So, in order to play with your friends (private group) you have to be in the all group? Kinda defeats the purpose...
Elite Babysitter...
- Thread starter JeffRyan
- Start date
So, in order to play with your friends (private group) you have to be in the all group? Kinda defeats the purpose...
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I think that private groups are based on the membership of a default group (i.e. Iron Man or All Group), yes. The groups are created (somehow) and maintained (somehow) with the opportunity to kick players who are not playing in accordance with the expectations of the group (again, somehow). We have seen nothing of group handling, yet.
Last edited:
Nope not really trolling at all sorry.
It has been known that pvp is completely unavoidable and there are no true safe areas or instances. That was a documented fact at about 18 million.
If what you are saying is the case then ED should be at 44 million and SC should be at 2 million.
Look it is just the fact that the entitlement generation and the everybody gets a trophy mindset that is destroying quality mmos. It wouldn't be bad if it was only some mmos but no it has to be all multiplayer games these types try to come in and take over and pressure developers into carebear design decisions.
Just check steam for the sales numbers of DayZ. The majority of gamers that actually pay for the games as opposed to kids using mommies cc are sick to death of pve snorefests and the sales and profits show this.
AAA companies are trying to cater to this crowd and going broke trying to do so. What do you think created the "Free to play" cash shop angle? It is a way to salvage shareholder money from failing clone copies they call mmos these days.
That paper proves nothing. Most likely written by someone like you that cant handle a little in game harmless fun. And yes FD will put something in place but that will only be for "Due Diligence" purposes. Nothing more.
Put your Big Boy pants on and come join the real human race.
Oh and for the record I do not indulge in Griefing etc myself because I do realize there are people like you that are so far detached from reality that they easily get consumed by these games.
I have even heard people crying on TS3 due to losing a roll for an item on certain MMORPG's.
Im sorry but if games affect you that much you really should not be playing them.
That has nothing to do with whether AAA games these days are "hardcore" or not... the market is just flooded with unimaginative, 6 hour action titles that have been designed in board rooms, and been play-tested by useless focus groups to copy the success of older, much better games... that is why the indy-market is taking of... it has nothing to do with the fact said games are easier or more casual then others...
As for SC: They have put much more money and afford into marketing then FD did for ED, that's all... Star Citizen will be pretty much the same PvP wise then ED, with very similar systems in place.
Last edited:
I specifically referred to mmos not all games and when I have a good chance to come into your private game instance of E/D and kill you if I want then the systems will be similar.
I don't have anything else to say on the issue so I will go quietly in the backround and wait to see how Frontier handles this.
Last edited:
great that you started gaming in 1981.
still does not mean that "you", "anyone" or our collective "us" need 10 years to figure out what is considered fun in a game. that is mainly instant and at least very short term. with today's attention spans that point must be conceded.
again i do not buy that. there are many wholesome, creative & fun mmo communities out there. i have met fellow players at countless conventions, private meetings, weddings and funerals over the years. there are in fact some very many real personal & physical engagements of like minded people that started just because of a mmo.
and i don't think just being online turns you or anyone into a troll. if i look at my TED or re : publica communities, well they are trolls alright but of a kind, intelligible sort.
i appreciate that you like to play SP most of your time, fine and i back the need for that mode (for nostalgic reasons only)
that, however, has nothing to do with the fragmentation of the playerbase via the tools already devised to ed (IRON/Groups/Instancing/Obfuscation). because with those tools i do NOT get to play mmo*, i get to play instanced/playmodded/grouped/obfuscated.
on top of that, npcs are NOT ever dangerous, they are a bore (unless you play chess and even then they are hardly amusing. they just crush you at a certain elo)
maybe i only care for a fully open game world because i tasted its delights already
you know, it is too easy to just always look at the negative and with that in mind overrule the possibilities of good & open.
anyhow, i am sure we all will try a positive outlook, promote positive behavior and take everything that comes in our stride
*FDEV always said that ed =/ traditional mmo
DayZ is a really poor example. Everyone wants a good zombie survival game with NPC and PvP but alas DayZ isn't it. It's barely a hiking simulation as it is now. Sure I sunk 70 hours into it before I was completely bored of absolutely no content and no rep system or nothing. It's an oversized deathmatch map with a whole lot of hiking. Don't even get me started on the vehicles especially the helicopters.
Plus its one of the buggiest games going and development moves slower than molasses going up hill in January. Just because a game has lawless PvP doesn't make it good. Also if you read the DayZ forums you'll see that many players have grown bored of it already as there is nothing more to do. You can do all that and more in COD and much quicker. Then again I guess skill based gameplay isn't for everyone.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Lol, I read this thread last this am and it was page 9... now I can see 30+ pages in my browser! Wozers.
Not really, no. Who is setting the artificial constraints here? The DDF rules are the only such set of constraints around so far... in this case constraints to prevent unrestricted and transparent PVP play as far as I can see!
Now, notice that I am not arguing for fully unrestricted play. I am actually a fairly balanced PVE, Solo, Co-Op and multi, PVP player.
My proposal in the first few pages of this thread was based on the premise the 400 billion stars are vast enough to allow for all play styles without the need to force anyone to endure anyone elses "artificial constraints".
Out of those 400 billion surely there is enough room for some sectors of space where where PVP and multi play can be had unrestricted and transparent without the need for private groups or "ignores".
Let that kind of gameplay also have its place in the galaxy... Asuming only 1 billion of those stars can be used with no privacy restrictions then that still allows for 300 billions under the DDF ruleset constraints.
Areas of space with varying predefined privacy settings is somehting that can be easily "lorified" and would allow everyone in this thread to play to his/her own styles withut alienating the other. Plus the fact all zones are available to everyone means anyone can at any point move freely between them and experiment different gamestyles.
Expecting PVP´ers to create their own groups in a DDF ruleset area is just not transparent enough for those PVP´ers... and will be prone to privacy exploits when convenient. PVP needs to be fully transparent in order extract it´s value and fun.
If some players prefer privacy to transparent PVP, that is fine of course, but the most efficient way to avoid alienating one another in that case is to have varying regions of the galaxy with different privacy settings and let players move around as they wished. Mixing things up will be a mess.
Not really, no. Who is setting the artificial constraints here?
The DDF rules are the only such set of constraints around so far... in this case constraints to prevent unrestricted and transparent PVP play as far as I can see!Now, notice that I am not arguing for fully unrestricted play. I am actually a fairly balanced PVE, Solo, Co-Op and multi, PVP player.
My proposal in the first few pages of this thread was based on the premise the 400 billion stars are vast enough to allow for all play styles without the need to force anyone to endure anyone elses "artificial constraints".
Out of those 400 billion surely there is enough room for some sectors of space where where PVP and multi play can be had unrestricted and transparent without the need for private groups or "ignores".
Let that kind of gameplay also have its place in the galaxy... Asuming only 1 billion of those stars can be used with no privacy restrictions then that still allows for 300 billions under the DDF ruleset constraints.
Areas of space with varying predefined privacy settings is somehting that can be easily "lorified" and would allow everyone in this thread to play to his/her own styles withut alienating the other. Plus the fact all zones are available to everyone means anyone can at any point move freely between them and experiment different gamestyles.
Expecting PVP´ers to create their own groups in a DDF ruleset area is just not transparent enough for those PVP´ers... and will be prone to privacy exploits when convenient. PVP needs to be fully transparent in order extract it´s value and fun.
If some players prefer privacy to transparent PVP, that is fine of course, but the most efficient way to avoid alienating one another in that case is to have varying regions of the galaxy with different privacy settings and let players move around as they wished. Mixing things up will be a mess.
Last edited:
I for one will when I'm feeling saucy will be going out to hunt down all the bad guys that ruin all the fun.
We did something similar in Everquest where we formed a guild that was specifically tasked in hunting down known terrorists and eliminating them.
I think bounties should be paid out from the bad guys own pockets to be honest.
We did something similar in Everquest where we formed a guild that was specifically tasked in hunting down known terrorists and eliminating them.
I think bounties should be paid out from the bad guys own pockets to be honest.
They are.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
I am not arguing for EVE 2.0 at all either, so that much we agree on. I personally dont like it particularly tbh, for many reasons.
But there are many other players here that actually like the idea of territorial PVP if properly designed and well balanced. It is just one aspect more of pvp play to consider, especially in a galaxy as vast as this. But it is really besides the point anyways.
With the advent of Beta PRemium and Beta more and more non orignal backers will join the ranks, probably a younger generation (Im 43 myself though so I dont count!
) and I would probably bet that a healthy chunk of those will be having serious PVP in mind no matter what the traditional mindset of the Elite series is. The magic of ED is that the size of this galaxy can give a refuge to all opinions... unlike EVE and/or probably SC.My initial proposal was simply one that allowed for all kind of playstyles, with perfectly vasts areas of the galaxy to be played under current DDF ruleset and others without the privacy requirements laid out therein. With all players being free to roam one or the others and/or anything in between as they see fit. It´s a win-win because no one will be able to visit the whole galaxy in a life time... or 2.
The galaxy is big enough for FD to be able to implement unrestricted and transparent PVP in some areas and DDF based rules in others without players having to cannibalize each other.
It is "simply" a matter of FD resources and community apetite.
Last edited:
As I mentioned in the DDF, Frontier should make the call on the tone of the game. You can't crowd-source a consensus on the definition of griefing.
Also, some people really like the sound of their own typing.
Also, some people really like the sound of their own typing.
That's what SC will be doing, actually... the higher the security rating of the system you are in, the less likely it will be for you to even meet ships piloted by actual players... not quite sure if that approach is much better then what FD has planned, but it certainly isn't more transparent.
Seriously?
I had a good laugh imagining that. No need to be sorry, true fact. Losing is part of life, people need to deal with it. I'm not a fan of padding, nor in games nor in real life.
Maybe just set preferences for PVP vs PVE instances when you join the game? Can only be changed once daily for example. Maybe on the weekend I want to PVP and weeknights only PVE.
I do love the fact that the people who want an open all group that's reasonably free for pvpers to participate are being lauded as the unreasonable selfish people.
SP offline pve
SP online pve
MP online private groups pve + friends
MP online (transponder on can see pcs) you can see players but you can ignore the ones you don't like.
MP online (transponder off can't see npcs) you can't see so really pve but if you don't like people you can ignore.
Ironman - Thanks I'd actually forgotten about this one. I hope it's unregulated.
If so, it should become the real ALL group.
Still seems far far far too complex and are still unhappy.
SP offline pve
SP online pve
MP online private groups pve + friends
MP online (transponder on can see pcs) you can see players but you can ignore the ones you don't like.
MP online (transponder off can't see npcs) you can't see so really pve but if you don't like people you can ignore.
Ironman - Thanks I'd actually forgotten about this one. I hope it's unregulated.
If so, it should become the real ALL group.
Still seems far far far too complex and are still unhappy.
Last edited:
Everyone should really read Liqua's post to understand the fundamentals of the grouping system:
I don't think that FD are trying to produce a game that caters wholly for the "carebears" (oh, how I hate that term) or for the "griefers". They're trying to produce a game that has something for everyone. With that in mind, I think the group / ignore proposal is a good compromise. If you want to play with anyone (be it griefers, PKers, carebears) then you have the option of staying in the 'all' group or going Ironman. If you feel you're being unfairly targeted, you can choose to ignore a player, or drop down to a more restrictive group.
The problem that FD really need to solve is how to encourage new players into the game, and how to keep them there without forcing them into single-player or out of the game completely. If a new player cannot progress because they're dropped in the deep end with a bunch of experienced players with big ships and weaponry, and those players get a kick from destroying the newbie, the newbie will quit before getting into the game.
The solution to the problem (IMO) is in the game balance. It should be hard to be a griefer in a stock Sidewinder. It should take time and effort to be able to afford a more able ship (so a griefer has a lot to lose by choosing to go hunting in a well-patrolled area). New players should be able to stay somewhere and feel safe until they're ready to take on more of a challenge. It should be hard to progress in the safe zones (limited trade opportunities, limited equipment, etc.). This is exactly the same as how you'd build a single-player experience, just extended to the multiplayer environment.
There is an issue that the game rules can't solve, and that's about harassment. The ignore option is useful here, but it doesn't stop immediate and unexpected abuse (e.g. over comms), nor would it stop the more determined abuser. That's where FD need to make sure they have systems in place for abuse reporting, monitoring and logging. Of course, the majority of cases will amount to nothing, but if FD want to build a game for the generations then they need to make sure they set it in an environment that is safe.
One thing that Liqua didn't mention is that criminals can be forced into the 'all' group for a period of time so that they can't avoid the attentions of bounty hunters through the use of the private group system.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!
I don't think that FD are trying to produce a game that caters wholly for the "carebears" (oh, how I hate that term) or for the "griefers". They're trying to produce a game that has something for everyone. With that in mind, I think the group / ignore proposal is a good compromise. If you want to play with anyone (be it griefers, PKers, carebears) then you have the option of staying in the 'all' group or going Ironman. If you feel you're being unfairly targeted, you can choose to ignore a player, or drop down to a more restrictive group.
The problem that FD really need to solve is how to encourage new players into the game, and how to keep them there without forcing them into single-player or out of the game completely. If a new player cannot progress because they're dropped in the deep end with a bunch of experienced players with big ships and weaponry, and those players get a kick from destroying the newbie, the newbie will quit before getting into the game.
The solution to the problem (IMO) is in the game balance. It should be hard to be a griefer in a stock Sidewinder. It should take time and effort to be able to afford a more able ship (so a griefer has a lot to lose by choosing to go hunting in a well-patrolled area). New players should be able to stay somewhere and feel safe until they're ready to take on more of a challenge. It should be hard to progress in the safe zones (limited trade opportunities, limited equipment, etc.). This is exactly the same as how you'd build a single-player experience, just extended to the multiplayer environment.
There is an issue that the game rules can't solve, and that's about harassment. The ignore option is useful here, but it doesn't stop immediate and unexpected abuse (e.g. over comms), nor would it stop the more determined abuser. That's where FD need to make sure they have systems in place for abuse reporting, monitoring and logging. Of course, the majority of cases will amount to nothing, but if FD want to build a game for the generations then they need to make sure they set it in an environment that is safe.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Presume you referring to my original porposal?
I believe I never mentioned "Walls in Space". Simply varying degrees of security and hence varying degrees of privacy and transparency.
Going back to my example, I also asumed, for the sake of it, that we had, say, 300 billions of stars under full DDF ruleset and privacy applies. The "high security" term used by me would simply mean that you can use full DDF privacy settings privacy, ignores etc (not necessarily the existence of any police. Police can be had where lore makes sense aswell as proposed but the key for most of you seems to be the privacy settings, so by all means). I can see your confusion, my bad. Let´s not call them high security then, let´s just call them DDF systems, wether there is police in it or not.
Now why do you fear that explorers wont be able to explore in those systems "safely"? 300 billions man... not in a life time.
The magic of ED is its vast size. Asuming FD has the resources to implement a varying degree of privacy ranging from full DDF to full transparency there is no reason to fear lack of content or "unsafe" areas to explore.
There is also on need to have those areas static at all if you want. If will certainlya dd an additional level of management complexity but there is abolutley no reason to write those security levels in stone. They can vary as planet positions vary.
It is all a matter of FD resources and community appetite, but it can be done with no fear for any play style. That is the magic of ED´s vast galaxy.
Last edited: