Silly question probably, but how would you know where 'stuff' was earned?
Proposal Discussion An option to play without unfairly advantaged group switchers?
- Thread starter huwthomas
- Start date
Unless you are explicit in what you put during the KS then many things can be open to interpretation.
For example - the grouping mechanics:
It doesn't technically say how it's going to work just that you can play the game with different subsets of people - Given that you can have 3 commanders to your account it could mean "pick a group mode and your commander is locked to it" or "pick a group mode and your commander can change at will between them all"
I saw the design discussion forum post on this issue. Did they follow that up and say they were going to allow purchase of credits? or are we still not 100% sure if it'll be cosmetic based?
I'd rather deal with gold spammers and people getting bans than Frontier selling credits outright. I hope that hasn't been decided yet.
I'm actually very curious as to what they decide. I've known about Elite for a long time, but as soon as I saw they star map and that you could fly throughout the entire thing and even known stars and planets would be there I bought in to PB. Once I did I've literally watched or read anything official I could get my hands on.Unless you are explicit in what you put during the KS then many things can be open to interpretation.
For example - the grouping mechanics:
It doesn't technically say how it's going to work just that you can play the game with different subsets of people - Given that you can have 3 commanders to your account it could mean "pick a group mode and your commander is locked to it" or "pick a group mode and your commander can change at will between them all"
I get the sense that there's A LOT of extrapolation from early backers based on bits of information that was given out. I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation.
It doesn't matter if people know exactly where people got it. Players that are committed to multiplayer progression will undoubtedly think it. Which will more than likely lead to a toxic community because everyone is fractured. Allowing players to create characters in any mode (SPon/SPoff/AP/Hardcore) but not allowing that commander to readily switch back and forth would go a long way to solving that. Based on all the official material I've seen it's unclear if open group switching will be allowed. This seems like general forum mussings at the moment until we hear more from Frontier.
Honestly, don't you think people actually working together are more likely to progress faster than the lone-wolf in any mode? Playing in the all/all group, setting friend lists and creating alliances? Players working together will be far more powerful. It seems a rather odd viewpoint to think a lone-wolf in single player can make faster progress than anyone else, even with AI wingmen.
From previous comments from FD we know the first beta will allow single player, and to switch you will need to log out, same thing I see in Shroud of the Avatar where this hasn't raised its head yet afaik.
Is there an ulterior motive to this thread? Force people into one or another for other reasons? Only thing I can think of is if a group of players, an alliance of sorts which will try to block a system, its unlikely that it will be as effective as it has been in Eve, but that we don't know. Being able to drop into friends only, or single player negates the effects of a player run blockade because people can slip past. Now, is this emergent play we should allow?
Erimus said:
I gave +1 rep for this post. It echoes what I've heard DBOBE say about the game being mostly PvE, why do we need to worry about competing with each other?
Anyway, I read parts of this thread, and was going to do a huge rant. Then I re-read most of the entire thread and realised I'd saved myself from sounding like an idiot. I confused this thread with another type I'd seen which focused on only all multi for only all multi-ers.
We understand that there is all multi, private group and solo online (private group of 1), where you can freely switch. Then there is solo offline which sounds like it is non cross over. Oh, and ironman. Op asked for additional group only all multi-er character slot. Sounds like another person wanting to play the game their way, so sounds like a fair request.
My personal thoughts:
1. Is it necessary?
To me it sounds like ironman is the better one to invest time in. My understanding of ironman is losing a ship <>permadeath. Forgetting to eject at the same time does! So pay attention and you get what you want.
2. And if you still don't like the sound of ironman?
There is still multi-all. A week, a month, a year or a decade down the line you may(! - the galaxy could be that huge!) encounter another player. They may have played a lot more, or a lot less, or paid cash for credits (if this is in) have a bigger ship with more advanced guns, or not. Who cares if for 20% or 90% of their play time they did it solo or private online?
You just had a player interaction and that's exciting. Do you catch up about hidden vistas, or trade routes, or old stories of the last time you saw someone on the fringe? Or demand their cargo, or ask for or offer help? Up to you. The player interaction is what matters at this point. There are so many factors that brought you both to that point a little solo/private/multi switching isn't going to matter to you then.
3. Is solo online really just plain easier?
I doubt it. I'm in PB1&2 now and I play maybe an hour every other night at some anti social time for where I live. I fought combat zones to build up capital, and when an eagle came to pick on my sidewinder I flew to a couple of other zones to find my spot and made about 20-30k an hour. Bought a hauler and did some trading, no pirates. Bought a cobra and more trading. No pirates. I went to Freeport enough and still nothing. I've got 800k now in a location with 8 star systems and 10k players (very population dense) and I'm avoiding all this PvP that is supposed to make my game harder.
Add in the other 400bn star systems and I think there is enough room in the galaxy that to fly away a little bit is as effective as going solo so just let someone go solo. It doesn't harm you. So making the all multi more lucrative as a balancer in this case seems needless as well. You can get a similar experience either way, but choose to do it with who you wish.
4. When would I go solo?
I'd run an ironman, and another in all multi. If I logged in for only one hour to a pirate blockade and I tried a couple of times to run it to leave the station i was in but it was hopeless, and same perhaps the next day I have such limited time to play its not fun anymore. I'd switch, go a little way grief free, switch back and play all multi again. Why should I have to restart all my progress (that could be years by that point) because someone else wants to force a bad time on me?
Is that an exploit? No, it avoids some antisocial behaviour and let's me play my game in my own time. And sometimes I'd play a quite game privately with some friends. Although I'd expect us all to go it multi all together most if the time.
5. Does an all multi all the time group change that for me?
No, but it reduces the chance for player interaction. Those only in this group won't see the people who switch around and vice versa. We fragment. And I think the mechanics in the normal all multi group for law enforcement and plain community desire for interaction and good spirit will keep it lovely enough for everyone to enjoy.
Time is a great equaliser so who cares how some spent a fraction of it before you all meet up in normal all multi somewhere down the line?
Teiwaz said:
You say non-adversarial gameplay but each of those activities has the risk of engagement. And the old saying "safety in numbers"? Whether there are pc baddies or npc baddies having a few good pc wingmen with you will make it easier. You can't meet new potential flight buddies if you don't put yourself out there in the all group. Not everyone in your usual crowd will be able to play with you all the time and i look forward to meeting new people. In a group like this I expect I'd progress faster than solo anyway, when I've friends who've "got my back".
Last edited:
I agree that creating an alliance is the way to go 100%. But I've always felt multi-player in any game or genre should be based on equal opportunity and equal risk. Slipping in to SP to avoid any in game activity is not equal risk. But regarding slipping in to SP mode to get past some sort of a blockade doesn't appear to be confirmed as possible. I've spent the last week consuming EVERY bit of official announcements/content I could get my hands on and they basically don't say how it will work. Open switching seems to be a forum generated rumor unless someone can link a dev post or video of some kind I haven't been able to scour from the interwebs.
Regarding emergent game play, open world multi player games are made infinitely better by this concept. And it doesn't have to be like eve. Eve has broken systems and macro level systems that wouldn't work here. It's all about having the back ground simulation change around the player base and having that drive player motivations and actions. If a player or group of players deem it makes sense for them in game to protect or defend something for whatever the reason... the game is made better for allowing them to try. It's not even that I want to do that, but multiplayer open worlds that allow that type of decision making generate so much awesome and dynamic gaming stories that SP can't. (edit: SP games still rock they're just different)
I'm not making my arguements to benefit griefers or the like, I'm making my arguements because player generated content/stories will be freakin amazing against the awesome simulation FD has in-store for us. I believe some of the points I've raised would detract from this..
Last edited:
Oh, and before I forget, if pc opponents are more difficult to face, this would imply anyone who spends more time in all multi only should have a bias to improving their piloting skills in these situations. Someone who progresses in solo online and switches could well have a lower skill in this regard so even if they accumulate a substantial wealth they may still have no edge over other pcs, in particular of not knowing which ships, guns, setups, tactics etc are generally more effective vs humans (rather than the ai they are used to facing). In any case 6 months after launch people will be so fragmented anyway in terms of 'progress' I think this is moot.
RaynMaykr said:
I don't think its fully finalized:
"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."
You can find it here. It maybe about PVP, but its still relevant.
Another one here:
"Hello Commander Peter Powers!
So this is an interesting dilemma we're dealing with. It's my current opinion that if we totally separated all private group avatars from the "all player" environment, we would reduce the incentive to "dip in".
As an aside, I believe the first implementation of of private groups will require a commander to log out and log back in with the new setting. We're still investigating the final rules that should govern such multiplayer changes, as these will obviously impact on a player's decision making process. "
You can find it here.
So, the upcoming beta tests will likely finalize the end result for gamma/retail release, once Frontier have metrics to go on and with useful feedback.
Yes, it doesn't have to be like Eve (that was just an example) and the background simulation in Elite will change for all players that are online (I know you probably know this, this is for brevity), it is the grouping which dictates where they're in a single group:
"Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited) with the following properties:
Players in this group are effectively indicating they want to be left alone and not disturbed by anyone else
By default group and friend invites are ignored but this can be enabled if desired
By default a player’s online status is hidden (set to offline) from others but this can be change if desired
A player in this group can still see when other friends come online and can message them
A player in this group can still receive messages from friends (possibly revealing the fact that they are online by virtue of return messages but still indicated as being offline)"
There will likely be times when I want to play Elite without having to deal anyone, yet I don't want to have another commander just for this purpose (we change roles far more than group settings).
Indeed the simulated galaxy changing and player content will be there for all groups to see, but the issue of simply forcing (as has been mentioned) into either all/all or single player without the ability to change between is also an issue, and honestly the biggest "heck no" for quite a number of people, not because they think of any advantage, but rather they want the Freedom to choose and not to be locked into a restricted mode at character generation
Now, adding another category to all/all perhaps 'always to be online and to never be able to switch' not sure how they'd deal with precluding others who have switched between group settings as it could simply end up like a private group. I think this is what the OP is really asking for, just another setting where people who choose to always be online never have to deal with those who have switched, his premise that there is any unfair advantage doesn't necessarily hold water (imho). Perhaps private groups maybe too advantageous? You can get the benefit of all/all without the trials of being alone...This will be tested and refined over the course of the beta, which is what we're here for
.Yes I read those dev responses. It is still up in the air. So not confirmed but thinking about it. I still hope they choose to keep the private/SP seperate from the multiplayer group. I know it comes off as I'm trying to restrict other people, but on the flip side of the coin multi-player dedicated players may not have as much fun knowing their mode of choice isn't all in. So while the impacts are different it DOES impact both sides in a potentially negative way.I don't think its fully finalized:
"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."
You can find it here. It maybe about PVP, but its still relevant.
Another one here:
"Hello Commander Peter Powers!
So this is an interesting dilemma we're dealing with. It's my current opinion that if we totally separated all private group avatars from the "all player" environment, we would reduce the incentive to "dip in".
As an aside, I believe the first implementation of of private groups will require a commander to log out and log back in with the new setting. We're still investigating the final rules that should govern such multiplayer changes, as these will obviously impact on a player's decision making process. "
You can find it here.
So, the upcoming beta tests will likely finalize the end result for gamma/retail release, once Frontier have metrics to go on and with useful feedback.
Yes, it doesn't have to be like Eve (that was just an example) and the background simulation in Elite will change for all players that are online (I know you probably know this, this is for brevity), it is the grouping which dictates where they're in a single group:
"Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited) with the following properties:
Players in this group are effectively indicating they want to be left alone and not disturbed by anyone else
By default group and friend invites are ignored but this can be enabled if desired
By default a player’s online status is hidden (set to offline) from others but this can be change if desired
A player in this group can still see when other friends come online and can message them
A player in this group can still receive messages from friends (possibly revealing the fact that they are online by virtue of return messages but still indicated as being offline)"
There will likely be times when I want to play Elite without having to deal anyone, yet I don't want to have another commander just for this purpose (we change roles far more than group settings).
Indeed the simulated galaxy changing and player content will be there for all groups to see, but the issue of simply forcing (as has been mentioned) into either all/all or single player without the ability to change between is also an issue, and honestly the biggest "heck no" for quite a number of people, not because they think of any advantage, but rather they want the Freedom to choose and not to be locked into a restricted mode at character generation
Now, adding another category to all/all perhaps 'always to be online and to never be able to switch' not sure how they'd deal with precluding others who have switched between group settings as it could simply end up like a private group. I think this is what the OP is really asking for, just another setting where people who choose to always be online never have to deal with those who have switched, his premise that there is any unfair advantage doesn't necessarily hold water (imho). Perhaps private groups maybe too advantageous? You can get the benefit of all/all without the trials of being alone...This will be tested and refined over the course of the beta, which is what we're here for
I don't get idea idea that a single player game would be easier than a multiplayer game.
I wager there will be more high skilled NPC in a single player group to compensate for the lac of players.
So I for one will be rather play in the multiplayer version to have more easy player target's to pick of if i feel like it.
Have to wait to see how the balance will work out.
I wager there will be more high skilled NPC in a single player group to compensate for the lac of players.
So I for one will be rather play in the multiplayer version to have more easy player target's to pick of if i feel like it.
Have to wait to see how the balance will work out.
Praevarus
P
I found this at the Kickstarter:
Will the game be free to play after the initial purchase? We do not plan to make it subscription-based. Once you have purchased the game up front, you will be able to play thereafter for no further cost. Everything in the game will be purchasable with in-game Credits, earned from trading, bounty-hunting, etc. We will probably allow the supplemental purchase of Credits with real money, for those who want to accelerate their progress through the game.
We do plan to charge for additional updates, to be available sometime after the original release. These will offer additional content, features and gameplay.
I hope that "probably" becomes unlikely.
Unless you are explicit in what you put during the KS then many things can be open to interpretation.
For example - the grouping mechanics:
It doesn't technically say how it's going to work just that you can play the game with different subsets of people - Given that you can have 3 commanders to your account it could mean "pick a group mode and your commander is locked to it" or "pick a group mode and your commander can change at will between them all"
And this is probably why lawyers get rich
Control is different to choose. To control is an ongoing action, to choose is a single action. As there is no limiter or qualifier on the exercise of that control other than “in your game.” Then the ability to exercise of that control isn’t a one shot deal but an ongoing process.
Bringing in the ability to choose then potentially puts a limit on the exercise of that control.
3 multiplayer modes - 3 commanders the above paragraph remains true and both control and choice has not been curtailed.
4 multiplayer modes – 3 commanders, the above statement is no longer true as a choice has curtailed the level of control. You may not, depending on your choice of group, control who you meet in game and limit that, in order to be able to meet your friends. As it is also dependant on their choices of out of the four groups now. You can still chose to meet your friends but you can't control how you do so. (I know what I mean
)If the paragraph had a qualifier – depending on your choices etc…. then I’d agree. But as it doesn’t the addition of a further fourth locked group does some funny stuff.
All semantics
P.S I so ain't a lawyer.
Last edited:
Let's put player density into perspective, and this is very relevant to the perception of player interaction in the all-group.
Premium Beta 2 has 10,000 players filling 8 systems.
I've also heard PB2 has 15,000 players filling 8 systems.
I've heard the final game will have 100,000 settled systems, also the numbers 140,000 and 160,000.
Divide the number of settled systems in the final game with the number of available systems in PB2 (8), then multiply that by the number of players in PB2.
Based on 10,000 players in PB2, Elite would need:
125,000,000 players to retain the same player density for 100,000 settled systems.
175,000,000 players to retain the same player density for 140,000 settled systems.
200,000,000 players to retain the same player density for 160,000 settled systems.
Based on 15,000 players in PB2, Elite would need:
187,500,000 players to retain the same player density for 100,000 settled systems.
262,500,000 players to retain the same player density for 140,000 settled systems.
300,000,000 players to retain the same player density for 160,000 settled systems.
Minecraft currently has 16,000,000 players.
Star Citizen currently has 500,000 backers.
This doesn't take into account players traveling into the wilderness of unexplored space.
What defines a settled system? Systems which offer content either by way of stations or destinations for missions. I'm assuming Styx is a "settled" system in this example because it wouldn't be unreasonable for a mission given in another system to take place there, thus a better chance to meet other players. However, for my final game example, I'm assuming no missions will take place in the wilderness. It would drive the player density down even further.
Unless Frontier is very successful, the population density per system in settled space is going to be much lower than we're currently experiencing in PB2!
This is all based on PB2 having a desirable population density. However, we should keep in mind that it's possible even in PB2 for players to progress without meeting other players, by playing through midnight and early morning GMT (my own and other people's experience).
What does this mean for the all-group? It means until Elite gets extremely successful, the player population in the all-group is going to be so sparse that it renders the all-group completely meaningless as a measure for player encounters in the context of pilot skill. That is, unless, we consider absurdly rare encounters to be a measure of pilot skill.
If the goal is to define a group's worthiness by way of player interaction, more factors will have to be considered than simply sharing settled space, such as system restrictions to busy systems (Lave, etc).
Elite is big.
Premium Beta 2 has 10,000 players filling 8 systems.
I've also heard PB2 has 15,000 players filling 8 systems.
I've heard the final game will have 100,000 settled systems, also the numbers 140,000 and 160,000.
Divide the number of settled systems in the final game with the number of available systems in PB2 (8), then multiply that by the number of players in PB2.
Based on 10,000 players in PB2, Elite would need:
125,000,000 players to retain the same player density for 100,000 settled systems.
175,000,000 players to retain the same player density for 140,000 settled systems.
200,000,000 players to retain the same player density for 160,000 settled systems.
Based on 15,000 players in PB2, Elite would need:
187,500,000 players to retain the same player density for 100,000 settled systems.
262,500,000 players to retain the same player density for 140,000 settled systems.
300,000,000 players to retain the same player density for 160,000 settled systems.
Minecraft currently has 16,000,000 players.
Star Citizen currently has 500,000 backers.
This doesn't take into account players traveling into the wilderness of unexplored space.
What defines a settled system? Systems which offer content either by way of stations or destinations for missions. I'm assuming Styx is a "settled" system in this example because it wouldn't be unreasonable for a mission given in another system to take place there, thus a better chance to meet other players. However, for my final game example, I'm assuming no missions will take place in the wilderness. It would drive the player density down even further.
Unless Frontier is very successful, the population density per system in settled space is going to be much lower than we're currently experiencing in PB2!
This is all based on PB2 having a desirable population density. However, we should keep in mind that it's possible even in PB2 for players to progress without meeting other players, by playing through midnight and early morning GMT (my own and other people's experience).
What does this mean for the all-group? It means until Elite gets extremely successful, the player population in the all-group is going to be so sparse that it renders the all-group completely meaningless as a measure for player encounters in the context of pilot skill. That is, unless, we consider absurdly rare encounters to be a measure of pilot skill.
If the goal is to define a group's worthiness by way of player interaction, more factors will have to be considered than simply sharing settled space, such as system restrictions to busy systems (Lave, etc).
Elite is big.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Unless you are explicit in what you put during the KS then many things can be open to interpretation.
....
It doesn't technically say how it's going to work just that you can play the game with different subsets of people - Given that you can have 3 commanders to your account it could mean "pick a group mode and your commander is locked to it" or "pick a group mode and your commander can change at will between them all"
From the Kickstarter FAQ, emphasis mine:
While this refers to "players" rather than "commanders", I would expect that a common interpretation would conflate these terms in this instance.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
Unless you are explicit in what you put during the KS then many things can be open to interpretation.
For example - the grouping mechanics:
It doesn't technically say how it's going to work just that you can play the game with different subsets of people - Given that you can have 3 commanders to your account it could mean "pick a group mode and your commander is locked to it" or "pick a group mode and your commander can change at will between them all"
This is detailed a little more here, and it does state changing groups at will.... Now you COULD argue that starting in ALL and being able to change once, to another group, and then not be allowed to move back, is still changing at will to a degree, however I think it is fair to say, that is not really what is meant here, and is certainly not how the vast majority would read it imo.
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2721
We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.
edit.. DOH! I should have read whole thread as Robert posted almost exactly the same above me
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Hi Vreynn,
Elite is indeed big, or will be indeed big. But I think it is still quite a stretch to assume homogeneous averages for population density.
We still have no idea how FD will actually deploy prime playable content. And that is key for population densities.
Lone wolves and explorers notwithstanding, it may very well be that that "prime playable content", loosely defined as that most fun to play (FD hand made missions and environments, focal points for faction conflict, most profitable trade routes etc), may be specifically designed and deployed by FD in a limited number of systems where most players will naturally tend to gravitate... and making actual practical population densities much much higher in those areas than your averages.
It is too soon to tell I am afraid. Your estimates assume equal distribution of "prime playable content", and that may perfectly not be the case.
Last edited:
Not sure but I think you missed my original counter to the OP's argument of trying to control a players rate of progress by not allowing solo players to switch when they wanted to.
The OP seems to be plumping constantly for a forced PVP environment in the All group by basically saying you can only play solo private or MP, thereby controlling an aspect of a players game.
If I, as a retired person spent 16 hours a day fighting in PVP, I would expect generally to become a pretty skilled PVP player. So taking the OP's argument of controlling the groups to prevent "unfair advantage", I was pointing out that it would be akin to trying to limit a players time in game by controlling their hours played.
This is not according to the KS backing I and many others risked our own investment on, that artificial controls be applied to enforce a style of play.
If people wish to play in a controlled enforced environment there are plenty of games out there they can already play. DB's plan for ED is not to follow that style.
My thoughts too! In another thread I commented that the most likely question after ED is released will be "Where is everybody?" :S