Elite Babysitter...

[Lobstris]

MP online (transponder off can't see npcs) you can't see so really pve.

In what way does the transponder off stop you attacking/being attacked by other players completely? It's not pve at all. It just reduces the chance of someone making a beeline for you. It's a better version of pvp IMHO.

*Edit* I do agree that the 'ignore' option does seem a bit overkill. If you are going to multiplayer, it should just be 'multiplayer-all'.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

They tend not to impose their gameplay on others (in-game), if that's what you mean, although "being lauded as the unreasonable selfish people" seems a bit unclear?

The fact that there are at least two groups with disparate desires from the game would suggest that a compromise (or split) is the only way forward.

We'll see what Frontier proposes....

 

[laz001]

Player "A" goes off to a reasonably distant system with no other players around.. there he finds a particularly rich vein of mineable gold. then he finds a even more distant system that's populated and has a good market needing gold.

a few days later Player "B" stumbles into the Anarchy system as well and notices Player A mining the gold. he decides he want it also. so he starts mining as well. Player A decides to defend his discovery and blows Player ' ship up for claim jumping.

Player B decides to get revenge by placing Player A on his "IGNORE" list, he then contacts his buddies who show up in Lakons and Anacondas and since they also have Player A on Ignore (Thanks to Player B informing them of his name) they proceed to mine out the entire vein .

Who is the Griefer here? why can Player B claim jump with no further threats from Player A?

Surely the 'IGNORE' list should only block comms (for blocking offensive messages).

It shouldn't stop the players ever encountering eachother.

If you have a problem with someone constantly attacking you, you should either tool up with some bigger guns, or move to a system with stronger security forces. Then if the person attacks you, they'll get a bounty on their head, and someone else will take them out. Fair retribution.

 

[Viajero]

I play a ton of PvP games, and I'm not worried in the least.

What we have had in the Alpha is a totally unregulated Wild West. I look forward to rules and consequences being implemented.

+1

 

[Viajero]

Agree 100% and yes and yes. ED is NOT eve

Responded to here: http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=420796&postcount=320

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

Ironman - Thanks I'd actually forgotten about this one. I hope it's unregulated.
If so, it should become the real ALL group.

Unless its changed recently unfortunately even Ironman mode has the group switching mechanic as far as I know. Unbelievable.

Still seems far far far too complex and are still unhappy.

Yep. They should have kept it simple and offered a place for those wanting a traditional multiplayer experience (free of the gimmicks) so everyone is happy... along the lines of:

1. Open All Group (group switching allowed)
   • Characters can create sub groups and switch to these Private or Solo Online groups as and when they like.
     Opt-in transponders added too.
2. Closed All Group (no switching allowed)
   • No option to create sub groups is available. Everyone born here stays in one all-encompassing global group.
   • Characters created outside of this group are not allowed to join it (except dead ironmen).
   • Characters created inside this group can leave it for the open all group but can never return.
   [*]Ironman
   • Upon death, ex-Ironmen can chose to create a new Ironman or have their dead Ironman avatar be reborn into option 1 or 2.
3. Solo Online
   • Characters can join the Open All Group whenever they like.
4. Solo Offline
   • Single player Elite with no influence on the multiplayer gameworld.

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=7396

Choose option 1 at character creation and you get to play in a multiplayer environment with all the safety net layers your heart desires.

Choose option 2 at character creation and players no longer feel restricted by the gimmicks and can enjoy playing in a more traditional multiplayer environment.

The only objection I've seen was the one of fracturing the playerbase by adding a new optional mode. Sub-groups fracture the playerbase already so it was always a weak argument to me.

 

[xyphic]

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.

You may not like it, but what a lot of people want (as evidenced by the transponder poll) is to be able to play with the option of not being immediately flagged up as human. It has nothing to do with PvP or PvE, because you will still be matched with other humans. It just means you won't be immediately targeted because of that trait.

The risks with the transponder idea are twofold. The first is that it'll be impossible to go anywhere without being targeted, so it'll force you to turn the transponder off. The second is that it'll become part of a metagame, where players will use transponder-off and their ability to distinguish a player from an NPC in order to gain an advantage: think griefing but the victim doesn't know they've been griefed.

There's still a long way to go before release, and I'm sure that if whatever options FD build into the game cause serious gameplay issues, they'll be revisited. At the moment we have nothing more than a set of proposals, and don't even know what (if anything) they plan to implement.

 

[MrChaos]

I really think that the crux of the issue is what is "fair".

It appears the game's model requires spending countless hours achieving stuff so you can "have fun" and *boom* its all gone. If things are "fair" than it is easier to take losing one's stuff especially if it is "fair" to get back to your current level again.

What makes one baby punching ****** is when a bunch of effort literally just went *boom* especially when it is done for no apparent reason and even more so when the victim is basically helpless to prevent it.... it just isn't "fair"

To the OP it appears Ironman is close to what you are advocating and you have my fond wishes as you join it. If you find your version of "fair" lightly attended than ahhh yeah but if it is the most attended than you'll know for sure that your version is the popular one. How you process it is of course your call

 

[Togg]

Surely the 'IGNORE' list should only block comms (for blocking offensive messages).

It shouldn't stop the players ever encountering eachother.

If you have a problem with someone constantly attacking you, you should either tool up with some bigger guns, or move to a system with stronger security forces. Then if the person attacks you, they'll get a bounty on their head, and someone else will take them out. Fair retribution.

FWIW I saw myself as Player "A" in the above scenario

also... : 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)

the Bolded part would Virtually make a player not only unable to be attacked by another.. but the other person would never even see them. yet they are still affecting the online game

 

[JeffRyan]

Unless its changed recently unfortunately even Ironman mode has the group switching mechanic as far as I know. Unbelievable.



Yep. They should have kept it simple and offered a place for those wanting a traditional multiplayer experience (free of the gimmicks) so everyone is happy... along the lines of:

1. Open All Group (group switching allowed)
   • Characters can create sub groups and switch to these Private or Solo Online groups as and when they like.
     Opt-in transponders added too.
2. Closed All Group (no switching allowed)
   • No option to create sub groups is available. Everyone born here stays in one all-encompassing global group.
   • Characters created outside of this group are not allowed to join it (except dead ironmen).
   • Characters created inside this group can leave it for the open all group but can never return.
   [*]Ironman
   • Upon death, ex-Ironmen can chose to create a new Ironman or have their dead Ironman avatar be reborn into option 1 or 2.
3. Solo Online
   • Characters can join the Open All Group whenever they like.
4. Solo Offline
   • Single player Elite with no influence on the multiplayer gameworld.

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=7396

Choose option 1 at character creation and you get to play in a multiplayer environment with all the safety net layers your heart desires.

Choose option 2 at character creation and players no longer feel restricted by the gimmicks and can enjoy playing in a more traditional multiplayer environment.

The only objection I've seen was the one of fracturing the playerbase by adding a new optional mode. Sub-groups fracture the playerbase already so it was always a weak argument to me.

This seems like a decent compromise, with that damned transponder...

 

[Crightonian]

The OP makes no proposal. Simply the observation that so many anti-griefing measures are being built into the game to make the game almost worthless as a multiplayer experience, its going to be more like a PvE and unless you're in a group with friends, even if you find a PC you'll never know it because he has his transponder off in case you're a pirate wanting to kill him.

I think if you read through, you would find that I am in agreement with you, my point is as far as I see it that we should really wait until ALPHA and BETA testing is over, and when Standard Beta gets underway look at the question regarding Griefing, and the other questions that have also been disscussed re meeting and ignoring other players.

Because IMO we will have a larger Galaxy to play with and people will start to realise how BIG in fact how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it actually is, and all this $%^£ (Rubbish) about ignoring and keeping peeps off their backs has wasted hours of playing and testing time for the Alpha Backers and added endless sources of amusement for the few sane folk around.

 

[JeffRyan]

I think if you read through, you would find that I am in agreement with you, my point is as far as I see it that we should really wait until ALPHA and BETA testing is over, and when Standard Beta gets underway look at the question regarding Griefing, and the other questions that have also been disscussed re meeting and ignoring other players.

Because IMO we will have a larger Galaxy to play with and people will start to realise how BIG in fact how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it actually is, and all this $%^£ (Rubbish) about ignoring and keeping peeps off their backs has wasted hours of playing and testing time for the Alpha Backers and added endless sources of amusement for the few sane folk around.

My experience is that it's far easier to add things on than take them away.

Hold on you saying I'm sane?

 

[Roland2]

Friend vs Enemy not PvP vs PvE

A very diehard roleplayer?

Seriously... i'm more interested in hearing from the obvious PvE crowd, if they are totally against meeting other players or does meeting other players have to be some sort of concensus between them (aka grouping) so not to risk getting attacked?
This sounds more and more like people just want to be left TOTALLY alone, because meeting other players could likely result in getting shot at.

Wait.. of course grouping with people you KNOW fixes that (no chance encounters there)

As a member of the "obvious PvE crowd", I am not totally against meeting other players. If I choose a side in a fed/empire battle, and there happens to be a real person playing on the other side, who cares? I picked a side, and anyone on the other side is the enemy for that engagement.

What I don't like, is having someone on my own team (green on radar) decide, hey, that's a real person, I'm going to attack them.

 

[Adept]

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.

ok. If not trolling you are at the very least looking at things through the haze of confirmation bias, and ignorant of some factors.

Elite is partially crowdfunded, and has raised about 5 million USD equvalent in pounds, not two. With the company and investor money added, the figure will be about 20 milliln. Additionally there is no licensing fees as the Cobra engine is their own, and as an established company they are getting more bang for their buck anyway.

PvP scores quite low in the priority lists of SC backers, to the degree that CR has expanded the scope of the game to cater more to the most commonly stated interest... Exploration. Something Elite uniquely positioned to provide.

 

[psykokow]

Guys just a reminder to try to avoid confrontational comments that could be inflammatory, and lets not slip into personal attacks.

 

[JeffRyan]

Guys just a reminder to try to avoid confrontational comments that could be inflammatory, and lets not slip into personal attacks.

Thank you sir, it's been a nice thread on the whole.

 

[jabokai]

The risks with the transponder idea are twofold. The first is that it'll be impossible to go anywhere without being targeted, so it'll force you to turn the transponder off. The second is that it'll become part of a metagame, where players will use transponder-off and their ability to distinguish a player from an NPC in order to gain an advantage: think griefing but the victim doesn't know they've been griefed.

Indeed, it won't stop griefing at all... sniff your packets and you'll easily be able to tell PC from NPC - I imagine a tool will be available for that in no time. Result - grief free griefing! "But honest officer, how was I to know they were a PC", etc.

 

[warbaby2]

Indeed, it won't stop griefing at all... sniff your packets and you'll easily be able to tell PC from NPC - I imagine a tool will be available for that in no time. Result - grief free griefing! "But honest officer, how was I to know they were a PC", etc.

I don't really know if the "officer" will care...

 

[Lobstris]

Indeed, it won't stop griefing at all... sniff your packets and you'll easily be able to tell PC from NPC - I imagine a tool will be available for that in no time. Result - grief free griefing! "But honest officer, how was I to know they were a PC", etc.

Perhaps. But it makes it slightly more difficult than the alternative - having a great big marker screaming there's a player over there! built directly into the game.

Until we see what anti-cheating measures are implemented, beta might be 'fun', with loads more people roaming around with 2 billion credits, invulnerable shields and refilling missile loads, from the get-go.

 

[Theaghan Black]

In what way does the transponder off stop you attacking/being attacked by other players completely? It's not pve at all. It just reduces the chance of someone making a beeline for you. It's a better version of pvp IMHO.

*Edit* I do agree that the 'ignore' option does seem a bit overkill. If you are going to multiplayer, it should just be 'multiplayer-all'.

And that's the thing I don't understand.

I'm a trader and obviously I HOPE to not meet a pirate (PC or NPC) in my path, then hiding between AIs can be the best thing: maybe the pirate will scan some AI and not me.

It's not that I'm antisocial... :smilie: