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

[Meritz]

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?

If I may barge in with a poorly constructed analogy, imagine we all got together for a game of soccer and you decided you're going to be playing by yourself, with your own ball, on the same field. You won't touch anyone and no one is allowed to interfere with you, except that you can score goals for whatever team you choose.

That's why.

But as I said, I might be wrong, maybe players will have such negligible impact on the overall simulation I'm fretting about nothing.

 

[Storagebod]

But as I said, I might be wrong, maybe players will have such negligible impact on the overall simulation I'm fretting about nothing.

I think you are....they'll have as much impact as any individual...no more, no less...I don't think any one individual will have a huge amount of impact.

Just stop thinking of the game as a competition....I know lots of people like competition and think of everything as a competition; it isn't or doesn't have to be. Concentrate on being the best you that you can be...

It'll be fine...

 

[Zak Gordon]

If I may barge in with a poorly constructed analogy, imagine we all got together for a game of soccer and you decided you're going to be playing by yourself, with your own ball, on the same field. You won't touch anyone and no one is allowed to interfere with you, except that you can score goals for whatever team you choose.

That's why.

But as I said, I might be wrong, maybe players will have such negligible impact on the overall simulation I'm fretting about nothing.

The instances will be slightly different to that though, in that you only ever actually exist in one instance at a time, so for all intent and purpose you will not exist to players not in the same instance.

How much players can influence the overall 'online' background situation of Elite will be very important in all this, and i hope ED err on the side of caution.

Having players make a quick impact on that (background simulation!) might look cool initially, seeing the quick result will create interest etc, but over the longer term i hope they set this bar very high, and players actions will require time and patience (time invested in the game) to percolate out into the wider .

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Why is it important to you to take away that option?

Errr, if you read my OP and other posts no where I say anyone should take away that option. I just challenge your world view regarding MP games, and even then it is for discussion sake, nothing more, nothing less

 

[Meritz]

I think you are....they'll have as much impact as any individual...no more, no less...I don't think any one individual will have a huge amount of impact.

Just stop thinking of the game as a competition....I know lots of people like competition and think of everything as a competition; it isn't or doesn't have to be. Concentrate on being the best you that you can be...

It'll be fine...

You sound like a life coach.

The thing is, if players will have as much impact as any individual, that is to say pretty much none, then the simulation won't be responsive to player action, something devs clearly stated won't be the case.

In fact players, from what I gather, are going to have a pivotal role in the simulation. One of the examples I seem to recall is the NPC factions following player exploration into new space.

The only question remains how much effort/time is going to be required to effect changes in the simulation, as Zak mentioned. I expect this to be set pretty high, otherwise it would be a chaotic universe. On the other hand, it cannot be set too high, because then it would become a stagnant one, which is just as bad.

This time/effort will directly impact whether solo/private group players can get indirectly disruptive to the all group or not.

 

[Adept]

The only question remains how much effort/time is going to be required to effect changes in the simulation, as Zak mentioned. I expect this to be set pretty high, otherwise it would be a chaotic universe. On the other hand, it cannot be set too high, because then it would become a stagnant one, which is just as bad.

This time/effort will directly impact whether solo/private group players can get indirectly disruptive to the all group or not.

It doesn't matter. There is no chance that Frontier would go back on their world and not have full PU play in limited groups or solo online.

The healthy thing is to not obsess about how others are playing a game about freedom, and think what you want to do with yours. If what you want to do involves taking away their choices or messing with them against their will, I'm afraid your ideas about freedom need adjusting.

 

[Meritz]

It doesn't matter. There is no chance that Frontier would go back on their world and not have full PU play in limited groups or solo online.

The healthy thing is to not obsess about how others are playing a game about freedom, and think what you want to do with yours. If what you want to do involves taking away their choices or messing with them against their will, I'm afraid your ideas about freedom need adjusting.

Seems I am having difficulties explaining to people that "messing with them against their will" does not necessarily involve shooting their ships. If you change prices in a system and cause me to lose money on a trade run or have to divert and waste more fuel, you're messing with me. If you cause the Empire to lose its grip on a system and it gets occupied by the Federation, which hates me and wants to see me de-atomized, you're messing with me.

Which is fine, since it's a multiplayer game. But then I'd like to mess with you.

And there is a difference between obsessing over a game and posting on a forum because I'm bored and too lazy to do proper work.

 

[Adept]

Seems I am having difficulties explaining to people that "messing with them against their will" does not necessarily involve shooting their ships. If you change prices in a system and cause me to lose money on a trade run or have to divert and waste more fuel, you're messing with me. If you cause the Empire to lose its grip on a system and it gets occupied by the Federation, which hates me and wants to see me de-atomized, you're messing with me.

Which is fine, since it's a multiplayer game. But then I'd like to mess with you.

And there is a difference between obsessing over a game and posting on a forum because I'm bored and too lazy to do proper work.

No. Read what you wrote. You are absolutely free to "mess with them" on the exact same level. What you aren't allowed to do is escalate it to attacking their ship. The lack of the option to get from indirect competition to outright violence seems to bug you. You are perfectly capable of competing with them on the same arena you just complained about.

Try again metagamer, I can stay here and clarify this for you all afternoon

 

[Meritz]

No. Read what you wrote. You are absolutely free to "mess with them" on the exact same level. What you aren't allowed to do is escalate it to attacking their ship. The lack of the option to get from indirect competition to outright violence seems to bug you. You are perfectly capable of competing with them on the same arena you just complained about.

*sigh* No... it's the same arena, but different rules, that's my entire argument. They have it easier. I have it harder. While they can take on just NPCs I have to take on NPCs and players too.

Do you understand now?

Bah, I feel like I'm talking to a wall. I'll just treat it as a single player difficulty setting. I like to play on "Hard" anyway.

 

[Adept]

*sigh* No... it's the same arena, but different rules, that's my entire argument. They have it easier. I have it harder. While they can take on just NPCs I have to take on NPCs and players too.

Do you understand now?

Bah, I feel like I'm talking to a wall. I'll just treat it as a single player difficulty setting. I like to play on "Hard" anyway.

No. You are assuming it is harder in the All group, and that you are in direct competition with these people. In the All group you also have _allies_ which you in fact referred to. That is quite likely the easier way to play.

If you like to play on hard, why are you complaining so much about thinking that others could possibly have an easier time?

It doesn't ring true. I think you are complaining about not getting to shoot at anybody you wish at will. Well tough. If they want to play without being exposed to your play style, that is their right and their choice. Freedom, remember.

 

[blulark]

No. You are assuming it is harder in the All group, and that you are in direct competition with these people. In the All group you also have _allies_ which you in fact referred to. That is quite likely the easier way to play.

If you like to play on hard, why are you complaining so much about thinking that others could possibly have an easier time?

It doesn't ring true. I think you are complaining about not getting to shoot at anybody you wish at will. Well tough. If they want to play without being exposed to your play style, that is their right and their choice. Freedom, remember.

You're right in that people should have the freedom of choice and having the option to solo it or do it co-op is right, though having limited interaction between them is important. Even in the likelyhood of being ganked, trolled, robbed, scammed or kidnapped you wouldn't find it any bit harder than a NPC that would gank, troll, rob, scam or kidnap... my point being it is considerably harder in multiplayer where players are far more unpredictable than a random AI. It is good that players have the option to not be in multiplayer but that doesn't stop multiplayer being harder than single player... unless single player have AIs that are harder to deal with than AIs in multiplayer. Also I think it really doesn't matter if single player interacts with multiplayer. So long as there's no loading back to a previous gamestate, currently everything around the player moves on but the player logs back into previous station, which means single player interaction with multiplayer side is still fine.

 

[Meritz]

No. You are assuming it is harder in the All group, and that you are in direct competition with these people. In the All group you also have _allies_ which you in fact referred to. That is quite likely the easier way to play.

In private group you have allies too.

And my primary interest is trade/exploration. I'm not very pro at shooting.

 

[Iskariot]

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.

I see your point.
But players are not in direct competition. It does not matter when player A earns his first million without engaging with humans while player B does the same while having to fight/evade a few human pirates. This might be a little bit harder for B, but so what... that is what he wants... is it not?
Neither of them will win the game as there is no game to win.
Both play the game they want.

Would it be a solution if players in the all group would climb a little bit faster through the ranks? Or get some special distinction?

And is there not also a remarkable difference between those who got a 50% reduction in insurance cost and can start the game in an Eagle or even a Cobra and those who do not get these privileges? Might this not be a far greater advantage from a competitive viewpoint?

 

[Iskariot]

*sigh* No... it's the same arena, but different rules, that's my entire argument. They have it easier. I have it harder. While they can take on just NPCs I have to take on NPCs and players too.

Do you understand now?

But are you then not also the one who can band up with a group of friends to compete with that same solo player?
And would that not be an advantage?

This is all hypothetical of course because you would not really know who you are competing with. And one might doubt if there is really competition going on at all.

I must admit for me personally this is too much meta-think .
I don't care at all about influencing the galaxy on a larger scale. If governments fall, they fall and then I will seek new opportunities. If my goods are no longer wanted in one system I will find a market elsewhere.
They will always need the services of a skilled independent contractor.

 

[noodle]

Shed your fear of player pirate or just a killer...if not police, then we will get them together. Shed your fear of losing your cargo

I wish people would stop misrepresenting "dislike" as "fear". I want to play the game to get away from other human beings, and to immerse myself in a world where there are no concerns or motivations intruding from outside the game.

You want something different, and that's absolutely fine, but that doesn't mean that I'm "scared" because I'm not on the same page as you

 

[Joe Spivey]

I wish people would stop misrepresenting "dislike" as "fear". I want to play the game to get away from other human beings, and to immerse myself in a world where there are no concerns or motivations intruding from outside the game.

You want something different, and that's absolutely fine, but that doesn't mean that I'm "scared" because I'm not on the same page as you

This x a gazillion. Not that I'm saying that the poster who prompted the above comment is one of them but the vast majority of the dedicated PvP crowd just can't seem to grasp that there may be people who don't want to play their Elite. So they make up all sorts of reasons why they think we are 'against' it. We aren't against it guys, it's just not our Elite.

... oh and before the 'but you might like it if you try it' post is even made. I do PvP. I play ww2online which is pure PvP and I sometimes PvP in other games like Fallen Earth and I will be PvPing in The Repopulation when it comes out. But Elite, not if I can avoid it.

 

[Meritz]

I see your point.
But players are not in direct competition. It does not matter when player A earns his first million without engaging with humans while player B does the same while having to fight/evade a few human pirates. This might be a little bit harder for B, but so what... that is what he wants... is it not?
Neither of them will win the game as there is no game to win.
Both play the game they want.

Well, that again depends. As I mentioned earlier, it might be possible to mess up someone's trade run, faction battle or whatnot, making them waste time and virtual money. I'm just saying it would be nice if that was the result of players playing on an equal footing as far as the game rules are concerned.

Would it be a solution if players in the all group would climb a little bit faster through the ranks? Or get some special distinction?

Possibly. I think FD will have to come up with something smart or else there will eventually be a dozen diehard traders in the All group in the entire galaxy and everyone else will just ply their wares in the private/solo. It'll turn the "All" group into a "Pew Pew" group, and that would be a shame. I'd like to see a fellow hauler from time to time, not just bored pirates trying to kill me.

And is there not also a remarkable difference between those who got a 50% reduction in insurance cost and can start the game in an Eagle or even a Cobra and those who do not get these privileges? Might this not be a far greater advantage from a competitive viewpoint?

That's a small percentage of players I think. Otherwise the forums would be up to the neck in "pay to win" complaints.

 

[Joe Spivey]

Well, that again depends. As I mentioned earlier, it might be possible to mess up someone's trade run, faction battle or whatnot, making them waste time and virtual money. I'm just saying it would be nice if that was the result of players playing on an equal footing as far as the game rules are concerned.

Please then address the similar problem of players who can sit and play the game all day against those who can only play for an hour or two.

 

[Meritz]

Please then address the similar problem of players who can sit and play the game all day against those who can only play for an hour or two.

They play by the same rules. They put in more time, get more out of it. I see no problem.

 

[Joe Spivey]

They play by the same rules. They put in more time, get more out of it. I see no problem.

Exactly, they play by the same rules. Players who jump in and out of the game also play by the same rules as everyone else. So why do you seem to have a problem with that? If you think they are gaining some kind of advantage then by the same rules you can do exactly the same.

I'm sorry. All you are doing is indulging in a logical fallacy called special pleading. You have provided that; by a player jumping from one online mode to another she gains an unfair advantage. However, when presented with another situation where I suggested that by player 'A' having more time to play than player 'B', player 'A' would also have an unfair advantage you dismissed this. In both situations all players are playing by the same rules therefore your logic is inconsistent. You have yet to adequately justify why YOUR case is special while mine is not. Until you can do this your argument is simply not valid.