Incentivizing Starting in Multiplayer

[Matthiby]

Did you read my post? I think I provided a pretty good answer: people will chose to join-in _if_ the online culture shapes-up to be fun to play, and not just a kill-fest.

I have read your post, Clifford, and as always it is very thoughtful and interesting; on the other hand, it seems to address solely why people should join MP, not why they should start. The question again is "why should I take the more difficult path at the start of the game without incentive?"

I accept that this line of thought is of course predicated on several things, such as whether it really is the more difficult path (I believe so, others like Krem think otherwise) and of course, more fundamentally, whether Frontier themselves really care how people start out. From my point of view, if it takes an equal amount of time to be seated in a decent boat, whether I'm a trader or a fighter or a bit of both, beginning in SO seems the only sensible option.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

Matthiby, a quick question.

What's your experience been to date in Standard Beta, with player-to-player - comms, for example?

 

[Clifford]

(old post)

 

[Nomadski]

The issue I as I see it with many threads like this, is we are being asked to discuss a design change, when we have yet to experience the full design itself.

I know its an often repeated statement, but its one which is still true - the game is yet to be feature complete, and until such time as it is there is little point in talking how it can be improved.

As for what the game is, vs what we were promised, as one person posted, think of it like this..



We were promised a 80k seater stadium for soccer, but I dont think this will fit that many, certainly not safely, and where the hell are the players going to play:

 

[Clifford]

(old post)

 

[SuperGhostMaster]

It's purely an issue to me because I think that as things stand, the vast majority of players will be funneled into a solely solo experience for the first days/weeks/months of their ED existence, simply because that is the so-called "easiest" path to gain a set-up they don't feel vulnerable in. This will lead to an absence of lower-end ships in the MP game.

I've said before if this how the game will be, I will have to take my lumps and accept it. I do genuinely feel it will be an issue that won't go away though, but other than this thread and its subsequent replies, I promise I won't bother the forum about my thoughts on it. I hope I haven't come across as anything as friendly and open-minded, as I am as genuinely passionate about Elite as I was when I was 8 years old.

I have to agree, considering the Sideweiner is about as tough as an unguarded doughnut and 1k is pennies.

The idea that a noob dropping into MP with no protection from PvP and no understanding that having your guns deployed means instant execution by docking stations would somehow have an equivalent time in MP vs. solo is a joke.

I died at least 10 times in under 30 min in MP basically from the issues listed above as well as other players ramming me when trying to dock (not sure if that was AI or not).

It's not a noob-friendly game by any means. Having the option of which ship you start with based on your potential gameplay style might help with this.

Honestly, I think starting everyone with the same ship is kind of silly. It kills diversity for a large part of the starting crowd.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

Honestly, I think starting everyone with the same ship is kind of silly. It kills diversity for a large part of the starting crowd.

It's been just seven days since the Standard Beta launch. I'm seeing players in every kind of ship. Anacondas, Lakons Type 9 and 6, Vipers, Cobras, Sideys, Haulers.

7 short days, and there's absolutely not a problem with diversity.

In fact, I was seeing that diversity emerge as a trend by Saturday morning.

 

[Spinel]

It's been just seven days since the Standard Beta launch. I'm seeing players in every kind of ship. Anacondas, Lakons Type 9 and 6, Vipers, Cobras, Sideys, Haulers.

7 short days, and there's absolutely not a problem with diversity.

In fact, I was seeing that diversity emerge as a trend by Saturday morning.

The AI doesn't count. Anyways, I think Frontier needs to figure out a new system, because all they're doing is splitting the community. I think they should be keeping everyone together, so the game feels more alive for everyone. It's never any fun to log into a lifeless multiplayer game.

 

[CoyoteNZ]

I hope mp doesn't become a big kill fest. For example I like to play gta online with a crew, but if you ever go into the open area, rather than just crew only, everybody is there trying to kill your sometimes you are lucky if you have time to either bank your money or switch to another instance where your crew is before somebody has killed you with anything from a fire engine to a chopper. Hoping this community is more friendly

 

[Daffan]

I doubt most will go to solo play, nor do I think the All group will be significantly more dangerous. Griefers will try, and then either learn their lesson, leave for other games or end up hellbanned.

PC vs PC piracy and warfare will happen, and it will be fun, if Frontier balance it right.

Why would they ban anyone for doing what is allowed in the game.

 

[forger]

different save games for each mode and problem solved

 

[Matthiby]

But I think playing online multiplayer should perhaps have its own reward. Invisible in game, but something like a 10-20% uplift on rewards for missions and bounties, etc....

Give people the choice and little incentive to pick the harder one.

The only problem with this is that it would cover everyone playing MP, and would still not encourage from starting in multi rather than SO. If we can modify it slightly, perhaps give new players in MP a 10-20% uplift till a certain amount of time played?

Matthiby, a quick question.

What's your experience been to date in Standard Beta, with player-to-player - comms, for example?

I can guess where this line of argument would head, towards SO and MP being "pretty much" equally unpopulated. I disagree with this too; I know a large number of players in ED are going to head off into the sunset exploring, but another sizeable percentage of people will clump around busy player hubs, including most likely the starting systems. You can see this phenomenon in SB already. You will be more likely to encounter other players than some people believe.

The issue I as I see it with many threads like this, is we are being asked to discuss a design change, when we have yet to experience the full design itself.

I know its an often repeated statement, but its one which is still true - the game is yet to be feature complete, and until such time as it is there is little point in talking how it can be improved.[/IMG]

Hamer raised the same point before, but I've not seen this issue discussed elsewhere and I think that everyone choosing Solo Online as the only sensible starting option creates all sorts of potential problems.

I hope mp doesn't become a big kill fest... Hoping this community is more friendly

Again, Coyote, I'm trying to steer the thread away from discussions about PvP, but it's a fact that this community is very friendly .

different save games for each mode and problem solved

That is one possible solution, but many people on here are very much against it. As SAB suggests, maybe it could be something as simple as giving new players a slight boost for a certain number of gameplay hours?

 

[Robert Maynard]

The AI doesn't count. Anyways, I think Frontier needs to figure out a new system, because all they're doing is splitting the community. I think they should be keeping everyone together, so the game feels more alive for everyone. It's never any fun to log into a lifeless multiplayer game.

I'm fairly sure that this viewpoint has been done to death - a mild application of forum search would turn them up.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why would they ban anyone for doing what is allowed in the game.

The possibility of doing something in-game is not the same as that same action being sanctioned or encouraged. The recent introduction of the "report player" button indicates that Frontier want players to report other players actions if necessary - whether Frontier act on such reports will be totally up to them.

 

[Viajero]

As others before him the OP is jumping to conclusions and solutions even before a problem has been shown to exist.

The only fact so far is that we have no evidence whatsoever that switchable Solo and All game modes is an issue.

The first thing the OP should do before jumping to conclusions or proposing solutions to non existent problems is to actually show that there is an issue and to measure the magnitude of said issue! It may very well be that there is no problem at all to start with, or that even if there is that its magnitude is of no practical impact to the game.

The OP seems to be assuming A) that in-game development rates are faster in Solo than in All game mode and B) that the number of players in Solo switching to All mode will be significant enough to have a sizable comparative impact in the game. Where is the data showing it?

So I, for one, would more than welcome a discussion about how to go about measuring the potential problem in the first place and what is the relevant data we would need for it, instead of jumping to conclusions with no factual base to back it up.

Until then the OP post, and other similar, are simply an anecdotal personal opinion at best and baseless especulation at worst.

 

[Matthiby]

As others before him the OP is jumping to conclusions and solutions even before a problem has been shown to exist.

The only fact so far is that we have no evidence whatsoever that switchable Solo and All game modes is an issue.

The first thing the OP should do before jumping to conclusions or proposing solutions to non existent problems is to actually show that there is an issue and to measure the magnitude of said issue! It may very well be that there is no problem at all to start with, or that even if there is that its magnitude is of no practical impact to the game.

So I, for one, would more than welcome a discussion about how to go about measuring the potential problem in the first place and what is the relevant data we would need for it, instead of jumping to conclusions with no factual base to back it up.

Until then the OP post, and other similar, are simply an anecdotal personal opinion and baseless especulation.

Hey Via,thanks for the post

I love the Elite games and am highly passionate about them, and if this is the way we go into the final game then I'm happy to put up with the very minor problems I have with some of the current design aspects.

I do however see a genuine issue of people being funneled into Solo Online to begin with because that'll be known as the "easier" path. Do you yourself see this as a potential problem with the current system?

 

[Viajero]

Hey Via,thanks for the post

I love the Elite games and am highly passionate about them, and if this is the way we go into the final game then I'm happy to put up with the very minor problems I have with some of the current design aspects.

I do however see a genuine issue of people being funneled into Solo Online to begin with because that'll be known as the "easier" path. Do you yourself see this as a potential problem with the current system?

The honest answer is that I dont know. And that I am more than happy to let FD to carry through their plan to see how it pans out. They are trying something different to the rest of the MMO industry, I say let them.

At the moment, I am very much afraid, all you are doing is throwing around personal opinions with no data to back them up.

It can be fun for a while to post back and forth about baseless personal opinions, but it gets repetitive fast... Until someone brings some data to the table.

If you think there is or the will be an issue, start discussing in detail how you would propose to measure the issue in the first place instead of stating a baseless opinion almost as fact, nevermind proposing any "solutions".

 

[jabokai]

The possibility of doing something in-game is not the same as that same action being sanctioned or encouraged. The recent introduction of the "report player" button indicates that Frontier want players to report other players actions if necessary - whether Frontier act on such reports will be totally up to them.

Interestingly, and thankfully IMHO, I noticed when I had a browse of the reasons for reporting a player that "griefing" was not present. The reasons (from memory) were things like abuse, spam, etc.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I do however see a genuine issue of people being funneled into Solo Online to begin with because that'll be known as the "easier" path. Do you yourself see this as a potential problem with the current system?

One person's "problem" is another person's "freedom of choice" - if the All Group is perceived to be harder (it need not be to be perceived to be) then players will select a play-mode/style that suits them.

 

[Matthiby]

At the moment all you are doing is throwing around personal opinions with no data to back them up.

It can be fun for a while to post back and forth about baseless personal opinions, but it gets very repetitive fast... Until someone brings some data to the table.

Yes, I agree. Only Frontier right now know the percentage of people not only playing each kind of game mode, but starting in each and I do trust them to get the balance right. It's not so much "baseless speculation", however, as a potential problem that I don't see as having been discussed elsewhere. I'm sorry if you find nothing of value in this debate, but as I said in a earlier post I'll confine my opinions on this to this thread.