I agree.
Statements made like above I can see the need for protected areas for people and definite use of anonymous commander names.
Which brings into question, who is actually griefing who with statements like this?
Last edited:
Elite Babysitter...
- Thread starter JeffRyan
- Start date
I agree.
Statements made like above I can see the need for protected areas for people and definite use of anonymous commander names.
Which brings into question, who is actually griefing who with statements like this?
Also, the sentence you refer to says - "However we said there would be ways for players to play with their friends only on the KS and I don't see how we could get away with taking that particular feature away"... if only they applied that same commitment to the Kickstarter promise of keeping the difference between players and NPCs easily identifiable.
Yep, making my own kill on sight list too. And all I originally wanted to be was a peaceful explorer
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Also, the sentence you refer to says - "However we said there would be ways for players to play with their friends only on the KS and I don't see how we could get away with taking that particular feature away"... if only they applied that same commitment to the Kickstarter promise of keeping the difference between players and NPCs easily identifiable.
I am awaiting the Frontier decision on whether "Pilot's Federation ID" transponders will be included - it is by no means decided, Sandro stated that his long post on the topic recently was a proposal that he was in favour of and did not mean to imply that the decision had been made, one way or the other.
Meh, he's the lead designer, all you griefer-phobes needed yet more protection (apparently)... If I was a betting man I'd say it was a distinct probability.
Its not a 'phobia' so much as dislike/distain for those who seem to consider making others miserable 'fun'.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Is it such a terrible thing to deny griefers a too-good-to-be-true targeting aid? That is what the hollow scanner ship indicator is at the moment, after all. If a griefer can't be sure that their target is a PC, how can they derive such pleasure from their actions?
I think I see your confusion now. It's not that people will be in the same space but invisible to each other, it's more like they're in parallel universes that sync up now and then. It might be easier to imagine if you think about it in terms of the network protocol...
When you travel to a location, the server selects an "island" of peers in the same location for you to meet up with. Once your client has been taken to that island, all communication is peer-to-peer until you leave the island - I've actually pulled my network cable out and flown merrily round a station for several minutes without the client noticing.
The grouping and ignore mechanics just influence which island you're placed in, so if you and I were in different groups and went to mine the same extraction site, we would be put in different islands and wouldn't communicate with each other in any way. Frontier haven't confirmed this, but I should imagine when we left our islands we could increment some "mined-outness" counter on the server that would eventually decrease the success rates of future miners.
Looking at it in purely competitive terms, I don't see it as any worse than an arena combat game with multiple instances of a map and a shared leaderboard.
So if that is the case we will both be able to mine that spot and not affect the resources. So when me in my instance and you in yours and the 16 other people in their instances go to sell we can really crash the market because the galaxy creates infinite resources. I hope the market is instanced just for me too then.
edit- That kind of sounds like a single player game to me.
The problem is and as Adept seems to have spelled out, they feel the game can do without PvP.
/I/ am not a PvPer. A lot of people in this thread who support my view are NOT pvpers. Some are. And obviously they'd be attracted to my own views. The problem seems to be the systems developing to discourage griefing are also discouraging PvP as well. A certain amount of that is acceptable, but myself and the others who support my opinion feel that the game is going too far in discouraging PvP in its systems.
I think MANY people who buy the game, also because of the 'online multiplayer' will be disappointed with the various complicated mechanisms that seperate player from player.
Part of this is so far we have only seen mechanisms for separating players and no doubt that skews my ideas. Frontier have said there will be mechanisms to encourage group play but as yet, none have appeared. That isn't to say I don't believe that everyone them, but I can only base my view based on what I've seen. And I worry that grouping mechanisms won't compensate for the separation I've seen so far.
Also I have a dislike for complication.
*sigh*... you're over-afraid of them, that's all. I've played plenty of online games and the problem isn't as huge as you're making out. Yeah, it happens, it's just not been the primary concern in any game I've played - here it seems to almost be the main concern the paranoia is that ramped.
Also, I've outlined earlier in this thread how a griefer will fairly easily be able to tell players from NPC by packet sniffing. And you're giving them a get out clause - "I didn't know they were a PC, how can I be griefing?"
Also, in-game consequences should take care of a lot of the issues. Trust the designers at that level, why not.
Also, so what if you get randomly killed every now and again? Sandro even says he wants that to happen. Such a big deal?
I think its made clear in on of the threads on the background simulation in the DDA that resources will eventually deplete, but over a very long timescale. As you suggest the simulation must be keeping track somewhere of the ore mined in a particular belt/system. Someone mining in the same belt at the same time, but in a different instance will not directly affect you, although they may have an indirect effect in the long term.
Yeah.
Like you, I am not a PvPer. That being said, I dont want it to dissappear entirely, but it should be at least partially 'consensual'. At the very least, it shouldnt be trivial for a PvPer to 'pick out' a PC not interested in PvPing.
If that turns out to be the 'non-trivial' aspect, then all the better. Being a psychopath should be possible, but it should hurt.
Last edited:
It's true we could both mine the same spot, but for example the rings of Jupiter are 226,000 kilometres across and contain anything up to 10^16 kilograms of material, so the economy would face the same problems with or without instancing.
Most games are about big heroes striding confidently across their world, but Elite has always embraced the vast scale of the universe and made itself about the player as a tiny speck lost in the vastness of space. To that end, 16 people dumping goods at a station one time would be no more crash the economy than 16 people selling apple pies from their garden one time would crash the local superstore.
We'll need to work much harder than that
Yes to a vast, beautiful galaxy accurately simulated, in to which we arrive with a ship, a few credits and a desire to get out there and find our way.
No to a load of contrived game mechanics designed to make sure the monsters under the bed can't get us.
I am not a PvPer.
I am not a guild alliance Napolean who wants to dominate the galaxy.
I'm a person who likes Elite games and also like multiplayer games.
No to a load of contrived game mechanics designed to make sure the monsters under the bed can't get us.
I am not a PvPer.
I am not a guild alliance Napolean who wants to dominate the galaxy.
I'm a person who likes Elite games and also like multiplayer games.
For you. Some others though want to get a little more attached to their alter egos, and not have their hard work & game time randomly ruined because of some jumped up little nyaff who gets his kicks that way.
It's fair enough. Some rudimentary protection isn't a bad idea, but the game design is very much suited to anti-psychotic behaviour anyway over the long term (no matter what roles or tools are available to the player for the short term). Sooner or later, the galaxy catches up with you.
See above.
I am the farthest thing from a griefer you can be and actually I have seen maybe one poster's comment that might lead me to believe they lean that way.
The thing is that we like a challenge and that is the whole point for the desire to play. Safe, sterile gameworlds are downright boring.
I want to be scared, nervous and about to crap my pants half the time I'm out there flying thru the stars exposed to the wolves.
Don't get me wrong I can be a wolf too but, it is usually to destroy the odd griefer I come across.
Be careful and don't squander a valuable resource such as noble pvpers.
Noble pvpers outnumber the greifers 5 to 1 in any game I have played and the stereotype put upon us is rediculous and panic driven more than anything.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Over afraid, not so much - more "can't even begin to understand the drive behind such behaviour" - if it were a pub, I'd leave. Your gaming mileage is your own experience, it can't be transplanted. Other games exist where it is rife - do we want that here?
Regarding packet sniffing, will it tell them which of the ten ships on the scanner is a PC?
I do indeed have faith in the designers. A transponder may be an unnecessary tool - it can always be hard coded to be switched on if it is truly obsolete through lack of requirement.
I can randomly destroy my own ship quite easily thank you very much - I don't need any help!
No, now and again would not be an issue - we'll see what happens in Beta.Can I also add that a few times the history of Elite has come up in this thread.
I love Elite. And Frontier and First Encounters. And I would have backed this game if it had been single player only.
But I think for the game to be successful, the multiplayer MUST be successful and that MUST include a balance between anti-griefing measures AND meaningful player interaction.
My own personal opinion is that the few of us in the DDF are dominated by those with fond fond memories of the original games and perhaps we're holding that too close.
If this game sells well to NEW non-traditional players it would principally be because of that multiplayer aspect. We MUST get the balance right for the game to be successful. THIS is why I feel we, particularly in the DDF and particularly the legacy players should take a step back. We're the parents of Elite Dangerous but like any child we should try and see it grow up into something succesful. Like the parent who wants his kid to be a Doctor. We should support them if they want to be a rock star, or an artist, or a photographer.
I think and I see very clearly that we're weakening the multiplayer experience so much that the game ceases to seem like a multiplayer. Which is a large part of the draw and selling point of the game. We should encourage it, grow it, and yes, even the PvP. Even if we don't particularly want it.
I love Elite. And Frontier and First Encounters. And I would have backed this game if it had been single player only.
But I think for the game to be successful, the multiplayer MUST be successful and that MUST include a balance between anti-griefing measures AND meaningful player interaction.
My own personal opinion is that the few of us in the DDF are dominated by those with fond fond memories of the original games and perhaps we're holding that too close.
If this game sells well to NEW non-traditional players it would principally be because of that multiplayer aspect. We MUST get the balance right for the game to be successful. THIS is why I feel we, particularly in the DDF and particularly the legacy players should take a step back. We're the parents of Elite Dangerous but like any child we should try and see it grow up into something succesful. Like the parent who wants his kid to be a Doctor. We should support them if they want to be a rock star, or an artist, or a photographer.
I think and I see very clearly that we're weakening the multiplayer experience so much that the game ceases to seem like a multiplayer. Which is a large part of the draw and selling point of the game. We should encourage it, grow it, and yes, even the PvP. Even if we don't particularly want it.