Page 4 of 26 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 390

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: How dangerous will the universe be?

  1. #46
    Originally Posted by Andrew Sayers View Post (Source)
    Just a little nitpick - making certain behaviours (im)possible in certain zones hasn't gone down well in previous discussions. My previous post (somewhat abruptly, in fairness to John) introduced the idea of providing enticements that give players unambiguous benefits without jumping on their heads.

    Compare that to EVE where high-sec adds ridiculously high penalties but still leaves the juicy targets in place for anyone smart enough to find a way around the rules. I appreciate how that adds another layer to EVE's ever-growing onion of scams, but that's not the sort of gameplay that's emerging from ED's mechanics, and bolting it on at this point wouldn't really work.
    In one of the early Lave Radio podcasts we expressed a desire to see the game operate in a way that sees a natural movement of fringe players to fringe systems etc, just as you suggest. We would much rather see the game manage extreme behaviour than constant intervention by developers.

    However, I think we've gone OT. My question is about unethical meta play and what (if anything) FD should do about it. Much of the problem behaviour that occurs in multiplayer games occurs simply because of human to human interaction and has very little to do with the actual game mechanics.
    Lave Radio Podcast // Swift Dispatch - Stories & eyewitness accounts

  2. #47
    Originally Posted by JeffRyan View Post (Source)
    ...

    John Stabler and his friends drink cider from the sidelines and curse their lack of whiskey genes.
    I don't understand what is being said here.
    Lave Radio Podcast // Swift Dispatch - Stories & eyewitness accounts

  3. #48

    "Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man."

    We could always brainwash players a-la-Clockwork Orange?
    Healthier than Pilates, more flexible than Yoga, smarter than Yoda and with Interesting Times to be had by all.
    p.s. I've got my eye on you. And your cargo.

    The Elite (Con)Federation of Pirates. © ® TM SM 2013 Patent Pending
    Stolen from various parties to whom no credit, nor royalties shall be given. This is Piracy, after all.

  4. #49
    Originally Posted by JohnStabler View Post (Source)
    I don't understand what is being said here.
    And you think I do?

  5. #50
    Originally Posted by JohnStabler View Post (Source)
    My question is about unethical meta play and what (if anything) FD should do about it. Much of the problem behaviour that occurs in multiplayer games occurs simply because of human to human interaction and has very little to do with the actual game mechanics.
    I think we can agree setting that things up right at the macro level doesn't provide strong guarantees at the micro level. Even if retribution is extremely swift, it doesn't stop misbehaviour in the short term.

    What if it cost 10 credits to report griefing, refunded on confirmation? That would cost the legitimate user nothing, but should reduce the amount of spam in the reports. Add a decent monitoring setup and farm the leg work out to Mechanical Turk, and you might have a system cheap enough to handle the human angle.

  6. #51
    Originally Posted by Andrew Sayers View Post (Source)
    I think we can agree setting that things up right at the macro level doesn't provide strong guarantees at the micro level. Even if retribution is extremely swift, it doesn't stop misbehaviour in the short term.

    What if it cost 10 credits to report griefing, refunded on confirmation? That would cost the legitimate user nothing, but should reduce the amount of spam in the reports. Add a decent monitoring setup and farm the leg work out to Mechanical Turk, and you might have a system cheap enough to handle the human angle.

    What sort of behaviour are you thinking about here?

  7. #52
    Originally Posted by Andrew Sayers View Post (Source)
    I think we can agree setting that things up right at the macro level doesn't provide strong guarantees at the micro level. Even if retribution is extremely swift, it doesn't stop misbehaviour in the short term.

    What if it cost 10 credits to report griefing, refunded on confirmation? That would cost the legitimate user nothing, but should reduce the amount of spam in the reports. Add a decent monitoring setup and farm the leg work out to Mechanical Turk, and you might have a system cheap enough to handle the human angle.
    Crowd-sourcing a solution is an interesting concept. However, I wonder if charging victims to report crimes may have a chilling effect which results in people just rage quitting.
    Lave Radio Podcast // Swift Dispatch - Stories & eyewitness accounts

  8. #53
    Originally Posted by JohnStabler View Post (Source)
    it is not possible to keep all parties happy. The developers need to make decisions which will alienate players.
    how true this is. In fact I hate gameplay options. I really do. It´s like devs don´t know what type of game experience they want to create, saying "hey just play the way you want, we don´t know either what´s the most fun way to experience our game".

    So I´m at the game store, do I purchase game A or game B or game C?

    Well it doesn´t matter, most games today are a mashup of A+B+C, how cool is that.
    Play single player offline! Play single player online! Play online in invincible PvE-only mode! Play online in PvPvE realistic mode!

    So, what mode does FD actually want me to play?

    I found a fantastic post by an Egosoft dev by the way, couldn´t agree more:

    http://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.p...058740#4058740

    Originally Posted by CBJ
    Originally Posted by greypanther
    Is it really asking too much for the option; for choice?
    Actually yes, it may be. I've explained this before, but I'll do it again with this particular context in mind.

    Every time there is a discussion about a particular feature, you have three camps. There's the "I want this" camp, the "I want that" camp, and then you have the people who think they have a magic solution that will make everyone happy, the "make it optional" camp. The trouble is that it's not the magic solution those people think it is.

    Creating a game that is fun and enjoyable is about making game design decisions, not dithering about it and ending up leaving the player to decide. While some players have strong opinions about a feature, most will just go with the default setting, and if you have dithered and not designed your game firmly around a core set of solid design decisions, then everyone's experience will be almost certainly be the poorer for it. Of course there are exceptions, particular features such as graphics settings, where giving people options doesn't detract from the game's core design, but for something fundamental like the cockpit it is almost always better to make a decision and accept that it won't please everyone than to dither and give people two different options, neither of which can be fully followed through because you have to take into account the possibility that people may choose the other option.

    And that brings me to the second point, which is that making something optional costs more than making a design choice even in the case where one of the options is simply not having that feature. Why? Well, because not only do you have to develop the feature (or in the worst case two different versions of the feature) but you also have to set up the option (additional menus, translations, etc.), and then you have to test the whole game with both options. The more things you make optional, the more different combinations you have to test; up to twice as many combinations, in fact, for each thing you make optional.

    It gets even worse if the option is as fundamental as something like the cockpit. Even if the cockpit were just eye-candy, you'd have to make sure that all aspects of the game worked and performed correctly with both a full-screen view of space and a partial view. But of course in this case the cockpit isn't just eye-candy, it's an integral part of the game, with the parts of the UI built into it. Making that optional would require the game to function with two separate interface paradigms, significantly increasing the cost for design, development and testing.

    Why should you care about making things optional being an expensive way of doing things? Well, cost and time are pretty much the same thing in development tems, both of which are finite, so those resources would, by definition, be prevented from being used on other game features. Worse still, for any given player, at least some of those resources would be wasted, because they would be spent on an option that they wouldn't be using; in fact in practice for most players, all the effort put into the non-default option would be wasted. In essence you are shooting yourself in the foot somewhat by suggesting that a feature you want should be made optional; you are asking for the available resources to be spent on a feature you don't want, only for you to then switch it off, instead of on features you do want!

    And this of course brings us back to the first point, which is that it is almost always better to make design decisions than to try to please everyone by making everything optional.

    SIGNED!!!

  9. #54
    Originally Posted by Fromhell View Post (Source)
    I found a fantastic post by an Egosoft dev by the way, couldn´t agree more
    It's a pretty post and makes some good points. However, the cockpit in their game looks ****. Cockpit/cabin views in all games I've played mess with my eyes/head and I always turn to full screen mode, or stop playing. Most driving games have multiple view options and yet Egosoft can't even be bothered to create 2? Lazy ******s!

    Pecisk - "I will sound as broken record, but this won't change." David Braben - "So some news - we will be reversing this change shortly"

  10. #55
    Originally Posted by Fromhell View Post (Source)
    how true this is. In fact I hate gameplay options. I really do. It´s like devs don´t know what type of game experience they want to create, saying "hey just play the way you want, we don´t know either what´s the most fun way to experience our game".

    So I´m at the game store, do I purchase game A or game B or game C?

    Well it doesn´t matter, most games today are a mashup of A+B+C, how cool is that.
    Play single player offline! Play single player online! Play online in invincible PvE-only mode! Play online in PvPvE realistic mode!

    So, what mode does FD actually want me to play?

    I found a fantastic post by an Egosoft dev by the way, couldn´t agree more:

    http://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.p...058740#4058740




    SIGNED!!!
    I think the role of modern game developer is to know when to bow to accomodationalists and give options (to widen the audience and make the game profitable) and when to ignore forum whiners who you won't miss anyhow.

    From what I've gleaned at LAVECON and from what the various FD staff have revealed, I'm confident I'll like Elite Dangerous.
    Lave Radio Podcast // Swift Dispatch - Stories & eyewitness accounts

  11. #56
    Originally Posted by JohnStabler View Post (Source)
    A good example is EVE. In EVE even the meta game is cut throat. Players have been known to scam in game currency out of each other via the forums. The developers take a hands off approach.
    Oops, I totally misread the OP first time round. I think because the way its formats for me, I missed the 'via the forums' bit.

    Personally, I would rather keep the scamming in-game... Scamming on the forums simply doesn't seem all that nice to me. No doubt, the more people on the forum, the harder it will be to keep it 'nice', but some nudge towards friendliness wouldn't go amiss. If someone gets scammed on any forum other than the official one, then that's not really Frontier's problem.

    As for a punishment, I'd say deduct double the amount gained in the scam. If someone scams for 1,000 credits, deduct 2,000 credits from their account.

    Meta-gaming really isn't something I like all that much.

  12. #57
    Originally Posted by Slawkenbergius View Post (Source)
    Oops, I totally misread the OP first time round. I think because the way its formats for me, I missed the 'via the forums' bit.

    Personally, I would rather keep the scamming in-game... Scamming on the forums simply doesn't seem all that nice to me. No doubt, the more people on the forum, the harder it will be to keep it 'nice', but some nudge towards friendliness wouldn't go amiss. If someone gets scammed on any forum other than the official one, then that's not really Frontier's problem.

    As for a punishment, I'd say deduct double the amount gained in the scam. If someone scams for 1,000 credits, deduct 2,000 credits from their account.

    Meta-gaming really isn't something I like all that much.
    But what would be the difference between taking in-game currency from a player and giving them nothing in return (the scam) while playing the game and doing the same on the forums? The communication just happens in a different place.
    Lave Radio Podcast // Swift Dispatch - Stories & eyewitness accounts

  13. #58
    Originally Posted by JohnStabler View Post (Source)
    But what would be the difference between taking in-game currency from a player and giving them nothing in return (the scam) while playing the game and doing the same on the forums? The communication just happens in a different place.
    I don't expect the game to promote niceness, given that a large part can involve shooting at one another, and stealing stuff. However, I'd hope the forum promotes niceness. They're two different locations, so there's no reason for them to follow the same rules.

  14. #59
    Originally Posted by Fromhell View Post (Source)
    how true this is. In fact I hate gameplay options. I really do. It´s like devs don´t know what type of game experience they want to create, saying "hey just play the way you want, we don´t know either what´s the most fun way to experience our game".
    Between this and the paradox of choice, you can make a really powerful argument for streamlining the experience. And it's not just games - for example, if you ever go near Linux desktop development, you'll see vitriol getting liberally thrown about the exact same question. Or type about:config into your Firefox URL bar to see the thousands upon thousands of choices they've been forced to leave in because someone out there wanted it.

    But as John says, you can go too far the other way. Last I heard, the balance of vitriol was strongly against GNOME, because they'd taken the removal of options to such an extreme everyone was missing at least one thing they absolutely needed (equivalent to removing the scanner from ED because it gave you too much choice about who to attack next). Joel Spolsky has a couple of excellent articles from a general software perspective, making the case for leaving things in.

    Frontier are in a unique position really - on the one hand, they've taken money from a bunch of backers with widely differing opinions, so they have some moral responsibility to give them all what they want. On the other hand, it gives them an unprecedented ability to engage in a mature debate about what type of compromises are acceptable to whom.

  15. #60
    Originally Posted by JohnStabler View Post (Source)
    With other multiplayer games the developers will intervene where they feel there is unethical behavior e.g. restoring scammed items and currency, punishing griefers with bans.
    Hi John.

    A really good question. I think you have to be able to distinguish between real world grieving and in-game grieving. Scamming someone of items and currency within the game is nothing compared to being blown to bits by someone. However, if someone has scammed you of real money then I feel its a different story because this is technically fraud. I am sure that FD will be keeping a close eye on any real transactions that are made.

Page 4 of 26 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast