Read First Why I will play 'all' and why I think you should too

[Jorlin]

No it isn't. It uses an old method with modern technology to achieve astounding results, but let's not get carried away. Human nature is still the same, as well as the nature of games made to be played by more than one human at the time.

If ED is meant to be PvE, that's all good. But then the multiplayer part, especially the PvP part is just tacked on and will feel that way. It will fragment the online community, and at that point you have to ask yourself - why bother to even have one? The charm of persistent community is that we all share one world - that's what makes the social aspect of Eve online so deep and meaningful to so many people.

No, I'm not saying this should be Eve, I left that game for a reason. But if it had one thing right, that was the sense of sharing one universe with everyone else. It gives a deeper meaning to everything you do.

NPCs do not care what you do. They can't. People care. People notice an ace flying like an ace, they fear a notorious pirate gang, they sit up and take notice when an explorer stumbles upon something extraordinary, or get a bit envious of a trader striking a gold run.

NPCs just execute their next routine. Something to think about.

very true...and exactly why i want my SP Online option

NPC don't annoy me with chat requests when i'm not in the mood.

 

[Iskariot]

NPCs do not care what you do. They can't. People care. People notice an ace flying like an ace, they fear a notorious pirate gang, they sit up and take notice when an explorer stumbles upon something extraordinary, or get a bit envious of a trader striking a gold run.

That, the caring of others, the noticing, is indeed a big incentive for most people to get involved in online.
But personally I do not give a rat's ass whether anybody notices that I fly like an ace. I only care about immersing myself in this huge universe. I do not need encounters with humans for that.

 

[Iskariot]

Go and read the latest DB Q&A...it's perfectly clear, the online universe whether group, all or solo is shared...It has always been designed that way.

From inception...the grouping mechanism is as it is. People backed the game on this basis...

Search the forums, there's loads of threads discussing this.

I am not sure if this is directed at me.
But if it is...

You can play solo offline.
No shared universe whatsoever.
That might be the only valid option for me considering what I said in my previous 2 posts.

 

[Storagebod]

I am not sure if this is directed at me.
But if it is...

You can play solo offline.
No shared universe whatsoever.
That might be the only valid option for me considering what I said in my previous 2 posts.

Nope...wasn't aimed at you...that's why I was talking about the online universe. It's aimed at the people who seem to want to fragment the game under the guise of unifying it. I like the grouping options as offered and described in the DDA and the original pitch. That's why I backed it for more money than I've paid for a game before. (actually not quite true when we take subs into account...)

I'm tired of people trying to change the game before it's launched..Like arm-chair football managers and TV pundits; they always know better...despite the fact they've never won a trophy.

 

[Chazzie]

Going to try 'All group' to start off with.

A lot depends on player behaviour - if I get constantly ganked, griefed and see players using exploits to get their way - I'll start adding to the ignore list.

Finally if it gets really bad I'll switch to solo play - but it's not something I want to do really.

I'm quite thick skinned (having been blown to bits trading in PB1 lots of times) but there are limits. I guess we'll see.

 

[Jenner]

The problem with switching at will from All and Private online play is that it gives players the ability to basically cheat.

Think of it this way: if some game offered a PvP-anywhere world, but players could go invisible at will, indefinitely and perform anything they wanted sans PvP, do you think this would not be abused? From traders doing their trade runs in wealthy anarchic systems in complete safety, miners and mission runners not bothering to even look at their radar, to large PvP groups penetrating deep in faction space and completely sidestepping any possible roadblock opposing faction players might put in certain systems.

Now, I have zero issues with people wanting to play offline, or just with their friends.

But I think if you create a commander for offline play or one to play with just your friends, that commander should be completely cut off from the All group. No going back and forth. No sidestepping pirates I had to evade for real so you can tilt the supply/demand of a lucrative system before I could get there. No ducking in the private group, flying through a blockaded system, then popping back up, blowing up some miners and disappearing again like some sort of uber stealth fighter.

If FD go ahead with the proposed grouping system, it will basically wreck the integrity and purpose of even having an "All" group. It will end up being a "Bored Pirate Group".

Just to clarify, my favourite activity is exploration/trade. But I want to play fair, which means if I want to trade in some known pirate den, I have to give the pirates a chance to blow me up. Only I won't be able to do that because every other trader is going to happily duck under their radar, only have NPCs to deal with, and push me out due to being able to influence the simulation with their relatively smooth trading runs while I play cat and mouse with every pirate in system who is after me because I'm the only one "dumb" enough not to use Private group to step around them.

So yeah, play as you like, but groups you choose to play with should be like servers - not easy to switch between and definitely not able to affect each others overall state of the game.

You bring up a great point about the system and I hope FD is thinking about how to address your concerns.

 

[Storagebod]

There is a certain amount of irony about some the posts...if there are enough complaints about a player; they will find their character ending up in the 'naughty group'. And they won't be able to play 'all' with the 'nice' children.

What if the 'naughty group' is actually easier to progress in? Because if the majority of people are not in the naughty group, there might be less real people and there might be less risk. Who knows?

And once in the 'naughty group'; can you eventually work your way out of it by being good? Or is it a life sentence?

Does the naughty group get specially tuned NPCs that prove that NPCs are really rather tougher than one might expect? Or do they get interdicted by NPCs who want to really understand them and talk through the issues?

And if one achieves Elite in the 'Naughty Group'...are you actually the baddest of the bad?

 

[Chazzie]

..And if one achieves Elite in the 'Naughty Group'...are you actually the baddest of the bad?

That's a really good point! You'd be like 'Ultra Badass Elite!'

 

[Meritz]

That, the caring of others, the noticing, is indeed a big incentive for most people to get involved in online.
But personally I do not give a rat's ass whether anybody notices that I fly like an ace. I only care about immersing myself in this huge universe. I do not need encounters with humans for that.

Humans also bring emergent, non-scripted and creative content. Yeah, I too was immersed in the universe of FFE and played it a long time. But eventually you learn the limited rules so well, you inevitably become bored with it because it stops offering something new. You can code all you want but you cannot make a creative code. Only humans, so far, are capable of bringing creativity to something.

Ultimately, the big thrill and pull of MMOs is not the worlds they offer, or the game mechanics - it's the ability to share that same persistent world with other players. That's at the core. So if FD mean to offer a MMOesque persistent multiplayer galaxy to the players, they really need to take the social aspects into account, the ones that keep it all together.

It is an impossibly big place - I don't think a lot of players truly realize the true size of the sandbox we're given to play with. The last thing you want is to fragment the tiny, tiny playerbase we will have compared to the vastness of the sandbox, with this group, that group, private ignore lists... what happens if players A and B are flying together and player C attacks player B but is on the ignore list of player A? So many continuity issues. Might as well not have persistent multiplayer at all.

 

[Storagebod]

It is an impossibly big place - I don't think a lot of players truly realize the true size of the sandbox we're given to play with. The last thing you want is to fragment the tiny, tiny playerbase we will have compared to the vastness of the sandbox, with this group, that group, private ignore lists... what happens if players A and B are flying together and player C attacks player B but is on the ignore list of player A? So many continuity issues. Might as well not have persistent multiplayer at all.

I think you want to go and immerse yourself in the DDA; all the answers to these questions are there. Ignore isn't quite ignore for example; it's an I don't want to play with that person preference...so in your example, all those PCs would see each other...the ignore rules are just one of many ways to determine which instance you go into.

FD have really thought this through...I'm sure they've debated this internally and argued various positioned; gamed various scenarios...

 

[Cosmos]

It strikes me a little odd in some ways that I've seen quite a number of people have a lot to say about MP and yet they have absolutely no intention of playing in it - expressing their planed exclusion as a way to hostage the developers. If its not like this, I won't be playing in it.. I can however understand people just wanting to do there own thing.

When it comes to playing in the all-group, and boy do we need a better term that that for it, I'm really not sure anymore. All this transponder stuff combined with moving between groups says to me that the all-group isn't going to be what it could be.

At its best playing in the all-group could be awesome. What I find interesting about it is the extra dynamism that other players create by embellishing what Frontier deliver; players presence and actions are content itself. Being able to switch almost at will between solo and private groups means that people are likely to take the safer route of playing alone or with friends to tool up or on important missions and then when in the all-group play in a way that might not be the case if we were all, in the all-group and couldn't float between them. I don't know how Frontier are going make that a fair situation with balance being a key issue.

If it wasn't possible to float between them at will I could see myself having to make an important choice if I wanted to attack someone or play with them and help them out, thus making a new friend. Instead, we can play it safe when it suits and pop in the all-group to play another way.

We'll have to wait and see if this transponder (a bad idea imo) gets into the game but if it does I think it will be a further point against the all-group in my view.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Only humans, so far, are capable of bringing creativity to something.

So if FD mean to offer a MMOesque persistent multiplayer galaxy to the players, they really need to take the social aspects into account, the ones that keep it all together.

I completely agree with you on the human aspect, but what precisely would you want to see with regard to "social aspects". Please be as specific as you can. What tools and options would you require to have in order to have this work for you?

 

[Storagebod]

And yet again we get this myth that playing anything but ALL is going to be safer! FD had said it again and again, that it won't be! They've already said that they can make an NPC pretty much unbeatable....

Perhaps we shouldn't believe them about anything?

Who knows it might be more dangerous to play the solo version...why? In group ALL you might fly into an instance filled with people who aren't interested in combat and don't attack you at all. In the solo group...that same instance might be filled with psychotic pirate NPCs.

Solo could be massively more risky; you've got no-one to come to your aid..you are one ship against the universe.

For me, I really like the idea of playing in a living universe where the game is influenced by humans...but at times I don't want to play with humans. There's a few of us grumpy sods around...we backed the game to get these options.

 

[Sumkawps]

If ED is meant to be PvE, that's all good. But then the multiplayer part, especially the PvP part is just tacked on and will feel that way. It will fragment the online community, and at that point you have to ask yourself - why bother to even have one? The charm of persistent community is that we all share one world - that's what makes the social aspect of Eve online so deep and meaningful to so many people.

Ok - quick rehash of this issue that has been done to death:

All online modes share one evolving galaxy of 400 billion stars - check.

Approximately 50% of the backers indicated that they will play as explorers, deep in space and unlikely to meet any other PCs - whatever mode you have chosen (MP all or SP online), the chances are you are the only PC in the instance. SP online and MP all instance of 1 should play the same way - in a game like Elite, no-one wants easy mode, or shouldn't.

If I'm in MP all and the 33rd person to arrive in an instance, or bubble, or whatever the appropriate techy name for it is, then I'm playing SP online by default. I don't want that to be easier than usual, and FD have told us it won't be - let's test and see shall we?

But by way of example of a nasty PvE opponent - an opponent that knows your location, vector and manoeuvres as quickly as you change them, that can fly a perfect edge of envelope intercept pattern and has 100% accuracy would be a more than challenging opponent for nearly all pilots. Give them railguns and you're dead in seconds.

The charm of a community that shares in a continuously evolving galaxy is that we can all participate in the discoveries, disasters, wars, geopolitics and economy.

The fact that we can do so when we want with whoever we want is irrelevant in a game with no end-game. Being the first, or in the top nth percentile of pilots who obtain an Elite ranking is just bragging rights. In Elite, the game is the journey, not the destination, so "progression" is only what you want it to be.

Even if your concept of progression is to treat it as a competition, then the solo/group mechanics are still no issue: Imagine having 8 hours a day to play and "progress" faster, with a fancy HOTAS, OR, Voiceattack and all the other sweet potential add-ons - I can't match that. And that player will obtain bigger more dangerous ships faster than I will, at equal skill levels. So do I call it cheating if he shows up in my instance and defeats me or beats me to something or whatever? No. Until you level all playing fields, no complaint that competition is undermined has any merits.

The only cheating in ED is hacks, mechanics exploits or metagaming to the detriment of the game (if that's even possible). All these should attract the most serious sanctions.

No, I'm not saying this should be Eve, I left that game for a reason. But if it had one thing right, that was the sense of sharing one universe with everyone else. It gives a deeper meaning to everything you do.

NPCs do not care what you do. They can't. People care. People notice an ace flying like an ace, they fear a notorious pirate gang, they sit up and take notice when an explorer stumbles upon something extraordinary, or get a bit envious of a trader striking a gold run.

NPCs just execute their next routine. Something to think about.

The charm of having consequences in game for your actions deepens the relationship between player and environment. The charm of having a background sim that evolves the galaxy is that NPCs can precisely be given the impression of caring about what you do, with system wide reactions as well as the traditional reputational consequences with your contacts. It's one of the great selling points of the game.

Playing with other people in such an immersive enviroment will, I hope, make it even better. But there's no reason why I should not be able to dip in and out of SP online if I choose.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

It strikes me a little odd in some ways that I've seen quite a number of people have a lot to say about MP and yet they have absolutely no intention of playing in it - expressing their planed exclusion as a way to hostage the developers. If its not like this, I won't be playing in it.. I can however understand people just wanting to do there own thing.
.

But you are suggesting changing the core structure of the MP game which was promised from day 1 which completely screws over people who backed becasue of the novel online options of choosing whether to play MP or SP depending on their mood.

I have every intention of playing in the main group SOME of the time. It sounds to me like you are suggesting people who do not agree with your own view should stay silent, which is completely not cool in my book.

most of the people posting are not saying they will NEVER play online just that they will jump in and jump out..

PS have you seen the title of the thread? of course people are going to say why they dont want to play online and list the things they dont like about it, the title of the thread pretty much guarantees that.

bottom line, my view keep the MP all as it was announced back in the KS and, even if not perfect, it will be what we all agreed to buy into. (Edit and yes cosmos, given how many people are against this whole turning off your transponder I think this option is more hassle than it is worth as well)

 

[forger]

why i will play only in All group?
because i want to meet new friends and they are the real fun flying around, there are no games that are fun forever, but there are groups of people with whom always is fun to communicate - just to relax, chat and have a laugh or two and sometimes go for some higher targets than you ever could alone

you can do anything you can do solo in All group but you cannot do anything you can do in All group solo, and i never limit myself so answer is obvious - if i will get tired of humanoids i just embark on exploration to places where 2 legged creatures never visited. easy as that.

p.s. there are no better enemies than other player and there are no better friends than other players, so all you have to do is create your own story and choose your own path

 

[PacalB]

Humans also bring emergent, non-scripted and creative content. Yeah, I too was immersed in the universe of FFE and played it a long time. But eventually you learn the limited rules so well, you inevitably become bored with it because it stops offering something new. You can code all you want but you cannot make a creative code. Only humans, so far, are capable of bringing creativity to something.

On the surface that sounds and looks all well and good. The reality is, some will have little interest in the PvP driven emergent, non-scripted and creative content that you seek in your game. They may be weak at actual PvP (for whatever reason) and in the end leave the all groups for other modes of the game.

I get the impression that you would like them force pushed into your style of game. No options, just to sit in that negative place, whilst improving your emergent, non-scripted and creative content. Your form of gaming at the expense of theirs? Right up to the point they leave the game, (which is what happened with many in EVE).

The problem with switching at will from All and Private online play is that it gives players the ability to basically cheat.

Comments like the above scream your position from your other post. FD have given players (like those replying to you) the option to get out of your style of a gaming universe and still enjoy the game. Why would you deny them that enjoyment?

Ultimately, the big thrill and pull of MMOs is not the worlds they offer, or the game mechanics - it's the ability to share that same persistent world with other players. That's at the core. So if FD mean to offer a MMOesque persistent multiplayer galaxy to the players, they really need to take the social aspects into account, the ones that keep it all together.

Ultimately? Sorry but there is no ultimately, that is just your position, your opinion of MMO's, which you are entitled to. (This is a MMO? Or is it really something else, something completely different? Best you stick with calling it MMOesque.) Keeping it all together and destroying many peoples idea of fun as well? Not a good idea that. EVE tried that and now it's player base is static, dead and what many perceive, a hell hole.

No, not a good model for FD to follow that. FD have a mixture of options catering for all kinds of play styles, so why would you call those play styles cheating? Surely FD know what actual cheating is, yes?

It is an impossibly big place - I don't think a lot of players truly realize the true size of the sandbox we're given to play with. The last thing you want is to fragment the tiny, tiny playerbase we will have compared to the vastness of the sandbox, with this group, that group, private ignore lists... what happens if players A and B are flying together and player C attacks player B but is on the ignore list of player A? So many continuity issues. Might as well not have persistent multiplayer at all.

Um? No, it has core systems, it has in game mechanic restrictions (jump drive engine ranges), that will hold large groups of people in star clusters at first (time and time again as the new join the game). That is a hell of a lot of frustration for people being forced to play your perceived style of game.

As for your A, B and C issues, FD have methods in their design to make their system work. Just because you can pose the question does not mean FD cannot answer it with their design methods.

 

[Cosmos]

bottom line, my view keep the MP all as it was announced back in the KS and, even if not perfect, it will be what we all agreed to buy into.

You make a good point..

How does multiplayer work:

You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) some of the other ships you meet as you travel around are real players as opposed to computer-controlled ships. It may be a friend you have agreed to rendezvous with here, or it may be another real player you have encountered by chance. All players will be part of a “Pilot’s Federation” – that is how they are distinguished from non-players – so you will be able to tell who is a player and who is a non-player easily.

 

[Meritz]

I completely agree with you on the human aspect, but what precisely would you want to see with regard to "social aspects". Please be as specific as you can. What tools and options would you require to have in order to have this work for you?

Specifically, I think it is important to reduce metagame fragmentation of the online community. This primarily means creating a system which pulls people together as much as possible while striking a meaningful balance between group and solo play. Social aspects of MMOs do not necessarily mean group play. Solo players are there too and they are a big part of the social equation just by being online.

This can be achieved in sandbox games easier than heavily scripted ones. For example, for players who are wary of unsavoury characters ruining their hard earned credit balance via piracy and wanton violence, instead of giving them a way out via the private/solo group, you give them ingame tools to minimize but not eliminate completely, the chance of undesired encounters happening.

This could be anything from stealth ship skins in place of more protective armor, juiced up sensors, expensive and rare police-grade scanners available only to reputable commanders to punch through the no-transponder camouflage and expose potential harassers early on, frame shift cooling systems or stabilizers for faster getaways, even smart mines you drop behind your ship to discourage direct pursuit. The options are limited only by developer imagination.

What you achieve is encouraging meaningful player choices and above all, direct and indirect interaction. Do I outfit my hauler with extra cargo space, or would that engine booster come more in handy? So I invest in the military-grade stealth skin for my ship so that it is harder to detect in sublight? Or a thicker armor? What about a stealth frame shift drive so that I cannot be seen as far away in superluminal? Or could I use a more fuel efficient one so I save money on my trade runs?

Then there is tweaking the simulation. Is that station camped? Well, why have just one station in the system - the economy is system-wide, there could be plenty of stations. Just go to another one. Is the number of pirate attacks on the rise recently in a system? Is that system lawful? Well, the police get there in larger numbers, with bigger ships. Patrols get more frequent. Player and NPC bounty hunters are pointed to the system. And pirates have to leave someplace else.

On the other hand, you give the hunters tools for their trade. Better scanners, faster engines, tailgating and hyperspace trailing we know will be in the game. And you balance it all so that it has a clear purpose.

You enable players to make ingame choices which matter and which work. You also enable players to make mistakes and suffer the consequences. You allow players to take risks and reap the rewards. You allow them to fail. Failure is a big part of success. Without the possibility of failure, success means little.

But the bottom line is, you do it all in the game. Someone wants to play solo, they go to fringe systems where they will hardly meet anyone ever. And if they do chance upon someone, they just deck their ship out so it suits their desires not to have to interact with other players.

But not quite 100%. For people who 100% do not ever want to see another human player in that galaxy, there is solo offline, which is separate from online and you cannot transfer between the two modes.

Keep the game menus out of the game as much as possible, that's the thing. Give freedom to the players to play as they want, but together, in one persistent world. Instead of indulging player segregation, create gameplay out of it. That's how I would go about it.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

It's a little bit saddening for well meant thread to go offtopic, but I guess we can't escape that at this point. Thank all of you who expressed support or disagreement about ontopic. All fake controversy aside, ED online will be awesome place to be.

See you out there