Game loses something by not forcing Open play

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Clifford

C
Toxic_Waster said:
Your hate to the player encounters is common here. Why so much fear? May be they can be your friends.
Click to expand...
A "friend" would not try to trick you into a restrictive situation. There is a big difference bettween a player chosing to join a certain instance of game vs being forced into it.


Toxic_Waster said:
As per my experience the mode switch is instant.
Click to expand...

I don't know what game you are playing, but since Beta it required a logoff and then log-on.
In Gamma now, if you try to log-off in the middle of combat its a 15-second timeout penalty to prevent "instant" logoffs during combat.
You played this game much lately?
 
Last edited:

Toxic_Waster

Toxic_Waster
smsKONG said:
Perhaps if you had read and digested the post fully, you would see I already stated that I don't speak for everyone - but I've been here long enough to know I speak for more than just myself.
Obviously WE can count you as an old schooler who wants an open only universe that works like a traditional mmo.


If people's biggest concern is that someone can just switch groups mid gank, my bad, mid combat - then all we need is to only allow group switching at game start or in station. Personally I can't think why anyone would have a valid reason to absolutely need to switch from open to solo in the middle of space anyway; unless they are switching off for the night and decided to play solo when they switched back on.

Or just no switching if being interdicted or in combat.

Either way that seems reasonable to me, as it only needs to stop people dropping from open to solo on a whim. People should be able to join open from solo at anytime.
Click to expand...

Yes I was talking about switching in mid combat. Your suggestions seem reasonable to allow players to switch in certain areas only and I'd welcome them with open arms should they be implemented. On the side note I also played the original Elite and I'd had been very happy if I could engage players in 90s on my Sinclair.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Robert Maynard said:
How are you switching groups in-game?
Click to expand...

switching btwn open and solo.
 

Jorlin

Jorlin
Toxic_Waster said:
Yes I was talking about switching in mid combat. Your suggestions seem reasonable to allow players to switch in certain areas only and I'd welcome them with open arms should they be implemented. On the side note I also played the original Elite and I'd had been very happy if I could engage players in 90s on my Sinclair.
Click to expand...

switching mid-combat relies on combat logging, so the problem isn't "switching" but quitting game in combat.
 

murraypaul

M
smsKONG said:
Personally I can't think why anyone would have a valid reason to absolutely need to switch from open to solo in the middle of space anyway; unless they are switching off for the night and decided to play solo when they switched back on.
Click to expand...

(Or p2p/network performance is so bad they switch to solo out of frustration.)
Either way, not that common.
Only switching when docked at a station seems perfectly reasonable.
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
Toxic_Waster said:
Yes I was talking about switching in mid combat. Your suggestions seem reasonable to allow players to switch in certain areas only and I'd welcome them with open arms should they be implemented. On the side note I also played the original Elite and I'd had been very happy if I could engage players in 90s on my Sinclair.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

switching btwn open and solo.
Click to expand...

You might find this post from Sandro interesting:

Sandro Sammarco said:
Hello all!

Time to dive in to this thread with our current thoughts:

Scamming:

In game - well, there will be certainly be the ability to scam.

We have the concept that a commodity/equipment canister does not necessarily contain what it says it contains. So there will be methods to disguise a canister's content.

On the flip side of the coin, we have ways of seeing what a canister contains (and this equipment/these methods will be available to use in player trades), so there is a potential arms race between lies and truth.

Why are we doing this? A couple of unrelated reasons, actually.

Firstly, we are not interested in making player trading the central pillar to trading game play. The various markets fulfil that role. So we don't need to protect player trading. The Elite universe is full of smugglers, pirates and general ne'er do wells.

Secondly, I think the ability to lie/cheat *using game rules* is reasonable and opens up more gameplay options. If you get traded a canister of "grain" that turns out to be "human organs" you can be sure of a number of things:

  • The player that traded it had to go to some effort using game rules to set up the scam
  • That player altered their reputation when they made the trade
  • If you spent the time/resources, you could have detected the scam before the trade completed
  • If you detect the scam we may be able to directly generate missions/events from the process
Now some folk may understandably still balk at this, but my response has to be that I think it makes the game better (mainly by giving us lots of mission/event potential from NPCs as well as players).

So in this case, we will hopefully be aiming for a very "light touch" because in theory we see nothing wrong with players role playing "bad guys".

Griefing:

So, we've said we don't mind bad guys. In fact, we go further; we have bad guy gameplay options (piracy, smuggling etc.) By default, this includes psychopathic behaviour - randomly attacking other player "because you can".

We're currently looking at two different angles of defence: an in-game law system and private groups.

The in-game law system should be pretty robust. It allows plausible but strong responses from NPC factions to criminal activities (using authority ships, structures and factional bounties), as well as player-driven bounties (via the Pilot's Federation) and player bounty hunting mechanisms (e.g. broadcasting "sightings" of know villains to help player bounty hunters track them).

All of this should mean that that if you're being naughty you are generating additional challenges for yourself which will undoubtedly make the game harder in some ways (this applies equally whether you are attacking players or NPCs).

It won't guarantee safety, even though it guarantees additional challenges to the bad guys. Which I think is about right; we don't want to make being the bad guy impossible.

The second factor is our grouping mechanisms.

The way it's currently standing, players will be able to enter and leave private groups of some sort reasonably easily, so they will be able to control the level of perceived griefing they want to suffer.

I know this is a very contentious issue, which I have been wrestling with since I first came on to the project. The way I see it at the moment is pretty straightforward:

  • We have players that want a range of different experiences
  • All of those experiences are valid
  • Some of those experiences are mutually exclusive
So my answer is to say that we will support all of them but not to the point where one player is happy at the expense of another. And a clean way to do this is by using a grouping system.

The worst case scenario here is that a player who wants to avoid an encounter will vanish into a private group. In this case, the player will be forced to escape conventionally first (via hyperspace, docking or something similar).

In this instance, the aggressor still gets some benefit - they "defeated" their prey, and we can hopefully build on this in terms of rewarding them in various ways: via reputation, which can lead to missions and events, via player bragging rights (perhaps only players that remain in the "all group" can feature in various global news feed articles) and potentially via limited physical rewards.

If players are going to live in private groups, well, that suggests that if we had a single environment they would be playing offline or not at all, so they aren't part of the equation.

Players that dip into the "all group" after farming "private groups"; there are a few things to say about this.

  • They are unlikely to have as good player-vs-player skills as those who live in the "all" group day in day out.
  • NPCs can and will offer appropriate risks (in fact, it would not be a lie to suggest that we *could* make NPC ships significantly nastier than any human ships in the majority of situations. Not that we will, mind. But we could), so to get a tooled up advantage such players will have been facing a appropriate threat level (basically private groups should not be considered "easy mode").
  • Everyone has access to their own private group(s)

It's not perfect, but it's my best shot at the moment.

Anyway, taking these two strands into account, again, the result will again be hopefully a "very light touch".

Other:
Offensive behaviour during communication, whether in game or on the forums is always unacceptable. We will have some form of reporting/investigation service to service this. We will also allow players to "ignore" communications so that they don't have to listen/read stuff that doesn't interest them (on a related note - I'm very dead set against session-wide or bigger chat channels. In my opinion they ruin ambience and are uneccessary for Elite: Dangerous).

I can't actually think of out-of-game scams that could be possible at the moment.

Finally:
On a personal note. I also find (even mildly) derogatory terms and statements unpleasant and unhelpful. They don't advance arguments and they are used to intentionally insult people/groups. It's perfectly fine to disagree, but it's not fine to insult (just as it's not fine face to face).

I also think that more civil (if not understanding) we can be (in game and on the forums) the more likely we are to grow the community which will be to the benefit of us all.
Click to expand...
 

Panzer

Panzer
Let me just say this:

For now, seems like the game can't make up its mind on how exactly should players deal with one another while they're involved in the galactic mechanism of markets and politics. it's not really MP while there's no basic social functions. And we all know how offline SP ended up.

Eddy's a little of both worlds but without the greatest strengths of either. And I think it won't do the game any good in the long run.

In other words, for me it's openplay MMO or bust.
 

CdrTwisted

CdrTwisted
Robert Maynard said:
When all that are left in a locked in open-online mode were pro-PvP players, would it be any different?
Click to expand...

Toxic_Waster said:
Your hate to the player encounters is common here. Why so much fear? May be they can be your friends.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's possible that Elite as a forced open-world PVP game would not suffer in the same way that games like WAR, AoC etc did but it seems rather unlikely. What normally happens is that people are prepared to lose a little bit but not all the time, and eventually wonder why they bother to play a game that involves fighting impossible odds, either because they haven't levelled up and played 200 hours or because they aren't particularly good because they haven't played 200 hours.

Complaints about people switching from solo to open would soon give way to complaints about an empty world because the soloists wouldn't be prepared to replay the game to build a second character.

Actually giving soloists the chance to build up lots of credits and create death-dealing ships might possibly encourage some people to PvP who wouldn't otherwise have the confidence or inclination. Surely the true PvPer wants lots of people to PvP with.
 
Last edited:

Toxic_Waster

Toxic_Waster
Jorlin said:
We don't know if it will stay that way.
Click to expand...

Not only because players can travel in "submerged" solo mode to avoid the possible chase and obstacles after exiting in mid combat. I think this could be solved with ability to switch between modes while in station only.
 

Jockey79

Jockey79
Toxic_Waster said:
Because of constant wipes I experiment flying in my mighty sidewinder now, but let's get back on topic. All I'm saying that switching between modes should not be used as the tactical advantage to neither of the parties. This is the game exploit and has nothing to do with player's limitation of game style. And now I'm .. the grieeeefffer.
Click to expand...

This is where you need to understand what an "exploit" is - an "exploit" gives someone an unfair advantage over others - being able to earn a decent ship can be done by everyone, so there is not an unfair advantage over anyone. If someone decides to level purely in a PvP environment / open play - best of luck to them, but that is their choice and no one else.

I don't have time for 2 profiles, and from time to time I'd like to pop up in open play (I play Planetside 2, PvP is the game).

What people are failing to understand, if you push this whole forced open play or separate profile for open play - you will lose out on potential players / targets. Some have said all ready, if the game goes that way, they will be private groups only - then what, who will you shoot at then? Oh, the same people you shoot at now. So why keep trying to divide the game, people jumping in/out with nice ships and no experience if nothing else will give you a laugh. Plus, having a safe area to retreat back to so they can earn that ship back to try again is not hurting you or your game play at all.
 
Last edited:

Jorlin

Jorlin
Toxic_Waster said:
Not only because players can travel in "submerged" solo mode to avoid the possible chase and obstacles after exiting in mid combat. I think this could be solved with ability to switch between modes while in station only.
Click to expand...

If i wanted to avoid "chase" after logging off in combat i would, go and get me another drink, visit my wife playing some other game, read a bit on the forums.... and wait till you get bored.
But some kind of "timer" i could agree on.

You can't "force" people to share your game... just accept it. There is always an escape... and with multiple chars there will be one more.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom