Proposal Discussion An option to play without unfairly advantaged group switchers?

[huwthomas]

(This is a semi-serious proposal, intended to explore the motivations for objecting to group switching).

How about a "Hardcore All" group which only instances its members with players who have never used the grouping mechanism and never added someone to their ignore list. "Hardcore All" members would thus never encounter someone they consider has had an unfair advantage through switching.

Would that satisfy the objectors? If not, why?

 

[Fenris Wolf]

An option to play without wimpy group switchers?

How to win friends and influence people!

Wouldn't it have been better to phrase the question like this:

Would it be possible to have a 'Hardcore' group for people who want to play in this manner?

 

[rciq]

(This is a semi-serious proposal, intended to explore the motivations for objecting to group switching).

How about a "Hardcore All" group which only instances its members with players who have never used the grouping mechanism and never added someone to their ignore list. "Hardcore All" members would thus never encounter someone they consider has had an unfair advantage through switching.

Would that satisfy the objectors? If not, why?

Exactly my idea I just posted in the other thread. I'm all the way with you.

EDIT: Maybe except for the "wimpy" part Let's respect each other.

 

[Yaffle]

It may be instructive to understand where FD is coming from here. The below is from Sandro (I've corrected a typo and deleted a load of interesting stuff, but it's irrelevant for this discussion):

<snip>
Now, it's completely possible that I have the wrong end of the stick, and you are more worried about players having the option to use private groups to avoid player versus player activity. whilst this concern is valid (we are always considering the ramifications at the office), The obvious counter is: if you force player versus player, potentially these folk will not play the game at all. You really can't force people to all enjoy the same thing - private groups are a way of keeping more people playing the game. And the more people play the game, the more chance there is that they will decide to give the full multiplayer experience a go.

<snip>

And now time for the obligatory caveat: we reserve the right to change stuff when we get it wrong, or when we realise we can make it better! That's one of the cool things about pre-release testing. With useful feedback, we *can* make it better!

 

[huwthomas]

"Wimpy" is not my personal view, I am quite likely to group switch and/or use "ignore" myself.

I was intending to reflect the viewpoint of those who think we switchers will be doing so to gain advantage without paying the dues

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

"Wimpy" is not my personal view

It's your thread though - it's a flame bait title so -1 rep for that

 

[rciq]

It may be instructive to understand where FD is coming from here. The below is from Sandro (I've corrected a typo and deleted a load of interesting stuff, but it's irrelevant for this discussion):

This proposal does not dismiss what Sandro had in mind. It extends the possible options and lets the "hardcore" (yet non-Ironman) players have the game their way, as well as the SP-MP switching folks.

 

[huwthomas]

It's your thread though - it's a flame bait title so -1 rep for that

The intention was humorous, but obviously it didn't come across that way. That being the case, I wonder if a mod could edit it? Maybe change "wimpy" to "unfairly advantaged"?

 

[Bromley86]

This proposal needs to address, in the final release, the gamma types with their Anacondas and the KS types with their Cobras. Also the ability (all but confirmed) to buy credits. I.e. there's no win, so don't worry.

Anyway, splitting the playerbase. Needs to be kept separate from the current Hardcore mode, as the ruleset is different. Doesn't work for me, but then I'm resigned to (if not ecstatic about) group switching.

 

[Obosi]

The thread title is silly (even though I had a more strongly worded phrase in my head and in my head it shall remain ).

I also disagree with the idea. I don't want to limit myself at all. Also I don't think that there is anything that limits players either. Griefers aside, the process of fighting and NPC and fighting a player should be exactly the same; skill varying with experience.

I remember playing the FPS game 'Unreal Tournament' which was single player, yet had one of the most difficlut AI combatants that I have ever faced; human or AI. Xan Kriegor was his name and if it wasn't for the fact that I knew I wasn't playing online i'd swear he was a human player. He'd even taunt you with lines like "I am the alpha and the omega" and "run human".

People have had bad experiences with griefers that have tarnished their views on multiplayer. If the police system deals with that then the only thing to fear is facing players that are just better than you.

That is understandable, but, as a trader, you can't be interdicted by a player (as far as I know) so you really should worry more about AI pilots than other human ones.

 

[fireFly1000]

I wonder...
This kind of threads look very much like a coordinated 'attack'.

What are you people afraid of?
Not having enough frags under the belt at the end of the day?

 

[Leo Sagan]

I suggest we also create a group playing with a keyboard only, a group for mac users and another group for players wearing lousy t-shirts. The more groups the better. Eventually, when we're all divided into our own session, we can have all the game we want.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

How about a "Hardcore All" group which only instances its members with players who have never used the grouping mechanism and never added someone to their ignore list. "Hardcore All" members would thus never encounter someone they consider has had an unfair advantage through switching.

I expect the size of that group's membership would be sufficiently small that its members would rarely encounter another human player, and so any player they did encounter would be guaranteed to have received the perceived advantage they're trying to avoid. (Of course, they would have received an identical perceived advantage, so maybe they wouldn't consider it unfair)

 

[Fenris Wolf]

Won't this just be the IRON-MAN version though?

 

[Fenris Wolf]

I suggest we also create a group playing with a keyboard only, a group for mac users and another group for players wearing lousy t-shirts.

But what if I like your t-shirts but you don't like mine?


And as a Nikon user... would I want a Pentax user in the same group? *joking*

 

[Klytus]

No offennse to anyone but the more i read of these type of postings cropping up the more i think 'goonswarm' grr wish i'd never read the damn thing but what if...

 

[Mazhurg]

(This is a semi-serious proposal, intended to explore the motivations for objecting to group switching).

How about a "Hardcore All" group which only instances its members with players who have never used the grouping mechanism and never added someone to their ignore list. "Hardcore All" members would thus never encounter someone they consider has had an unfair advantage through switching.

Would that satisfy the objectors? If not, why?

I's called IRONMAN and will be one of the options by release. Member of the IM group cannot filter other members of the group and only have one life. If one dies as an IM one can continue in the all group or restart new character.

 

[KING5TON]

Incentivize the All group by making it so you earn slightly more money in the All group than you can in private or solo groups. That way people who really really want to play outside of the All group can do that yet there is a benefit to playing in the slightly harder All group.

 

[rciq]

I's called IRONMAN and will be one of the options by release. Member of the HC group cannot filter other members of the group and only have one life. If one dies as a HC one can continue in the all group or restart new character.

It's not. Ironman has the additional permadeath rule. The suggestion is about a group with regular rules, only excluding the solo/private group characters from it.

Incentivize the All group by making it so you earn slightly more money in the All group than you can in private or solo groups. That way people who really really want to play outside of the All group can do that yet there is a benefit to playing in the slightly harder All group.

Yes, another viable solution, although I'd prefer to see the "MP-only" group anyway, just because it's a fairly simple thing to do and the closest to a "win-win" for everyone I can think of. Let it even be sparsely populated (however I bet it won't be like that). I just want the option of a fair multiplayer-only game (and not only Ironman).

 

[huwthomas]

No offennse to anyone but the more i read of these type of postings cropping up the more i think 'goonswarm' grr wish i'd never read the damn thing but what if...

I don't believe players looking to dominate would support such a proposal; they don't wish to dominate a universe that only contains themselves (do they?)

The intended point was that if you eliminate (even if only in a thought experiment) the "unfair advantage" aspect of groups switching, PvPers who still object must presumably then have some other reason; my hope was to discover what that reason was.

Sadly, my use of an ill-judged word in the title (never intended as an insult since as I have said, the class of players referred to includes myself) seems to have derailed the thread...