My Main Concern with ED

[Zenicetus]

Straying away from the pirating traders PvP aspect, imagine a scenario where PvP was disabled or even a duel mechanic and your aligned with federation or empire.

You see on the galaxy map a player is scanning a system for the exploration part of the career, i, being a pirate or aligned with the opposite faction, go to investigate. I see you scanning and i want to shoot you down so you cant get back with the data but when i try to i have to invite you to duel - in which that player will probably decline - or pvp is disabled completely. Rendering that player safe to scan the whole system without risk.

It just doesnt work without PvP being enabled.

Sure it does.

Quoted from the newsletter:

Here comes the crime bit: to claim the reward from a scanned planet or moon, players will need to return their data to a Federation or Imperial planet with a data claim registration facility. This mean competing explorers can attack each other to be first back with their information, and even lets pirates attempt to steal the data from an exploration ship.

You have just just turned this into a race that only allows players who are scanning to take part and pirates are rendered useless.

Surely you can see the benefits of PvP?

Nope. Pirates aren't rendered useless at all. It just means that a player choosing to be in Solo Online or Private Group Online will be attacked by NPC pirates trying to steal the data instead of another player. The game allows the freedom to choose that way of risking data delivery as they head back to the more civilized areas.

Take a step back, and consider that this is just re-hashing the argument about why a trader should ever choose to be in All Online when Solo Online is "safer." Some will, some won't. Their choice, not anyone else's to make in this game.

Thinking about it, this actually is one scenario that does encourage shifting to All Online. There will be no NPC's scanning new systems as competing explorers, only other players. If you're in Solo Online or Private Group, you can't know if another player is scanning the same system you are. That provides an incentive to be in All Online even if it means some risk. You'll know if you're wasting your time because someone got there first, or if you want to risk a bounty attacking that other player so you have the system to yourself. But it's a choice, and you can still choose Solo Online and maybe waste your time.

Just remember, that other player won't be in a Viper, because they're not going to have explorer range. The outer frontier will have differently-optimized ships.

 

[Adept]

I never said I want to eliminate PvP from the game. I play a ton of PvP games, and it has it's place. The example you give is an excellent one, and quite welcome (though I would think exploration is the least violent path, in general).

My beef is with station campers, newb gankers and people wanting to just PK people to fill their tear jar and feel like they pwn. Senseless PvP with no in-game reason will hopefully be kept to a minimum.

An unladen hauler, or an empty starter-sidey pilot shouldn't fear being randomly ganked just because anoother player finds it funny. PvP action that makes sense in the universe and the situation? Bring it

Straying away from the pirating traders PvP aspect, imagine a scenario where PvP was disabled or even a duel mechanic and your aligned with federation or empire.

You see on the galaxy map a player is scanning a system for the exploration part of the career, i, being a pirate or aligned with the opposite faction, go to investigate. I see you scanning and i want to shoot you down so you cant get back with the data but when i try to i have to invite you to duel - in which that player will probably decline - or pvp is disabled completely. Rendering that player safe to scan the whole system without risk.

It just doesnt work without PvP being enabled.

Quoted from the newsletter:

Here comes the crime bit: to claim the reward from a scanned planet or moon, players will need to return their data to a Federation or Imperial planet with a data claim registration facility. This mean competing explorers can attack each other to be first back with their information, and even lets pirates attempt to steal the data from an exploration ship.

You have just just turned this into a race that only allows players who are scanning to take part and pirates are rendered useless.

Surely you can see the benefits of PvP?

 

[Studders86]

I never said I want to eliminate PvP from the game. I play a ton of PvP games, and it has it's place. The example you give is an excellent one, and quite welcome (though I would think exploration is the least violent path, in general).

My beef is with station campers, newb gankers and people wanting to just PK people to fill their tear jar and feel like they pwn. Senseless PvP with no in-game reason will hopefully be kept to a minimum.

An unladen hauler, or an empty starter-sidey pilot shouldn't fear being randomly ganked just because anoother player finds it funny. PvP action that makes sense in the universe and the situation? Bring it

I totally agree with your point about station camping and senseless pvp to the point its griefing. Harassing players is not what i agree with and i apologise if thats what i seem to be encouraging because its not.

I would just hate if pvp became limited because of this. I like the freedom that a player could kill me for no reason as long as that player received a bounty.

Balancing this out is a tricky task. I see both sides of the argument but i dont want the freedom of killing another player to be taken away because of this.

Sure it does.



Nope. Pirates aren't rendered useless at all. It just means that a player choosing to be in Solo Online or Private Group Online will be attacked by NPC pirates trying to steal the data instead of another player. The game allows the freedom to choose that way of risking data delivery as they head back to the more civilized areas.

Take a step back, and consider that this is just re-hashing the argument about why a trader should ever choose to be in All Online when Solo Online is "safer." Some will, some won't. Their choice, not anyone else's to make in this game.

Thinking about it, this actually is one scenario that does encourage shifting to All Online. There will be no NPC's scanning new systems as competing explorers, only other players. If you're in Solo Online or Private Group, you can't know if another player is scanning the same system you are. That provides an incentive to be in All Online even if it means some risk. You'll know if you're wasting your time because someone got there first, or if you want to risk a bounty attacking that other player so you have the system to yourself. But it's a choice, and you can still choose Solo Online and maybe waste your time.

Just remember, that other player won't be in a Viper, because they're not going to have explorer range. The outer frontier will have differently-optimized ships.

Its getting late here and making sense of this is a task to me at the minute lol! The point I am just trying to make is that i think its an unfair advantage that if players can conduct their business in relative safety of Solo online and then switch to All online to claim the rewards.

I love the choices in this game and having a mode that isnt online is a great option for the players that want it. I just think its an unfair advantage if this has an effect on the online universe. Especially when it comes to something that can have a permanent effect (a system being scanned and named in Solo when the players in online have no say in the matter).

 

[CaptainKremmen]

Open online will end up in a 100% hunter population, I'm afraid.

I can guarantee your prediction will be incorrect.

Here's how...

All I have to do is continue to play like I play... ie. Open Online, and not a "hunter"... and your 100% goes out the window.

 

[DeleteD]

I've played many space sims in the past, starting with original Wing Commander, and have really enjoyed them. Since there hasn't been much (if anything) since the StarLancer, Freelancer, Privateer series (maybe Dark Star), I've been playing other types of games.

What concerns me is the MMO aspect of the game, since I've heard a lot of negative things about Eve: mainly obnoxious players and bad habits (griefing, rudeness, etc.). I can see, unless I'm missing something, the potential for the same kind of thing in ED. I generally stay away from MMO's, (though I did play the Guildwars games), because of this.

Again, this is just based on what I've heard/read about Eve, not from first hand experience. There seems to be an aspect where some people spend tons of time playing that game, getting very advanced, then going after newer players just for the "fun" of it.

Do you think this concern is relevant to ED? I really want to go for it, but don't want to be frustrated by that kind of behavior from others.

Thanks for any feedback on this.

well dude, the way they are making the government system. I highly doubt that grievers will get far. the game would stop them. did you learn about the event system. everything has a cause and effect.

 

[King Hrothgar]

This is almost signature worthy. You just shot all your previous arguments through their knees.

I skewered someone's arguments, but not my own. I'm arguing for a risk vs reward balance. Those I'm arguing against are opposed to a balanced system.

Why they are against a balance between play modes is something I do not know. Perhaps they want the game to flop. Perhaps they want the game to ultimately be SP only. I think the most likely culprit is that they are simply naive and don't understand how MP games work.

 

[CATPAIN KIRK]

I never said I want to eliminate PvP from the game. I play a ton of PvP games, and it has it's place. The example you give is an excellent one, and quite welcome (though I would think exploration is the least violent path, in general).

My beef is with station campers, newb gankers and people wanting to just PK people to fill their tear jar and feel like they pwn. Senseless PvP with no in-game reason will hopefully be kept to a minimum.

An unladen hauler, or an empty starter-sidey pilot shouldn't fear being randomly ganked just because anoother player finds it funny. PvP action that makes sense in the universe and the situation? Bring it

I like you - you're cute

 

[Renideo]

Assuming bounties will be a lot higher for actually killing a player, while mere smuggling of illegal goods will become slightly less kill-on-sighty, and stations will in effect actively police their own zones, and proper policing where applicable . . I think it'll mostly be fine.

The game has so many inbuilt solutions by way of simply going somewhere else in the inky vastness of space, employing the ignore list or even bringing along friends. It's hard to see pvp as becoming a serious problem, which is good as if true it really reduces the incentives for the playerbase to duck into solo etc.

Currently I don't expect to ever play in anything but the all group.

 

[W0OCQCK]

I never said I want to eliminate PvP from the game. I play a ton of PvP games, and it has it's place. The example you give is an excellent one, and quite welcome (though I would think exploration is the least violent path, in general).

My beef is with station campers, newb gankers and people wanting to just PK people to fill their tear jar and feel like they pwn. Senseless PvP with no in-game reason will hopefully be kept to a minimum.

An unladen hauler, or an empty starter-sidey pilot shouldn't fear being randomly ganked just because anoother player finds it funny. PvP action that makes sense in the universe and the situation? Bring it

Sounds like this guy gets it. +1

 

[Zvanya]

The point I am just trying to make is that i think its an unfair advantage that if players can conduct their business in relative safety of Solo online and then switch to All online to claim the rewards.

What advantage do you think will be gained? What rewards are available in all online that are unavailable in solo online?

When I played EvE it was common practice for new players to start in the relative safety of high sec, conduct business, then move to 0.0. People went back and forth between 0.0 and empire all the time. I don't remember anyone saying it was unfair, or that you should play either high sec Empire or low sec/0.0, but not both. How is this fundamentally different from the scenario you described above?

In fact I think that the safety of solo vs all will be very minor compared to the safety of high sec vs low sec/0.0. It will be just as easy to make money in all as in solo, and this will be obvious later when more planned features are enabled, especially the rest of the galaxy. The points you raise about exploration are more interesting. I haven't thought of that aspect.

 

[Zvanya]

I skewered someone's arguments, but not my own. I'm arguing for a risk vs reward balance. Those I'm arguing against are opposed to a balanced system.

Perhaps they want the game to ultimately be SP only. I think the most likely culprit is that they are simply naive and don't understand how MP games work.

Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Studders86]

What advantage do you think will be gained? What rewards are available in all online that are unavailable in solo online?

When I played EvE it was common practice for new players to start in the relative safety of high sec, conduct business, then move to 0.0. People went back and forth between 0.0 and empire all the time. I don't remember anyone saying it was unfair, or that you should play either high sec Empire or low sec/0.0, but not both. How is this fundamentally different from the scenario you described above?

In fact I think that the safety of solo vs all will be very minor compared to the safety of high sec vs low sec/0.0. It will be just as easy to make money in all as in solo, and this will be obvious later when more planned features are enabled, especially the rest of the galaxy. The points you raise about exploration are more interesting. I haven't thought of that aspect.

The advantage is that players who play in solo are eliminating the risk of being attacked by PC's. Once the game has been out a while, NPC's behaviours may become predictable and therefore makes you judge situations better. Im not saying it will be easy and that NPC's might be immensely hard, im just saying theres more unpredictability with players being involved.

I have played eve and that system is great, and it works pretty well! I think thats the way this could be balanced out in Elite, if there were a few starter systems in which players began and then as you went out to ex[plore and got further it would become more hostile and PvP enables.

I could see that working.

 

[Adept]

Dunning-Kruger effect.

nice one sir.

Spoiler

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

[Vasious]

Open online will end up in a 100% hunter population, I'm afraid.

The game population isn't polarised into those who Like PVP and only PVP and those that like PvE or peace trading and only PvE

 

[Adept]

The advantage is that players who play in solo are eliminating the risk of being attacked by PC's. Once the game has been out a while, NPC's behaviours may become predictable and therefore makes you judge situations better. Im not saying it will be easy and that NPC's might be immensely hard, im just saying theres more unpredictability with players being involved.

The problem here is that you still think that the playerbase will be like starving rats in a cage. Most likely the player playing in solo or private will face more numerous NPCs.

The vast majority of players are sane citizens of the galaxy, and don't try to blow you up just for existing (we have pretty good statistics for this already, as Alpha 4+, premium beta and beta 1 have probably been significantly more lawless and violent than gamma/release ever will be.

***

TL: DR
Most people you meet in Open play are neutral or even friendly, helping you out. A high % of the NPCs seem to be utter psychos, attacking you just for fun.

I'm not convinced that Open play will be the more dangerous option.

 

[Vasious]

The problem here is that you still think that the playerbase will be like starving rats in a cage. Most likely the player playing in solo or private will face more numerous NPCs.

The vast majority of players are sane citizens of the galaxy, and don't try to blow you up just for existing (we have pretty good statistics for this already, as Alpha 4+, premium beta and beta 1 have probably been significantly more lawless and violent than gamma/release ever will be.

***

TL: DR
Most people you meet in Open play are neutral or even friendly, helping you out. A high % of the NPCs seem to be utter psychos, attacking you just for fun.

I'm not convinced that Open play will be the more dangerous option.

One could even say Solo is more dangerous as you'll never have a human to back you up.
At the Federal Distress Beacon I have been saved by Cmdrs I don't know, who do so by actively targeting the fighter on my six.

 

[OVMorat]

I never said I want to eliminate PvP from the game. I play a ton of PvP games, and it has it's place. The example you give is an excellent one, and quite welcome (though I would think exploration is the least violent path, in general).

My beef is with station campers, newb gankers and people wanting to just PK people to fill their tear jar and feel like they pwn. Senseless PvP with no in-game reason will hopefully be kept to a minimum.

An unladen hauler, or an empty starter-sidey pilot shouldn't fear being randomly ganked just because anoother player finds it funny. PvP action that makes sense in the universe and the situation? Bring it

I'm 100% in favour of PvP and I also agree with your first two paragraphs entirely. IMO the game should provide defences to protect players against these behaviours in all stations and systems apart from the ones at the Anarchic end of the spectrum. Even, then I could live with stations in Anarchy systems having defence grids and/or defence squadrons of NPC ships but you may need to have some positive allegiance with the owners of the station for them to be used. Or not. That's a matter of balance. How that gradient is defined will be the subject of extensive testing, I hope.

As for para 3 - I would hope that random ganking should be _possible_ even in "safe" systems - but it should carry such a massive in game penalty as to be suicidal. The key is to make it unprofitable, something which is looking a little difficult in the current beta with shiny new (and armed) Sidewinders being handed out for free. Of course, as a last resort, if someone is genuinely carrying out a vendetta then you should be able to petition a GM for some OOG retribution. Some people are complete hats and should be treated accordingly.

I do think that part of the reason for the great fear of PvP "ganking" at the moment is the lack of Station Defences which allows exactly the wrong sort of PvP to be carried out with impunity.

 

[Adept]

As for para 3 - I would hope that random ganking should be _possible_ even in "safe" systems - but it should carry such a massive in game penalty as to be suicidal. The key is to make it unprofitable, something which is looking a little difficult in the current beta with shiny new (and armed) Sidewinders being handed out for free. Of course, as a last resort, if someone is genuinely carrying out a vendetta then you should be able to petition a GM for some OOG retribution. Some people are complete hats and should be treated accordingly.

AFAIK this is exactly what is planned. You _can_ fire on anybody, anywhere, but the Elite Federation bounties and other response should quickly teach you that it's a bad idea (tm).

Station defences are buggy at the moment, but even Anarchy system stations are supposed to have very robust defences, and no tolerance of station campers harming their business.

***

I really hope that the "free sidewinder" is a placeholder. The sidey is a perfectly fine ship, an it should not be a freebie. IMO it should be roughly equal to the Eagle in price, or maybe 2/3 or it.

 

[ianw]

I can guarantee your prediction will be incorrect.

Here's how...

All I have to do is continue to play like I play... ie. Open Online, and not a "hunter"... and your 100% goes out the window.

Me too - the possibility of player interaction in the open group to me offers more "fun" than accumulating imaginary money asap.

I want to accumulate imaginary money as much as the next Commander but I won't nerf my preferred playstyle in order to do so because of some yet to be proven advantage (and even if it does get proven I'd still rather be in open). And the only role I doubt I'll be trying is piracy.

Space big - population relatively small - me no fear people in big space!

(sorry something went wrong with my keyboard an that last sentence...)

 

[OVMorat]

AFAIK this is exactly what is planned. You _can_ fire on anybody, anywhere, but the Elite Federation bounties and other response should quickly teach you that it's a bad idea (tm).

Station defences are buggy at the moment, but even Anarchy system stations are supposed to have very robust defences, and no tolerance of station campers harming their business.

***

I really hope that the "free sidewinder" is a placeholder. The sidey is a perfectly fine ship, an it should not be a freebie. IMO it should be roughly equal to the Eagle in price, or maybe 2/3 or it.

Sounds good to me!