Yep, that's fair enough. In EVE I have a problem with people going to newbie systems to harass new players. I have no problem with that new player being blown up if he wanders out into lowsec or nullsec.
How dangerous will the universe be?
- Thread starter JohnStabler
- Start date
Yep, that's fair enough. In EVE I have a problem with people going to newbie systems to harass new players. I have no problem with that new player being blown up if he wanders out into lowsec or nullsec.
You know, here is the sad part, there was a time in EvE in the early and middle years where there was RP, storyline and very good player interaction no matter the type of path you chose to go. You could be pirates, anti-pirates, alliance warriors, miners, bounty hunters, all types etc etc. It was a wild and wonderful place to explore in. Then grew the multitudes of arrogant sociopaths to the game and as the years past it became nothing less than a craphole.
The difference here is with FD's method you can choose to opt out of that kind of thing once it starts here and it will because any game that is slick, cool and popular will attract the multitudes of those types as well. So to me, the split groups will always be a good thing, its just a shame that the all group option people have to accept the sociopaths as a standard and have them call it "gaming". The early days of E: D will be wild but as the hoards arrive the gaming environment will change. Personally I'm not optimistic that change will be for the good.
I can see the all-groups option being used until it becomes just too damn intolerable to have a good time playing the game with these kinds of characters.
Indeed and as you know that harassment can come in many different forms and levels. A lot of people do not play games to have that kind of experience in their past time. It seems that there are many that seem to think "sandbox" means open door policy to behave and act anyway they please. They also find great pleasure in taking the xxxx out of those they can abuse in game.
If we good guys wouldn't have bad guys in the game, who should we shoot at?
And if the bad guys become the majority - I agree that is possible and perhaps even likely to happen because, well, look around in the real world, it might be representative - you can feel like the rebels in Star Wars when the evil empire was all over the place. (But the universe of ED is so big that it will always be possible to retreat to some safe territory.)
Being amongst a minority of noble rebels against the forces of evil can be quite rewarding, I once experienced that in another MMOG for quite a while - until one remarkable day with the declaration of war of a secretly prepared alliance towards the biggest alliance of evil guilds the tide was about to be turned ... but that is another story.
And if the bad guys become the majority - I agree that is possible and perhaps even likely to happen because, well, look around in the real world, it might be representative - you can feel like the rebels in Star Wars when the evil empire was all over the place. (But the universe of ED is so big that it will always be possible to retreat to some safe territory.)
Being amongst a minority of noble rebels against the forces of evil can be quite rewarding, I once experienced that in another MMOG for quite a while - until one remarkable day with the declaration of war of a secretly prepared alliance towards the biggest alliance of evil guilds the tide was about to be turned ... but that is another story.
I want encounters to be tense. Not knowing the other players intentions or psychology will enhance the game. Other people playing, no matter what their outlook/play-style/motivation is, will be the cream on the cake, at least for me.
I really like the idea of not knowing if a ship is NPC/PC in actual space. So many issues of grieving or notions of unfairness seem to be solved by this idea. Obviously, we want a social aspect to game playing but maybe this could be done in port or direct contact between friends (or enemies). I know some people will want to keep a player kill count just as others don't want a 'real person' to attack/kill them so this middle ground seems so apt.
I want it to be dangerous; that's why I'm playing it. Other humans, with their flaws, perfections and presence, are the most enjoyable component to the game.
I really like the idea of not knowing if a ship is NPC/PC in actual space. So many issues of grieving or notions of unfairness seem to be solved by this idea. Obviously, we want a social aspect to game playing but maybe this could be done in port or direct contact between friends (or enemies). I know some people will want to keep a player kill count just as others don't want a 'real person' to attack/kill them so this middle ground seems so apt.
I want it to be dangerous; that's why I'm playing it. Other humans, with their flaws, perfections and presence, are the most enjoyable component to the game.
<nods>
One thing I'm hoping for so that the above fears do not come to light is that in core systems the previously mentioned police / military threat and response should cut down on most 'numpty attacks', and due to the sheer size of the game, with [insert correct number of systems] star systems, hopefully meeting other players will be fairly rare so the chances of meeting a numpty are reduced even further.
Unfortunately, the rise of suicide ganking in EVE suggests a police response may not work - some players will throw away cheap ships to get to expensive cargo. Having said that, Frontier have talked about how ships will be expensive and destroying a ship will also destroy most of its value. If that's still not enough to make the cost outweigh the benefit, hopefully the insurance system can be tweaked to make such attacks unprofitable in civilised space.
Ultimately though, I get the impression Frontier see this as a problem to be fixed, whereas CCP see it as another level of gameplay. Even if all of the above isn't enough, I'm confident they'll keep iterating over the problem until it's fixed.
Again, I hear you and hope for the same. Still, the reality is the core systems will still be the most populated areas as these are going to be the areas with the majority of stations and facilities. It is just these places and the bordering systems where you are going to find numpties (heed: not legit players actually playing as pirates) seeking to get most of their action.
Of course you can head off into the wilds to explore those hundreds of thousands of stars but at some point you are going to have to return to the core systems to repair, restock, replace ships and items, they know this and will be seeking to take full advantage of this fact.
The whole groups thing is not a problem of how dangerous the E: D universe is, 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. The groups option reduces their ability to have that negative gaming effect on you player interaction wise, it doesn't make the game any less dangerous.
Agreed, totally.
World of difference between people playing a bad guy, and actually being a bad guy.
You will have plenty of "good" bad guys to shoot at I assure you.
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.
Last edited:
This. Exactly. Look at the last quote in my sig, taken from this article.
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.
FD have been pretty smart with the Police ships and the idea of bounty being on your ships so I think what has been put in place is pretty robust.
The only small concern I see is people jumping into the game from a save game, killing someone and then logging off and restarting from the previous save game so they can jump in again without having paid the penalty of their previous behaviour. Pretty sad, but that is what some people are like. Frontier might need to do a sneaky check when someone exits without saving to see if they have fugitive status and I think if you have fugitive status in game that probably should assign to your save game even if you don't save.
The only small concern I see is people jumping into the game from a save game, killing someone and then logging off and restarting from the previous save game so they can jump in again without having paid the penalty of their previous behaviour. Pretty sad, but that is what some people are like. Frontier might need to do a sneaky check when someone exits without saving to see if they have fugitive status and I think if you have fugitive status in game that probably should assign to your save game even if you don't save.
As Cathy said this will not be possible.
The saves for online mode (whether solo / group / all pilots) will, or should, be stored on the servers. Kill someone, attain a bounty, log off, log on again and you still have the bounty.
Offline mode you can revert to previous saves of course.
Finally, the 2 modes shouldn't be able to mix for obvious reasons as you stated.
Cathy, you nailed it with this post. Couldn't agree more with everything you've said here.
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.
FD will learn the hard way ...