Elite Babysitter...

[hunvagy]

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.

You really should do try and understand what I wrote. The DDF is what Frontier Development planned for certain aspects of the game. You know, the developers. Not alpha backers, not beta backers, not Chuck Norris. The people who you know.. make the game? And we are backers. We are not game designers. You can argue all you want, what's going to get implemented is what the lead designer decides. No amount of finger pointing at non-existant evil alpha backer conspirators will change that.

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.

Whar reprecussions? The DDF section is how the game is going to be. Don't like it? Should've read that, before you read everything you desire into a single tagline of the game. But then again, doing research on Early Access and crowdfunded games seems also be not the norm lately, and then every single forum is full of people who complain that the game is not what they envisioned it to be when they read a 3 line description and clicked buy. I have no idea where you get the notion that the Design Documents are created by players or backers. They are not. If you can't comprehend that, then there really is nothing to talk about.

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 ...

What I think PVP is? I get in my Prometheus class escort, with a Galaxy Class Dreadnought and a Vesta class science vessel as backup, we jump down to Kerrat, and lock horns with a Klingon pre-made. We have a bash, they kill us, we kill them, at the end of the day we wish them Q'apla and go our merry ways. And we try to steer clear of both vocal minorities in the Fed (PvE) and Klingon (PvP) sections alike, who only like to fing insults and half truths about both side, without ever taking the time to think as the other group.

And I might sound a miffed and less the pleasant, but then again, your posts have been quite hard to read and unravel, and honestly you are repeating yourself again and again with this alpha backer . If you truly cannot fathom that design documents are called as such for the reason, and not written by as you define it "scared carebears", then tough luck.

 

[hunvagy]

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.

Quite honestly, I'm surprised we made it to 40+ pages without scrubs, n00bs, no-lifers and p2w being thrown into the mix as well. Maybe it's just that I'm tired, but was envisioning a giant "Barrens chat" sign over the thread at times. *sigh*

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

If you truly cannot fathom that design documents are called as such for the reason, and not written by as you define it "scared carebears", then tough luck.

In case you didn't know the DDF is a sub-forum of backers who pledged enough to be there. FD propose an idea and the backers discuss the proposal. FD take our responses into consideration and maybe tweak the proposal a little. (Or in the rare case of "In Flight Travel" scrap it and restart)

There are approx 500 backers in this tier but only about 50 or so regular contributors.

(My wife for instance is just not that bothered about it - happy to donate the money and leave it to FD, whereas I am a gobby individual who likes to debate )

 

[hunvagy]

In case you didn't know the DDF is a sub-forum of backers who pledged enough to be there. FD propose an idea and the backers discuss the proposal. FD take our responses into consideration and maybe tweak the proposal a little. (Or in the rare case of "In Flight Travel" scrap it and restart)

There are approx 500 backers in this tier but only about 50 or so regular contributors.

(My wife for instance is just not that bothered about it - happy to donate the money and leave it to FD, whereas I am a gobby individual who likes to debate )

Yes I do know that, but that doesn't change the fact that the original document is not written by the alpha backers, and my understanding is that FD takes away from the discussion what it deems as useful, not everything everyone inputs. If that was the case, this game would still be just on paper, no?

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

and my understanding is that FD takes away from the discussion what it deems as useful, not everything everyone inputs.

100%

I was quite against the shielding mechanism - no grounding in reality - made my case; FD listened (thank you) but it remained in the game. They (FD) wanted it so it is there. No issue / problem from me with that.

 

[JeffRyan]

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.

As I mentioned in the OP I'm not particularly against THIS particular proposal. It's more a step back and looking at the big picture of the complications involved in the social side of how the game evolves.

SP Offline/SP Online/MP Ironman/MP Transponder On/MP Transponder Off/Private Groups/Ignore function/Mute function (didn't know this one).

It stinks to me of design-by-committee and I think it makes the overall experience worse.

PS Ironically I think the people whom all this complication makes more happy are those who'd be almost as happy in the SP Online anyway.

 

[hunvagy]

100%

I was quite against the shielding mechanism - no grounding in reality - made my case; FD listened (thank you) but it remained in the game. They (FD) wanted it so it is there. No issue / problem from me with that.

I still stand to my resolve that FD should make their game, not ours. I am ready to face PC pirates who want my cargo. I am ready to face a human assassin if I **** someone off I shouldn't have (previous pirates as well). I am ready to face a bounty hunter, if I aquire a bounty. What I'm not ready to face is a bunch of people who fight only for the sake of fighting. And I have at least one friend who wants to play but is not ready to dive into the inevitable clusterfrak that will be the all group at times. So I'll probably have to skip between private and all. If that makes me a scared carebear, so be it. Friends trump Random Pew-Pewliot 552

Also @Jeff: Sorry if I devalued the conversation, but going through the same argument in every game's forum I want to support tires me out.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

In case you didn't know the DDF is a sub-forum of backers who pledged enough to be there. FD propose an idea and the backers discuss the proposal. FD take our responses into consideration and maybe tweak the proposal a little. (Or in the rare case of "In Flight Travel" scrap it and restart)

There are approx 500 backers in this tier but only about 50 or so regular contributors.

(My wife for instance is just not that bothered about it - happy to donate the money and leave it to FD, whereas I am a gobby individual who likes to debate )

Adding to this, threads in the archive with quotes in the title are there for discussion and should be expected to change. Threads with plain titles are statements of intent, but can still change if they turn out not to work. The alpha stage took as long as it did because that's where the fine-tuning really takes place, so it's true to say there's still (some) wiggle room even once a design is posted.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

What I'm not ready to face is a bunch of people who fight only for the sake of fighting

I don't understand this part sorry.

Obviously there are going to be people who are only in ED to fight.

The thing they have to realise, and you, is that there are in-game consequences of doing this, which if FD get it right (Beta fine tuning I guess) then these activities will be fairly short lived.

Think Karma ... they kick your rear today, someone else's tomorrow, and next week the Navy decimates them



*ETA:
Also meant to say that as these players act up they will slowly over time be forced to the Anarchy systems. For you as a player then if you wish to avoid these kinds of players either ignore those systems or take backup with you (Wingmen was a recent topic in the DDF, plus you can also alliance up with friends and try to run the gauntlet )

 

[hunvagy]

I don't understand this part sorry.

Obviously there are going to be people who are only in ED to fight.

The thing they have to realise, and you, is that there are in-game consequences of doing this, which if FD get it right (Beta fine tuning I guess) then these activities will be fairly short lived.

Think Karma ... they kick your rear today, someone else's tomorrow, and next week the Navy decimates them

Now all we need is a Federation Dreadnought called "Karma's a b****" *nod*
But honestly I'll wait and see. Already put my money down, because .. man it's Elite, they deserve my money just for resurrecting the game from its ashes. Everything else will be a bonus for me.

 

[Togg]

to be honest, I still don't get the need for all the layers upon layers of protection.. I mean if your playing alone and don't want to run into a real human.. , uh, maybe play "SINGLE PLAYER"? . if your playing with friends and you don't want to deal with Pirates.. then maybe some in your group could , you know, FLY cover for the Freighters?.. the Idea that I could in one instance ... get forcefully removed from 100+ peoples list because I Pirated one person.. (You know merchants are going to SHARE the name of a Pirate with all their friends.. who then have friends)

seriously.. can we outlaw pink ships... because those offend me...

 

[Siggi]

Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong but I think I understand the problem thus:

That a number of purchasers will come in to play the game, not as in-character avatars/personas but as people wishing to ruin the game for others by subverting its intention and killing for the sake of killing. Much like psychopaths in the real world.

In the real world, of course, once captured real psychopaths are taken out of circulation. In the game a psychopath may be killed but he can respawn and carry on his depradations.

The question is this though...is it realistic to have a game world where psychopaths don't exist? Or is it unrealistic to believe a psychopath would be functional enough in society to attain ownership of a starship? And what is the difference between a psychopath and a pirate? The pirate does not kill his victim so long as goodies are handed over?

In which case the game's defence would seem to be simple; where the log shows a victim was killed even after he handed over the goodies, and the perp makes a habit of such offences, the game spawns an unbeatable ship that wipes out the offender's ship and his account is then banned (temporarily or permanently...temporarily only once, to give the perp one chance to play properly).

But even that is inordinately excessive. The fact is, players may do what they do in the game only so far as the code intentionally allows. To try and restrict that allowed behaviour, in order to express real-world morality into the game-world, subverts the game-world.

But the devs will be worried that by not doing so might alienate a significant percentage of purchasers and potential purchasers. But to do so might alienate a different percentage. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Have a portion of the universe where players can be robbed but their ships not destroyed nor their avatars killed? I'm sure many would go for that, only to find the experience become hollow. No pain no gain.

My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is once a virtual world is de-purified, tinkered with and variously screwed around in order to try and please all, it ends up pleasing nobody and everyone eventually leaves. Or do Eve and WoW (for example) prove otherwise? Do they have care-bear areas?

Players need to man up, grasp the nettle and just play in a pure environment that is made as realistic as it can be. Take the rough with the smooth, the losses with the wins, the defeats with the victories and stop the futile search for something where they can have the rewards without facing any challenge. That can only ever be a pyrrhic victory and a mediocre game.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

seriously.. can we outlaw pink ships... because those offend me...

What's wrong with pink ?

I happen to think it's a lovely colour and yes, given the chance, I will be the Pink Pirate from Penzance

 

[Togg]

What's wrong with pink ?

I happen to think it's a lovely colour and yes, given the chance, I will be the Pink Pirate from Penzance

oh.. we hadn't degraded to that point yet?... then I respectfully withdraw the question until a later time when it becomes pertinent.

 

[Cody]

I happen to think it's a lovely colour...

Pink is indeed a lovely colour - but not quite as lovely as purple!

 

[Andrew Sayers]

Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong but I think I understand the problem thus:

That a number of purchasers will come in to play the game, not as in-character avatars/personas but as people wishing to ruin the game for others by subverting its intention and killing for the sake of killing. Much like psychopaths in the real world.

Psychopaths certainly are a problem, but a lot of other issues are incorrectly interpreted as attempts to deal with that problem by other means. For example, say you want to feel like a real space captain and can't stand people talking about what's on telly tonight while you're playing. You might want to ignore people that refuse polite requests to stay in-character even if they're otherwise perfectly nice people, so both of you can have a better time. Restricting yourself to a private group won't solve your problem (then you can't meet people at all), and neither will limiting PvP (PvE folk can do out-of-context chat just as well as PvPers).

Frontier are increasingly focused on "freedom with consequences", so people who kill without reason will probably be treated something like you describe - pushed to lawless systems and left low on cash. The difficult cases are more about players that want to be a bit picky about playing with random strangers, and about people whose behaviour falls well outside the bounds of play (such as verbally abusing people they come into contact with).

 

[Robert Maynard]

That a number of purchasers will come in to play the game, not as in-character avatars/personas but as people wishing to ruin the game for others by subverting its intention and killing for the sake of killing. Much like psychopaths in the real world.

Unfortunately probably true.

In the real world, of course, once captured real psychopaths are taken out of circulation. In the game a psychopath may be killed but he can respawn and carry on his depradations.

Indeed.

The question is this though...is it realistic to have a game world where psychopaths don't exist? Or is it unrealistic to believe a psychopath would be functional enough in society to attain ownership of a starship? And what is the difference between a psychopath and a pirate? The pirate does not kill his victim so long as goodies are handed over?

Don't exist, no. Exist as immortals that no-one can permanently do anything about - also no, but the game will allow this. A larger proportion of players than would exist in a "normal" RL population will play this way unless there are sufficient disincentives to continuing to exhibit the behaviour.

In which case the game's defence would seem to be simple; where the log shows a victim was killed even after he handed over the goodies, and the perp makes a habit of such offences, the game spawns an unbeatable ship that wipes out the offender's ship and his account is then banned (temporarily or permanently...temporarily only once, to give the perp one chance to play properly).

Banning is a bit extreme for murder - it is a permissible occurrence (albeit one to which consequences are attached). The unbeatable ship could be a response in some situations. Persistent murder of the same player (or group of players) could reasonably result in a ban.

But even that is inordinately excessive. The fact is, players may do what they do in the game only so far as the code intentionally allows. To try and restrict that allowed behaviour, in order to express real-world morality into the game-world, subverts the game-world.

See above ref persistent murder.

But the devs will be worried that by not doing so might alienate a significant percentage of purchasers and potential purchasers. But to do so might alienate a different percentage. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

So we will probably end up with something in between.

Have a portion of the universe where players can be robbed but their ships not destroyed nor their avatars killed? I'm sure many would go for that, only to find the experience become hollow. No pain no gain.

I don't think that there is much appetite for that type of play, and anyway, NPCs will *always* be able to spoil a player's day.

My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is once a virtual world is de-purified, tinkered with and variously screwed around in order to try and please all, it ends up pleasing nobody and everyone eventually leaves.

In you opinion, other opinions are available.

Or do Eve and WoW (for example) prove otherwise? Do they have care-bear areas?

WoW has PVE servers, if that is what you are referring to.

Players need to man up, grasp the nettle and just play in a pure environment that is made as realistic as it can be. Take the rough with the smooth, the losses with the wins, the defeats with the victories and stop the futile search for something where they can have the rewards without facing any challenge. That can only ever be a pyrrhic victory and a mediocre game.

That may be the way that you would like to force everyone to play - I don't think any poll on the topic would unanimously agree with you however.

 

[Saxxon]

That may be the way that you would like to force everyone to play - I don't think any poll on the topic would unanimously agree with you however.

A huge group of lurkers and cautious buyers don't like the way the select group of alarmists want to force everyone to play.

People need options

Let the nervous nellies have the protections they need to feel secure on their own server AND let the players that want a more true to life simulation of space have their server option as well.

Anyone who is truly against this has some plan to exploit the current system is the only logical conclusion one can come to.

 

[Robert Maynard]

A huge group of lurkers and cautious buyers don't like the way the select group of alarmists want to force everyone to play.

People need options

Let the nervous nellies have the protections they need to feel secure AND let the players that want a more true to life simulation of space have their options too.

Anyone who is truly against this has some plan to exploit the current system is the only logical conclusion one can come to.

The "huge group" is supposition on your part. If potential players wish to join the forums and make their voice heard then they will have exercised their freedom in that respect.

In-game consequences for actions will influence the way that players play the game - that has been Frontier's plan for a long time.

Your use of "alarmists" and "nervous nellies" is, I would suspect, designed to be provocative - it could simply be pejorative though.

There are options:

1) Solo - Offline;
2) Solo - Online;
3) Private Groups;
4) All Group;
5) Ironman (probably with 2, 3, 4 subsets, although I am not sure).

Combined with the potential ident transponder, there seem to be plenty of options to allow players to "play the game the way you want to" as directed by Sandro.

So, the only ones who are "against" it are those who wish to deny others their freedom to exercise their options.

 

[Saxxon]

The "huge group" is supposition on your part.

No supposition at all. It is the consensus of mmo gamers in general.

They have been burned by these protective choices and are sick to death of being babied. It shows with the performance of the mmo market over the last decade building up to the point that there are no major mmos start ups on the horizon at all other than ones that were already committed to development.

The long line of spectacular big budget fails by AAA developers just keep stacking up.

The FtP craze isn't some cutting edge idea that some clever marketing guru came up with. It is a way to try and salvage shareholders money from completely disasterous game design concepts and the decision makers trying to save their jobs.

So, the only ones who are "against" it are those who wish to deny others their freedom to exercise their options.

My Iron Curtain option allows you full freedom without stepping on mine.