Where's this idea coming from all the time? The all group won't be smile and wave, at least not from what I've seen. If some people switch to a private group and only play with their friends, how does that affect your gameplay, if there's 30-40 thousand other players who are still in the all group? Or do you really think that just because there's an option to go into small scale and only have chosen people around somehow magically makes the all group extinct?
Elite Babysitter...
- Thread starter JeffRyan
- Start date
Where's this idea coming from all the time? The all group won't be smile and wave, at least not from what I've seen. If some people switch to a private group and only play with their friends, how does that affect your gameplay, if there's 30-40 thousand other players who are still in the all group? Or do you really think that just because there's an option to go into small scale and only have chosen people around somehow magically makes the all group extinct?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not at all, apologies if it came across that way.
I was trying to put across the idea that although some of us are willing to meet players previously unknown to us, others are not.
The "red baseball cap" comment was a reference to the current situation whereby all players are distinguished on the scanner by having a hollow marker, thus making them instantly identifiable as players.
So i understand some of us willing to play SOLO game cos if they cant tell a difference betwen NPC or PC what is the difference then, especially like You siad they dont want to meet other players.
But i could agree to transponder only, with any other additional layers of protection. Only if You will be able to tell the difference after a scan, either normal scan or some specified to detect this.
That will give another way of avoiding but will be less harmfull to the PvP aspect of the game.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... and others will want to play in the All Group (rather than solo) because they can choose to meet up with friends when they feel like playing co-operatively.
As yet, the transponder idea is just a proposal. Hopefully Frontier will make a determination one way or the other in the not too distant future.
We will see in release. But if people bail in and out of the all-instance at a whim, if they ignore you to evade consequences for their own actions (even accidents or provoking paintjob) it will be a wierd game. If people fear eachothers main avatars half the players base will be flying around as alts looking for their archenemy. And potentially just killing randoms - because its just an alt and whats the worst thing that can happen? They ignore your alt or leave the all-instance?
True but if I read the grouping design right, they can't evade consequences. Commiting a crime that attaches a bounty to you forces you into the all group until you are dealt with, or you bribe your way out of it. The other parts I get, I really do. But as you said we'll have to wait and see. It might be a lot better once the game does punish random acts of violence in safe systems, and anarch systems turn into the places where you "run like hell" for profit.
On Slawk saying I was lobbying...
I have been...
This has nothing to do with the argument...
Also as I said in my OP I don't have strong opinions on the current DDF topic, it just set me off again as I looked at the whole. Not any particular aspect. (Though I admit to being against the transponder).
I have been...
This has nothing to do with the argument...
Also as I said in my OP I don't have strong opinions on the current DDF topic, it just set me off again as I looked at the whole. Not any particular aspect. (Though I admit to being against the transponder).
Last edited:
The lead designer made some comments in the DDF thread last night (he was still answering questions at 11pm!). Most of it referred to details being discussed in the thread, which I highly recommend people read once it gets into the archive. But here are a couple that might shed light on how the process works:
Ideas agreed in principle even a long while ago can be revised significantly as the details are hashed out. In this case, discussion over the past year has shown a lot of concern about group-switching as an exploit or path of least resistance, which will feed into the discussions as they get down to the nitty-gritty. And even when a specific decision was set in stone last year, it's not immune to reconsideration when they come back for a second pass.
On a personal note, I was one of the people that brought up the oddness of pushing players into the "all" group. It wouldn't have occurred to me to mention it unless this thread had made the case, so you have my thanks
When it refers to un-decided topics, or (worse in my opinion) live topics then no. Definitely not. When the decision is made by FD (not us) and they implement something that I don't think is working, then yes, almost certainly.
FD read your point of view in the original transponder thread, and will give it due respect. No-one likes being in the minority view, and I get why you're doing this, but that doesn't mean that FD won't consider what you've posted when they make their decision on which way to go.
You seem to be trying to turn a debate into a tribal thing, and you're seeking reinforcements to your point of view... rather than simply state your opinion and be done with it. Feel free to try and argue it, but it won't make a lick of difference even if you convince every single person in the DDF that you're right.
Based on your postings, I get the impression that you're under the illusion that whatever the majority in the DDF think is how it will be done. Done and dusted. Loudest voice wins. It's not. It's FD's game, and they'll do what they think is appropriate.
Having said that, I hope you keep posting your views in the DDF, as you make a lot of valid points on many things. I personally think you're wrong with the transponder thing, but that's just my opinion. Nothing more.
Last edited:
I don't agree, so let's review the facts (as we know them):
- 2 game modes
- Normal
- Ironman (upon death you're moved to Normal)
- 3 types of selectable game type
- Offline
- Online (Solo / Group)
- Online (Everyone)
- Online (griefer group - potential - not selectable)
Finally, potentially, knowing if a player is a player or not. This does not alter the numbers in the game play section above : If I play with the transponder on (meaning to you I am an NPC) and you pay it off (meaning you want to advertise you're a player, but when matched with myself we both see each other as NPCs) we're still in the same universe. So no split / loss of players here.
- Whilst you are playing whichever mode and game-type you can:
- Build up a friends list
- Form alliances
- Mute people
- Ignore people
The last 2 are there to prevent annoying people from contacting you in game, and the last one (ignore) is there to prevent people from harassing you. (In game abuse that's OOC)
Finally, to assist with the antisocial people, as it is with ALL games online (and the reason for this thread) players will have the ability to contact a GM/FD and, depending upon the nature of the incident, either nothing will happen, FD will advise you to put the offender on mute / ignore, or in serious cases the offending player will be moved to the griefer group.
Now .. explain to me how this isn't logical, takes into consideration the players and attempts to ensure that all players have a good time without needing to worry or fear for themselves.
Tell me out of that list which is "too far" and broke the camel.
--
If FD want to make it a single universe (no groups) - I won't be that bothered.
If FD want to drop the transponder idea and force everyone to be revealed - I won't be that bothered.
If FD want to make Ironman the default - I won't be that bothered.
If FD introduce clans / corporations - I won't be that bothered.
You get the point .. I don't actually care what FD do as long as I can play Elite Dangerous. So far the Alpha has blown me away and the game can only get better with time. I trust in their vision and idea which is why I backed the game to the level I did. It's a journey, not a race, and upon release the game won't stop being developed - they (FD) said they were in it for the long haul so expect patches to add things; expansion packs; new features and missions; over time expect updated engine improvements and graphics / sound expansions.
We have to start somewhere ...
Last edited:
It's simple really. Jeff believes that players should be treated as special & significant in the game universe by default. You (and I) realise that it's a huge galaxy, and part of the beauty of that is the realisation of how insignificant we actually are.
It's not about splitting the multiplayer base, but rather a matter of psychological perspective.
The only way to see which system will actually work best in the game IMO is for FD to try both during beta / gamma, which I have already suggested & FD heard that suggestion.
That debate is done, and the ball is firmly in FD's court on which way they choose to go. Similarly with the MT thread and a few others. We'll just have to wait and see.
For me, player/NPC obfuscation, can't speak for Mr Ryan of course. :smilie:
No need to be snide. How about it's nothing to do with being special or significant, but just that we're all a part of the (possibly insignificant in itself) Pilot's Federation as per the Kickstarter?
Doesn't say special, or significant, just that we have something, however trivial, in common.
I still don't get why that is such a big problem, specifically... really, I don't. :S
Never implied otherwise, and certainly was not "snide".
My comments were based on past "robust" debates that Jeff and I have had on this topic, where he made his opinion very clear. As I understand that proposal, was it not a Pilot's Federation Transponder? Is that not the criteria and the reason for its potential existence in the first place?
As you say, it's possibly insignificant in itself in the context of the entire galaxy.
Last edited:
I want to play a multiplayer game and know I'm in a multiplayer game. I don't want to have to have a "guessing minigame", or to be contacting ships with a "hello", or "well done", or "can I help" thinking it's a player and then getting back a canned NPC response. To be clear I don't mind contacting an NPC with canned stuff, and getting the same in reply - that's just a part of the game. But I don't really want to be fooled (and therefore disappointed) with thinking an NPC was a player. I wrote this elsewhere on the topic -
And to state, again, I have no interest in PKing - I will never attack another player unless they have a bounty or they fire first. Or, as in the Alpha, it was a complete accident that I wished I'd had comms so I could apologise for it!
Never implied otherwise, and certainly was not "snide".
Okay, maybe the way I read the bit I quoted, sorry if it was not intended that way.
Never implied otherwise, and certainly was not "snide".
As I understand that proposal, was it not a Pilot's Federation Transponder? Is that not the criteria and the reason for its potential existence in the first place?
As you say, it's possibly insignificant in itself in the context of the entire galaxy.
For the record I didn't take it as snide. And I don't think it reflects my views entirely, though you're not wrong. I'd have worded it differently is all. As for shouting now, I prefer to shout BEFORE things are finalised and they're not what I want as opposed to shouting after when it's more difficult to change.
Re:Liqua. I've said more than a few times, I can understand the implentation of any one of these systems. There's an argument there for each one. The problem with 'design by committee' is that committees aren't wrong and each argument they have is well thought out and backed by research and statistics. But unless you have someone standing back and looking at the big picture and that's what I'm trying to do. I admit to being bias in terms of the transponder, but if you read through this thread you'll see that THAT isn't the issue. And a lot of the people in my camp disagree with me on that point. The agreement is that there's too much all taken together. What parts should go and what parts should stay or whether this whole discussion should be ignored is up to FD.
You have an idea in your mind what this game should be like - that's called Vision.
The topic posted by the DDF was about griefing and anti-social behaviour (serious end of the spectrum) and after some ideas were posted they did not match your vision.
I know you were annoyed by this due to the thread title - that's inflamatory to begin with. "Babysitter"
Rather than debate the issue there you brought it to General in the hopes of gaining more support.
That's called lobbying.
So yes, you were lobbying in the hopes of shaping ED more to your vision.
Call it for what it is Jeff .. be honest with yourself!
However, you're free to do this each any every time the DDF goes against what you believe
Also I just realised the post you quoted and cut a lot from in attacking my honesty actually was the same one I later quoted in defending myself from your accusation. So I saw that you HAD read me admitting 'lobbying' you purposefully misrepresented me to attack me rather than the argument. I do object to that.
As for blind faith. That's never a good idea. Stardock had never put a foot wrong until Elemental. That's not to say I think FD are doing a bad job, far far from it. I just think we're erring too much on the side of caution on THIS issue.
Last edited:
In regard to NPCs (AI), it must surely be nothing more than an internally mental 'in-character' trick to think of them as android commanders owned by some corporation. Obviously not like Data in Startrek though, he's superior to humans whereas AI characters in PC games are thick as bricks.
To be fair though, it's only a filled or hollow triangle.
And I apologise if it seemed like I was putting words in your mouth, I was merely trying to summarise what I felt your objections were based on.In this case though, I think you're in serious danger of labouring the point. FD heard you fine. They also heard me. They'll also have their own preference in house.
Let's just see what they come up with. They may surprise us both.
Hmmm... ok, I can kinda see that... from a certain perspective... still, I think that, most of the time, it will not really matter whether the pilot you are communicating with is a player or not... and it certainly will not matter much from a role-playing/immersion standpoint. On the other hand it definitely will matter for an aspiring griefer/PKer...
I'm a bit at a loss on how to handle the issue, to be honest.