You offer different modes to different players. You give both camps a means to an end and tools to ply their crafts. You design each mode with a careful balance that doesn't break immersion or allow players to hide behind game mechanics. Last but not least you make sure your anti cheat works and you actively ban bots and hackers to keep things legit and player pools active.
Elite Babysitter...
- Thread starter JeffRyan
- Start date
You offer different modes to different players. You give both camps a means to an end and tools to ply their crafts. You design each mode with a careful balance that doesn't break immersion or allow players to hide behind game mechanics. Last but not least you make sure your anti cheat works and you actively ban bots and hackers to keep things legit and player pools active.
Some people were asking aswell why other games and companies that make them put so many restrictions and "laws" with reporting and all that. Simply put, are those game big enough it means does it have space large and wide enough so everyone can find their own tiny place? Of course not, people being put instead in tight zones, locked betwen gates or areas of playfield, people being push towards interactions with other players, so i say forced to do so. Thats why there are "laws" to report and other fancy what not.
Now please stop implementing pointles restrictions in such a huge game ...
Now please stop implementing pointles restrictions in such a huge game ...
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... or, alternatively, remove yourself / your group to a private group and enjoy the game where the direct actions of others are filtered out....
The "If you don't like that then switch off your PC and Go Outside" repetition will not make it happen, nor will it encourage other players to play in that way. It will reinforce fairly entrenched positions even further, so is hardly a constructive addition to the discussion.
The '10 years' thing was just in relation to our collective experience of on-line MP gaming. I started gaming in 1981, the only MP was local and on the same console/screen (Atari VCS 2600 + 4 joysticks). THAT was nearly always a whole bunch of fun, because if someone went too far in their 'griefing' (not that the term existed back then), you could simply tickle/jump on the person giving you a hard time (as in spoiling your fun) and it was all cool.
On-line MP gaming is very, very different. With no rules in place you often find a very narcissistic game world is created. That lack of very real personal and actual physical attachment to the 'friends' around you does have an effect (not always off course) on behavior towards others. There are some studies on this kind of thing i believe? It also covers peoples behaviour 'online' in general etc, and certainly there are plenty of game forums around to prove the point about 'online toxicity' etc
So yeah the 10 year thing is just in relation to how long on-line MP gaming has been around in general, nothing more.
I just bolded that last bit because that is exactly what you WILL HAVE. As will all the others complaining about these options. So that's why it seems it is nearly always the griefers that are most worried about all this.
Just play MP all groups all the time, and right there is the game YOU WANT.
For me it is going to be 95% SP all of the time, 5% MP local group of friends only, because that is the game I WANT.
Everyone is happy and catered for. To put this another way if Elite: Dangerous was going to be like EVE i would not have backed it, nor would want to play it, and instead would have put my money only into Star Citizen and Limit Theory.
Not EVERYONE wants Elite as an online MP game. And we can ALL play it as we prefer. There is no problem here.
Last edited:
*sigh* It really isn't what EVERYONE wants and that's the problem a few of us in the DDF are seeing. And we're firmly in the minority. We're seeing too many controls and restrictions being put on the open, all, group that it no longer seems to be a true MP game anymore.
The happy people are those who want to play in the all group but don't want the peskiness of risking pvp... And we're told that EVERYONE is happy...
Well I'm not...
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I don't think that it is Frontier's task to please all of us at the same time (as if such a thing were possible in the first place!) - rather that sufficient mechanisms are put in place during Beta to allow tuning of the player experience so that player positive feedback is maximised. I don't know what the result of that tuning will be - I am eager to find out!
Backing is on hold for me until I see which direction this goes.
Always smell the milk before drinking it...
Edit- I want to thank you Jeff for making this info public. This is info potential backers should be aware of before putting money into a project.
Last edited:
Hmmm. Ok. Well i haven't been following in detail (as i'm here for the SP) but so what you are saying is if people choose MP and 'All groups' (which i thought was the 'free for all' kind of mode?) then there are other additional restrictions that come into play to make it 'too safe' etc? Beyond the Legal System/Law Level/System Police/Proximity to space stations+safe ports etc.
What about all those that choose MP and 'All Groups' and don't want to add the extra safety things? Won't you all appear in the same instance together and be all exposed to the same dangers etc? What about your ability to form your own groups within the 'All Groups' selection and play within your own free-for-all game preference?
Not even an 'Iron Man' option to provide that hard core risk/reward challenge?
If so then yes i would agree for those seeking that kind of thing, it may be an oversight not to allow that type of gameplay.
Last edited:
Same here.
I've mostly red through the entire thread and there's something I really don't get : It seems that people wanting for security are assuming that all PVPers are griefers and pirates, while I'm pretty sure we'll also have a good share of bounty hunters, military and mercs happy to give you a hand and hunt down dem [redacted] as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
wow....... So am I reading this right, If I dont like cheaters, tough, turn off and give up gaming? is that the point you are trying to make?.
I have my own views on what I term griefing, and I see some here i agree with and some I dont, but at least I CAN see where both sides are coming from...... But basically people who cheat not being my concern and if they bother me, turn off and move on, is about the most undefendable position I have seen on this forum imo.
Well, I guess papers and research like what is below is meaningless then?
http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~ckilgore/portfolio/papers/An Exploration of Griefer Play.pdf
Sorry, you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about, to think FD are not going to take the likes of above into account, well that plain foolishness.
So what? If they can't stand to have any boundaries (like you seem to be saying) then they end up hellbanned with others the same mindset.
If you can't stand to have any repercussions for your behaviour in a shared environment, it may be that multiplayer games with open structure are not for you.
In Elite you are free to act like a d*ck, but there are consequences. If they do nothing to moderate your behavior, eventually you are hellbanned. You can still play, of course, but your human interaction is limited to those similarily hellbanned.
Currently there is exactly as you said.
Each commander first of all can play normal mode in 3 styles:
- Offline
- Online (Solo / Group)
- Online (All)
You can also do the same but with Ironman rules - Die you're dead. (Well, moved to normal but from the point of view in the IM universe unless you restart you're gone!)
During online play you have the ability to mute players so you never "hear" from them; you can also ignore players so the matchmaking algorithm will probably not match you two together if you meet. (I say probably as there are some circumstances where you still will be)
There are (or will be) station defences to protect around the stations, and depending upon the region of space there will be police / navy patrols protecting the lawful systems.
Next we have the bounty system. If you unlawfully shoot someone (a clean person, or a criminal who you have not identified as such) you receive a bounty. If you kill someone that bounty (is supposed to) significantly increases. At some point the local police and Navy will learn about you and become interested in finding you. Coupled with that criminals with bounties will be actively pursued by NPC/Player Bounty Hunters who, once they scan you, are legally allowed to kill you for the bounty.
On top of all this if you're a criminal and you're caught or die then your bounty (or at least a portion of it) will need to be paid off before you can launch.
The point of this thread - FD want to know what to do about the griefers and hackers that are likely to come. The above rules I mentioned will cover in game actions to a large degree, but for fringe cases they won't.
The current proposal (or at least how I see it) would be to include, like they do with pretty much all online games, a report button - don't like something, or someone is bothering you, you can report them for moderation. (Exactly like it is now on the forums) Depending upon the case it will be ignored by FD, advice given to the reporter, or appropriate punishment to the offending player. (Sexual Harassment for example could be a strike against your account) With enough black marks I would like to see these kinds of people moved into a special "all pilots" group just for griefers.
Finally - Hackers - what to do ? Personal ban them, but the onus is on FD to prove it as that can have consequences (false positives for example)
And that my good man is what you missed!
Now you're just trolling. I wonder how many here will know that the "aggressive sandbox" faction at the SC side is a small but vocal minority.
They are in any game, really... well, except EVE, where griefing is called "emergent gameplay".
hmm.. this thread is slowly getting out of hand.. watch the tone people or the mods will come running!
Hope you weren't referring to the top quote - it's a genuine thank-you to MuthaF Jamal for a reply to a question. I was a bit
when I saw it in my new posts and had to check back through the thread, perhaps Brandon31 should have quoted the reply for context!
I totally agree with OP.
The policing measures, while made with good intent, fail. Not specifically because the rules themselves don't make sense, but because the people who enforce them interpret them incorrectly, with bias; and then become the rule makers themselves. The community becomes a police state with arbitrary politically correct rules, or worse.
Freedom is dangerous.
The policing measures, while made with good intent, fail. Not specifically because the rules themselves don't make sense, but because the people who enforce them interpret them incorrectly, with bias; and then become the rule makers themselves. The community becomes a police state with arbitrary politically correct rules, or worse.
Freedom is dangerous.