The bad things will be fewer if I play alone.
Read First Why I will play 'all' and why I think you should too
- Thread starter Cmdr Eagleboy
- Start date
The bad things will be fewer if I play alone.
Compromises only work when they're well executed. Otherwise you end up making everyone unhappy instead of just one side.
I still think "one world, one rule set" is the best approach, and give players options within those rules.
Really, if we can't have a 1:1 galaxy simulation that caters to everyone's needs... I mean, Eve can pull it off with 4000 systems and ED can't with 100 billion and much more dynamic and modern technology? I doubt that.
In the current implementation everyone can play how they see fit. You want a lot of people? All group. You only want a few people? Private Group. You don't want anyone? Solo Online group. Everyone adheres to the same laws and rules of the game, the only thing grouping regulates is the number of human pilots you run into. I'm pretty sure Radiant Dawn will be able to annoy all the types of people.
You don't get it. But it's ok, if FD messes anything up it will become painfully obvious when the game launches, at which point they will hopefully have means to fix it.
Yeah, could be that I don't understand why you don't like the idea of people being able to instance them away from others. I know it was the one reasons I decided to buy two premium beta copies after reading through the DDA. I know that most MMO communities are not as bad as people make them out to, but I don't play these games alone. And the ones I play with have reservations against unconditional PvP.
Not to mention it doesn't do much in convincing them if my friend's first experience with the beta is being blown up during undocking just because. And no amount of "this is beta" "it'll change" will help changing those first impressions, if the negatives outweigh the positives.
Ultimately, to answer the OP, I would love to play the all group, but if I'm playing with my friends, I'll probably be in a private group with them, but I'd like to have the option to go "all" out when I'm alone.
But still you ignore the fact that this is a stated part of the design and has been since day one. If you don't like the design, you should never have bought the game.
Eve obviously does not cater to everyone's needs. Lots of people love Eve, lots of people loathe it. No-one is wrong.
There is no perfect game...just the game you like.
I like the what is proposed for Elite; quite a large majority of people do. I expected the design to be tweaked; I don't imagine it'll be completely changed.
And the single galaxy vision actually allows DBOBE and FD build an environment economically to support every play style. Would you expect them to support a galaxy to support those who want to play in private groups? If so, one per group? I mean that group might be dedicated to PVP and that group might be dedicated to PVE...and we all know that PVE is much, much easier than PVP don't we...so that group has an advantage.
But what if I want to move from one group to another? It'll be absolute chaos..
No, it seems to me that a single galaxy is the only what to do this...unless you go down the more traditional MMORPG and having specific servers. People will want to play with friends; you need private groups.
And as the number of players in an 'island' (DB's new term for instance/bubble) is capped; the EVE comparisons don't really stack. You can't easily manage 1000s of players in an environment like Elite without it. You'd end up with traffic jams at core sites for starters.
It is a very different game design and needs a different approach to anything which has been tried before.
Sorry too early in the morning for me to read a wall of text, however I agree with your headlineI will play all because players are so darn unpredictable and that is what makes a game great.
Exactly! Players are so darn unpredictable and that is what makes a game great... Sometimes!
You see, In the little time I have for gaming, I will enjoy the chaos and unpreditability random human players create. But not always.
There are times, when I only have a few minutes between job and family and I only want to complete a little trade run, or go mining with only AI pirates on my back. (Yes! It will still be dangerous, but the AI is free of metagaming and for that of cheats and psychotic behavior.)
I am really thankful that FD has been firm in its plan to make it possible for all to play in the same Universe (shard, world, whatever you want to call it) and still be able to chose who you see. Its like the best parts of single shard and true instancing combined.
Oh man, nobody should be getting any first impressions from an early beta. We don't have even 10% of what the full game is slated to offer. Right now basically every system is full anarchy!
And yet I haven't been shot at once by other players. I was rammed once, intentionally or not I have no idea, and I aborted a docking run in Aulin once because I saw a 'conda hanging outside the entrance suspiciously pointed at it. That's it.
I know many people don't like the idea of unconditional PvP, but I think FD are actually on the right track with it as far as the all group goes. You will have means to openly broadcast your ID or hide it from other players, for one. But it's a soft PvP flag, not the "invulnerable" type where you flip a switch and can't be touched by anyone.
That's actually exactly what I am talking about. An ingame method of avoiding, but not completely eliminating the possibility of a fight with another player. Coupled with the ginormous sandbox we're getting, the ease of escaping and avoiding other ships in the game, I think fears of the "all" group turning into a gankfest are completely unfounded.
I just don't get it why so many people expect the absolute worst kind of online experience imaginable, even before we had a chance to experience it in the rather unique setting ED will offer. I'm not sure where is that coming from. Do people try online games, get killed once and decide all PvP, anywhere and everywhere, is pure evil?
As I said, it depends on how the final design will be implemented. From what we know so far, which is admittedly not enough to make concrete judgments, it will be possible to exploit it in many ways.
But yeah, we will see how it plays out. I'm just voicing my opinions on the subject based on available data, like everyone else. There are ways to fix possible issues without drastic redesign, from introducing new rules to mode switching to offering extra incentives for players playing in the "All" group.
But I'll always prefer ingame mechanics over game menus. The former create more complex gameplay for all involved and are more immersive, if nothing else.
Well the point of Elite seems to be that you can cater to both types, and I think that may well turn out to be it's strength.
People that predominantly play SP can quite happily get on in their solo online group or co-operating with like minded friends.
But the ultra competitive MP only players don't seem to be able to content themselves with the company of other MP only players - of whom there will be plenty.
We still don't yet know how the group switching thing will play out so there may well be obstructions to quick switching at will.
But I believe it won't be allowed in Ironman (?) at all so there is always that option.
Even if rapid switching is possible and is seen as an "exploit" it looks like it will in the main be the ultra competitive MP players that will use it to get one over their fellow MP competitors, I really can't see the predominantly SP types suddenly going full on into the All group just for giggles...
Caveat emptor still applies to anyone who hasn't read up enough to see how deeply engrained this model is to the game.
As to a well-executed compromise - we don't know till we test it. You've already said that you're prepared to give ED the benefit of the doubt, so let's test it.
Putting aside any questions of whether people should be forced into the open-world environment with other players or be forced to forever play alone (your solution, which incidentally is the "have your cake and eat it" solution for those among the PvPers who just want more targets), the argument doesn't stack up from a balance perspective.
The natural imbalances in play-time, skill-level and meta features like hardware, net connection, quality peripherals and so forth all mean that inevitably players in MP all may face opponents that have significant advantages. Even assuming SP online was easier, getting credits there for a better ship would not either correct those imbalances or make them materially worse than they already are.
The only way to resolve this from a balance perspective would be to limit everyone to a fixed amount of play-time in a single ship loadout within a one-world, one ruleset approach. That's not the game I backed, nor is it appealing to most people here, I imagine.
So if balance isn't a good reason to object to the compromise, then only community remains - this IS a good reason to encourage people to play together, but is a bad reason to force people to play together.
While I'm part of that sub-set of the population who actually want to play MP all, with all the potential for good and bad that entails, some don't, and I'm prepared to respect that.
What's more, in a game of this depth and breadth, having more than one character is not necessarily a given - I like the idea that a great community in MP all might tempt those that start in SP online into the broader group.
But that of course remains a responsibility of the community, and there are many hurdles to seeing that effectively delivered.
And finally, "one world, one rule-set". This is undermined by the instancing. If I am the 33rd player to arrive at the instance bubble, I will be playing SP online in fact, even if not by intention. I want to those two scenarios to play out the same way in game, incidentally (instance of 1 in MP all = SP online in all but name, but with the potential for someone else to show up at some point). To cure this, you need a single shard approach.
To redesign ED so that it becomes a single shard is just such a fundamental redesign decision that it is almost unthinkable. But that's what's needed to genuinely make a one-world, one ruleset equal playing field for all.
I believe in what FD is trying to do, and will draw my conclusions as the development progresses. I applaud the OP and others for trying to persuade people to join in and make it a better more populated mode. But I object to the concept that it should be forced, as I just don't see any argument that stacks up to support it.
Very nicely put, as was the rest of the post. I'd just add that to many gamers (older ones maybe more so?) Elite IS that SP game from much of their childhood. So as that is the game i loved all these years i'm profoundly happy that FD and David didn't try to force me into a style of gaming i have never found interesting over recent years.
Let us celebrate this choice we have been given, rather than moan about it.
Exactly, very happy about the way it has been designed, I can well imagine a large part of my playing in SP, when I have longer to play I suspect that MP would be my choice. Just glad to have the choice and not be forced into one or the other. Equally I have no problem with the choices other people make...
G
Meritz, How do you expect the rules to differ?
I do not think they actually do.
The only thing that changes is that in solo online a player will not engage in contact with other humans. His universe will still get influenced by the actions of others and he in his own way might influence that same galaxy.
The rules will not change at all.
It is comparable to having different instances in very busy systems. Players in different instances will not meet each other, but they will still influence that system. So will the solo online player. Yes, he is in a solo instance. He will therefore not encounter other players, but the rules are all the same.
His solo-instance will not differ in difficulty, because he will still exist in that same dangerous elite universe. He will not meet human players, not be victimized by an occasional human pirate or griefer, but that is in fact just a very minor difference because, as David Braben acknowledged, the vast majority of interactions will be between npc and humans anyway.
I can't think of anything that I would miss.
I elaborated in detail on that a few pages back, but the crux of the issue lies in the ability of players to influence the overall simulation while at the same time sidestepping player interaction.
Of course, this depends on the exact degree players will be able to influence it - the higher the degree of player influence, the more obvious the flaw in allowing some players to influence the general simulation from their own separate instance.
To name a few possible situations:
Trading: Solo group traders gaining unfair advantage over All group traders, while being able to influence market prices via supply/demand. Dealing with NPCs AND players is much harder in certain places than just dealing with NPCs.
Faction conflicts: players dodging enemy faction players when busting NPC blockades or other types of conflict. If players are able to influence the outcome of local factional struggles, this presents a problem since the Solo/Private group players will be able to attack enemy faction NPCs without having to deal with players from the All group who might wish to prevent their faction getting punched in the face.
Piracy: obviously traders and others wishing to avoid pirates have an easy way to do this. Combine with the simple fact that *everyone* hauling valuable cargo wants to avoid pirates and it is easy to assume traders won't be taking many chances.
Bounty-hunting: same thing could be said for pirates wishing to avoid undue attention from pirate hunters. Though some info suggests people with bounties won't be able to hide so easily.
It 's a well reasoned argument, but it requires everyone to subscribe to the game being "fair" or "unfair". These are concepts that are only important in immediate, in instance, situations. If someone appears in a much more powerful ship than mine, and I have no way of knowing how they procured it and if they blow me to bits, how is it functionally different to me if they've ground in the solo group or are just better than me with more time? The end result is identical.
As for influencing the background sim, yes, solo players will, but so will thousands of players spread across a massive galaxy whom you may well never meet. Some players will have it easy through luck, some will have more time, and some will simply be more capable for a.whole raft of reasons.
I'll be playing in the all group, all the time. But this game is about choice. I can go iron man if I so choose, making the game more difficult. It's Elite. You do what you want within the rules of the universe and deal with the.consequences. Everyone else has that choice.
It might just be me, but provided I'm not completely alone in the all group, I don't care if other players have it easy. It's up to them.
It is not defeatist to understand and acknowledge reality.
Why play online games at all? Not sure what that has to do with anything and I don't see where there is a choice in many games. I occasionally play mechwarrior online because there is no other option except online play. I've played countless other online games where there was no other option. I find I generally do not like others intruding upon my relaxation time. I will have an option with Elite and I choose to exercise that option. Why is it important to you to take away that option?