Game loses something by not forcing Open play

[Darzil]

Personally, I feel you can bring up other games which segregated the playerbase in PvE or PvP, or tried to blend it by restricting PvP all you like, but for me this game has the best potential system. I never liked "if you want to change the mode you are playing in then restart the game from scratch and play over. I do like having one ship, one game, and playing how I feel like on the day.

If in practice it turns out that Open is much harder (and it certainly isn't in Gamma in my experience), then the Open play rewards can be tweaked (slightly higher trade profit, exploring credits etc).

If there are ways to switch during combat/interdiction to avoid dying, as some have feared here, then they'll need to be resolved to stop PvE abuse too.

The only people who won't be satisfied are those who want to pick on those much weaker than themselves, and drive them out of the game. I've no idea in what business model this group are worth satisfying, and fortunately they are a small minority.

 

[Stormprooter]

It does indeed. Sort of like an exclusion order for bad behaviour.... However that sort of restriction from play is probably not what Frontier intended (although it would be out of their control due to the fact that it would be the user's connection that is causing the issue) - I wonder if the game could assess repeated attempts to play in open and "decide" whether the player who should otherwise be restricted to open would be permitted to access solo until the connection improves.

I woud say no to that myself (but I don't get to make the decisions), anyway my reasoning is that the 'naughty' commander chose to commit murder, and therefore must accept the consequences - poor internet connection or not. But these consequences must be made clear to players from the outset.

 

[philux]

But since you can't do that, we must conclude there is no point.

Ofc, you can do that. There can be bounties put one someone by another player independently from the NPC-created bounties.

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

From the DDA, players with Pilots' Federation bounties on their heads will be unable to play in any other mode than open.

That doesn't work for bounties put out by players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That doesn't work for bounties put out by players.

This post infers that it should (or that there is some ambiguity):

DDF Proposals (updated 12:34pm 06/02):

• 'Stolen goods' tag should never expire
• Merchants available, that can 'launder' stolen goods.
• If a player reclaims his own old cargo that has been flagged as stolen, it becomes unflagged
• 'stolen goods' should be identifiable as stolen to players that come across it.
• reputation is affected by conducting piracy in a faction's space
• friends may recover your cargo for you, without it being flagged as piracy
• players not involved in the crime that pick up stolen goods should have the option to return them to the authorities, for a possible reward, or sell them illegally.
• Stolen cargo is considered as contraband depending on what factions it comes from
• Killing other players does not send you to the 'all group' if PvP is flagged as consensual.
• If there are no witnesses to it or the player cant relay it before dying, then the crime should not get reported.
• Players that survive an attack to report a crime should be rewarded with a part of the bounty, once collected.
• Destroyed ships leave blackbox recorders, that once retrieved can identify a ship as a criminal after the incident.
• Cargo is only flagged as stolen if the player took the precaution to pay to get it registered to him beforehand.
• Cargo can be booby trapped or fitted with a tracking feature, so you can avenge your defeat later.

 

[R0K3R]

Ha ha ha. I think you extract the urine maybe ? too much griefing to force online play, and then there's those of us who know we are not hugely skilled pilots who don't mind coming up against an npc cobra in our type 6 for instance, you will at least stand a good chance of making it out alive with cargo intact. In full online its just try to escape and then hope the other player don't just instantly Interdict you again. Far too many factors Involved so let people enjoy the game whatever way they want.

 

[TheEponymousBob]

Ofc, you can do that. There can be bounties put one someone by another player independently from the NPC-created bounties.

True, but player-initiated bounties open a whole can of abuse in and of themselves, unless officially supported by in-game mechanisms (and even then...).

Indeed, evading player-initiated bounties by switching to solo would (IMO) be a legitimate workaround for malicious griefing-through-bounties (should the situation ever occur, of course).

On a side track, how would such bounties work? How would you claim?

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Looking at what Robert posted from the DDA thread, this would be an in-game process and not a "player initiated process" other than the ability to uncheck the "Report Crimes against me" box...

 

[Jockey79]

Whatever, in every game there are retards that kill noobs just "for Fun" and they are laughting at Poeple crying in forums over this.

Youre not forced to stay where the gankers are, so just move elsewhere.

omg!

Talk about victim blaming, the whole premise of "don't like being ganked, move out of the gankers way" is ridiculous. Have you even considered if a ganker finds you to start with, they can follow you?
Not to mention why should other players be forced to move because of a minority who are adamant on spoiling the game for others?

But as you've not even tried to offer any insight or helpful solutions, I can only assume with an attitude like that you only came here to stir the pot.

 

[Robert Maynard]

True, but player-initiated bounties open a whole can of abuse in and of themselves, unless officially supported by in-game mechanisms (and even then...).

Indeed, evading player-initiated bounties by switching to solo would (IMO) be a legitimate workaround for malicious griefing-through-bounties (should the situation ever occur, of course).

On a side track, how would such bounties work? How would you claim?

The player initiated bounties are only able to be set by players on the attacker after they have been attacked / destroyed by another player. Only other players would be able to cash in the bounties, therefore I would expect that this implies that the player gaining the bounty would be restricted to open until such time as the bounty had been claimed. To pay it off (after e.g. a week [from the DDA]) it would cost 10x (again for example from the DDA) the amount of the bounty set.

Pilot Federation Bounties

• When a member of the Pilot’s Federation is attacked, they have the option of setting a Pilot’s Federation Bounty on their assailant, within a preset min and max credits for this
  • This action is time limited – they forfeit the ability to set a bounty after a set time elapses once they have entered a different session (eg through death or hyperspace)
  • Should their ship be destroyed by the assailant they have a limited amount of time from when their escape pod arrives at a dock to set the bounty
    • Launching from a dock forfeits this ability if not already set
  • The credit value of a bounty must be available in the player’s account, and is immediately deducted.
• A Pilot’s Federation Bounty can only be claimed by any member of the Pilot’s Federation
• The Pilot’s Federation Bounty system does not bypass local laws such as “Unlawful Discharge” that may be active so players need to bear this in mind
• A Pilot’s Federation Bounty is only removed if claimed by a bounty hunter or redeemed by the perpetrator
  • Redemption can only occur after a set significant time period has elapsed (eg 1 calendar week) and the perpetrator makes financial restitution of a significant multiplier of the bounty (eg 10x) to the Pilot’s Federation

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Has that been implemented?

 

[Stormprooter]

Has that been implemented?

Not yet AFAIK - I have been killed by other commanders (combat by consent in private group btw), and not had the option to set a bounty.

 

[StayFrosty]

Thanks for the detailed response, clearly we come at this from different angles and are never going to see eye to eye, so if you don't mind, I won't respond point by point (or we'll be at this all night ), but just try explain where I come from.

I'm not ideologically opposed to playing PvP where it makes sense and where players act in a way that makes game world sense. ARMA team PvP is a great example of this. I don't even mind being targeted by pirate players because I'm the biggest and juiciest unshielded Hauler laden with gold (for example), it makes sense. What I don't enjoy is being a target simply because my scanner icon is hollow. I play games for relaxation, I don't feel it is a matter of pride for me to constantly "test" myself against other players. I enjoy playing *with* other people but I'm not always in the mood to play *against* other people. Realistically that means I flit between modes as the mood strikes. Before anyone suggests I just grief in open, I've never initiated a PvP fight.

The difference between PvP and PvE for me essentially boils down to whether I trust players to act in a way that enhances both our experiences (rational play of world appropriate roles) or whether I'm just another notch on their kill streak. Experience of other games over the years suggests that many players are less conducive to immersive interaction than a well designed NPC, even the constructive ones.

I guess I'm more of a single player gamer at heart, I'm happy enough to play with others, but have the desire to occasionally retreat into my own little world. Hell, I even play Call of Duty for the single player!

Tonight I will probably spend some time in solo (3 hours sleep last night and can't go to bed early as I have to administer late night meds so am not firing on all cylinders), but tomorrow I might be back in open.

This wasn't sold as an open or nothing game, I'm not sure I see any good that can come from a hard wall between the various worlds. I may contribute less to a community than if I play always open, but I contribute nothing to a community that excludes me by asking that I double grind.

Anyway, that's my rambling done. I hope that makes my position a little clearer, even if you don't agree, and that we meet in open at some point, if you will let me in

If you simply don't like multiplayer that much, then it's something entirely different. But then honestly, I still have a hard time to understand.

It's both surprising and sad that people have such a hard time playing in multiplayer, when this game merges all roles so smoothly, by making players and NPCs so similar: this is the game's strongest point, and it was one of my dearest hopes that everyone would jump on this opportunity so we can all play together. Instead, it seems many still want to isolate themselves from others, and recreate this highly controversial element of most MMOs, and kill the general design of the game in the process, just because they want to play on their own terms, when open play already fits pretty much all of these terms.

Still, I really don't see this game as a "singleplayer" game. It seemed clear from the onset that they were making an online game first and foremost, where solo would be nothing more than "multiplayer without players". It's at the heart of the game, and I expected groups to be something people would use occasionally for specific events, not as a definite way to play the game.
There's no "PvP" nor "PvE" in this game to me, just like those terms are rarely applied to anything aside from MMORPGs, which are pretty much the only genre that really splits the two. The difference between the two is only that a player provides some slightly more elaborate interactions, but everything else is roughly similar. I can understand that you've grown accustomed to the general idiocy of NPCs, to the point you prefer them to players, but still the difference is so minimal, it appears to be a waste of brain cells to even consider it. I don't see how PvP could "ruin" your experience either, at least not more than a NPC would, and this seems to be a case of confrontation versus cooperation, not PvE versus PvP, and you'll hardly get a confrontation-free game. I often say that NPCs are much more of a hassle than players, which is very true, and that if you don't like PvP, you won't like PvE, and it's really confrontation that seems to be an issue, not PvP, and that those people are in fact "sore losers", for lack of a better term, who think a confrontation necessarily implies hate, when it does not, and that someone shooting me still improves my experience, as my experience is tailored by the game, not my personal tastes.

I just hope those people playing in groups are few enough that they don't actually have an impact on open play nor the community as a whole, but I still have trouble understanding reasons to even play in groups.

 

[Ikari]

I just hope those people playing in groups are few enough that they don't actually have an impact on open play nor the community as a whole, but I still have trouble understanding reasons to even play in groups.

But you'll be happy to reap the benefits of all those explorers and traders in the PVE group while you just kill things. I've said it already but I want frontier to split both groups so you PVP'ers can't benefit from the playstyles you don't like and you are more than welcome to your death match arena.

 

[StayFrosty]

I though it was fairly clear which subset of the open player-base I was referring to - you know, the ones who say that because a particular mechanism is in the game (among many, many others) that they are justified in any form of play - with absolutely no regard on what it may do to the nascent community.

Trying to place some sort of obligation on the less pugnacious players would suggest that you think that they should play in a way that they might not enjoy "for the good of the community". There seems to be a distinct lack of a similar obligation, from what you have written, for more pugnacious players to play in a way that they might not enjoy "for the good of the community".

You are (again) completely missing the point relating to the differences between the "I can do what I want" players who force interaction upon other players (with potential to spoil the latters' game) and players who may opt to play solo or in private groups (and, from the point of view of players in open, could just as easily be offline). One group actively affects the other while the converse cannot be said to be true. There is no obligation on players to form part of the open population, just as there is no obligation on players to play the game at all.

While you may contend that everyone is in it together, that is most definitely not the case. There are some players who only ever want to play solo. There are others who might play solo or with a few friends in private groups. These players have no obligation whatsoever to the open game - we are told to "play the game how you want to".

It's not clear until you explain it precisely, and even then, it remains quite vague: are we talking about griefers, or about anyone that does something you don't like?
Still, if they're people being a problem, again, they're only dealt with by facing them, and avoiding them will make it worse, and while, again, it is grossly exagerated, it could very well become as bad as some think it is if it keeps on being avoided. So in fact, you're talking about something that doesn't quite exist (and depending on what you really mean, might not exist at all), and that is made worse by being avoided. How does it change anything?

They don't have any responsibility, it's not their presence that is the problem, it is both expected and needed, but the absence of some others which are supposed to counter theirs. We know how to deal with them, and you're part of the solution, it's only up to you to step forward. Their existence is a normal thing, but your absence isn't quite so, and it's not about changing, it's about being present, so the community is a perpetual face off of the different playstyles which counter each other and eventually even each other out. To balance a community, you don't exclude people, you attract others.

But then, we might aswell start giving names: how many griefers are there really? Even then, just give me their names, I'll hunt them down, like I chased a couple pirates just yesterday, allowing other commanders to exit the station safely: it was unscripted, unexpected, it just happened. Because that's what you do among a community, you identify your enemies, call for your friends, and face them: everyone got what he wanted, the pirate got a fight, I got a bounty, traders got their safety after a tense moment, and that's how things usually work, and how I hope they'll work in Elite: Dangerous.

Obviously there is no obligation, but then you can't just act like your behavior won't hurt the community, because it will. You need to choose between considering it an obligation, or facing the responsibility of ruining the community, and you won't escape that choice by hiding into a group. It still doesn't change that it might not be worth it to play in a group at all, when people in open complain well enough about not meeting anyone, and when your presence could solve so many problems, including your own, by making open play a place enjoyable by everyone. So no, I didn't miss the point, I'm only questioning reasons for solo and group play, considering pretty much all those mentioned range from exaggeration to lies, and when that happens to put the whole community at risk, it worries me.

An NPC has no intention - it only acts according to the rule-set of the AI for the role that the NPC is fulfilling. Interesting point about players possibly being preferentially targeted by NPCs - the converse could also hold, of course - it all depends on how the AI for each NPC role is set up and any environmental factors that may be taken into account.

Regarding how a player gains their assets - your prejudices are showing a smidge - "or if he cheesed it by playing solo".... The player could just as easily have been twinked on the day that they joined the game with donations from the membership of an online community playing the game.

The idea is that why that happened that way is completely beyond your understanding, and that it would be quite a waste of time to focus so hard on it.

Regardless, the idea is that this is quite a minor issue, and even then, a minor issue of one of the outcomes of something that hardly ever happens. I would run out of synonyms for "rare" and "uncommon" pretty quickly if I were to explain the chain of events that would lead to such a situation.

It can only be taken care of *in open* by facing it - it cannot exist in solo and is unlikely to exist in private groups (for very long, if it ever occurs). Thankfully, even if it never becomes a problem, players are still free to select their mode of play on a session by session basis, depending on mood.

All I'm saying is, open play can be a great place for everyone, but everyone needs to join for that, so that the balance doesn't shift too much towards one playstyle. Avoiding griefers is the only proper argument, and even then its existence is discutable.

After all, as it stands, no one really needs to take care of the griefing problems, but the community has no safeties, and the first few days after the release will make or break it.

 

[murraypaul]

From the DDA, ...

There is so much in the DDA that is not in the game, is it even worth referring to at this point?

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Still, if they're people being a problem, again, they're only dealt with by facing them, and avoiding them will make it worse, and while, again, it is grossly exagerated, it could very well become as bad as some think it is if it keeps on being avoided.

On this point I've noticed that if you become a little bullish on the thread, like telling them you'll be hunting them down, or calling them out to a particular point because you're waiting there for them, people advocating griefing as normal play do become remarkably quiet.

I don't really think that griefing will be a problem on day one, since everyone will be far too scattered. Real griefers head for where all the players are, so expect them to congregate around Sol. Everyone goes to Sol once. I've been in the gamma, I'm not sure I'll return after release.

 

[murraypaul]

If you simply don't like multiplayer that much, then it's something entirely different. But then honestly, I still have a hard time to understand.
[...]
I just hope those people playing in groups are few enough that they don't actually have an impact on open play nor the community as a whole, but I still have trouble understanding reasons to even play in groups.

Yes, you don't get it.
That isn't a dig, but my view of ideal gaming is so different from yours that you genuinely don't seem to be able do understand it.
That is fine, I don't need you to.
Just stop trying to force me to play my game the way you want.

 

[StayFrosty]

Oh boy, where to start on this morass of sweeping generalisations.

Start by pointing them out so I can provide the necessary arguments to reply to it.

Griefing IS a huge issue. If it wasn't then FD wouldn't be going to such lengths to stamp it out. That's on a game level. On a personal level if YOU are the one being griefed it is also a huge issue.

I haven't seen too many complaints that were actually justified and not just "I don't like what he did". I guess we might as well ague on the definition of griefing. FD already stamped it out pretty well, by turning it into a profitable activity, called "piracy".

You might have noticed that ships costs money, and that a pirate ain't making any unless he does it properly, thus can't afford the tools required for his trade, can't pay for repairs, can't replace his ship, and eventually, can't find many safe places to do those things. Griefing is dealt with on a game level by putting limits on everthing, and associating most actions with consequences. As such, griefing can hardly exist in a sandbox, and again, it hardly happens right now.

Firstly, it isn't for you or anyone else to say someone is taking things way too seriously. If it is serious to them, that's all that matters. Now then, please explain how PvP and PvE are 'essentially the same thing'. Of course a player can ruin your day where an npc does not. NPCs do not go out of their way to attack you JUST BECAUSE you are human. NPCs use algorithms, humans use the whole range of human attributes like sadistic pleasure or just plain spite.

Oh but I can certainly say someone is taking things way too seriously. See, I'm doing it right now. It's a video game, and again, people taking it too seriously and complaining are sore losers.

Of course a NPC can ruin your day, they fly the same ships, use the same weapons and equipement, they hunt, trade and mine, they dock at stations, they can interdict you and attack you out of the blue for seemingly no reason (it's okay, it's an AI!!), but hey, somehow there's enough of a difference to complain so much about it, when you would hardly be able to tell the difference if commander names were hidden, and then you might suddenly realize that players aren't any nicer with NPCs.

So what's the difference aside from something in your mind saying "I lost to a player so I have a right to complain"? Aside from the little probability that you run into a hostile player that specifically targets you because you're a player too and succeeds in his attack, which is so small my calculator displayed "ERROR" when I tried to calculate it. The probability that your save is wiped due to a bug should be a far bigger worry, because right now, it is much, much bigger.

Stop shifting the blame. The blame lies with the one imposing his will on another by deciding that you must play the game his way, for his entertainment. I'm not even going to bother addressing the rest of your sentence because it is just you describing wish fulfilment conditions to fit your own view of how the game should be played. You are again just shifting blame like saying it was the victim's fault because he exists.

I'm not telling you how you should play, I'm telling you of the consequences of your actions, and whether you like it or not, there are consequences. They're hardly disputable, but if you think you can, feel free to try, because it doesn't seem you have.

I'm not putting all the blame on you, I'm not even blaming you, nothing happened (yet), but if things are to change, you'll have a responsibility. Prove you don't if you can, or just choose to ignore it, which you can do, but that won't just make it go away.

 

[murraypaul]

Still, if they're people being a problem, again, they're only dealt with by facing them, and avoiding them will make it worse

Nope, avoiding them works perfectly for 'us'. It might cause the ones being ignored a problem, but that is for them to deal with.

Obviously there is no obligation, but then you can't just act like your behavior won't hurt the community, because it will. You need to choose between considering it an obligation, or facing the responsibility of ruining the community

And this is something I simply don't understand, for a mirror of the other post.
I've paid my money. I've got a game. I enjoy playing the game.
I have no responsibility towards others I'm not playing with or interacting with in any way.
To them, my existence playing solo is exactly as though I had never bought the game in the first place.
If others want to build an online community, I wish them well. That doesn't mean I have to take part.

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

I'm not telling you how you should play, I'm telling you of the consequences of your actions, and whether you like it or not, there are consequences. They're hardly disputable, but if you think you can, feel free to try, because it doesn't seem you have.

I'm not putting all the blame on you, I'm not even blaming you, nothing happened (yet), but if things are to change, you'll have a responsibility. Prove you don't if you can, or just choose to ignore it, which you can do, but that won't just make it go away.

That is only the case if people can be blamed for never buying the game in the first place, as they have the same impact on open players as solo player do.

 

[StayFrosty]

Even if I play in the open group, I can't be there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. On no, I'm discriminating against some players, by not being in the game when they are. Oh no, I'm discriminating against some players by not being in the same part of the Galaxy as they are.

I must rush off now to make an account with WoW as it's going to collapse without my immediate involvement.

We're talking about a potentially sizeable part of a particular playstyle never playing the game here.

Try to come up with a better analogy, because that would be more like trying to play soccer in a world where no one wants to be the goal keeper.