Two reasons why single player is more attractive than multi-player to me

[Juniper]

The "advantage" of turning off your "squawk" as it's called in the rules is if you and your mates want to engage in a bit of friendly duelling within a jurisdiction without the police getting involved or your factional rep being affected.

Otherwise, yes, you'd probably want to keep it on.

 

[Memnoch]

Turning off auto-instant-reporting of crimes mentioned by Juniper above.

Sorry! Yes, I misunderstood.

Thanks for the info on ident. That sounds like PvP flag "lite." Not sure what exactly it is supposed to encourage/discourage, other than being a way for those who don't want to PvP to try to hide in the crowd.

Yeah, I think it was a compromise really.

Thanks, that clarifies it for the 100k or so systems which are inhabited. Deep space doesn't have stations or faction, so how does that play out?

If the systems are completely un-inhabited I would guess it means that no-one would receive the crime reports.These systems would typically only be used by players jumping elsewhere and possibly refuelling from stars or gas giants. We'll see how it pans out but I suspect they will be simply pit stops to elsewhere and not lingered around in much by anyone except explorers.

 

[Juniper]

Realism is a poor game designer. What is fun should take precedence.

Absolutely!

But above posts say that the victim can and does auto-report crimes. Therefore in deep space all crimes would be reported, no?

No, as I said, only within a jurisdiction & only for that jurisdiction. You can jump out and if the next system is controlled by someone else your record doesn't apply.

In deep space, all bets are off.

Thanks for the info on ident. That sounds like PvP flag "lite." Not sure what exactly it is supposed to encourage/discourage, other than being a way for those who don't want to PvP to try to hide in the crowd.

It's a whole massive other can of worms which has caused a lot of...erm... rigorous debate...

I'm in favour of it, partly because it allows players to hide from others & just appear as another ship if they want to, but also because it's a big galaxy & it's not all about you. It helps make you feel small... which each of us are. To me, it's a good atmosphere to create in a game with 400 billion stars.

 

[CaptainSodom]

Sorry! Yes, I misunderstood.

Yeah, I think it was a compromise really.

If the systems are completely un-inhabited I would guess it means that no-one would receive the crime reports.These systems would typically only be used by players jumping elsewhere and possibly refuelling from stars or gas giants. We'll see how it pans out but I suspect they will be simply pit stops to elsewhere and not lingered around in much by anyone except explorers.

As a would-be deep space explorer that is highly relevant.

And given my attraction to challenge, I welcome player pirates trying to catch me in deep space with the full knowledge crimes against me will not be reported. That is very good news indeed, hope it will be like that.

I'm in favour of it, partly because it allows players to hide from others & just appear as another ship if they want to, but also because it's a big galaxy & it's not all about you. It helps make you feel small... which each of us are. To me, it's a good atmosphere to create in a game with 400 billion stars.

I imagine bounty hunters will find that feature rather annoying. Not that there will be any if it is implemented the way I understand, and if there are no mechanics or modules to identify people with ident off who have a bounty on them.

 

[Juniper]

I imagine bounty hunters will find that feature rather annoying. Not that there will be any if it is implemented the way I understand, and if there are no mechanics or modules to identify people with ident off who have a bounty on them.

Not true. A ship with a bounty is a ship with a bounty. You can still scan them in the normal way for this.

You just won't necessarily know if it's piloted by a player or an NPC - but in game terms - you shouldn't care.

 

[CaptainSodom]

Not true. A ship with a bounty is a ship with a bounty. You can still scan them in the normal way for this.

You just won't necessarily know if it's piloted by a player or an NPC - but in game terms - you shouldn't care.

Gotcha.

Sounds like the sky isn't falling on all PvP, at least not yet.

 

[NoirWolf]

Reason 1: I'm not responsible for other players enjoyment of the game. NPCs are an easy going crew, whether they win or lose they don't really seem to mind.

Reason 2: As my playing time is generally going to be off the cuff, I can play the game when I fancy without having to organise 'grouping' with other players and therefore being subject to the time schedule that others need to impose.

Those are valid reasons for you, for me they are an added level of challenge.

 

[Memnoch]

I imagine bounty hunters will find that feature rather annoying. Not that there will be any if it is implemented the way I understand, and if there are no mechanics or modules to identify people with ident off who have a bounty on them.

I would imagine that you would still see that they have a bounty on them, you just might not know its a human player. A bounty is a bounty and doesn't have to be a player of course.

 

[Juniper]

Gotcha.

Sounds like the sky isn't falling on all PvP, at least not yet.

Certainly isn't... I think FD's idea is simply to ensure that PvP is in context and also avoidable if you want it to be (and without splitting off into a separate universe / server).

Also, important to bear in mind that at this point, the ident proposal is just that... a proposal. Nothing has been decided upon as far as we know.

 

[CaptainSodom]

Certainly isn't... I think FD's idea is simply to ensure that PvP is in context and also avoidable if you want it to be (and without splitting off into a separate universe / server).

That's fine, as long as "avoidable" doesn't turn out to mean the ability to turn a PvP flag off at any given time, rather than sticking to policed systems and relying on checks and balances of bounties.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Realism is a poor game designer. What is fun should take precedence.

Absolutely!

The tricky bit is deciding what the definition of "fun" is....

 

[Robert Maynard]

Certainly isn't... I think FD's idea is simply to ensure that PvP is in context and also avoidable if you want it to be (and without splitting off into a separate universe / server).

That's fine, as long as "avoidable" doesn't turn out to mean the ability to turn a PvP flag off at any given time, rather than sticking to policed systems and relying on checks and balances of bounties.

I would be really disappointed if a PvP-OFF flag was ever introduced. No thanks to invulnerability to player fire.

 

[noodle]

No, it suggests that some forum posters have an issue.

A significant chunk, by the looks of it.

There is very little reason for those who enjoy PvP to come to forums saying "wow what a great PvP match we had yesterday, E: D really caters to the PvP crowd!" Therefore the "OMG griefers!" and anti-PvP crowd will always be over-represented.

Except that, unless I'm mistaken, FD have stated that it isn't their intention to make a PvP game?

Although I think there's a bit of confusion over what different people understand by the term "PvP" in this context.....

 

[Memnoch]

That's fine, as long as "avoidable" doesn't turn out to mean the ability to turn a PvP flag off at any given time, rather than sticking to policed systems and relying on checks and balances of bounties.

It won't be an escape from PvP. There are groups for that!

It's more a case of being like "The Thing". You might be human, you might not, and you have to get close to tell. And then it's too late.

 

[Juniper]

That's fine, as long as "avoidable" doesn't turn out to mean the ability to turn a PvP flag off at any given time, rather than sticking to policed systems and relying on checks and balances of bounties.

I think a PvP flag is what some people want, and have argued vociferously for it, others want full disclosure at all times, others want a hard split between PvP and PvE (separate servers).

As I said, it's a whole nasty can of worms... ultimately the mutual ident transponder proposal is the compromise solution put forward by FD and has the most (albeit grudging in many cases) support.

My opinion (for what it's worth) is that the game is self-policing with the bounty system and factional jurisdictions. Both camps get what they want, they just have to do it in the right places. And the ident system has other benefits besides the PvP/PvE thing - like the overall game atmosphere I mentioned earlier.

 

[Iain M Norman]

I would be really disappointed if a PvP-OFF flag was ever introduced. No thanks to invulnerability to player fire.

Agreed. Oh gods please, no trammalization again. Had to leave UO because of that.

 

[Juniper]

The tricky bit is deciding what the definition of "fun" is....

Quite. Much the same as that other old chestnut... "immersion".

When I was a lad, "immersion" was the thing you turned on just before you had a bath. And then got told off because it cost more money.

 

[Shadowdancer]

My opinion (for what it's worth) is that the game is self-policing with the bounty system and factional jurisdictions.

Except that worked in no game ever. From a design perspective, you either provide an effective toggle (like most "mainstream" MMOs), a way to play in your own universe without any non-consensual interaction whatsoever (lobby games, UO), or you go full grief and just roll with your game being a cesspit (EVE). Any "self-policing" mechanisms will be subverted by players in the never-ending quest to screw with other people's fun.

 

[Cody]

When I was a lad, "immersion" was the thing you turned on just before you had a bath.

You had a bath? Luxury! When I were a lad...

 

[kvmetternich]

To the OP : So just play offline .