PVP gankfest ? Im always online open never seen it ,but i dont goto anarchy sys and im trading ....
Whining!
- Thread starter Bruce Turnbull
- Start date
PVP gankfest ? Im always online open never seen it ,but i dont goto anarchy sys and im trading ....
People moaning about the beta not being complete enough to pretend its a full game is whats really getting on my nerves.
It just seems to have started at this stage. Did that happen last stage? I dont recall.
And as a by product of that its either moaning about it being a beta or people moaning about people moaning about it being a beta. So its effectively just a whole lot of moaning from all angles.
We are all just a bunch of moaners now
Unfortunately I wasn't here for previous releases as I only joined in last week. I do think there is a small number that are getting their knickers in a twist over the incompleteness of the game at the moment, but they either don't know or don't understand that at this stage the game is still unfinished and we're all basically working as testers. Its clear to me that there's still a long way to go.
Pretty much every MMORPG since WoW has flopped, and in no small part due to all the demands for them to be like WoW "or the game will fail!"
The result of that is a whole generation of games that have flopped and a whole genre of games stagnated to the point of becoming obsolete.
We're seeing the same thing here with so many, many threads about the same two or three issues, all of which boil down to "but, but EvE!"
One of those issues, that of "traders grinding in private groups" is actually undermining the beta efforts, because too many people are presuming that the reason they're not seeing other players is due to them grinding in private, when the real reason is that there are glaring problems with the matchmaking code.
Oh dear. No. Those games flopped because they copied WoW gameplay features and offered nothing new. Full online MMO games didn't flop because they followed the notion of being an MMO. If elite dangerous added an online only feature alongside the private/online integrated system it wouldn't be copying EvE online. That's absolutely ridiculous for you to even hint that. EvE didn't invent online gaming ***. I guess fanboys label everything people suggest as "you just want it like XXXX go play that game" because they don't like valid proposals even such as a feature that doesn't even impact their gameplay (an additional option).
You should probably familiarise yourself with the forums a bit. You'll see that most of the things that need to be "fixed" need to "fixed" to make ED more like EvE. It's almost as if there's a concerted effort to display such a staggering lack of imagination.
For the record, I'll be playing in the open play mode and won't be switching. I don't care if other people do switch, and if it encourages people to dip into it then that's all to the good. Creating a separate, cut off multiplayer mode will split the playerbase far more than the group switching thing.
And it won't achieve much anyway. It certainly won't stop groups of players instance-stacking and effectively creating their own private group within your locked open mode.
The bottom line for me is that I want to see how ED's design works out. It's a rare thing that a game comes out that's looking to innovate everything away from the tired formulas that multiplayer gaming has stagnated into. And if it doesn't work out over time then it can be changed.
But this is beta. It's for ironing out the bugs that are stopping things working as they should.
God knows. Not from the game I've been playing for the past couple of months, that's for sure.
In general, I don't generalize, but doesn't it have something to do with:
Kickstart backers -> biggest fans of elite -> most tolerant audience.
Alpha backers -> very big fans of elite -> very tolerant audience.
Premium Beta backers -> big fans of elite -> tolerant audience.
Beta backers -> fans of elite -> less tolerant audience.
Regular customers -> ehm -> brace yourselves...
be gentle
Kickstart backers -> biggest fans of elite -> most tolerant audience.
Alpha backers -> very big fans of elite -> very tolerant audience.
Premium Beta backers -> big fans of elite -> tolerant audience.
Beta backers -> fans of elite -> less tolerant audience.
Regular customers -> ehm -> brace yourselves...
be gentle
Well, this is true at least. In any case, any developer worth their salt has metric tools active and scrapes the game for hard data. To MMO players it may be obvious why having opt-out open world PvP sandbox is a bad idea, to others it may not be, but I count of FD actually looking at numbers and steering their design decisions according to those first and foremost.
Nobody wants to see their flagship product fail.
Though... when I talked about how SWTOR will end up sterile and static due to lack of immersion features such as night/day cycles and how story cannot be the main driving factor in an consistent online world, I was shouted down much like here... yeah, we know how brilliantly that turned out. Sometimes devs themselves just don't get it.
So whining can be a good thing too. When it's married to actual data. Balances itself out.
If they can create their own private group in locked multiplayer then I am not arguing. But having the solo integration just doesn't seem to make sense to me. Having the ability to just do everything without player interaction does make everything a lot more risk free unless they make NPCs harder and compensate for the lack of players with more NPC pirates to make the environment between online and offline more 1:1 in terms of risk and amount of ships that would be flying around. Otherwise I feel that traders will do their trading offline, pirates wont get to do much pirating which then causes bounty hunters to not do much player bounty hunting and at the end of the day it should be players with the highest bounty on their heads not NPCs.
I don't want elite to be anything like EvE online and want them to do things their own way in terms of gameplay but in terms of online connectivity I just can't see what they're doing as an improvement to MMOs or as a benefit to the game at all.
Just look at star citizen. They're not advertising solo/online integration and they're drowning in money and backers.
You also said "Creating a separate, cut off multiplayer mode will split the playerbase far more than the group switching thing." The thing is allowing a cut off multiplayer mode would split the player base, yes, but it would compensate for it in the amount of addition players buying this game which would level the population out to what it would be without a cut off multiplayer mode. Appealing to a larger market has its rewards. Can't think so narrow minded which most people who are against online only mode think like.
I for one am playing the game currently because I bought it for £50 without knowing that they had this bizarre online system. If I knew this and made the amount of research into this game as I should have (I usually don't have to research how the connectivity in MMO games work because none go with such weird systems) I wouldn't have forked out £50 to back it as the game stopped appealing to me. I'll play it for now with hopes on the horizon and to get the most out of this £50 but if released without this option I wont be playing and being an avid MMO player I don't doubt that a lot of the MMO market think the same as me. Also this game could have stolen a lot of players from EVE but I wouldn't argue that they're not against the current system either.
Last edited:
Yes, that's the way it should be. I would expect more NPC's when you switch to solo or private groups. Right now as of Beta 1 we're lacking any form of piracy from PC's because its not in and the NPC pirates lack the means to slow people down.
Multiplayer simply does not mean MMO, Elite was never billed as an MMO and is not thankfully following that philosophy, it is trying to make a game David Braben and Frontier want to play. Want to join in on this adventure?
We could go on what drives SC, but I am under the impression the system not be so dissimilar:
"The key to all this is to allow player choice – you want to play alone you can, want your friends to join you in co-op we allow that and if you want to be challenged by other real players you can do that. The special part is that it can all happen in the same holistic universe." Chris Roberts:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/12770-Chris-Roberts-On-Multiplayer-Single-Player-And-Instancing
Firstly, no need to call people "narrow minded". You're making an assumption that you represent a great wave of people ready to pick up where this left off. What great wave of people? Sorry to go back to the Kickstarter, but it was pitched in a certain way to see there was a market for the type of game they're making.
I am getting the impression it seems bizarre because its new, which of course to the industry it is. We're seeing the beginnings of Selective Mulitplayer as Portalarium have coined it, uncannily similar.
So, this is a new thing, why not wait and see how this turns out before ditching it? We're not at that stage yet, but its not ever going to be an MMO.
Last edited:
This is the worst post ive read all week…
According to you, this is not a space sim, and not an open world and not about exploration, according to you its a first person shooter modern warfare game….Are you seriously ill or did you play some other game then the rest of us?
If this is your interpretation of the game, then im glad your not staying to be a part of it, sad to see you spread you lied across other communities though.
Edit:
Just read your other posts, I like how you are complaining about PvP, based solely one one single experience where you got killed by NPCs…
You bought the game, and gave it half a chance, 2 hours is not nearly enough to experience even the beta, and then you decided it sucks and your gonna be the main spokesperson about it…Thats great, good job!
Last edited:
I don't understand why people like you are soo against MMOs. "Is not thankfully following that philosophy". Why? Do you not see how it will affect pirating and bounty hunting. Who knows what it will effect in the future. All of this seems to be in favour of the solo trader or the solo grinder. Without the option to commit piracy against these players there will be no reason to pirate unless against NPCs and that's just boring and then leading on to bounty hunters who will end up just hunting NPCs (like I said it should really be players with the highest bounty). All this will be affected for what I currently see as a safe way to trade for the selfish bunch of traders who don't want a change of system.
Also who the heck is "Portalarium". I hope his opinions don't change how online gaming works because it looks like it's going backwards as off elite dangerous.
Everyone knows that stumbling across another player, collecting a bounty from another player and being in an online version of the universe with other players is a lot more enjoyable than an solo version of the exact same universe. Having the risk is fun, having player interaction is fun. It's just on a completely different level to NPC interaction. The two don't compete. Player interaction blows NPC interaction out of the park.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh I have MMO's, just a little burned out on them and I think they've done much damage to PC gaming in terms of depth and capability of the hardware, even moreso on the brainless themepark ones like Neverwinter which I can complete in my sleep. Sure, you can set difficulty, they are lacking that extra depth. Click here, go here, oh and now go here. Oh look an event, it repeats every hour...Snooze....
I am too lazy to bother digging up the remarks from the devs, but we'll be seeing NPC's better armed and dangerous soon enough, plus again, the size of the galaxy and core systems may have a bigger impact than this solo/online thing ever. 155,000 star systems in the core, out of a galaxy of 4 billion. The Core systems will continue to grow and expand, so that alone provides plenty of places to hide. I don't see a solo grinder having an advantage over someone grouped up, they will lack the experience with dealing an unpredictable PC.
I rather hoped, in vain, that you'd dig deeper and do some research based on that link. Portalarium is the company which Richard Garriott is heading whilst they make Shroud of the Avatar. You may have heard of Richard Garriott, aka Lord British who made UO back in the day. I don't think we can argue that he doesn't have the data nor the experience with these games.
That's the rub, not 'everyone' will agree with you that its more enjoyable, some people like it some of the time, others not at all whilst more are timid in appearing in the 'all/all'. Just like life, things aren't always clear cut.
It seems as though you may have bought into the game thinking its a twitch based Eve clone? They are doing they're own thing here, sure you can learn from other games which fit into the design philosophy, but less so on others which simply do not.
Last edited by a moderator:
No matter what they do, someone will not like it. Its unfortunately the "Nature of the Beast", but people should be allowed to express themselves, even if the original posting ends up being worthless sometimes the subsequent debates can be worthwhile.
I know, and of course people CAN express themselves (within forum rules) as we see all the time. I would like people to think about their posts. Try giving some constructive criticism rather than just slag off the game as a whole or something that WILL not change. Of course there will be little nuggets that come from debates but more will be lost or ignored because they are lost inside stupid and mindless ranting threads.
There are now thousands of us playing and contributing and I bet not one person has the same view on everything in the game.
Firstly. Being an MMO doesn't have anything to do with how bad neverwinter was. MMOs aren't just themepark games. Take a look at the sandbox games out there that are pretty decent such as Archeage. This game having the option to be multiplayer only will have 0 impact on the design of the game and won't suddenly change the coding and morph it into neverwinter.
So buying a game that's in space thinking it's completely online means it's a twitch based eve clone? I don't think so. Bad judgement. It's like saying buying a game that's on ground that's completely online is a WoW clone. Many more aspects define a game than the environment it's based in and the online connectivity... just in case you didn't know that. Other than that EvE and Elite are almost completely different in their gameplay design other than some standards you'd expect from a space sim that people who have never even heard of eve would expect.
Tox Laximus
Banned
If you don't moan, nothing gets fixed.
I think a lot of people aren't so much against MMOs as just jaded by them. They haven't really changed much since the late 90s and have gone backwards in a lot of ways. Hype, on the other hand, has come on immensely.
Regarding your worries about lack of PvP action, general "in the wild" piracy and bounty hunting is likely to be mainly against NPCs simply because players will be scattered across so much space. So I totally get where you're coming from, on both the hunting NPCs thing and the group switching reducing targets.
But it won't all be "in the wild" stuff. In the Design Discussion Archive (which I'd recommend you and everyone else read), there's an lot about how missions, mission-giving NPCs and events work and how they're generated. Unlike the missions we've got now which are just randomly thrown together placeholders (culled from Frontier:Elite II by the look of it), the final iteration of the missions system will generate missions dynamically based on things that are going on in the system and region, and on the goals of the various tier NPCs.
FD have always said they want to bring players together in the game, and the missions and events will help to do that. There'll be missions that send players directly at other players to prevent them from completing their missions. There'll be large scale events that bring conflicting player interests to the fore and focus them on one or more key star systems.
It's easy for us older backers to forget that newcomers aren't as familiar with this stuff as we are, and it's always far too easy to get defensive on internet forums. It's also hard to point you guys to this stuff because some of it's in the DDA, and some was said in interviews on in dev diaries.
So much of the outrage is based on the beta experience and comparing to previous games, but this is an actual beta of a game in development, rather than one of the modern MMO betas which is just part of the marketing strategy. And comparing the beta to other games is pointless too because the end product isn't going to be like other games. It's actually moving things forward as they should've been for the last decade or so.
ED will be a sandbox, but it will also have a dynamic, reactive theme park element too that's driven by player actions via the background simulation. Unlike EvE's dead gameworld which only comes alive because of what players do, ED's has it's own life that interacts with players and changes based on what they do.
I know this sounds unlikely to anyone who's been absorbed by the games of recent years, but it's really nothing new. The theory and concepts have been around since the late 80s/early 90s. Think of it as the love child of Civ's AI and L4Ds AI Director on a galactic scale.
Now think of the possibilities. This is why a few thousand of us stumped up £2,000,000 to get this thing made.