Why play online?

[Armour]

You are correct. The ability to do so risk-free will result in "Online" being a PVP arena only, not open world.

Some are trying to claim that we want separation of PvE and PvP (from another thread on subject). Nothing could be further from the truth. We want open world sandbox, which means a mix of all at all times. We want separation of risk-free and risk-vs-reward.

So play Ironman mode! You can't swap modes in Ironman, you are separate from anyone other than fellow inhabitants of the Ironman galaxy. The only way out is death. Anyone who doesn't pick Ironman mode is basically playing a training mode as if it's the real game.

Maybe now you know this, you will calm down, and perhaps EVEn stop criticising the game incorrectly on other sites?

 

[Camino Archer]

No wish whatsoever to play online...Im trying to find a good reason too, but I just cant. Im freakin so excited about the next PATCH though! We are going to be able to mod our ships proper!!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Online All: Always fly with your mate on your wing, and you'll always be "Two against..." every single threat.

Solo Online: You'll always be "One against..." every single threat.

Indeed.

Online All: Always fly with your mates on your wing, and you'll always be "Many against" every single threat....

 

[Seonid]

So play Ironman mode! You can't swap modes in Ironman, you are separate from anyone other than fellow inhabitants of the Ironman galaxy.

All game modes are available in IM (Solo/Private/All) it's just you can only group with and meet other IM players.

 

[macdog]

Online All: Always fly with your mate on your wing, and you'll always be "Two against..." every single threat.

Solo Online: You'll always be "One against..." every single threat.

Sorry for picking your post to reply to Kremmen, yours is the briefest, but really I am replying a a few posts that have quoted what I have said on this.

Whilst I agree with Seonid to a degree that discussing relative difficulty is rather pointless I'll just point out that you conveniently miss out what I highlighted with private group, that gives you the benefit of friends without any risk of hostile players.

If there are more white hats than black hats, then you're more likely to get assistance against pirates and assassins in open than be attacked by them.

Interesting, hadn't really considered that. It will be interesting if they tweak the mechanics in such as way that this is the outcome. If I had to bet, I would bet against, based on experience of other games, but it could happen.

Sounds like what you want to see, doesn't it.

Personally I would probably like something a little more balanced in terms of hostile combat vs cooperation, but that's not important really.

My concerns based on current mechanics and balance (which of course may change) is that the inevitable meta game will be:

• grind CR in solo/private
• come to open in your pimp ship with 1 agenda (pvp combat)

There are various ways to address this (assuming one accepts this is an issue in the first place).

I think the most obvious one is around the ability to toggle between those modes at will and maintain progression/CR/etc... which is why I lot of the discussion has focussed here. Its certainly not the only method though.

All game modes are available in IM (Solo/Private/All) it's just you can only group with and meet other IM players.

This is very telling. If you think the cup is half empty you would say "wow, even ironman is going to be easy", if its half full then "well they are definitely going to do some significant balancing between modes as otherwise this would be a joke".

I did not mean it that way, it was not directed at you

OK no probs mate, just you quoted me in that response, but I did ask as I wasn't sure.

 

[Adept]

All game modes are available in IM (Solo/Private/All) it's just you can only group with and meet other IM players.

This is what confuses me. Is the term unfamiliar to people?

Irom Man = no savescumming. You can play Iron Man in solo online, and I bet it will be a popular way. No dying to stupidity of other players (like somebody boosting through the mail slot).

 

[Seonid]

This is very telling. If you think the cup is half empty you would say "wow, even ironman is going to be easy", if its half full then "well they are definitely going to do some significant balancing between modes as otherwise this would be a joke".

So what do you think needs to be balanced and why? From my own perspective given that there are no levels, no end-game content, no ladders, no leader-boards, no Armoury, no MMO Champion/World of Raids which means there is no race to zero other than whatever an individual sets as their own targets.

 

[macdog]

So what do you think needs to be balanced and why? From my own perspective given that there are no levels, no end-game content, no ladders, no leader-boards, no Armoury, no MMO Champion/World of Raids which means there is no race to zero other than whatever an individual sets as their own targets.

How stuff could balanced is an open question and is interconnected based on other features.

For example, you could keep the solo/private/open toggle as is, but balance in another area (such as NPCs, access to different markets, etc...). Or you could remove said toggle (or just change how it works) and not bother "balancing" using the other levers I just described.

Just so I am 100% clear, as I believe some may read into this differently. None of this alludes to the removal of any game mode or the ability of a player to play in any of these modes. It may however, change how they decide what mode to choose, and why they may choose it, and when.

In terms of the why. To keep things brief, the scenario I outlined a number of times and in my very last post. In short, pve in solo/private, pvp in group, which I think would be bad for the open mode of the game (ie, turn it into an arena/bloobath/etc...). If you think that outcome is good (which I am not suggesting you are) then I guess there is really no discussion to be had, we simply disagree on whats good for the all open mode.

Also, please remember, I am basing my points on those 3 areas I described here, and yes I am fully aware that stuff can (and most likely will) change.

edit: not sure if this answers your question. do you want to know why I think the current mechanics will lead to the scenario I have described? I think I have done elsewhere in this thread, but happy to do so again if required.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Just so I am 100% clear, as I believe some may read into this differently. None of this alludes to the removal of any game mode or the ability of a player to play in any of these modes. It may however, change how they decide what mode to choose, and why they may choose it, and when.

It is not 100% clear - by mentioning specifically that "none of this alludes to the removal of any game mode or the ability of a player to play in any of these modes" without simply adding "move between these modes", it appears to me that you contend that it would be reasonable to remove the ability for players to move their commander between solo-online / private groups / open-online as and when the mood takes them.

If there was a once only choice at commander creation of open-online or solo-online / private groups, I don't expect that the ultimate population of open-online would be to the liking of those who oppose player choice relating to how they wish to play on a session by session basis.

 

[macdog]

It is not 100% clear - by mentioning specifically that "none of this alludes to the removal of any game mode or the ability of a player to play in any of these modes" without simply adding "move between these modes", it appears to me that you contend that it would be reasonable to remove the ability for players to move their commander between solo-online / private groups / open-online as and when the mood takes them.

Well, it should have been clear in my last post, but yes, if you take a single post mid discussion that is focussing on 1 aspect then of course you could come away with that conclusion. I realise this, which is why I made the statement which you quoted. This is known as context. However, I (nor anyone else) can reasonably expect people to read an entire thread before becoming "qualified" to comment. Again, this is why I often clarify and summarise my position.

In my last post I explicitly stated that removing or changing the ability to flip between modes in one option. I also suggested this wasn't the only option and gave some examples.

I didnt put "move between these modes" because one of the options I advocate does involve changing or removing this.

Edit: so Robert, are you saying I wasn't clear previously and I am now. Or that there is still something you would like to me clarify?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, it should have been clear in my last post, but yes, if you take a single post mid discussion that is focussing on 1 aspect then of course you could come away with that conclusion. I realise this, which is why I made the statement which you quoted. This is known as context. However, I (nor anyone else) can reasonably expect people to read an entire thread before becoming "qualified" to comment. Again, this is why I often clarify and summarise my position.

In my last post I explicitly stated that removing or changing the ability to flip between modes in one option. I also suggested this wasn't the only option and gave some examples.

I didnt put "move between these modes" because one of the options I advocate does involve changing or removing this.

Edit: so Robert, are you saying I wasn't clear previously and I am now. Or that there is still something you would like to me clarify?

Thanks for that.

It would seem that, in addition to restricting group switching, you seem to be advocating some form of "balancing" between the three online modes. This has also been done to death in other threads, couched as either incentives to play in open-online or penalties associated with playing in solo-online / private groups.

Another tack is, usually, "how can a competitive MMO allow players to take the same character into solo-online / private groups and return to open-online".

Sorry if this seems a bit terse, it is simply that this ground has been gone over so many times and, until we have the completed game, we don't know if any contention regarding relative difficulty between the three online modes is valid.

Also, group switching has been part of the game design from the outset. It would be something of an unpleasant surprise to a lot of the Kickstarter backers if this game feature were to be restricted or removed as a result of petitioning by players wishing to change the game.

 

[Adept]

In terms of the why. To keep things brief, the scenario I outlined a number of times and in my very last post. In short, pve in solo/private, pvp in group, which I think would be bad for the open mode of the game (ie, turn it into an arena/bloobath/etc...). If you think that outcome is good (which I am not suggesting you are) then I guess there is really no discussion to be had, we simply disagree on whats good for the all open mode.

My beef is that you tend to present your speculation as definite.

like this:
"This will happen. Nobody will trade in the open group, and it will turn the Open group in a PvP only battleground."

If you would present your arguments so that you fear this may happen, or you suspect a lot of people will end up using the features like this, then we can have a conversation. Presenting it as something that will definitely come to pass is just not credible, nor does it lead to a balanced discussion on the subject.

Furthermore extrapolating what things will be like based on how they work in Beta 1.0x is a little pointless in itself.

 

[macdog]

It would seem that, in addition to restricting group switching, you seem to be advocating some form of "balancing" between the three online modes.

Not quite (I think). I am not saying FD should definitely do x and y. I am saying that I see current mechanics leading to an undesirable situation and that x and/or y are potential means of mitigating that. There are of courses degrees with with one could go to with x and y, but a lot of people jump in and assume I am advocating a single position. I'm not.

This has also been done to death in other threads...

OK, I'll take another look around the forums. I must admit, in terms of reading "old" threads, that has been pretty much limited to what's in the DDA forum.

Sorry if this seems a bit terse, it is simply that this ground has been gone over so many times and, until we have the completed game, we don't know if any contention regarding relative difficulty between the three online modes is valid.

Sure, but no-one is forcing you to take part in this discussion and it seems relevant to the OP. Is this a case of:

Spoiler

Also, group switching has been part of the game design from the outset. It would be something of an unpleasant surprise to a lot of the Kickstarter backers if this game feature were to be restricted or removed as a result of petitioning by players wishing to change the game.

Sorry, but I find this hard to accept as a truly legitimate basis for closing down any discussion.
1. I am going to go out there and assume you don't speak for all kickstarter backers.
2. Is anything I am saying in direct contradiction with any promises FD made during its campaign? I would honestly be surprised if they were this specific on these aspects at that point, so if you are going to say yes, please provide a link.
3. FD have however stated they will do what they believe is right for the game, regardless.

 

[macdog]

My beef is that you tend to present your speculation as definite.

like this:
"This will happen. Nobody will trade in the open group, and it will turn the Open group in a PvP only battleground."

If you would present your arguments so that you fear this may happen, or you suspect a lot of people will end up using the features like this, then we can have a conversation. Presenting it as something that will definitely come to pass is just not credible, nor does it lead to a balanced discussion on the subject.

Furthermore extrapolating what things will be like based on how they work in Beta 1.0x is a little pointless in itself.

I can't count the amount of times I have stated:
1. My comments are based on current mechanics, FD statements and general experience of how other games work.
2. That I fully acknowledge that this is a beta and things will certainly change. Whether that moves it more toward what I like, you like or anyone elses likes is anyones guess.

However, yes, I will stick to my guns on one point. IF everything stays the same (which is unlikely) then my view is very much that the outcome will be as I have described.

Please take the time to review my posts. I would suggest I have done more than most, including you, to qualify and caveat the context of my statements overall.

edit: you, nor anyone else has really provided much in terms of reasoning why I may be wrong on this matter. Other than in terms which I have quite clearly accepted or even presented in advance. Please argue the points and not the man. If you are tired of this discussion then simply don't post.

 

[Armour]

Perhaps commanders should have some kind of indication that essentially says "I play exclusively in Ironman All", which disappears if you ever switch modes? I don't think players would want to lose such a badge of honour.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Not quite (I think). I am not saying FD should definitely do x and y. I am saying that I see current mechanics leading to an undesirable situation and that x and/or y are potential means of mitigating that. There are of courses degrees with with one could go to with x and y, but a lot of people jump in and assume I am advocating a single position. I'm not.

Ok, then it would appear that you are suggesting that unless x or y is done then "bad things" will happen in open-online - so while maybe not both at the same time but one or the other, but not neither.

Sure, but no-one is forcing you to take part in this discussion and it seems relevant to the OP. Is this a case of:

Spoiler

I would suggest that, if this applies to either of us, then it applies equally to us both.

Sorry, but I find this hard to accept as a truly legitimate basis for closing down any discussion.
1. I am going to go out there and assume you don't speak for all kickstarter backers.
2. Is anything I am saying in direct contradiction with any promises FD made during its campaign? I would honestly be surprised if they were this specific on these aspects at that point, so if you are going to say yes, please provide a link.
3. FD have however stated they will do what they believe is right for the game, regardless.

1. Of course - you're not going out there at all, I speak for myself. However, if you read some of the other threads on antipathy toward the group switching feature then you should find that I am not alone.
2. My emphasis:

How does multiplayer work?
You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) some of the other ships you meet as you travel around are real players as opposed to computer-controlled ships. It may be a friend you have agreed to rendezvous with here, or it may be another real player you have encountered by chance. All players will be part of a “Pilot’s Federation” – that is how they are distinguished from non-players – so you will be able to tell who is a player and who is a non-player easily.

You will be able to save your position in certain key places (probably just in space stations, but possibly while in hyperspace too, if we feel it is needed). A save-and-quit option will be freely available at those points, as will the subsequent reload, but there will be a game cost for a reload following player death. Your ship will still be intact in the condition it was when the save occurred, but there will be a game currency charge (referred to as an insurance policy) for this. This is to prevent the obvious exploit of friends cooperating and killing each other to get each other’s cargo. If you can’t pay, then it will accumulate as an in-game debt, and the police may chase you!

There are no multiplayer lobbies, and the game will be played across many servers, augmented by peer-to-peer traffic for fast responses. Session creation and destruction happens during the long-range hyperspace countdown and hyperspace effect (which is a few seconds only), so is transparent to the player.

We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.

Last updated: Wed, Nov 14 2012 12:52 PM BST

3. Indeed - and I hope that they continue to do so.

 

[macdog]

Perhaps commanders should have some kind of indication that essentially says "I play exclusively in Ironman All", which disappears if you ever switch modes? I don't think players would want to lose such a badge of honour.

That could work in my opinion. I think I laid out in one of my first posts that incentives could take many forms, such as greed, status, ego etc...

This clearly ticks the status/ego box.

 

[macdog]

Ok, then it would appear that you are suggesting that unless x or y is done then "bad things" will happen in open-online - so while maybe not both at the same time but one or the other, but not neither.

Almost, well close a enough really. I am saying if nothing is done then "bad things will happen". X and Y are some examples I am giving which could address this. I have also said I am sure there are others with more imagination than me that could find other, maybe better, ways of addressing this.

I would suggest that, if this applies to either of us, then it applies equally to us both.

I specifically posted this in response to you as you were basically saying its a completely pointless discussion, but you are posting anyway! If I thought it was pointless then I wouldn't be posting.

Thanks for the quote. So one could argue that as that is in the kickstarter pledge its a holy cow and can't ever be touched/revisted. I wouldn't agree, but do accept the premise. However that doesn't exclude (edit) the other balancing points or how mode switches work, and the differences between modes. Of course, happy to review anything else that could "rule those points out".

3. We agree!!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Almost, well close a enough really. I am saying if nothing is done then "bad things will happen". X and Y are some examples I am giving which could address this. I have also said I am sure there are others with more imagination than me that could find other, maybe better, ways of addressing this.

Again, until all of the elements of the stated game design are in place, no-one knows that there is, indeed, any issue to be dealt with - other than the opinion of those who do not like the game feature in question.

I specifically posted this in response to you as you were basically saying its a completely pointless discussion, but you are posting anyway! If I thought it was pointless then I wouldn't be posting.

.... and from the point of view of trying to get the game mechanics changes it may not be pointless - however, it may well be futile.

Thanks for the quote. So one could argue that as that is in the kickstarter pledge its a holy cow and can't ever be touched/revisted. I wouldn't agree, but do accept the premise. However that doesn't exclude (edit) the other balancing points or how mode switches work, and the differences between modes. Of course, happy to review anything else that could "rule those points out".

3. We agree!!

Regarding KS FAQ answers - I do not expect them all to be sacrosanct (immediate identification of ships as having a player pilot springs to mind).

I understand that you do not agree - however there was plenty of information on the game in the public domain prior to you (from your join date) getting onboard for you to make an informed decision as to whether you could accept the game as described. It seems that you have not and would seek to change it.

3. Yes, we do.

 

[macdog]

I understand that you do not agree - however there was plenty of information on the game in the public domain prior to you (from your join date) getting onboard for you to make an informed decision as to whether you could accept the game as described. It seems that you have not and would seek to change it.

So you are saying because I have a forum join date of Sep 2014 (and and bought in to the beta in Aug 2014 I think) that my opinion is automatically invalid and I should not be allowed to express it?

Please bear in mind I have not come in here, hurling insults and levelling threats that I would quit the game if I dont get my own way etc.. (I'm sure plenty other have done, and I myself have been the target of some not-so-veiled insults).

I have tried to hold an emotionless discussion which does indeed include a fair amount of speculation (how could it not at this stage?). I have tried to outline the reasons for my points and the context of my speculation (something that is quite rare it seems on this thread, both from people who may agree with me and those that don't).

I find it weak that some who disagree feel that it is better to argue against me rather than the points.

If anyone does indeed think that I have nothing of merit to say, and that it has all been said before and crucially that FD are smart so clearly wont take my random ramblings on board, then why reply?