Elite Babysitter...

[Thorn Black]

I think the big thing is retaining the additional punishments for attacking a player whilst at the same time removing the ability to tell whether a ship is being flown by a player. I'm sure that any rational pirate would take into account these additional penalties in making a decision on whether a particular prize is a worthwhile target. I'd have no problem not knowing who players were if there were no additional penalties for attacking them. Similarly, I'd have no problem with the penalties if were possible after a scan to tell the ship was being flown by a player. Its the combination of both that could provide a good opportunity for entrapment when you consider the nature of the penalties.

Ok as long as when being a pirate will allow me to stay invisible ...
Kinda overcomlicated ...

Being forced into the all player group, having rights of retribution and being unable to "ignore" the person with the rights seems a bit draconian for what might honestly be an unavoidable mistake.

Who is forcing You to all player ? You can ignore his chat, why would you use magic to make him disapear ? When You have options to escape, beat him up, drop cargo and escape and probally few more ? How does that put You in disadvantage in this vast universe ? Im confused why this overportection must be enforced on hardworking Pirates that have to get their reputations somwhere. i want protection then against carebears ... sorry i have to use this name.

PS : If im right you can change instance ?

 

[cadmonkey33]

However I am also all for the transponder. I think not knowing if another ship is an AI or a PC adds to the tension. In my mind they will all be players out to get my cargo...

It's a nice idea in principle, but it would make forming pickup groups a frustrating process. It's not like the AI is going to pass the Turing test.

Cmdr X: "Hi, wanna group up?"
Cmdr Y: "Error, does not compute."

 

[Saxxon]

It's a nice idea in principle, but it would make forming pickup groups a frustrating process. It's not like the AI is going to pass the Turing test.

Cmdr X: "Hi, wanna group up?"
Cmdr Y: "Error, does not compute."

Actually a really bad design decision that will amplify the isolation problem the game will already deal with considering the vastness of the playfield.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

I'm going to sound like a complete newb (because I am )

Welcome Siggi

Zooming out from the details of the discussion for a moment...

Although there are 400 billion stars in total, we're only expecting about 70,000 to be within humanity's sphere of influence at launch. Explorers will be out there pushing the boundaries, but most traders (and probably miners) will be within reach of hassle. Having said that, a 250 light-year game of hide-and-seek does indeed offer opportunities to the determined hider!

Star systems range from police states to anarchies and everything in-between, so even in the "all" group there will be places where players would be unwise to attack you. The plan is for stealth to be a big part of the game, so yes you should be in with a chance even if you choose to frequent less-lawful systems without being an ace combatant. I'd like to see starter ships optimised for stealth, allowing newbies to practice slinking past more powerful ships until they're ready to look into fighting.

When talking about the different options for avoiding people, it's important to remember challenge is only one reason people play the game. The grouping mechanism is more important to people that want to experience fellowship - banding together with friends against an impersonal rest of the world, possibly dipping in and out of friend groups depending on who's online or what mood they're in. Likewise, the ability to turn off the transponder that identifies you as a PC is more important to people that want to experience fantasy, and arguably those who want to experience expression, because it means every encounter is a little in-universe Turing Test, where you have to prove your humanity to each other (or try to disprove it!). Finally, the ability to ignore other people is intended to be a simple anti-griefing measure. So if I follow your hyperspace trails, shout abuse and ram your ship whenever I find you, you can ignore me and that's that.

The issue is that all these additions to improve the game for other play-styles have knock-on effects for competitive players, potentially rewarding competitive players for using "unfair" tactics like using groups to escape from someone following their hyperspace trail, and rewarding non-competitive players for walking away from competition altogether. My personal opinion is that a robust set of options will encourage more people towards the "all" group than away from it, but like everyone else I have no evidence for that assumption.

 

[Phaedra]

Who is forcing You to all player ? You can ignore his chat, why would you use magic to make him disapear ? When You have options to escape, beat him up, drop cargo and escape and probally few more ? How does that put You in disadvantage in this vast universe ? Im confused why this overportection must be enforced on hardworking Pirates that have to get their reputations somwhere. i want protection then against carebears ... sorry i have to use this name.

I think you need to read the DDA. Committing a major crime against a player gives them rights of retribution against you, you have to stay in the all player group and cannot chose to ignore them. This gives them the opportunity to exercise their rights.

I'm sure this isn't a problem for a PvP orientated player like you. However, not all players want PVP and for them finding themselves in a position where they thought they were attacking an NPC, but now find the have attacked a player who now has the right to harass them legally will not be fun. I'm would be surprised if some of the more anti-social players didn't use the combination of hiding ident and the penalties for attacking them to cause grief.

 

[tooterfish]

I
Cmdr X: "Hi, wanna group up?"
Cmdr Y: "Error, does not compute."

"Hi, wanna group up?"
"Who the hell are you!?"

"Hi, wanna group up?"
"Sure random totally not suspicious stranger, lets slave our drives and jump into this anarchy together!"

"Hi, wanna group up?"
"Yes! Err, follow me... /speed dials pirate bob -- hey, I got another idiot on the way, 50/50 split"

 

[jinja]

Well said. I don't think indulging in group angst and paranoia at this stage in the development process, based on hearsay about all the baby-eating that goes on at EVE, is going to be very productive.

Totally agree, and yet we are having the 'what if' discussions again! 'What if I am griefed?' 'What if people behave badly?'

I have never known a game to have so many options and ways to avoid such possible griefing designed in, and committed to, so early on in development. Here's my simple tips for all those who seem to be having repetitive nightmares about the fabled 'grief-monster'.

1. Try not to simply compare experience in an Alpha or Beta release, limited to a few systems, to the planned full-release. It often isn't a useful representation of likely player interactions in the future game.

2. Imagine just 10% of the more than 1 billion planned systems are in the full-release, then see if you can think of some ways to avoid 'griefers.' Just how many people do you think will play this game?

3. Chill. Wait and see how the game develops, and read all about the planned grouping systems and size of the galaxy before stressing about imaginary 'griefing'.

4. Remember to have fun!

 

[nathandi20]

Well said. I don't think indulging in group angst and paranoia at this stage in the development process, based on hearsay about all the baby-eating that goes on at EVE, is going to be very productive.

Ive been playing EVE since beta, and all i can say is its apart of that game, my ignore list is huge, and the ppl you fly into with harrasment on theirs minds you just get a load off ya friends and everytime you see them you destroy their ships there are also plenty of pilots that will harras them continuously as long as you pay them....

just an idea...

 

[Thorn Black]

I think you need to read the DDA. Committing a major crime against a player gives them rights of retribution against you, you have to stay in the all player group and cannot chose to ignore them. This gives them the opportunity to exercise their rights.

If I engage someone in combat and WIN how is that no fair game ? Why would You put pirate in disadvantage ? I understand retribution by all means donate credits as a reward. But why i Should be forced upon some unnessesary rules (ie they can hide i cannot) where is fairness in this i strongly not see ...
Again overcomplicated overprotective rules.

I'm sure this isn't a problem for a PvP orientated player like you. However, not all players want PVP and for them finding themselves in a position where they thought they were attacking an NPC, but now find the have attacked a player who now has the right to harass them legally will not be fun. I'm would be surprised if some of the more anti-social players didn't use the combination of hiding ident and the penalties for attacking them to cause grief.

First of all I dont remember stating that im PvP oreintated player. Period.
Everything else was and still is in RP or simply put, not decided yet how im gonna play.
Now if those players do not like PvP why then theyre playing in "all group" ? If they know the risks ... Its like "mommy i know this is fire and fire burns but its soooo nice and looks preety"
And by stating your last opinion, why again do we have to use transponders exept RP wise style of gameplay. If we can escape to different instance within the same boundaries of game. Not to mention all this "ignoring" , "hellbanning" "reporting" (with false accusation aswell, dont bring me here server logs cos this can be manipulated aswell). What else do we beta players are not knowing about all those fancy decissions with overpotection from clearly scared folks ?

 

[Lobstris]

Actually a really bad design decision that will amplify the isolation problem the game will already deal with considering the vastness of the playfield.

It's space. I have a sneaking suspicion its called that for a reason. There should be a large degree of isolation. In general play, running into a player should be a very rare occurrence outside of the core systems - else it wouldn't be... space.

Now the key for all the social (and antisocial) players out there is a) how Frontier create bottlenecks through trade routes, and how the trader/pirate/bounty hunter dynamics work in those key trade systems, b) how dynamic events and missions can bring players together (e.g. do all major Fed. military missions start with gatherings and groupings at Eta Cassiopea, while Imp missions start at Facece?), and c) how does in-game news influence people to turn up in certain systems?

 

[hunvagy]

If I engage someone in combat and WIN how is that no fair game ? Why would You put pirate in disadvantage ?

Attacking a clean slate player (ie no bounty) without declaration of piracy just for the sake of destroying their ship is not piracy. Not by the ruleset that the Piracy DDF states. And that's not the document the alpha backers revised, it's the original from Frontier. Go to the subforum, and read it.

First of all I dont remember stating that im PvP oreintated player. Period.
Everything else was and still is in RP or simply put, not decided yet how im gonna play.

Guess next time you should tell people you're posting IC in a forum thread that is not RP. Because strictly ICly speaking, you stated more then once during the 40+ pages what your intentions are, quite clearly. Also, since we established you are IC, since you are "RPing", I did the same test you boast in your sig. You know how you get a rating like that? If you answer every question with the choices that gives you power to dominate other players. So much for that discussion.

Now if those players do not like PvP why then theyre playing in "all group" ? If they know the risks ... Its like "mommy i know this is fire and fire burns but its soooo nice and looks preety"

Because unlike your test result on the gamer quiz, they might actually be social people. And like to meet people. And even like to be stopped by pirates, and play out the cat and mouse game. What they don't like is people who shoot others just because they are PC ships. No reason, no cargo stealing, just blasting them out of the sky. PvP for the sake of PvP is meaningless and frankly is not the focus of Elite Dangerous, not judging by any of the design documents.

What else do we beta players are not knowing about all those fancy decissions with overpotection from clearly scared folks ?

Short answer? Go and Read the whole DDF section. Everything is there. Hell, half the new threads popping up are answered there, but apparently RTFM is a virtue and nobody wants to bloody excersize it.

 

[Phaedra]

Thorn Black

Take a deep breath and read what I wrote. You seem to be so desperate to pick a fight that you've assumed I'm against you. I was only reporting what the rules in the DDA are in answer to a question you posed and then explaining their possible implications when mixed with the ability to hide ones ID as a player.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

If I engage someone in combat and WIN how is that no fair game ?

Define win ...


- If you're a bounty hunter, and you scanned me to find I was a pirate, then destroying to claim the bounty is a win.
- If you're a pirate, and you take my cargo but don't kill me, that's a win too as it also progresses your rank as a pirate and you get free cargo.
- If you kill me, but I was lawful/clean or a pirate whom you didn't verify via a scan that's murder .. you won the fight, yes, but in the long run you loose - now you have a bounty on your head, with enough murders the NPC navy/police will come looking for you, and as long as I was not in Ironman mode (as I would be dead) I have the right to retribution.

There is lawful killing .. there is piracy .. there is murder.

 

[JeffRyan]

I think the most important outcome of this thread is that it's clear there are a lot of people unhappy with the current proposals. What's the solution? There are various ideas.

I think greatest support for the current system DOES come from people who aren't interested particularly in PvP (like me), DO want to play with other people (also like me), DON'T necessarily want to know who those other people are (unlike me).

The greatest critics for the current system tends to come from those who are particularly interested in PvP (unlike me), DO want to play with other people (like me) and DO want to be able to see who they're playing with.

So the biggest differences here are PvP and desire to know who other players are.

The problem is and this is I think the biggest issue, those who wish careers that are combat orientated (pirates, mercenaries etc) will find that they will have NO PC targets.

In conclusion, Elite Dangerous as it stands may be multiplayer, but it is NOT player vs player (I don't mean griefing) friendly. Unless those players are friends and wish to fight.

I personally if I played in the all group with the transponder would keep mine OFF. Because I know that 99 percent of those with it on is looking for PvP.

This does mean like people like me who want to live in a vibrant universe, full of pvp and other people are very much in the minority (at least in these forums). I think the absolutely simplest solution (for ME) would be a single universe with a strong ignore function. As in IGNORE > FRIENDS.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

What's the solution?

Trust in FD is the solution.

They are making the game THEY want to play .. if you also happen to like it that's a bonus

 

[Thorn Black]

Attacking a clean slate player (ie no bounty) without declaration of piracy just for the sake of destroying their ship is not piracy. Not by the ruleset that the Piracy DDF states. And that's not the document the alpha backers revised, it's the original from Frontier. Go to the subforum, and read it.

Yes alfa backers again, and again and again, sorry i though this is time for some beta aswell ? or were not important bunch of numbers for alpha players. And our opinion on things been done are not important. Just say it that beta are not important and were done talking here.

Guess next time you should tell people you're posting IC in a forum thread that is not RP. Because strictly ICly speaking, you stated more then once during the 40+ pages what your intentions are, quite clearly. Also, since we established you are IC, since you are "RPing", I did the same test you boast in your sig. You know how you get a rating like that? If you answer every question with the choices that gives you power to dominate other players. So much for that discussion.

Hope youre aware it all can answered in certain purpouse in this case achieving that kind of sig. Strictly academic purposes.
So yeah ... so much for that discussion.

Because unlike your test result on the gamer quiz, they might actually be social people. And like to meet people. And even like to be stopped by pirates, and play out the cat and mouse game. What they don't like is people who shoot others just because they are PC ships. No reason, no cargo stealing, just blasting them out of the sky. PvP for the sake of PvP is meaningless and frankly is not the focus of Elite Dangerous, not judging by any of the design documents.

Yup RP reason only ... nothing logical, pure fear of other people, maybie paranoic a little, but who rly knows.
Its like single player again all over here ... lets hide, yes lets hide

Short answer? Go and Read the whole DDF section. Everything is there. Hell, half the new threads popping up are answered there, but apparently RTFM is a virtue and nobody wants to bloody excersize it.

Things written in DDF section does not mean theyre gonna be like this forever and i cannot say anything about it. I or few or maybie even majority that is scared now to say anything cos of (repercusions like You giving me atm) instead of keeping this purelly academical level. Not even a chance to express myself and my worries about overprotective game system that I here personally think are not needed to have fun, and are reducing the fairness and need for pirating at all. Not to mention any form of PvP.

I feel like Im being forced here to accept Your or few others opinion without a word like a mindless monkey You think PvP is.
And if I say NO Youre all reffering to my lack of knowledge or lack of reasoning or try to force me to change my mind simply by stating that done is done, and i should accept what is done ...

Thorn Black

Take a deep breath and read what I wrote. You seem to be so desperate to pick a fight that you've assumed I'm against you. I was only reporting what the rules in the DDA are in answer to a question you posed and then explaining their possible implications when mixed with the ability to hide ones ID as a player.

My breathing is all fine, thanks for concern. Im not fighting or picking a fight, stating simply my concerns, trying to make reason why I do not like something. Again sending me to DDF that are opinions of aplha testers (if im correct a minority to play with, unless im wrong).

But ok, I will remove myself from this conversation as clearly I must be alone here deffending simple needs of PvP. not some fancy dancy rule set for PvP for scared angry carebears.

Thats it.

Fin.

 

[Theodrid]

Thorn,

Perhaps if you stopped using the sort of pvp centric language that belongs in the PVP forums of WoW or SWTOR you may gain a little more credibility. Repeatedly using terms such as 'carebear' does you no favours.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

But ok, I will remove myself from this conversation as clearly I must be alone here deffending simple needs of PvP. not some fancy dancy rule set for PvP for scared angry carebears.

I am not really sure what your problem is.

PvP will play a part in ED, it's just not the focus.

There are clear rules of engagement so that the game knows how to deal with the outcome - you're free to attack anyone any everyone if you wish it's just that there are repercussions. (As it would be in real life)

For the best bet be a bounty hunter - you're legally allowed to kill pirates.

For everything else you're not supposed to kill people - you can if you like though as that's your choice.

Simple.

--

The thing to remember though is that this thread wasn't originally about PvP - it was about ensuring that everyone has a good time whilst playing ED. No one want's to be sexually harassed; receive death threats; racial abuse; and so on which is why FD put up a thread in the DDF to discuss those kinds of things and it spilled out to general.

 

[JeffRyan]

Trust in FD is the solution.

They are making the game THEY want to play .. if you also happen to like it that's a bonus

DDF? Supercruise?

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

DDF? Supercruise?

Only once were we unanimous and that was over the in-game flight mechanics. FD's proposal wasn't that bad - If you think of Alpha now, minus supercruise, it would still be an interesting and great game. It also would have been a hell of a lot simpler to programme and I suspect we would be further along in development. However ALL the DDF said no and FD changed their minds.

Everything else that I see we're simply refining things - giving FD additional ideas.

ETA:
With regards to this thread I really don't understand your problem here. FD are looking for suggestions as to how best ensure people have a good experience with ED. The suggestions in the DDF thread (before it went off in a tangent) are quite logical to me : some form of help system to give support to players; banning of hackers; moving griefers to a private group.

The issue though comes with "what is a griefer" which is hard to define. What you might tolerate I might not. Clear cut cases (abuse; threats; etc) you yourself know should not be condoned - it's common sense. For the grey areas that's where FD need to make their own minds up. We're simply giving them suggestions.