Why play online?

[Arkantes]

Do you prefer playing chess against the computer or against a human opponent?

False parallel, unless losing a game of chess would remove pieces on your side in the next game, and winning would do nothing or add some.
Don't try to pretend the death penalty got nothing to do with the whole issue. We're talking about potentially being set back days or weeks here.

PS: why not play with, instead of against?

 

[Tony Spaniels]

If all you want is trucking without any risk, whether from players or NPCs, Elite: Dangerous isn't for you, but I would recommend Euro Truck Simulator 2.

Just pretend you're in a space ship

Hey! Dont diss Euro truck simulator 2 man!!

 

[Comrade Napoleon]

funny reading all pages.
The subject, or the the core f the subject must now have been discussed in various forms, with various titles, with various thread lengths, a 100 times.

And nobody agrees so far really!
The situation as is is mostly made up of a group that do not like the solo option, and a group that favours the solo option.
The situation is also that FD has stated that BOTH options will be available.
No need to argue or dispute, as it is waste of time.
Those that favour ALL will play ALL, and those that favour SOLO will play SOLO, now where is it there are discrepancies ?
I cant for the love of LAVE , see it.

The universe will by release, be so big that unless the game is invaded by 2 million active players, human contact in ALL will be rare pr. definition of opportunity to meet.

As far as I have understood the ignore list will be the the first bulwark against the unavoiable village idiots that all MMO's suffer from, second is group and third is SOLO.
And the final not real disclosed alternative is the placing of the sociopaths in the special sociopath universe( how ever they figure that out.)

Although as stated the are many varying opinions on this forum , what amazes me is how civilized it generally is, THAT bodes well for the future of this gaming community IMO.

Cheers Cmdr's

 

[Nemesis-T-Warlock]

False parallel, unless losing a game of chess would remove pieces on your side in the next game, and winning would do nothing or add some.
Don't try to pretend the death penalty got nothing to do with the whole issue. We're talking about potentially being set back days or weeks here.

PS: why not play with, instead of against?

In a chess ladder or ranking system against other players, a loss would cause you to lose rank and force you to play against lower ranked players and probably restrict which higher players you can challenge. So actually you could lose weeks, months, even years of effort building your ranking.

It is a false parallel because chess computers can be nearly unbeatable now but not because of what you said. Playing another human in chess may be a challenge but it is still just a game of chess. Elite against another human is completely different as far as the experience goes.

There are no 'play with opportunities' in the game today. Conflict zones are 'sort of' play with but can easily become play against without you having any choice in the matter. I'd like to see these opportunities, but play against is just as valid a desire and IS part of this game no matter what your preference is if you plan to play in Open.

 

[Victor Meldrew2]

.... except that, thankfully, the regular players have other gameplay options open to them without having to resort to leaving the game.

One obvious example of this: Prices at Freeport go sky-high because traders won't risk trying to get past the pirates who hang out there. The answer? Hire a few escorts to defend you and share the profit with them. Sounds good (from a gameplay POV) to me.

And have faith that FD will eliminate the landing bay campers in the final game. So much of the anti-social stuff in beta will change by then, IMO.

 

[Ecliptic]

One obvious example of this: Prices at Freeport go sky-high because traders won't risk trying to get past the pirates who hang out there. The answer? Hire a few escorts to defend you and share the profit with them. Sounds good (from a gameplay POV) to me.

The answer....go Solo mode and lean back while trading.
Yup, stupid IMO.

 

[Ozric]

funny reading all pages.
The subject, or the the core f the subject must now have been discussed in various forms, with various titles, with various thread lengths, a 100 times.

And nobody agrees so far really!
The situation as is is mostly made up of a group that do not like the solo option, and a group that favours the solo option.
The situation is also that FD has stated that BOTH options will be available.
No need to argue or dispute, as it is waste of time.
Those that favour ALL will play ALL, and those that favour SOLO will play SOLO, now where is it there are discrepancies ?
I cant for the love of LAVE , see it.

The universe will by release, be so big that unless the game is invaded by 2 million active players, human contact in ALL will be rare pr. definition of opportunity to meet.

As far as I have understood the ignore list will be the the first bulwark against the unavoiable village idiots that all MMO's suffer from, second is group and third is SOLO.
And the final not real disclosed alternative is the placing of the sociopaths in the special sociopath universe( how ever they figure that out.)

Although as stated the are many varying opinions on this forum , what amazes me is how civilized it generally is, THAT bodes well for the future of this gaming community IMO.

Cheers Cmdr's

This, when it all boils down, is what it all boils down to.

 

[DancesWithHogs]

The answer....go Solo mode and lean back while trading.
Yup, stupid IMO.

In the final game will we be allowed to switch so easily between solo and open play? Because if that's the case then there's no way for pirates, bounty hunters, and other pvp oriented players to really enjoy the variations of gameplay. If someone is a capable/wealthy player they'll play in open until they fall on hard times.

I'd much prefer some kind of timer on solo/open switches or separate saves.

 

[Ecliptic]

Yes it will be that easy if they keep the current model. And that's what IMO will kill the game for many many players. It's just utterly stupid IMO.

 

[TartanDragon]

Haven't read the whole thread so sorry if this is repeating anything. But you will be unable to switch out of Open if you have a bounty. Small but important point.

 

[Ecliptic]

Haven't read the whole thread so sorry if this is repeating anything. But you will be unable to switch out of Open if you have a bounty. Small but important point.

Not really because traders usually don't get bounty and the players who do are pvp players who prefer online play anyways.

 

[DancesWithHogs]

Yes it will be that easy if they keep the current model. And that's what IMO will kill the game for many many players. It's just utterly stupid IMO.

This is a gross oversimplification but when given the choice between playing online with people who are prepared/willing to PK vs playing solo where everything is easymode and roses then most players will play solo until they make enough money to absorb a couple dozen deaths.

I for one like the possibility of having to start at square one because of player interaction, that's why I like games like DayZ where a simple mistake can cost you your character, sure you lose progress but that's part of the fun of the game.

I'd hate to see players "hide in solo" to avoid being sent back to square 1. The best solution for this, IMO, would be separate saves for solo/open play and safer civilized areas. Perhaps in Federation/Alliance/Empire space you can activate a distress beacon and a squad of 4 "police fighters" arrive in a time period based on location. They'd mill about and prevent hostilities. That way, if someone is sent back to square 1, they can start back up in safer areas still in open play.

 

[Adept]

I really can't believe that people seriously consider hiding in single player and PvE groups when this game precisely takes many measures to regulate PvP, with bounties, fines and security ships, when it tackles the problem of griefing with its sandbox approach, when player encounters will be rare enough given the size of the galaxy, and when there is next to no difference between PvE and PvP aside from who pilots the ship.

You are in no position to call it hiding, if people choose to opt out of Open. The measures we've seen so far are a complete joke, and people are flaunting them every day. The PK ganker squads are, if anything, getting more brazen in their behaviour, and the justification is always "I PLAY THE GAME LIKE I WANT! IT'S LEGITIMATE!"

Are you really surprised if people are getting the feeling they want to opt out?

All this does is reinforce the idea that people who hate PvP are just sore losers and just do not want to lose to another player. If all you want is trucking without any risk, whether from players or NPCs, Elite: Dangerous isn't for you, but I would recommend Euro Truck Simulator 2.

Just pretend you're in a space ship

And now you're just being really insulting. You should consider that your viewpoint is not the only one, nor the automatically correct one.

A whole lot of people will want to bounty hunt, get involved in wars, assassinate, pirate... They just want to do it with the feeling that they are in the world of Elite, getting involved in the danger and opportunity of a living universe.

What they don't want is having to deal with PK-happy gamers who don't care about the game world, or who coordinate large packs over TS / Mumble to "effect the metagame" or just to "dominate in the game".

***

Guess what? When playing solo, or in a private group the server switching problems just disappear. Entering and exiting SC is smooth, and you can concentrate on whatever you want to do. There won't be anybody at a combat zone who thinks it's fun to try and gank a hollow triangle even if said triangle is on the same side. Nor anybody who will blow up ships on landing platforms because station defences are miscalibrated, and they can get away with it.

Basically, the CoD in space crowd will drive a lot of people into _big_ private groups unless Frontier really clamps down on the mindless PvP.

 

[Comrade Napoleon]

This is a gross oversimplification but when given the choice between playing online with people who are prepared/willing to PK vs playing solo where everything is easymode and roses then most players will play solo until they make enough money to absorb a couple dozen deaths.

I for one like the possibility of having to start at square one because of player interaction, that's why I like games like DayZ where a simple mistake can cost you your character, sure you lose progress but that's part of the fun of the game.

I'd hate to see players "hide in solo" to avoid being sent back to square 1. The best solution for this, IMO, would be separate saves for solo/open play and safer civilized areas. Perhaps in Federation/Alliance/Empire space you can activate a distress beacon and a squad of 4 "police fighters" arrive in a time period based on location. They'd mill about and prevent hostilities. That way, if someone is sent back to square 1, they can start back up in safer areas still in open play.

Now you dont get it really do you!
I may not call you silly dumb or stupid because then I will not be allowed to post on this forum.
But in my opinion , you are so close as 0,000000001 % to me doing that, but I am explicitly not not calling you stupid, an idiot or silly.
You are probably just another nice player to enter the Elite universe
Do have a nice day.

Cheers Cmdr's

 

[Adept]

Yes it will be that easy if they keep the current model. And that's what IMO will kill the game for many many players. It's just utterly stupid IMO.

It only looks stupid if you think you are in a zero-sum game, where somebody has to lose for you to gain. It's only stupid if you ignore the game world, and think that only competing with the other players matters.

But that is wrong. This is not that game. You're thinking about World of Tanks, or DOTA2, not Elite.

I'd hate to see players "hide in solo" to avoid being sent back to square 1. The best solution for this, IMO, would be separate saves for solo/open play and safer civilized areas.

The best option for your preferred play style. But this game isn't being made to your personal preference, sorry.

Actually I'm not that sorry...

 

[Ven Jarvik]

In the final game will we be allowed to switch so easily between solo and open play? Because if that's the case then there's no way for pirates, bounty hunters, and other pvp oriented players to really enjoy the variations of gameplay. If someone is a capable/wealthy player they'll play in open until they fall on hard times.

I'd much prefer some kind of timer on solo/open switches or separate saves.

This is the only criticism I can aim at the game,if it remains this way on release.
I wouldn't presume to try to deny anyone the right to switch between the two,but it does make life a little bit too easy really.It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if there was a few hours delay between going between off and open,and I wouldn't see a need for there to be a delay the other way around.
The only grain I can take out of it is that having accumulated a degree of wealth and ships in solo,changing to open would be a huge step up when confronted by other human pilots,even with a fully kitted out super ship,and probably wouldn't last long.
I will staunchly stay open,simply because I enjoy being part of a thriller.

 

[Devias]

Make a PVP server and a non PVP server, just like WoW did. If you are on a non PVP server, you have to flag yourself as PVP before you can engage other players. PVP flag is on a 5 minute timer to prevent abuse. Maybe if your bounty is high enough you get autoflagged as PVP.

It's a tried and tested design over at WoW for 10 years now. Although it seems like a pretty simple design decision, but might be difficult to implement from a technical standpoint.

Let me "play my way" by giving me PVP vs non PVP options. Sometimes I want to do some relaxing trade runs only worrying about NPCs, sometimes I want to do some bulletin board kill jobs co-op with a friend, sometimes I want to flag myself PVP and head into a massive battle with strangers over in Barnard's Star.

 

[Armour]

Some people behave as if happiness and fun are finite resources, and that the only way to get hold of them is to take them from someone else. That behaviour is usually kept in check by morals and ethics, except online, in the darkness, where the monsters lurk.

 

[Ecliptic]

Make a PVP server and a non PVP server, just like WoW did. If you are on a non PVP server, you have to flag yourself as PVP before you can engage other players. PVP flag is on a 5 minute timer to prevent abuse. Maybe if your bounty is high enough you get autoflagged as PVP.

It's a tried and tested design over at WoW for 10 years now. Although it seems like a pretty simple design decision, but might be difficult to implement from a technical standpoint.

Let me "play my way" by giving me PVP vs non PVP options. Sometimes I want to do some relaxing trade runs only worrying about NPCs, sometimes I want to do some bulletin board kill jobs co-op with a friend, sometimes I want to flag myself PVP and head into a massive battle with strangers over in Barnard's Star.

+1
easy and proven solution.

 

[TartanDragon]

Not really because traders usually don't get bounty and the players who do are pvp players who prefer online play anyways.

I was looking at it from the other side, you can't escape if you shoot down anything without a bounty or being attacked first.
I see your point though. If you are playing a pirate of course. The only thing I would say to those traders is that once they have the Panther and millions in credits.........
Then what?
The the game has so much more to offer than just the accumulation of wealth.

Each to their own, the game is set up for that and I have no problem with it.