How dangerous will the universe be?

[STABB666]

Hang on a minute...

Although Frontier will have to make it work something like you've described (for the reasons kilvenny described), it's worth prodding at during the alpha. Frontier expect persistent NPCs will be stored on the client, so you may well be able to reload your game until an encounter with a contact goes just the right way. And if we can do that, it's quite possible there will be other similar exploits available.

But would the concept of a 'reload' not be easily solved through time-stamping progress at logon to the game servers? Unless a player is completely single-layer offline, then rolling back to a point prior to the last interaction with an NPC, locally stored or not, shouldn't be possible in that case. Unless the local file is hacked, of course.

 

[cheeseheads]

just play single player only and all is solved. i wont play online if it will be anything like Eve. hate pvp with a passion

 

[Robert Maynard]

You did not read the thread, did you? It was proposed several times to have a non-grouping mode and a grouping-mode of the game - only to strictly separate them from each other.

A strict split proposal that you refer to does not seem to be present in the current FD proposal.

Only you propose a restriction on others because you think everyone should be forced into bubble-space.

Where did I propose such a restriction?

 

[insanephoton]

It depends how FD implement things. Are we sure that we will have active saves or will it be like Guild Wars 2 where there are no saves and when you log on, you kind of reappear where you last were.

 

[Robert Maynard]

To be fair, there are probably quite a few people like me around who love challenging games, and even PVP, but emotionally-challenged people not so much. I see groups as a potential solution to that problem.

If only there was a grouping system in DiRT 3, so I could join one which kicked out the crash-happy twerps, I'd play no end of multiplayer. Unfortunately, I don't play the game online, because around 60% of the time you end up in a group with a couple of people that don't really want to race. Tis a shame.

It would be a real shame if E: D ended up providing such an off-putting multi-player experience.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

But would the concept of a 'reload' not be easily solved through time-stamping progress at logon to the game servers? Unless a player is completely single-layer offline, then rolling back to a point prior to the last interaction with an NPC, locally stored or not, shouldn't be possible in that case. Unless the local file is hacked, of course.

I'd certainly expect Frontier to look at solutions in that area, but it's not a silver bullet. If you really want to take it to extremes, a player could install ED on a virtual machine and play the game through to the moment where they encounter an NPC; then power down their router, make the fateful decision, and reload the whole VM from a saved state if it goes wrong. Then you'd have no record locally or remotely of any funny business.

I doubt they'll try to protect against anything quite that ridiculous, but I expect there'll be some discussion of exactly how grey the area is

 

[Robert Maynard]

Cathy's post.

Cathy, you nailed it with this post. Couldn't agree more with everything you've said here.

She certainly did. I similarly concur.

 

[STABB666]

Between the candle and the star...

I'd certainly expect Frontier to look at solutions in that area, but it's not a silver bullet. If you really want to take it to extremes, a player could install ED on a virtual machine and play the game through to the moment where they encounter an NPC; then power down their router, make the fateful decision, and reload the whole VM from a saved state if it goes wrong. Then you'd have no record locally or remotely of any funny business.

I doubt they'll try to protect against anything quite that ridiculous, but I expect there'll be some discussion of exactly how grey the area is

I suspect that it'll be a case of finding the price point for where the investment of resource prevents the majority of 'easy' exploits, before it starts to roll into a costly exercise to prevent a handful of ridiculously complicated ones.

 

[Fromhell]

Cathy's post.


She certainly did. I similarly concur.

Nope. The day I agree with Cathy or PacalB is the day hell freezes over.
To me, the typical "I want it all" self centered, feature excluding user who should rather play single player, because that is what they actually want, not grasping what a true multiplayer online sandbox is all about.

 

[Bungarus]

it is all to do with having to play with characters who couldn't care less about the storyline of the game and who are really seeking to abuse the mechanics of the game in anyway they can find.

This might actually be worse in ED than in MMOGs that you have to subscribe to on a monthly basis, where only few people who don't care for the game go on paying for it only to make trouble instead of simply dropping out of it. Someone who has already payed a fixed amount for the game in a box in advance and finds out it is not to his taste however, who is still able to go on playing online for free, is quite likely to behave in the way you describe.

So first there is a payment model that does not allow to maintain a full blown client-server architecture without parallel instancing, then this might also lead to more morons in the game that you think you need to hide away from in your instance bubbles.(*) Full circle at least.

(*) I say: Don't hide from them, shoot them.

World of difference between people playing a bad guy, and actually being a bad guy.

Yes and no. Not all, but many of those who find "playing bad" attractive do so for a reason. My experience is also that those "playing bad" have the highest percentage of people who troll, insult and lie in forums.

A strict split proposal that you refer to does not seem to be present in the current FD proposal.

So what?

Where did I propose such a restriction?

In this very post again, by approving the "current" proposal by FD, which you think includes this restriction, should be carved in stone already.

http://www.wodnews.net/Blogs/tabid/82/Article/940/The-value-of-non-consensual-PvP.aspx

Here would be the chance to be *clearly* different from X-Rebirth and Star Citizen which both are the biggest contenders, one in the single player department, the other in the online department.

Excellent article Fromhell, also concerning the strange overestimation of scripted content and NPCs in multiplayer online gaming:

"No developer has the resources to create quality content faster than gamers can consume it. What's more, players tend to risk less when fighting an NPC faction. The fact is, no matter how much you destroy of an NPC's assets, you know that no real loss was incurred. You are risking your hard-won assets against a shadow opponent, whose resources are essentially limitless. That is not the case when fighting other players. What MMOs need, to keep us interested, are dynamic conflict drivers with measurable consequences. Player-driven content and emergent gameplay."

All the unnecessary burden FD put on their shoulders by thinking about loads of NPCs even in All-mode shows me that they are actually far away from truly thinking multiplayer.

 

[Cody]

Squirrels!

 

[Bungarus]

Pardon?

 

[damientgerard]

I appreciate your point has got sidestepped. The point it's bumping along against is this: "grouping" is not about danger; it's not about the difficulty level, or core safety v. fringe risks, or the harsh cruelties of PvP at the brink of liminal space compared to the cosiness of a police response. Grouping is not about what you play; it's about who you play with.

Almost every playground has this trouble. There's usually some kid who does not get that he's just not nice to play with. He doesn't get the agreed rules because he doesn't care to. He thinks others' value is limited to what he can get out of their participation at best. He wants everyone else to play by the oh so superior rules he's made up, and when they don't he gets hissy and vindictive. When the other children avoid him he assumes they don't want to play with him because he's "too good", unable to grasp the fact that they don't want to play with him because he's a selfish peurile mouthy snot.

Online gaming has a high snot quotient. The relative anonymity probably has something to do with this. Grouping and ease of moving back and forth lets everyone enjoy all the game's content, from the safe to the dangerous, as a good guy or a bad guy or something else, unencumbered by snot. When a player's snot tolerance is breached, they can private group. When they've recovered, they can all-group, knowing they won't be penalised in progress or by content restriction for needing to avoid future snots.

This is what I agree with. So many times my MMO experience has been ruined by the 'snot' quotient. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy PvP but only when and where I choose. Now that doesn't mean I 'gank from the shadows' but I do enjoy battlegrounds or fleets formed for the purpose of raiding another corps territory. I dislike having PvP forced upon me though as quite often I just want to play and chat with friends rather than full-on waste other players. Having this option (and I stress 'option') is important to me.

 

[Maxeren]

This is what I agree with. So many times my MMO experience has been ruined by the 'snot' quotient. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy PvP but only when and where I choose. Now that doesn't mean I 'gank from the shadows' but I do enjoy battlegrounds or fleets formed for the purpose of raiding another corps territory. I dislike having PvP forced upon me though as quite often I just want to play and chat with friends rather than full-on waste other players. Having this option (and I stress 'option') is important to me.

I would then stress that it is important to me that i am able to track down and kill people like you who may be carrying something valuable in order to aquire it, because that will be my "role" as a pirate in the game. If i'm not able to hunt you down because you "escaped" into your bubble of fuzzy lovely rainbow solitude, then i will be very angry, i want that option available to me to hunt you down.. VERY ANGRY i tell you

 

[PacalB]

Nope. The day I agree with Cathy or PacalB is the day hell freezes over.
To me, the typical "I want it all" self centered, feature excluding user who should rather play single player, because that is what they actually want, not grasping what a true multiplayer online sandbox is all about.

Better still, lets hope it freezes over before that point, we might be lucky enough to have you still stuck down there?

No, it's not the "I want it all" attitude, it's simply not having the time and energy to waste playing a game with characters that couldn't give a hoot about the story or game par from getting their rocks off with their mates.

(*) I say: Don't hide from them, shoot them.

Spent years doing this, dragged in to their crap version of their game play (nothing to do with the game story), didn't enjoy it, so won't be doing it here in E: D, it's simply not worth the time and effort.

 

[Bungarus]

and I stress 'option'

If that implies you don't care if others have the other option to play where there's no grouping, thank you.

 

[jabokai]

If that implies you don't care if others have the other option to play where there's no grouping, thank you.

Are you suggesting having an All Players main group with no sub-grouping options AND another All Players group that can split off into sub groups?

I suggested that the Ironman group was made that way (i.e. no sub groups) but that the regular All Players main group could have sub groups (to fulfill the Kickstarter group options pledge) but I don't think they went for it!

 

[Maxeren]

This seems like a very "one sided" debate.. all the "i don't want pvp" people want to escape into a bubble so they can't get killed, i then ask, what is the fun in being a pirate for anyone in you can't hunt down players? Shoot npcs.. gets dull really quick.. to quote the article posted here earlier:

"The fact is, no matter how much you destroy of an NPC's assets, you know that no real loss was incurred. You are risking your hard-won assets against a shadow opponent, whose resources are essentially limitless."

Alot of the fun comes from player interaction, chatting etc. but interaction implies KILLING EACH OTHER TOO...

"Then i will isolate myself in my little group".. maybe you will, but what happens if everyone does that?

 

[Fromhell]

No, it's not the "I want it all" attitude, it's simply not having the time and energy to waste playing a game with characters that couldn't give a hoot about the story or game par from getting their rocks off with there mates.

Then why on earth are you hanging around in topics about multiplayer then? Frontier should give you a bonus and add your secluded co-up mode, selectable from the start menu, beside your favourite mode which is obviously single player, and lock in stuff/credits to each mode to play with your "predictable friends" and scripted NPCs, problem solved.

No one needs group switcheroo on the fly and scared players fleeing to private groups. Still waiting for a lore conform explanation for a player using this mechanic by the way.

Feel free to tell me why this solution is not a million times better than "groups":

Start Game.
Step 1, choose mode:
1. Ironman (Full Scale Realism PvAll+Perma Death, or if you die you end up in Dangerous mode)
2. Dangerous (Full Scale Realism PvAll)
3. Cooperative (Co-Op with "friends")
4. Lone Wolf (Single Player Offline)

Step 2, create character.

No mode/credits/ships transfers, no group switching, no complaining, no monkey business

 

[Oss133]

Good grief. This argument just goes on and on doesn't it?

Look, Cathy is correct. Scumbags will play this game and we need a way to block them from spoiling our fun. The argument that one player can escape another by dropping out of the all group is pointless if that player can also escape by leaving the game which at some point they must be able to do. Surely no-one wants to get blown to bits while they are not actually playing?

It really feels like too many threads are getting derailed by this same ridiculous argument.