough of a compromise to keep more people in the "all player" group than choosing one side over the other, because it offers "something" to both sides, if not "everything".

I totally respect your right to disagree though, and only time will tell in the end!

We seem to be suffering from many compromises, or rather my side of the argument is. For the record I think a PvE /PvP split would have been a better solution but as you say time will tell.
 
You can't see far enough! ;) I am totally not interested in PvP, plan to play an explorer/occasional trader and kit my ship out for running away rather than fighting. Still, I want to play with real people and know they are real people, it simply makes all those encounters more visceral than AI, even if the AI was awesome. And not knowing who is who is an irritation I don't like.

You've made your decision it seems, and that's fine - it seems a reasonable compromise and probably is the best least worst choice over all. But it doesn't work for me so I'll be in a solo group, but online so I can see the mess people make of the 'verse! :D


Hey Mr Explorer/Occasional trader just think of it this way, you'll get to spend all that fine money of you've earned on a good long range scanners and boosted up engines! :D

As for you saying, you'll be in the solo group as some kind of upset boycott method, what makes you think you'll do any less work with the scanner or be any safer running from pure npc's? :D

Don't burn your bridges jabokai, it's simply not necessary. You give it a try and may find you enjoy the "all groups" in ways you haven't dreamt of yet. :D
 

Sandro Sammarco

Lead Designer
Frontier
Hello Robert Maynard!

Correct. It's a proposal that currently has my vote, but has yet to be fully committed to.

The main point of my initial post was kind of less about the details of why the transponder solution was better, rather to make observations about the nature of the embattled sides, and why in this particular case a compromise seemed to me to offer the best result of the choices on offer.
 
I was thinking with reference to the group system which I do think now needs to be seriously revised. Being put in the all-group was previously stated as a consequence for criminal behaviour and going on the theme of consequences now being moved into the all-group doesn't seem to be much of one.
Many people seemed to think the group system needed to be seriously reviewed even before this rose up again. Personally, I expected to always be in the 'all' group, unless that was made intolerable by griefers and non-consensual PvPers. And since I intend to predominantly play the roles of trader and explorer, I will head towards the edge of explored space, and thus probably not meet many people anyway. No point in having private groups when there is no one in the same system as you.

Your comments appear to imply that you see being forced to have the transponder on is a disadvantage. Which, of course, is what many (but not me, in this case) who did not want the instant ID thing were arguing.
 
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.

There is a world of difference between games like Elite: Dangerous, and say... Mechwarrior Online (a game I occasionally play).

There is also a world of difference between not liking PvP at all, and only liking PvP. Most players fall between these two extremes.

I enjoy Mechwarrior Online, but only in small doses. The game is pure PvP, and there is literally no way to immerse myself in the Battletech Universe, which I had hoped to do when I first heard about it. There are no repair costs in the game, and player actions have no impact on the game universe. I do not meta-game, insisting that my 'Mech makes sense in-universe. And quite frankly, I can only get two or three matches a day at best. Between the lack of meta-gaming, and the lack of being able to play for hours a a time, I frequently get "pwned."

That is not fun.

But those rare times when everything comes together, and I somehow manage to survive the first five minutes of a match? That is when the game becomes fun. That is when I enjoy myself. And that is why I keep coming back.

But quite frankly, I'd play the game a lot more if there was a PvE component to the game, if repair costs were implemented, AND if our collected actions could change the course of the in-game Universe. I might even be willing to spend some money on the game.

I have no problem at all with PvP being in the game, and most players who like this "no PC flag" feel likewise. We want PvP to be there. We want to be attacked by PC pirates, or if we're PC pirates, to be attacked by PC bounty hunters. We want to be attacked because we're carrying valuable cargo in a dangerous system, or because we have a large bounty on our head.

We want to face off against a PC ace in a contested system when she's siding with the Federation, and we're taking the coin of the Empire. We want to transport the Alliance ambassador, and get attacked by a PC assassin in the pay of a corporation who wants to keep their system independent.

THIS is the kind of PvP we want. In-game reasons for players to attack us.

What we don't want is to be player-killed. We don't want to be targeted for out-of-game reasons, simply because we're human, and unlike NPCs, will feel "the agony of defeat." We don't want player-killers patrolling systems looking for a ship with a bright green neon sign saying "There's a player here!" hovering over it.

Because when you get right down to it, while we like PvP, it isn't the reason we're playing this game. We're playing because we want to immerse ourselves in the Elite Universe, NOT because we like PvP. Cargo runs and maintenance bills are just as much fun as a PC pirate on our six, and we have to decide whether to dump our cargo and hope to escape. We'll be the ones with spreadsheets keeping track of profitable trade routes; scouring the message boards for passengers; and making sub-optimal choices because we're Imperials, dammit, and using multi-cannons are just plain gauche! (Even though they're the best weapons in the current meta-game, until the next wave of nerfs appear.)

Every one of us who WANT to play in the ALL group want PvP in our game, but only if it makes SENSE.

The other thing that those of us like about not automatically flagging players as such is that while we like PvP, it isn't the SOLE reason we're playing Elite: Dangerous. It isn't even the secondary reason we're playing the multi-player version. PvP adds spice to the game, but like all spices, it only enhances the game in small doses. In large doses, it makes things unpalatable. Constant PvP for us would be a game-breaker.

We're all hoping that the in-game consequences of murder will player-killing at a minimum. But some of us remember Ultima-Online before the Trammel/Feluca split. Yes, it could be a lot of fun at times. Yes, unrestricted PvP did add spice to the game. But unfortunately, the player-killers preferred easy targets, and most of us didn't stand a chance against them.

Once the players who did not like PvP left for Trammel permanently, those of use who did enjoy PvP in small doses lost our herd immunity. Attacks went from a once a week thing, to becoming a daily event. And it didn't take long for the frequent attacks to become tiring, and we reluctantly emigrated to Trammel, where the game was a pale shadow of the world we enjoyed... but it was definitely better than the alternative.

This is why we like the idea of not having a player-tag hanging over our heads. It gives us enough herd community to keep PvP from becoming a common event... without having OTHER players pay the price for that herd immunity. It will mean that if we're attacked, we're attacked because it makes sense in the game, not because a player-killer believes that the greatest things in the game are to destroy their fellow players ships, make them flee at their appearance, and to hear their lamentations on the discussion boards.

Make no mistake, we do NOT want to leave the ALL group. We are open to being attacked by players for in-game reasons. We think it adds spice to the game, and a player-encounter can be a fun and memorable event.

But if being open to PvP means that we can't enjoy the game at all, we WILL be leaving the ALL group. PvP is only a small part of the game, and frequently a troublesome on at that. If detracts from the game as a whole, we'll leave it behind. We don't WANT to, because it'll make the game less exciting, less fun. But having fun is far more important that being the victims of player-killers.

So the question you need to ask yourself is this, which would you rather have:

A large population of players in the ALL group, where you have to do some work to figure out who is a human being and who is the NPC?

Or a tiny population of players in the ALL group, but you know who's human and who's not all the time?
 
Based on Sandro's post (thank you btw) my transponder will be off (I don't want to know/see players)

Its not exactly what I hoped for either, and I am disappointed, but I can sort of get on board with it if criminals had their transponder automatically turned on. This would boost the reason for others to turn their transponder on in my view.

I will be a pirate and most likely have a bounty on my head. All pilots (NPC and PC) will learn of a pirate called X who is rampaging across the systems (notice I said pirate, and not player) ... that means - all the traders I am likely to pick on I will not know if they are human or not, I might be able to work it out (might not) but either way attacking one will always be exciting.

Equally I am going to be chased by bounty hunters - PC and NPC. I don't particularly want to know which and again, I might be able to work it out, might not - so to me there will be some quite hard BHs and some tricky ones.

Switching the transponder on when pirates commit a crime is totally unfair against pirates - in effect it makes no difference what I pick (on/off) as the moment I commit a crime it will turn on, you're going to make a beeline directly to me when we meet solely because you want a PvP fight .. remember, to you combat is number 1 and all other activities secondary .. You said so yourself earlier in the thread.

Whilst you may think keeping my PC/NPC status hidden after crimes is unfair you seem to forget that there will be some rather nasty NPC pirates out there with juicy bounties on their head so I know for sure you are going to kill them ... thing is, unbeknown to you one of them could be me ;)


ETA:
We seem to be suffering from many compromises, or rather my side of the argument is. For the record I think a PvE /PvP split would have been a better solution but as you say time will tell.
PvP / PvE has nothing to do with knowing if a pilot is a PC or NPC. I really wish you could see that, but like I said above, your focus is on combat, NPCs make for boring combat, and so in your mind you can't understand why someone would want to be hidden. :)
 
Last edited:
Many people seemed to think the group system needed to be seriously reviewed even before this rose up again. Personally, I expected to always be in the 'all' group, unless that was made intolerable by griefers and non-consensual PvPers. And since I intend to predominantly play the roles of trader and explorer, I will head towards the edge of explored space, and thus probably not meet many people anyway. No point in having private groups when there is no one in the same system as you.

Your comments appear to imply that you see being forced to have the transponder on is a disadvantage. Which, of course, is what many (but not me, in this case) who did not want the instant ID thing were arguing.

I think it could be a disadvantage. For example, if I strategicly have mine off and notice two people having a fight (who had theirs on) who are obviously human by their behaviour then I have a tactical advantage by them not knowing I am a human. So I strike and they never knew it was coming.

I must say though, whilst this seems to be what's going to be delivered, my options for my desired play-style are reduced whilst those who favour PvE can still migrate to single-player or private group if they wish.

Sandro mentioned a 'safe' environment in his post and I find that a little bit odd when we are playing a game titled 'Elite Dangerous'. Anyhow at least now this is cleared up I can put this to rest.
 

Sandro Sammarco

Lead Designer
Frontier
Hello Cosmos!

A quick point: to reveal a local bounty all you need to do is target and "look" at a ship for a few seconds. The advanced K-Warrant scanner is for bounty hunters that want to maximise profit margins by revealing *all* bounties (and thus collect more when they make the kill), this is why it requires more effort.

As I've said, I understand your concerns - they are valid. I hope you decide to give the game a look. I guess in the end, we have to make the calls we feel are for the best, and you get to like or hate them as is your wont.

No hard feelings!
 

Stachel

Banned
Bounty hunting won't work with the groups as they are. People will just log in a pirate character, kill someone (human or not) then switch to a private group (or just log off) to avoid human pursuit. The AI will be easy to fox after the first few dozen times I am sure.

I'm not going to post again tonight, so won't labour this point too much, but group switching ON = more griefers not less.
 
Back
Top Bottom