I'm sorry. This is my mistake, most likely it really doesn't apply to your comment.
Why is being a "prey" of a pirate in open a bad game design...
- Thread starter Alsteif
- Start date
I'm sorry. This is my mistake, most likely it really doesn't apply to your comment.
I agree with you. In an open multiplayer game, everyone doesn't have to like everything that everyone else do. Especially here where multiplayer is also optional.
I happen to think that anything that can make my gameplay more interesting is positive. Now, I wouldn't think it was interesting if I got some control of the outcome, but a ([potential) encounter with a pirate or even ganker is something we can control the outcome of.
It starts before you even set of: What ship should I fly, and how should I outfit it? After you have picked your ship, next thing is determining how you play. Do you prepare an emergency high-wake system or not? If you have reason to believe there may be pirates or gankers at your destination, this would be a good idea. Once you arrive in the system, you have a look for any players (NPC pirates are really not a problem, as it's so easy to escape in any ship...). If there are players, you have several choices: Do I stay in system, or high-wake away? Do I look at the other players to see if anyone seem like a ganker or pirate? Do I start flying evasive regardless and try to avoid anyone getting in behind me, even if it's another miner/trader who happen to be behind you by chance?
All these choices go on until you either safely deliver your cargo or decide to go somewhere else, and that's what's interesting. I have to think about all these things to decide what to do. Some are planning ahead, while others are judging the current situation and making choices. Without all the planning and choices you might have to make, the entire thing is a lot more boring. Now, I understand if all you want to do is laser asteroids and gain mad cash while watching netflix, that isn't that interesting. But then, are you really enjoying a game, or just grinding? I'd argue the later, and that's not good game design in my eyes. Good game design engages you.
I'm sure you can find or make another thread which discuss PvE vs PvP and get loads of discussion on it!Darn!
I was enjoying that
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
What is "interesting", or not, varies from player to player, therefore the things that might make the game more interesting likely vary from player to player.
Which is missing an "in my opinion" at the end as what is uninteresting for one player may be a desired game experience for another player.
Whether a player enjoys the game as they choose to play it, or not, is for them to decide. Whether the player is sufficiently engaged, or not, is up to them - this doesn't seem to be a game that one requires to play in a manner that would result in a rush of adrenaline - and not all players are seeking such a rush from the game.
The topic of the OP relates to player interactions - specifically combative interactions, i.e. "Being a "prey" of a pirate is not fun, gives no reward for the risk taken, and is usually a very not-fun experience.". The whole topic is about particular PvP encounters not being "fun" for all of those targeted - and as it refers to Open (a mode shared by all play-styles) that means that those who prefer PvE might well have an interest in the discussion, especially as players who prefer PvE might well be the players who don't find that type of PvP encounter to be "fun".
Last edited:
There are two different aspects to the main them of this thread: one is that being the victim is not “fun”, the other is that there is no reward.
The first point is entirely subjective: fun for some (for me it is), not for others, so not much more can be said.
The second point is worth discussing as plenty of tweaks could be made to the game to change it: harsher penalties for killing combined with a greater profit on low security trade routes would give the trader the choice between a safer less proftable trade and a dangerous high profit one.
The first point is entirely subjective: fun for some (for me it is), not for others, so not much more can be said.
The second point is worth discussing as plenty of tweaks could be made to the game to change it: harsher penalties for killing combined with a greater profit on low security trade routes would give the trader the choice between a safer less proftable trade and a dangerous high profit one.
And that last would affect me as a trader, even in Solo, so I would have an interest in that sort of change.
Would you see it as positive?
So you agree with me opening statement but put it in a way where it sounds like I don't agree with you?
No it wasn't.
As I already said.
You could have saved yourself a lot of quoting and write "I agree" before writing the following:
I never said it couldn't be an interesting topic for those who prefer PvE - but the topic still isn't PvE vs PvP - it's why being a "prey" to a pirate would be bad game design. Why is it bad -game design- in your opinion?
Not necessarily. It would depend on just how much it affected my game.
So are you just saying that you don’t want your experience of the game to change in any way?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
We don't agree - as I don't share the opinion that players should be subjected to player encounters that they find unenjoyable just because they want to play among other players. I'd prefer that players had an additional choice of multi-player game mode with an unlimited population where players who don't enjoy particular player interactions could play co-operatively.
The game design permits players to interdict and attack any player they instance with. A consequence of that game design is that some players choose to use those features to instigate interactions with other players, whether those other players want to engage in the interaction, or not. Not all players find being subject to an interaction that only the other party wants to engage in to be "fun", noting that some players may enjoy such encounters - but this topic isn't really about them.
.... which is probably why the game design also permits any player to leave an encounter with another player at any time, subject to a delay, and also block the instigator, if they wish.
Last edited:
Not at all.
If a change so negatively affects my game that I am unable to play, then I would oppose it. And vice versa, of course. But you can't ask for a blanket "would you approve" when I don't know what it is you are asking me to approve. It may be a positive change as far as you are concerned but that may not apply to me and my game play.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Quite.
As an example: some players want NPC difficulty to be increased across the board - which is a change that would affect all players. Not all players find NPCs to be completely lacking in challenge as some claim.
Another example: some players want differences in system security level to become more pronounced - which is a change that would affect all players. The usual counter to opposition is that players would require to limit their movements to high security systems if they didn't want to be affected - which is an affect in and of itself.
You're not reading my posts correctly.
My post, which you quoted, I started by saying:
"In an open multiplayer game, everyone doesn't have to like everything that everyone else do. Especially here where multiplayer is also optional."
You said: "What is "interesting", or not, varies from player to player, therefore the things that might make the game more interesting likely vary from player to player."
So you are agreeing with me that different people like different things, they find different things "interesting". If you're trying to claim I said something else, you're putting words in my mouth. I have only said that you don't have to like everything that everyone else does, nothing about what people should be subjected to. That's another topic, and not this one.
I know. Pretty sure almost everyone knows. So why is that in your opinion bad game design? Which is the topic of this thread.
Ok, I will try and explain: I am proposing that the BGS takes security level into account when adjusting prices for commodities in demand, so that their price will be higher the lower the level of security. At the same time the security response would be stronger than it is now in higher sec systems. This would create a reward for a trader who risks being pirated.
What interests and/or engages someone is completely subjective. All of that explanation is wasted on players that have 'Been there, Done that". Right? I don't need a primer on how that game play works, or why someone might enjoy it. It's self evident. Making all of that (referring to your treatise above) available to any and all players makes E|D great. Just as FD carving out a niche for other styles of play is awesome as well.
Your narrow view of other player's interests or what involves them is pretty much indicative of a lack of imagination. You don't have to concern yourself about how well entertained others are, they'll take care of that for themselves. My ships are built to enjoy the wide the range of content E|D offers. They are not finely tuned for combat. All of my random PvP engagements revolved around my escape, for the most part. That got tiresome quickly. Evading a Commander isn't all that hard, and is all but guaranteed after one gains the experience. But, it does get boring after a while.
So, some of us just decided to leave all of that posturing behind by using a Private Group. Some of us decide to use the Block list so they may enjoy the benefits of open. In general any trouble with this arrangement arises from people attempting to control the way other Commanders play. I call foul on that on any occasion I come across it.
On the face of it I would consider that a positive change. Provided, that is, that the change affected exactly what you have stated and nothing else.
However, if you were to ask other players, then you get a different response.
The thread is about discussing why being attacked by a (player) pirate in Open is bad game design. I disagree and stated why I disagree. Ofcourse what interest someone is subjective. But you don't know me, or what interests me, so I said what does interests me, and why I find it good game design.
As you don't know me, you have no idea on what I think about other players interest or other personality traits I may or may not have. Please refrain from further personal insults and attacks.
If you say evading from cmdrs has got boring I assume you have
aak the same thing to ten people, you get ten responses: do we really need to discuss the obvious?
Fine. I'll just remind you, that is was you that made value judgements on imagined game play. Not me.
You don't need to police the content of a thread. Threads meander through the relevant and irrelevant as the debate continues, and we have Moderators for anything that gets out of hand.
An argument over game play based on a 'Hunter v Prey' mechanic being bad or good is moot in a game like E|D. It is available, but not required. Bad and/or good design is decided in real time, while one plays. What's good on a Sat. afternoon, might be bad on Mon. night. E|D allows for that kind of fine decision making. My answer to the OP is: It depends. But, I do stay involved with the PvP v PvE discussions around here. When a thread veers into that debate, it's likeley I'll turn up. You just have to get used to it.
It got boring years ago. I don't really need to prove my PvP bona fides to you or to anyone. I pretty much went PG only after Engineering released. The gap between full content ships and PvP focused ships got too wide, relegating me to evasion only. Plus, I wasn't ready to commit to the efforts required to be PvP competitive (read Engineering). I believe there is a video out there showing me evading an Alt of Nighshady.
He was in an Adder, trying to pirate my mining C-MkIV. He worked so hard and showed great understanding of the game at the time, I was very surprised. Running an Alt sort of hid his real experience for a while. In the end we took it to combat, and he was partially successful with a hatch breaker. I left him bruised but alive with a couple tons of Gold for his effort. See if you can find it. I evaded him a handful of times, before I warmed to his efforts, and gave him a go.
I warrant that I have evaded you most effectively. Huh?
Last edited: