"Getting it": A Definitive Discussion

[KING5TON]

FD should introduce an additional mode, similar to Open Online except you need to fill in a questionnaire before opening fire on another player.

Do you have a legitimate reason for attacking? - Yes [] No []
Have you considered the other player's immersion? - Yes [] No []
Are you aware the other player might not want to be shot? - Yes [] No []
Have you considered that the other player might be upset if you kill them? - Yes [] No []

 

[JeffRyan]

Edit 2:No consensual PvP is Griefing, and no all non-consensual PvP is griefing (pirating, bounty hunting, etc). For the former the infinite freedom should apply and it should effect no one elses game. In the latter case, there should absolutely be in game consequences for this. This last part is a BIG BIG part of "getting it". If you think me sneaking up behind you, scanning you with a K-Warrant Scanner, or Cargo Scanner and seeing you as a valid target for me to open fire on is griefing then this really isn't the game for you - especially as NPCs are designed to do this too.

My hope is that Frontier have been sensible about the whole thing - we absolutely do need anti-griefing measures for genuine instances of people using exploits or becoming abusive through play to other players. But in a game where you advertise Infinite Freedom and where one of the selling points it ...bounty-hunt, pirate and assassinate your way across the galaxy. - if it's a multiplayer game but you can only attack computer controlled NPCs, then it's really missed that point.

The thing is, PvP isn't actually that an important part of the game - even to the likes of me - but by creating such an active, negative feeling against it on the forums these people have made it the topic du jour for many people who do enjoy it as part of a healthy gaming diet.

We're pretty much in agreement over PvP, though we differ on community perception. (I understand WHY PvP is pretty much reviled, I do think it's a shame, but I get it).

We'll have to agree to disagree on the DDF. I suppose part of that is I'm not part of the establishment and don't want to give up my power.

 

[wolfstar7]

I'm glad I didn't buy it!

Wow, I was so excited and ready to buy this game. Then I've read this post and I realized that this game is gone be just another Eve full of suicide gankers, grievers and *******s! I'm glad I didn't buy it!

 

[Sumkawps]

My hope is that Frontier have been sensible about the whole thing - we absolutely do need anti-griefing measures for genuine instances of people using exploits or becoming abusive through play to other players. But in a game where you advertise Infinite Freedom and where one of the selling points it ...bounty-hunt, pirate and assassinate your way across the galaxy. - if it's a multiplayer game but you can only attack computer controlled NPCs, then it's really missed that point.

Nah, not when they simultaneously advertise the size of the playable area. Anyone who buys in to ED and who expects co-op or adversarial group play, or indeed player encounters, outside of a relatively small number of densely populated systems is simply not "getting it". They didn't read, and more importantly understand, the bit about there being 400 billion systems in which to exercise your freedom.

Also, strictly as an aside, nothing in what you quoted implies that every one of the combats you will engage in is a PC encounter - it's just professions being described, all of which have both a PvP and PvE component in this game. It's up to you personally as a player to influence the proportion of PC encounters by making the choices that lead that way - the game just doesn't hand it to you on a plate, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Some of the anti-griefing measures are baked-in to the background sim - we'll have to see how those play out before crying for balancing.

The thing is, PvP isn't actually that an important part of the game - even to the likes of me - but by creating such an active, negative feeling against it on the forums these people have made it the topic du jour for many people who do enjoy it as part of a healthy gaming diet.

Sorry, nah again. The people who "get it" are the ones who have long been saying that a false distinction between PvE and PvP doesn't apply here. Everything else is just noise, sometimes amusing, sometimes downright unpleasant.

Your choice (which can be altered daily) is to engage in a combat career or not to do so. Your combat target is your combat target, and your choices influence how likely that this to be a PC or an NPC. That's all. People whinging about PvP (too much or too little) don't "get it".

All this against the backdrop of an evolving galaxy that puts consequences on you every time you pull a trigger or sell an item or scan a star or whatever. Some of these consequences are good for your character, some bad. Your behaviour on a moral/economic/social scale defines how much of the good/bad consequences you will face. That's all.

It's so much deeper than some shallow discussion of whether PvP is in the game or not. It is, and it's here to stay, and the prominence it gets in your game is a personal choice, not FDev's responsibility. The fact that in the 400 billion systems PvE encounters vastly outweigh PvP in numerical scope has nothing to do with this, and simply underlines that you will have to actively choose and seek out PvP. Or you could just play what's in front of you at any given time, which is how the thing has been designed.....

 

[JeffRyan]

Sorry, nah again. The people who "get it" are the ones who have long been saying that a false distinction between PvE and PvP doesn't apply here. Everything else is just noise, sometimes amusing, sometimes downright unpleasant.

Agreed, even I took a long long time to get that. But I did. Eventually. Part of that is realising Elite Dangerous isn't about PvP and PvE. It's all PvE where E includes players.

There's NO narrative difference between killing a player or an NPC both bring the same consequences down on your head depending on the situation, status and mission.

 

[xyphic]

Hi Titus,

I understand your position on PvP, and I understand that it frustrates you when you see that people are seemingly trying to undermine it. I get the same feeling when people talk (in a less than informed manner) about the DDF. In the same way as some people don't "get" the game, I don't think you're "getting" the DDF.

The DDF has been nothing other than beneficial for the game that you're testing right now. There is a good spread of opinion about most of the game mechanics, and that includes PvP. There has been no discussion as such about whether PvP is a good thing or a bad thing, simply an acceptance that in order to make the game fun, allowing people to opt out is a good compromise. The discussions on griefing have centred around what could / should be done to both detect it and punish it. The dev opinion on that was always that they'd prefer for the game to do it automatically; i.e. if there are mechanisms in-game that allow you to grief someone, then the game should come down hard on those actions. Not through moderator intervention, but through natural gameplay such as fines, bounties and reputation. The complaints we've seen in the forum about PvP are simply because those mechanisms aren't in place, so the balance is tipped toward the griefer. The only real consensus was that there should be some way of reporting abusive behaviour, and that's in the game already.

I understand why the Freeport shenanigans were odious to some people: without living on the forum, they likely wouldn't have known about the "consensual" agreement that was in place (in which case, they just see people exploiting the NFZ bug and have a rant about it). It frustrated me a little that once the bug had been identified, those players didn't just ticket it and move on, but I also realise that it was valuable for the devs as it gives them an insight into what sort of gameplay would emerge when there aren't consequences. We saw vigilante action, exploits of the solo mode to avoid the blockade, etc.

Anyway, back to the DDF. The main thrust of the DDF has always been to find and fix the holes in Frontier's design for the game. While some posters are more vocal than others, I trust the devs to treat each argument with the same merit. The great thing about the vocal posters is that they were able to debate, make proposals and refine those proposals until (sometimes) something good came out of it. If the DDF hadn't been there, this game wouldn't be anywhere near as far along as it is now, as Frontier would have had to iterate the design more during the early phases. If they'd implemented in-system travel as per the original design, it might even have killed the game before it started.

The reason the DDF isn't very active right now is that there aren't many topics being posted. We occasionally get a promise of a new one, but it seems that Sandro is very busy so they're few and far between; in fact, since the Alpha was released there have been relatively few topics broached. It's amusing to think that at one point we were expecting a topic on the flight model, but that ship has long since sailed! There will come a time when Frontier are ready to look at new features (either for the expansions or for updates post-release), and I'm sure that a lot of us in the DDF will become active again.

Finally, don't worry about the DDF input to the PvP debate. DB wants this to be a multiplayer experience, and he wants it to be (for want of a better term) dangerous. PvP will be a big part of the game if you want it to be. Likewise, if you don't, it won't. That's got to be a good thing, right?

 

[Titus Balls]

Nah, not when they simultaneously advertise the size of the playable area. Anyone who buys in to ED and who expects co-op or adversarial group play, or indeed player encounters, outside of a relatively small number of densely populated systems is simply not "getting it". They didn't read, and more importantly understand, the bit about there being 400 billion systems in which to exercise your freedom.

Also, strictly as an aside, nothing in what you quoted implies that every one of the combats you will engage in is a PC encounter - it's just professions being described, all of which have both a PvP and PvE component in this game. It's up to you personally as a player to influence the proportion of PC encounters by making the choices that lead that way - the game just doesn't hand it to you on a plate, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Some of the anti-griefing measures are baked-in to the background sim - we'll have to see how those play out before crying for balancing.

Sorry, nah again. The people who "get it" are the ones who have long been saying that a false distinction between PvE and PvP doesn't apply here. Everything else is just noise, sometimes amusing, sometimes downright unpleasant.

Your choice (which can be altered daily) is to engage in a combat career or not to do so. Your combat target is your combat target, and your choices influence how likely that this to be a PC or an NPC. That's all. People whinging about PvP (too much or too little) don't "get it".

All this against the backdrop of an evolving galaxy that puts consequences on you every time you pull a trigger or sell an item or scan a star or whatever. Some of these consequences are good for your character, some bad. Your behaviour on a moral/economic/social scale defines how much of the good/bad consequences you will face. That's all.

It's so much deeper than some shallow discussion of whether PvP is in the game or not. It is, and it's here to stay, and the prominence it gets in your game is a personal choice, not FDev's responsibility. The fact that in the 400 billion systems PvE encounters vastly outweigh PvP in numerical scope has nothing to do with this, and simply underlines that you will have to actively choose and seek out PvP. Or you could just play what's in front of you at any given time, which is how the thing has been designed.....

OK, So I read this. I went away, had a coffee, then came back and read it again.

Ding ding ding.

Like JeffRyan says:

Dangerous isn't about PvP and PvE. It's all PvE where E includes players.

This I totally get and it's probably one of the much better posts giving a clear description of what Elite: Dangerous is in a broader sense as a game. For the majority of people this should be stickied as the first thing they read. It's certainly given me a much better perspective on the game as a whole.

Another thing I should add that - I slept on this and decided really I shouldn't care what people who choose to go in to solo or group play think. They are never going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change theres on what the nature of PvP may or may not be.

If they think "All PvP == Griefing", even when Frontier have given players the tools to have these interactions, and as such choose to not play in Open mode, then actually this has no effect on my game. The fact is there are plenty of people who do want to play within Open Play, and these are the people that I'll choose to have adventures with in this game.

The forum is metagaming, it's not part of what happens when I put the Rift on and sit behind my HOTAS. If they choose to personally attack me on these forums (and this is where a lot of my frustration has come from) then I have two options - I can let it slide, or I can choose to report them - after that I can then get back in the game and start hunting down bad guys (or good guys, depending on how I play) - PC or NPC.

There's NO narrative difference between killing a player or an NPC both bring the same consequences down on your head depending on the situation, status and mission.

The only part I would disagree on this with is that a player can choose to come out of the game and attack the player in another medium, or report another player because an attack "didn't fit their style of play". That undercurrent I talk about is - "If I scan you down, you have a bounty you forgot to pay and I kill you, then you decide I griefed you and you report me". What I hope is that Frontier have a) The tools and b) The wherewithal to deal with this in the correct way. In the end I'm probably overthinking it anyway because these are the kind of people who will never be in Open Play anyway.

 

[Titus Balls]

Hi Titus,

I understand your position on PvP, and I understand that it frustrates you when you see that people are seemingly trying to undermine it. I get the same feeling when people talk (in a less than informed manner) about the DDF. In the same way as some people don't "get" the game, I don't think you're "getting" the DDF.

The DDF has been nothing other than beneficial for the game that you're testing right now. There is a good spread of opinion about most of the game mechanics, and that includes PvP. There has been no discussion as such about whether PvP is a good thing or a bad thing, simply an acceptance that in order to make the game fun, allowing people to opt out is a good compromise. The discussions on griefing have centred around what could / should be done to both detect it and punish it. The dev opinion on that was always that they'd prefer for the game to do it automatically; i.e. if there are mechanisms in-game that allow you to grief someone, then the game should come down hard on those actions. Not through moderator intervention, but through natural gameplay such as fines, bounties and reputation. The complaints we've seen in the forum about PvP are simply because those mechanisms aren't in place, so the balance is tipped toward the griefer. The only real consensus was that there should be some way of reporting abusive behaviour, and that's in the game already.

I understand why the Freeport shenanigans were odious to some people: without living on the forum, they likely wouldn't have known about the "consensual" agreement that was in place (in which case, they just see people exploiting the NFZ bug and have a rant about it). It frustrated me a little that once the bug had been identified, those players didn't just ticket it and move on, but I also realise that it was valuable for the devs as it gives them an insight into what sort of gameplay would emerge when there aren't consequences. We saw vigilante action, exploits of the solo mode to avoid the blockade, etc.

Anyway, back to the DDF. The main thrust of the DDF has always been to find and fix the holes in Frontier's design for the game. While some posters are more vocal than others, I trust the devs to treat each argument with the same merit. The great thing about the vocal posters is that they were able to debate, make proposals and refine those proposals until (sometimes) something good came out of it. If the DDF hadn't been there, this game wouldn't be anywhere near as far along as it is now, as Frontier would have had to iterate the design more during the early phases. If they'd implemented in-system travel as per the original design, it might even have killed the game before it started.

The reason the DDF isn't very active right now is that there aren't many topics being posted. We occasionally get a promise of a new one, but it seems that Sandro is very busy so they're few and far between; in fact, since the Alpha was released there have been relatively few topics broached. It's amusing to think that at one point we were expecting a topic on the flight model, but that ship has long since sailed! There will come a time when Frontier are ready to look at new features (either for the expansions or for updates post-release), and I'm sure that a lot of us in the DDF will become active again.

Finally, don't worry about the DDF input to the PvP debate. DB wants this to be a multiplayer experience, and he wants it to be (for want of a better term) dangerous. PvP will be a big part of the game if you want it to be. Likewise, if you don't, it won't. That's got to be a good thing, right?

Thank you xyphic for this clear and concise post, it's actually very much appreciated.

I suppose one thing is when you see a certain topic, and you always see the same names crop up with the same points of view every time it can become frustrating (and I realise the irony that I myself have become one of these people in the Pro-PvP camp). In that sense it does give the appearance of a shadowy cabal of certain vocal forum members who are conspiring to turn the game into a theme park for their amusement. Don't worry, you're not the first to dispel that myth with this post though - I don't think it's like that, as I say it's just the appearance.

I think overall Frontier, and to an extent the DDF have done a wonderful job - the game wouldn't be what it is today without that. To add to that, Frontier have a great team of designers and developers and they do appear to be listening to the broader audience on some parts of the game.

I absolutely agree that a lot of the complaints have come about because features have not been implemented yet, and I think many do see that, but again it's frustrating when the same things crop up over and over again too. It's the argument for the closed beta scenario as too many have come in to this process expecting a complete game when in reality we're still testing infrastructure and design ideas that haven't quite been finished (in essence we're a physical extension of the DDF).

On your last point - actually every time I listen to DB I hear this - he wants the game to be dangerous, he wants conflict - just not at the expense of people's fun - and that I can get behind.

 

[Titus Balls]

Nevermind.

 

[Cmdr Snuffler]

Wow, I was so excited and ready to buy this game. Then I've read this post and I realized that this game is gone be just another Eve full of suicide gankers, grievers and *******s! I'm glad I didn't buy it!

Welcome to the forums.

I read somewhere that the queen mum was a robot

Your comment is as wrong as fizzy milk!

It's far, far, far from Eve in terms of griefing.
In fact most people play quite happily.
One or two people have a few issues with some people every now and again.

But you have to remember...this is Beta!
Not all mechanics are in the game.
As we go along more of these mechanics will be added and random play killing and griefing will be dealt with harshly by the game environment.

You clearly didn't read the criminality link I posted above.

CRIMINALITY - PLEASE READ THIS:

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6276

 

[tagos]

In the end it's a big galaxy and you're going to only be in a 32 player bubble at any one time. Odds are you'll be able to avoid or not run into the inevitable element who take PvP as an opportunity to be jerks. You can play solo, play in non-PvP groups.

My feeling is - if you're in open play then the fact you can and will be attacked is a feature not a problem. If you know Freeport is Jerk Central don't go there. Always have a good insurance cushion. Go solo and top it up if it gets low.

The worst that can happen is you lose some credits really. Other people are just part of the adventure. I plan on just going with the flow and seeing what happens. And if I end up having to borrow from a loan shark then that's just emergent gameplay.

There will be jerks and exploiters. Just report them if you feel it's gone too far but in open play you're consenting to being attacked any time, anywhere by anyone. You need to play accordingly and if like me you're not that great at combat you need to adapt to that. The game gives you all the tools, including configuring your ship with drives and power plants that enable a practised pilot to run away really fast.

It's not my Braben-given right to fly anything anywhere without a problem.

 

[lysan]

We need the "living world" aspect for sure, when I was a young lad i could play for hours with two wooden sticks. Somehow this doesn't work anymore we got used to a more fleshed out environment. That is why I asked question regarding how trading works? If it's all simulated and need a NPC / PC to actually transport cargo from point A to B before it becomes available in the trading centers. Regarding the RPG part of ED there must be some kind of back ground simulation running you can interact with, I heard that this is also planned at some point.

I truly hope that we will see a lot of "the outsider" incorporated into Elite in as many ways as possible. Furthermore, walking in stations, planets and ships will add a new dimension to the game, a dimension you just can't be without these days.

X and the ME series did the foot work, however they were not complete and failed due to the arcade feeling I had when playing the game.

When playing Arma 3 / DayZ you can get the feeling that you are in a living world, because the environment is interacting with you, weather and wild life, cities have some life and traffic patterns.

The PvP in ED should always be present, you can't be safe everywhere, that's why I always play in OPEN and want to play the Ironman mode when available.

Cheers,

 

[Cryptonomica]

...Your choice (which can be altered daily) is to engage in a combat career or not to do so. Your combat target is your combat target, and your choices influence how likely that this to be a PC or an NPC. That's all. People whinging about PvP (too much or too little) don't "get it".

All this against the backdrop of an evolving galaxy that puts consequences on you every time you pull a trigger or sell an item or scan a star or whatever. Some of these consequences are good for your character, some bad. Your behaviour on a moral/economic/social scale defines how much of the good/bad consequences you will face. That's all...

...Elite Dangerous isn't about PvP and PvE. It's all PvE where E includes players.

There's NO narrative difference between killing a player or an NPC both bring the same consequences down on your head depending on the situation, status and mission

Great posts both of you! This is definitely something I agree with. It's ultimately what makes the galaxy feel like a real living, breathing place.

Perhaps, in an ideal world, this would reinforced by removing the ability for players to tell whether their target is a PC or an NPC, so that we as pilots are just interacting with other pilots in a virtual galaxy, with no care or concern as to what/who is controlling them "behind the screen".

 

[Cryptonomica]

...every time I listen to DB I hear this - he wants the game to be dangerous, he wants conflict - just not at the expense of people's fun - and that I can get behind.

Something I can most definitely get behind as well.

 

[Adept]

As a concrete example, I was bounty hunting in a ring system (at Asellus Primus), when I was pounced on from ambush by a well armed Cobra.

Mine was barely above stock, I had no bounty and no cargo. There was no opportunity to run, nor to fight back effectively. After some delaying action I succumbed and was down time, bounty vouchers and insurance cost.

I got back to the area, saw the person in supercruise (just a backer number). He refused to answer text chat or pick up voice comms, and escaped by jumping out of the system when I followed.

***

Guess what Titus? That was a really pointless and annoying encounter. PvP that makes some kind of sense is perfectly ok, but these people who just want to ambush kill strangers because they can, and run away from any consequence are definitely adding nothing to my Elite exoerience.

I'm a PvP player in many things. Allegiance, DotA2, World of Tanks, but behaviour like that seems very out of place and out of context in Elite. If nothing else a crazy NPC will at least open with some taunts.

---

Now I really hope that when Criminality and Pilot's Federation bounties are fully implemented, the shoe will be on the other foot. I will have the option to hit maximum level Elite Federation bounty on such pointless muggers, and doing it will not be much fun for them in the long term. If they persist in such pointless and unwarranted attacks, David has referred to hellbanning on several occasions.

So the future and tone of PvP remains to be seen. CoD in space behavior will hopefully die out, and the price of blowing up Pilot's Federation shipping will deter most crazies. It's really too bad that the Viper is as cheap, fast and heavily armed as it is. It's _the_ griefer ship, both for chasing people down and running away.

 

[Gibbonici]

In the end I'm probably overthinking it anyway...

It's what we all do on the forums

None of these gigantic, existential forum arguments survive the moment when the spinning Sidey vanishes and we find ourselves back in the game.

 

[Titus Balls]

It's what we all do on the forums

None of these gigantic, existential forum arguments survive the moment when the spinning Sidey vanishes and we find ourselves back in the game.

I realise that if I also put as much effort into my work as I did on here sometimes, I might actually be better at my work too

I'm less passionate about my work though

 

[Shayde]

Yes. I completely agree. It IS roleplay. Imagine yourself actually being there and act accordingly. Would the person in the YouTube video actually go around doing that if it was a real life situation? Hopefully not. If we all played it as true roleplay then it would minimise a lot of problems between players. Sadly there will always be at least a few who just enjoy the FPS frag fest style, but in my opinion Elite is not the game for those types

 

[Cosmos]

Wow, I was so excited and ready to buy this game. Then I've read this post and I realized that this game is gone be just another Eve full of suicide gankers, grievers and *******s! I'm glad I didn't buy it!

A really convincing first post. trollol.

 

[Keve Rodenberg]

The other complication is that while I agree, in general, with the premise that we should follow the rules of the society in which we find ourselves, those rules will change across the gradient from civilized core systems to a relatively lawless and sparsely populated frontier. And then beyond, into deep space. Players will be able to choose where they want to operate along that gradient, including out on the fringe where there will be no rules aside from the ones you adopt for yourself.

This, exactly!

There is no specific "society" imposing rules in the ED universe but the whole spectrum of forms of society, many of which will wildy contradict each other in terms of rules and norms.

Simply transferring values held dearly in one's real life to a fictional game world and expecting everybody to stick to them is not role playing but in fact the very opposite of it!

The ED universe with its extremely varied societal constructs allows players to take up arbitrarily diverse roles, including the thief, drug trafficker, slavemonger, terrorist and homicidial maniac - to only name of few of the more obvious ones who all, by the way, exist in our real world as well.

If and how people playing these roles will get away with their acts will depend on how "real" societies will actually be implemented in the game. Right now I think it is safe to say that life as a criminal carries almost zero risk even in highly populated Fed systems. I expect this to change.