Exclusive DDFs were always a bad idea - especially ones where the entry fee is £200. I could really go off on one here after months of reading posts from DDF members that seem to represent a niche market who have either been scarred for life by previous MP experiences, or haven't even played a MP game before judging by some of the stuff I've read! Its no surprise to me this game is getting layers and layers of safety nets on top of what will already be the biggest gameworld ever. Well, I think I'll be civil and leave it at that.
Elite Babysitter...
- Thread starter JeffRyan
- Start date
Exclusive DDFs were always a bad idea - especially ones where the entry fee is £200. I could really go off on one here after months of reading posts from DDF members that seem to represent a niche market who have either been scarred for life by previous MP experiences, or haven't even played a MP game before judging by some of the stuff I've read! Its no surprise to me this game is getting layers and layers of safety nets on top of what will already be the biggest gameworld ever. Well, I think I'll be civil and leave it at that.
Are They gonna be only in anarchic areas or all around ?
400 bilion stars and You guys arleady crying loud.
3 vast factions plus more comming in (aliens etc).
Lots of space to cover, time consuming travel, and you think that some magically will show up from one side of the galaxy to the other ? There is no way.
Of course there will be pvpers only, but its the human part were talking about. Youre all trying to implement restriction on a freedom, and i must say NAY!
If i get ganked, big deal, il try to avoid that place, thats it. But if i want to gank someone couple times even i want to be able to do so, freedom all it says.
For those who are"antysocial" well they will STAY IN SOLO then forever as antysocial place for them.
Space is dark, cold place, no romantic and pink ponys on the rainbow with elves shooting bows and magic from their fingers.
Harsh i know but get used to it. Outsmart bad seed not restrict evn your own gameplay in that wast space.
For piracy to work there has to be the threat of a ship kill to give the victim an incentive to hand over their goods. If ship killing is removed as a potential threat then compliance with the pirates polite request would have to be made compulsory.
I love the idea that it's the PvPers that are the most passionate and vocal in this discussion.
It really isn't, as I'm not a PvPer and I'm one of the most passionate in trying to keep this game from having too many restrictions.
I do think that we need to see these systems in play, and I find that it's the 'I need x protection system to let ME play the way I want to' people who're equally passionate and disparaging in the discussion. (And smug because they seem to be winning on the whole).
Many on the other side of this fence will probably agree with me, we need to see these systems in play, but I think it'd be easier to add them in later than take them out.
I gotta fight, for your right. To gaaaaank me!
It really isn't, as I'm not a PvPer and I'm one of the most passionate in trying to keep this game from having too many restrictions.
I do think that we need to see these systems in play, and I find that it's the 'I need x protection system to let ME play the way I want to' people who're equally passionate and disparaging in the discussion. (And smug because they seem to be winning on the whole).
Many on the other side of this fence will probably agree with me, we need to see these systems in play, but I think it'd be easier to add them in later than take them out.
I gotta fight, for your right. To gaaaaank me!
They're providing the medium in which those behaviors can or cannot be engaged in, though. They decide what is allowable and what isn't simply by developing the mechanics of the game. It's inherently their job to regulate vulnerability to what you refer to as anti-social behavior.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The threat is always there (but it has to be convincing) - for a pirate to be successful, the target has to believe that there is a risk of ship destruction. That is not to say that the target needs to take any regard of the pirate at all - a starter Sidewinder with stock weaponry would be as effective as a tick against a rhino when up against a tooled up Lakon or Anaconda.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Well, exactly, that is precisely the gist of the proposal!
Given the fact the universe will be vast beyond belief surely there is room for all kinds of play styles in it, including the above, no?
Let's make up a specific example to be a bit more specific:
Say out of those 400 billion stars we have just... let's say, just 1 billion (0.25% of the total) of those with the low security rule set. And the remaining 300 billion using fully the current DDF porposal without taking off a single comma.
Do you think you ll cover those 300 billion stars so fast as to also require (or even care?) the remaining 100 billion be subject to the same rule set because they are "denied". You really think those 300 billion is not enough?
Now, now... let's not become "space" greedy now
Surely we can all co exist in this galaxy no?The beauty of ED is that players of all play styles could also potentially have the chance to experiment all kinds of systems and security if they so wished with my proposal, and go back and forth as they please.
No one preventing you from doing anything you feel is your style... You want privacy and ignores? You got 300 billions of systems worth of it... and that for as long as many, many of your lifetimes actually...
Last edited:
Apologies if I came across as smug, It wasn't meant to.
Nothing I wrote is new. I honestly think that we're better off, and will have a more dynamic PvP experience if people have the tools to dip in and out when it suits them. If you force a choice then they'll walk away or if your lucky try it, see the Alpha 3 experience re-written in a hundred different ways and then walk away anyhow.
You've only yourselves to blame - okay that bit was a little smug
Unfortunately for the hardcore, I believe you are in the minority, your play style is a turn off for the majority who are more casual in outlook.
My understanding of the mechanics proposed were that they may well be enough, the only one I would change is to make ignore mean ignore. Maybe modify it by only fixing a limit on the amount of people who can be ignored at any one time - And if a player has a need to increase this they then petition.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Well, exactly, that is precisely the gist of the proposal!
Given the fact the universe will be vast beyond belief surely there is room for all kinds of play styles in it, including the above, no?
Let's make a specific example, say out of those 400 billion stars we have just... let's say, 1 billion of those with the low security ruleset. The remaining 300 billion using fully the current DDF porposal without taking off a single comma.
Do you think you ll cover those 300 billion stars so fast as to also require (or even care?) the remaining 100 billion be subject to the same rule set because they are "denied". You really think those 300 billion is not enough?
Now, now... let's not become "space" greedy now
The beauty of ED is that players of all play styles could also potentially have the chance to experiment all kinds of systems and security if they so wished with my proposal, and go back and forth as they please.
No one preventing you from doing anything you feel is your style... You want privacy and ignores? You got 300 billions of systems of it... and that for as long as many, many of your lifetimes actually...
The argument is morphing into player controlled areas - another mechanic from EVE that doesn't exist in E: D.
Partitioning the galaxy in this manner is unnecessary. The grouping system allows like-minded players to create a group with modified rule-sets (I think) - rampant PvP could exist in groups without bothering the rest of the population.
+1
Exactly this.
100 billion destinations (70,000 in policed areas) should have been the starting point with no need for anything layered on top (ignore lists, groups et al). Then monitor emergent player behavior during beta and gamma - when players aren't all cooped up in a handful of systems, see if that behavior warrants the addition of extra layers.
I think once we all begin to spread out player-player encounters will become a rarity (unless you specifically arrange it) that some of these fears players have will be completely unfounded.
Like you say, its probably much easier to add stuff in if a problem emerges, than remove stuff that people have gotten used to being there.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I respectfully disagree. It would be easier to fine-tune (or disable) the mechanics in question having incorporated them into the core functionality of the game than to tack them on later.
I meant policing in the more general sense of having a set of in game consequences for in game actions that, together with grouping and ignore system, would protect players from actions they find anti-social. As I said the proposal in the DDA on grouping, criminal sanctions, bounties etc... when taken as a whole seem to give a good deal of protection. I would certainly like to see them fully implemented and tested in an environment closer to the final game environment (i.e. players not restricted to one or a handful of systems) before considering any radical changes.
This is a bit disingenuous. If there's all this room, surely there's enough room to avoid the behaviours you don't desire without needing artificial constraints?
The problem with this "only when I'm ready" approach is that no one asking for it is ever bloody ready. They always want to wait until the odds are massively stacked in their favour before they "dip in".
So now the only people pvping are hugely tooled up and overgunned, on both sides of the equation. You turn player conflict from an organic, freeform and spontaneous thing into a theme park.
I don't really care anymore, hence why I've not contributed to the DDF thread... I'll be playing solo seeing as it looks like they're ruining* multiplayer with the opt in/out ID transponder thing anyway.
*subjective
As time goes on I'm feeling much the same way. From the glimpses we get in this forum, the DDF seem to be intent on slowly killing multi player. Once that's done they only need to set about dismantling, distorting or restricting the background simulation and I can play single player offline.
I don't think it's just the DDF, I think it's the general demographic of the forums as a whole... older, more conservative people, quite a few haven't even played MP and have had the fear of griefing driven into them, etc.
I think the DDF, and the wider forums, have done a great job as a whole, but they're getting a bit too conservative with regards to MP and griefing. IMHO, of course.
I don't disagree, it's the further impositions that are rankling me. Perhaps either or, but not all this...
And yeah Jabokai, I agree... I feel like we're doing a good job of shooting ourselves in the foot.
I think this less deep an issue than the type of 'cotton wool' wrapping we see in society (Schools not doing field trips due to concerns of kids getting hurt etc).
So i don't think is exactly the same issue. This is just a game, something to have some FUN with. Not a social issue that has repercussions in our real lives (outside our partners/wives/husbands/friends/kids getting annoyed at not seeing us).
The difference is that now we (gaming people) have a vast backlog of experience in relation to on-line gaming and MP griefing that we collectively didn't have 10 years ago or so.
And that experience has had a range of different effects on gamers, from my ''I only play SP now (or limited local MP with people i actually know)'' to the full on EVE fan that wants an even more hardcore experience where anything goes in the MP space. And everything between.
It comes down to what YOU consider as FUN gametime, and as someone paying to experience that, you certainly don't want to be in a position of paying for UN-FUN.
So in short this is less about a reflection on wider society (but there will be some cross-over obviously) and that impact on games, and more about a collective experience and understanding on what MP online gaming is and can be, and a range of expressed opinions on that.
We are all more experienced online MP gamers in general than we were a decade ago and we know more clearly what we like and don't like. That is what is being expressed in relation to ED.
So i don't think is exactly the same issue. This is just a game, something to have some FUN with. Not a social issue that has repercussions in our real lives (outside our partners/wives/husbands/friends/kids getting annoyed at not seeing us).
The difference is that now we (gaming people) have a vast backlog of experience in relation to on-line gaming and MP griefing that we collectively didn't have 10 years ago or so.
And that experience has had a range of different effects on gamers, from my ''I only play SP now (or limited local MP with people i actually know)'' to the full on EVE fan that wants an even more hardcore experience where anything goes in the MP space. And everything between.
It comes down to what YOU consider as FUN gametime, and as someone paying to experience that, you certainly don't want to be in a position of paying for UN-FUN.
So in short this is less about a reflection on wider society (but there will be some cross-over obviously) and that impact on games, and more about a collective experience and understanding on what MP online gaming is and can be, and a range of expressed opinions on that.
We are all more experienced online MP gamers in general than we were a decade ago and we know more clearly what we like and don't like. That is what is being expressed in relation to ED.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If mechanics are in place to modify or deter behaviour types then they require to be tuned. Anything that can be tuned can be tweaked in one direction or another to achieve the desired result. Frontier are firmly in control of the desired result - the DDF simply put forward proposals / arguments as part of any topic discussion - it is up to Frontier to interpret and decide on what will be implemented.
If a mechanic turns out to be too harsh on miscreants then Frontier can choose to tune it back - or not, as the case may be.
If a mechanic turns out to be too harsh on miscreants then Frontier can choose to tune it back - or not, as the case may be.