Elite Babysitter...

[Mephane]

Let me just insert my own argument why I think the opt-in/out transponder is a bad idea:

A skilled player, eventually, will be able to tell the difference between NPC and human player regardless. It will be impossible to thus hide from an experienced player by turning off the transponder, while the experienced can turn it off to hide from the inexperienced.

The telltale signs of a human player range from a flying ship type that is at odds with what the typical NPC in the area flies, more unpredictable combat tactics, or just generally un-NPC-y behaviour like sitting around while watching the scenery or chatting with a friend (generally any form of standstill would be a big huge "here is a player" sign).

A real griefer, therefore, will just fly with transponder off and can still pick their human targets, now with the added bonus that the inexperienced player, which are the most susceptible to griefing behaviour in the first place, are unable to know there is a player around until the moment it may very well all be too late.

Another griefing tactic likely to emerge is two players working together, one with transponder on, the other (or several) with transponder off. The first player can then signal the second when a player with an active transponder comes around, invalidating the very game mechanic that should advertise other players when you decide to advertise yourself.

In the best case, when there is very little griefing anyway, the transponder is a lot of effort wasted on a game mechanic that no one needs. In the worst case, griefing will run rampant anyway, and griefers can and will make use of the transponder mechanic for their increased advantage.

 

[Zak Gordon]

I think that's the problem, ED is trying to be all things to all people.

Well if it is technically possible, how can it be a bad thing? It means more of your customers are going to be happy, have fun playing and keep playing. That is probably better than just hitting that select critical mass of gamers like EVE has? (i should add EVE is a game i'd never want to pay money to play, just to frame that reference).

I understand what you are saying here, and this thread is mostly the most civil (so far) on this type of topic, but as Malicar just posted, it does SEEM that most of the people complaining about this player choice thing ARE the griefer type/ EVE fan etc? Not always, but it comes through very strongly in most of these kind of threads.

And that mostly proves to me the Frontier are doing the RIGHT thing by giving players a choice over the type of FUN they will experience in their game.

It will mean that less people will be involved in all one instance, but expecting people to play a game they are not having fun with just so a percentile few can have THEIR type of fun seems a little........selfish?

Or look at it this another way. Elite is a game with a long history, a single player history. That means most Elite fans will quite like that aspect of the game as they know it very well.

Most Elite players will not be the same as EVE players, sure some will have crossed over during the 'quite years' when no new Elite game was around, but in my experience most of those Elite fans moved instead to the X games or things like Escape Velocity.

So trying to frame ED as simply a new type of EVE is not really the right way to think about it. In Elite it is the SP that has the traction of history and gameplay. The MP can be an exciting addition, and David and FD are certainly pushing it front and center, but it is 'new' to the Elite experience.

And like my post you quoted, i think we can't underestimate the value of experience 'we' now have in relation to online MP gaming and it's positives and negatives. To ignore that would just be a very effective way to limit the potential player base for the new Elite?

 

[Thorn Black]

If people can't socialize in civilized manner then the social rules have to be created for them.

Social rules i agree to that but not "Magical WALLS"

 

[Zak Gordon]

Social rules i agree to that but not "Magical WALLS"

No one is forcing you to play

Likewise no one is forcing me to play with you

Win-Win

 

[Robert Maynard]

You see now it hurts the both sides if You start making restrictions left and right. And if there will be too many im guessing those with itchy fingers to block people out will end up dying alone. Alone in the dark corners of their own universe ... Just like the bloodthirsty killers ... yes this stick has both ends.

Whereas, your proposal only hurts those who do not wish to be part of the herd that your PvPers will cull? So, only "hurting" one portion of the player-base is fair, in your view?

 

[Thorn Black]

No one is forcing you to play

Likewise no one is forcing me to play with you

Win-Win

Yeah i can kill You in space as many times i want so You will turn off the game, aka no one is forcing you to play.

Or you can pay me up hefty sum of credits so i can be your friend xo xo

 

[Viajero]

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.

Please correct me if I am wrong but controlled areas do not exist not because it has been a final and 100% explicit decision by FD but simply because tehre is not enough persistent universe mechanics still being fleshed out, including how procedurally generated systems will (or not) be affected by game play.

Actually one can argue that territorial gameplay is one of the main aspects of PVP and one that, if developed and balanced right, can help bring longevity to this great game of ours.

From that point of view and given the galaxy size, I d argue there is no reason, not to allow for this additional kind of game play if the community thinks it is a good idea. It all simply revolves around a simple question of resources at FD.

With regards to your last paragraph, PVP in areas where the current DDF rule set is active, allowing for privacy and ignores will not allow for a really transparent field for PVP as players just use the rule set to their advantage when required while PVP ing, going in and out as wished. And hence my proposal.

The galaxy is big enough to allow it, so cant see why you seem so concerned tbh. 300 billions of systems, as per my example, should be reasonably big if you dont like the full PVP experience no?

 

[Thorn Black]

Whereas, your proposal only hurts those who do not wish to be part of the herd that your PvPers will cull? So, only "hurting" one portion of the player-base is fair, in your view?

Who told you i cannot be reason with (RP wise of course) ?

Why, why why ... always why me isnt it ?

If Youre weak You are goin to die in RL, simple natures way.
Were all animals, there we will be monekys in space arent we ?

Just becouse we went down from the trees doesnt give us right to change universe rules.

Accept that and You will be trully free. Be yourself, do it in game, show that You can outsmart me, run away or kill me.

Do not make magic walls, You wont be safe anywhere. Youre not invicible everlasting unkillable entitty so do I.

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

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.

All valid points, although in relation to one of your points - the problems in regards to using past experiences in relation to Elite Dangerous, and basing important gameplay decisions off them, is all the games we've played in the past are miniscule compared to one that opens up an entire galaxy as our playground. Most of those previous games were also designed to specifically encourage player interaction and had mechanics, features, and environments that pretty much forced it at times.

So you had relatively small gameworlds, large populations, and mechanics specifically designed to facilitate player encounters.

Elite Dangerous is a completely different beast. Completely off the scale compared to the infinitesimal size of every other gameworld that has ever exited, even if you combined them all into one! ED should really give rise to and define a completely new category of virtual world as it doesn't deserve to be lumped in with anything that has come before. We can't look at older games and use the same arguments as to why this that or the other should be implemented in this new emergent kind of boundless virtual environment.

Nothing on this scale has ever been available before. It would have been interesting to see what types of player behavior (of all kinds) emerges once those players have been exposed to a pretty much infinite playground with no boundaries, as much breathing space as they could ever hope for, and very little in the way of forcing them to interact with another living soul.

 

[tooterfish]

Actually one can argue that territorial gameplay is one of the main aspects of PVP and one that, if developed and balanced right, can help bring longevity to this great game of ours.

Many of us don't actually want to play EvE 2.0, even the pro-pvp crowd.

I'd say territorial control is orthogonal to this whole argument anyway.

 

[JeffRyan]

Well if it is technically possible, how can it be a bad thing? It means more of your customers are going to be happy, have fun playing and keep playing. That is probably better than just hitting that select critical mass of gamers like EVE has? (i should add EVE is a game i'd never want to pay money to play, just to frame that reference).

I understand what you are saying here, and this thread is mostly the most civil (so far) on this type of topic, but as Malicar just posted, it does SEEM that most of the people complaining about this player choice thing ARE the griefer type/ EVE fan etc? Not always, but it comes through very strongly in most of these kind of threads.

I'd argue that it isn't possible, the mechanisms being added are for those who want to play it safe. For those of us who want a bit of risk, that is being watered down to nothing. I'd say the mechanisms are preselecting one group over another.

And that mostly proves to me the Frontier are doing the RIGHT thing by giving players a choice over the type of FUN they will experience in their game.

It will mean that less people will be involved in all one instance, but expecting people to play a game they are not having fun with just so a percentile few can have THEIR type of fun seems a little........selfish?

I could argue the same, the 'play it safe at all costs but I want to be in the all group' are being selfish because despite having other options for playing the game in a safer enviroment they're asking for the all group to have further layers of protections.

Or look at it this another way. Elite is a game with a long history, a single player history. That means most Elite fans will quite like that aspect of the game as they know it very well.

Most Elite players will not be the same as EVE players, sure some will have crossed over during the 'quite years' when no new Elite game was around, but in my experience most of those Elite fans moved instead to the X games or things like Escape Velocity.

So trying to frame ED as simply a new type of EVE is not really the right way to think about it. In Elite it is the SP that has the traction of history and gameplay. The MP can be an exciting addition, and David and FD are certainly pushing it front and center, but it is 'new' to the Elite experience.

And like my post you quoted, i think we can't underestimate the value of experience 'we' now have in relation to online MP gaming and it's positives and negatives. To ignore that would just be a very effective way to limit the potential player base for the new Elite?

I don't necessarily disagree and with the general impulse, but I do feel as though we're taking it a step or two too far.

 

[deusx_ophc]

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.

no one needs 10 years to understand their personal idea of fun. specially not in the context of what is being discussed here. and i disagree, to often unpleasant is set equal with unfun. some of the most unpleasant things i have done or had to endure turned out to be the most terrifying fun ever.

in short, the demographics of backers (sex, age & disposable income) + huge (emotional) invest = overbearing sense of entitlement.

if you factor the amount of human vs human "combat" experience since mp alpha you get what we get here: fear of a live less ordinary

obviously that fear likes to hide behind any number of sophisticated masks, but eventually that is all it is, fear. (an unpleasant emotion of danger).



ps: i do trust FDEV to read the sentiment here and value it as is. time will tell and regardless, elite : dangerous has for me (and should have for everyone) only one mode - multiplayer, all group, all time.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Who told you i cannot be reason with (RP wise of course) ?

Why, why why ... always why me isnt it ?

If Youre weak You are goin to die in RL, simple natures way.
Were all animals, there we will be monekys in space arent we ?

Just becouse we went down from the trees doesnt give us right to change universe rules.

Accept that and You will be trully free. Be yourself, do it in game, show that You can outsmart me, run away or kill me.

Do not make magic walls, You wont be safe anywhere. Youre not invicible everlasting unkillable entitty so do I.

Your posts so far do not indicate that you are going to be doing much role-play - sorry if I have misinterpreted that.

The weak are generally protected in first-world society. Survival of the fittest ceased to be with the advent of medicines and medical intervention. Everyone will die at some point.

In RL, pirates and murderers are taken out of the general population for long periods of time when caught (sometimes permanently) - RL comparisons don't really cut it in the context of escape pods and new ships for low (at the moment) insurance premiums.

The "play the game how you want to" instruction from Frontier means that I do not *have* to play the game your way (although I may *choose* to) - the important distinction is choice - being forced to play your way may not be the type of gaming experience that I seek.

What would be less "magic" about the disappearance of groups, ignores and solo play as soon as a player crossed into a system with a security level below an arbitrary threshold?

 

[tooterfish]

In RL, pirates and murderers are taken out of the general population for long periods of time when caught (sometimes permanently) - RL comparisons don't really cut it in the context of escape pods and new ships for low (at the moment) insurance premiums.

So, I was right on the money. Griefer has been steadily redefined to mean "anyone who plays in a way that I personally disapprove".

Pirates and murderers won't be frequenting the core heavily policed systems at all. They'll already be a hunted and persecuted class on the fringes of space... so why do some feel the need to push them out of the game completely?

 

[Robert Maynard]

So, I was right on the money. Griefer has been steadily redefined to mean "anyone who plays in a way that I personally disapprove".

Pirates and murderers won't be frequenting the core heavily policed systems at all. They'll already be a hunted and persecuted class on the fringes of space... so why do some feel the need to push them out of the game completely?

Not in the slightest.

"Griefing" is so ill-defined and many of the behaviours that make it up are already covered by other laws (IANAL). Piracy and murder occur in RL and they are the examples that I took that are dealt with there by the legal system.

Piracy and murder are possible in the game, with in-game consequences. Where the practitioners choose to ply their trade is up to their own risk/reward evaluation of the developing situation.

 

[Thorn Black]

Your posts so far do not indicate that you are going to be doing much role-play - sorry if I have misinterpreted that.

The weak are generally protected in first-world society. Survival of the fittest ceased to be with the advent of medicines and medical intervention. Everyone will die at some point.

In RL, pirates and murderers are taken out of the general population for long periods of time when caught (sometimes permanently) - RL comparisons don't really cut it in the context of escape pods and new ships for low (at the moment) insurance premiums.

The "play the game how you want to" instruction from Frontier means that I do not *have* to play the game your way (although I may *choose* to) - the important distinction is choice - being forced to play your way may not be the type of gaming experience that I seek.

What would be less "magic" about the disappearance of groups, ignores and solo play as soon as a player crossed into a system with a security level below an arbitrary threshold?

Yeah well not everyone has to understand the reasons, its liek asking why do we live, why were here in this universe, why do I exist at all.
It does not mean il hunt You down personally for fun, but that does not mean i will not do that ... too many variables equals life variety. other than that we all would be the same. (sick robot society) i think You will fit empire nicelly.

You can create the protection of the weak, make an organization in game or alliance of angry pilots whatever you fancy with but im sure You wanted to make friends so i guess You have some there.

What if You will manage to take me off or down in hi security system somwhere deep in it, then I would be forced to respawn outside of current security level or simply far away from You (im opt for the second one). This way Youre gonna be safe enough and all RP rules will stay untouch aswell as freedom of meetoing You again to take my chances again with You in space (or ground latter ).

Well its all group game, not Your private sandbox. That should tell you how to play or what to expect ... if youre ignoring it then its Your own fault that You have been burned down. If you seek safe enviromet go play solo mode or private group mode, we never see eachother, win win situation.

I think we do not talk about the same game in Your last sentence. There wont be cross-groups when You want (or on demand as You say). Thus no "magic walls". But are we reffering to the same "magic walls"?

 

[warbaby2]

Pirates and murderers won't be frequenting the core heavily policed systems at all. They'll already be a hunted and persecuted class on the fringes of space... so why do some feel the need to push them out of the game completely?

That's not the case at all, as far as I understood the plans FD have for the crime system in ED... if anything, it seams that a certain group of PvPers (that is very prominent in EVE) have become so risk averse that they consider a game with REAL ingame consequences for griefing (or even general PvP) to be "anti-pvp"... no offense.

 

[Thorn Black]

Not in the slightest.

"Griefing" is so ill-defined and many of the behaviours that make it up are already covered by other laws (IANAL). Piracy and murder occur in RL and they are the examples that I took that are dealt with there by the legal system.

Piracy and murder are possible in the game, with in-game consequences. Where the practitioners choose to ply their trade is up to their own risk/reward evaluation of the developing situation.

So You say goverments can kill who they want and larger societies can kill who they want as they want cos theyre big or "grieef hungry" on people who stand against enslavement and opression in any form ?

 

[burzum]

What actually could be considered griefing in ED? If I want to go out and shoot miners all day as a pirate I wouldn't consider it griefing. Wikipedias explanation of a griefer is this:

A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways

Piracy and the risk of being shot by pirates is part of the game and intended because it's part of the game. The solution here is simple as well: Don't play online or play in private groups. I don't see a need to protect people from an intended feature and game play mechanism. And it's not like that the fact that piracy and possible PVP encounters are a well kept secret that you suddenly discover when you already bought the game.

Being killed at the stations airlock or getting the airlock blocked, yes, that's pretty annoying and what I would consider as griefing. But as far as I'm aware there has been another discussion that already addressed this issue and it was solved AFAIR.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You can create the protection of the weak, make an organization in game or alliance of angry pilots whatever you fancy with but im sure You wanted to make friends so i guess You have some there.

The Pilot's Federation will, I believe issue bounties when their members are preyed upon.

Well its all group game, not Your private sandbox. That should tell you how to play or what to expect ... if youre ignoring it then its Your own fault that You have been burned down. If you seek safe enviromet go play solo mode or private group mode, we never see eachother, win win situation.

I think we do not talk about the same game in Your last sentence. There wont be cross-groups when You want (or on demand as You say). Thus no "magic walls". But are we reffering to the same "magic walls"?

It is a group game, absolutely, however the sandbox belongs to no particular play type (although I get the feeling that some of the PvP proponents assume that it is theirs and those who do not like it can lump it by removing themselves to private groups or solo play).

Not sure what you mean in the last paragraph.