Iron Man group

[Ydiss]

Edit: to be more clear, this thread isn't asking for iron man to change. It's just a discussion topic. My preference is option 3. I'd like to be able to pay iron man in the all group but respect that there's a need for the iron man group.

In a thread about the risks of engagement between iron man players, the debate arose around whether iron man players should be in their own group or in the all group.

The arguments for the iron man group are that it's a different rule set, that non iron man players would not face the same risks and that some players would grief iron man players using sidewinder suicide tactics.

The arguments for iron man players being in the all group are reduced player segregation, increased risk to the iron man player and increased prestige across a larger player base.

Some suggested it could be possible for players to opt in to the all group as an iron man player for added risk and challenge, whilst still being able to remain in the most populate group.

I thought I'd try a poll to see what people thought. I'm expecting option 1 to get the most votes so this is more about seeing if others are interested in iron man in the all group, perhaps only as an option.

 

[StuartGT]

Pushing Ironman players (like myself) into the All group would leave them at the risk of ram-griefers happy to sacrifice their ship to annoy Ironmanners. A good many players plan to go Ironman because of the separate groups, to avoid kamikaze players - Ironmanners are likely to be more careful with their ships, as discussed in my previous thread/vote:
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=42516

I agree it's a pity that there'll be player segregation across playmodes, but it's better that everybody has a play option that suits them

 

[Ydiss]

Thanks for your input

I'd still like the option to play iron man in the all group, despite that risk. It'll be interesting to see if others would. I'm expecting option 1 to get the highest votes but I'm interested to see if others would like to play iron man in the all group as an option. It didn't seen right to do a poll without option 1 though

Edit: I checked out your poll. The winning option was "open - iron man"? And "group - iron man" was much lower. I'm confused, isn't "open iron man" what my option 2 represents? If it represents option 1 in my poll, then what is group iron man?

If I were to vote on your poll now I'd select open iron man, not group or solo iron man. I guess the poll was before the iron man mode was fleshed out on the DDA? If so, the poll shows us that potentially the population will be halved by iron man group. A bit disappointing. But I'm sure both our polls will have the usual forum member skew - most casual players won't bother visiting the forum and most casual players won't try iron man. Still, if it halves the population, that would really disappoint me.

I'd prefer no iron man in that case. I doubt elite fans would refuse to play if iron man didn't exist. But the group reduces the number of players I'll see all the same.

 

[Crystles]

Exclusive Ironman group all the way. If you really want to "Ironman" on all, you can self impose it.

Otherwise there's literally no reason to play Ironman, everyone could since it's just a tag. Lose it? Nbd just keep playing.

In Hardcore modes, you really want all the players to have the same mindset, otherwise people who have nothing to lose just won't care... There's a reason games have always been setup like this.

 

[Ydiss]

Exclusive Ironman group all the way. If you really want to "Ironman" on all, you can self impose it.

Otherwise there's literally no reason to play Ironman, everyone could since it's just a tag. Lose it? Nbd just keep playing.

In Hardcore modes, you really want all the players to have the same mindset, otherwise people who have nothing to lose just won't care... There's a reason games have always been setup like this.

I disagree that "self-imposed iron man" is the same. That's not iron man, that's hardcore. I'm not interested in hardcore. Iron man allows you to continue with the same character. Hardcore modes in most games don't. That's what got me interested in iron man because I thought it would be a hardcore style mode but fully integrated with the game, rather than a separate server.

I definitely understand that you're looking for a group of players with the same care of play as you. That makes sense of a group mechanic, much like it make sense for a hardcore server in other games.

However, two things:

1. Is there anything stopping me creating an iron man character with no intent to progress and only to be care-free and intent on kamikaze runs on other iron man players? I've read posts claiming sidewinder suicide runs will be a daily issue for an iron man player in the all group. If it's that easy in the all group, what is different in the iron man group?
2. Are you against the proposal that players could be given the option to play iron man in the all group if they wanted to?

The latter appeals to me because the rush, risk and prestige are everything. I'm not so interested in segmenting myself to a group who are forced to play with care - indeed, any one could create such a group anyway but the iron man is the only official one that automatically enforces that rule.

 

[Morbad]

I have never been "ram griefed". It's a fairly simple matter to stay aware and not let other CMDRs near you during docking with a small, fast ship, while the larger ships will not be destroyed by a suicidal Sidewinder.

 

[CATPAIN KIRK]

I voted for something else: I don't think that the behaviour of normal and Ironman players would mix well, so I wouldn't want to play surrounded by immortals who have next to nothing to lose.

However, whilst I'm fine with the interchangeability between modes in normal mode, I think in IM, it's a problem and hence, solo IM and open IM should be separate saves.

 

[Half Giant]

It's not really just a tag because, as I read it, the escape pod is manual in Ironman and in other modes it just works invisibly and automatically.

To be honest I'd suggest that the eve of what might be the final Beta update might be a little late to redesign game modes. These sorts of discussions were had a long time ago by the original backers.

 

[Ydiss]

It's not really just a tag because, as I read it, the escape pod is manual in Ironman and in other modes it just works invisibly and automatically.

To be honest I'd suggest that the eve of what might be the final Beta update might be a little late to redesign game modes. These sorts of discussions were had a long time ago by the original backers.

I agree it's probably too late to suggest option 2 and i fully believe the vote will reflect that a lot of players will want to play in the iron man group... but I strongly disagree that it's too late to suggest changes to game mechanics and, in this case, the suggestion that iron man be an option for players in the all group. That sounds like you're suggesting the backers are the only players allowed to suggest improvements to the game and that the game design won't change. We're still in beta test; if the game can't change then, when can it? And the game will change after its gone live. I guarantee that.

What better time to test it? I'd love it if, when iron man is rolled out for testing, the option to try it in the all group is opened up at some stage.

 

[Crystles]

1. Is there anything stopping me creating an iron man character with no intent to progress and only to be care-free and intent on kamikaze runs on other iron man players? I've read posts claiming sidewinder suicide runs will be a daily issue for an iron man player in the all group. If it's that easy in the all group, what is different in the iron man group?
2. Are you against the proposal that players could be given the option to play iron man in the all group if they wanted to?.

TBH, #1 is the reason many of us will shoot sidewinders on sight. They're a hazard, and it's easy to upgrade from. I know not everyone in a sidewinder is a rammer, but there's enough of a stigma around them I suspect honest players will upgrade soon as possible, and know well enough to stay back from others.

As for #2, I still say yes. I still don't see the difference if you wana play in all, you can still self impose your own rules if you want to Play like that.

Being in your own subset of players gives the individual more of a reason to not want to lose that.

I'm on my phone so if I missed something, I'll post again later.

 

[Ydiss]

TBH, #1 is the reason many of us will shoot sidewinders on sight. They're a hazard, and it's easy to upgrade from. I know not everyone in a sidewinder is a rammer, but there's enough of a stigma around them I suspect honest players will upgrade soon as possible, and know well enough to stay back from others.

As for #2, I still say yes. I still don't see the difference if you wana play in all, you can still self impose your own rules if you want to Play like that.

Being in your own subset of players gives the individual more of a reason to not want to lose that.

I'm on my phone so if I missed something, I'll post again later.

You'd shoot a sidewinder on sight in a secure system? Because the griefers won't bother leaving those systems. I'd rethink that strategy if I were you

You've definitely missed something; I'm not interested in hardcore permadeath for the sake of it. I don't play hardcore servers. Iron man, however, allows you to continue playing but not as an iron man. That's the element I like. And I'd like to attempt to play on the all group with that challenge, knowing I'm not limiting myself to only other iron man players, but everyone else.

You want permadeath and the associated community behavior that comes with it.

I want to be an iron man in the all group, with all the chaos that will come with it, but with the prestige that I or others like me, may possibly attain elite status as an iron man in the all group, not a group that play differently, the all group.

If I die, I won't delete my character. That's not what I'm after. I'll accept I've failed as an iron man and continue that character, if it's progressed enough. I may try again at another date.

I may not have been clear before and I'm sorry if that's the case but I hope it's a bit clearer now; what I'm definitely not clear on is the reason anyone thinks iron man all group optional is a bad idea. It seems more choice is good for people wanting to play iron man in the iron man group, but more choice for people wanting the same but in the all group is dismissed

 

[Lugalbandak]

Pushing Ironman players (like myself) into the All group would leave them at the risk of ram-griefers happy to sacrifice their ship to annoy Ironmanners. A good many players plan to go Ironman because of the separate groups, to avoid kamikaze players - Ironmanners are likely to be more careful with their ships, as discussed in my previous thread/vote:
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=42516

I agree it's a pity that there'll be player segregation across playmodes, but it's better that everybody has a play option that suits them

this is wy i dont want to play iron atm , no death penalty cause you can go on in normal mode , and I WANT those mindless player killers in my iron mode , cause whats the fun without that danger????

 

[Bob_H]

In a thread about the risks of engagement between iron man players, the debate arose around whether iron man players should be in their own group or in the all group.

The arguments for the iron man group are that it's a different rule set, that non iron man players would not face the same risks and that some players would grief iron man players using sidewinder suicide tactics.

The arguments for iron man players being in the all group are reduced player segregation, increased risk to the iron man player and increased prestige across a larger player base.

Some suggested it could be possible for players to opt in to the all group as an iron man player for added risk and challenge, whilst still being able to remain in the most populate group.

I thought I'd try a poll to see what people thought. I'm expecting option 1 to get the most votes so this is more about seeing if others are interested in iron man in the all group, perhaps only as an option.

Paradoxically, I'm much more likely to play in the Iron Man group and Solo play than I would in Open play. So having said that I'm very interested in keeping things the way they are regarding the design decisions for Iron Man group.

[redacted - my comment has already been made by a number of other posters before me so I'll not waste more text on it]

 

[Bob_H]

You'd shoot a sidewinder on sight in a secure system? Because the griefers won't bother leaving those systems. I'd rethink that strategy if I were you

You've definitely missed something; I'm not interested in hardcore permadeath for the sake of it. I don't play hardcore servers. Iron man, however, allows you to continue playing but not as an iron man. That's the element I like. And I'd like to attempt to play on the all group with that challenge, knowing I'm not limiting myself to only other iron man players, but everyone else.

You want permadeath and the associated community behavior that comes with it.

I want to be an iron man in the all group, with all the chaos that will come with it, but with the prestige that I or others like me, may possibly attain elite status as an iron man in the all group, not a group that play differently, the all group. With that I'm wondering if you actually sat down and thought about your proposal before starting this thread or just wanted to see if anyone else thought it was a neat idea

If I die, I won't delete my character. That's not what I'm after. I'll accept I've failed as an iron man and continue that character, if it's progressed enough. I may try again at another date.

I may not have been clear before and I'm sorry if that's the case but I hope it's a bit clearer now; what I'm definitely not clear on is the reason anyone thinks iron man all group optional is a bad idea. It seems more choice is good for people wanting to play iron man in the iron man group, but more choice for people wanting the same but in the all group is dismissed

If that's the case then I don't understand where you're coming from. The major point of Iron Man mode is the perma-death aspect. If you've no intention of allowing your Iron Man character to be deleted on death and simply transfer it straight over to Open play when that happens then why enter Iron Man at all? I know that the option to transfer across from Iron Man to Open/Solo online is there but actually using it sort of defeats the whole Iron Man premise in the first place to my thinking.

With that I'm wondering if you actually sat down and properly thought about your proposal before starting this thread or just wanted to see if anyone else thought it was a neat idea (clearly relatively few forumites do).

 

[kb_Nomad]

The rules for the game are already written - it seems with every new phase we get folks that don't understand this?

Please see ---> http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=25164

Just my 2 cents.
KB

 

[Winterwalker]

There's no such thing as a "high score" in ED, of course. That being said, there IS a ranking system, by which players can rate themselves, with themselves or against others, Elite Ranking. It surely makes sense for that to be consistent across the game. I can see why the DDF reached it's decision about Iron Mode being limited to a group. However, as new Beta backers have joined and have asked about this mechanic, I'd suggest it's a good idea to address it somehow.

In another thread earlier (sorry it was me) suggested adding another tier, an extra level beyond the Iron Man mode as written in DDA. This would play on Iron Man rules, in terms death penalty, but plays in the All group. Having to survive suicidal gankers, more difficult than playing the same rules in a land where everyone "knows the score". It might seem fairer to take that "random nutter" factor into account in building any All Group / Iron Man rule.

The suggestion is a 3 strikes layout. Starting a new game choose either Normal, Iron or Titanium. In normal you auto eject, and credit survival depends on insurance, Iron Man is exactly the same as writ in the DDA. Given that at ANY stage of the game I could decide to self destruct and start again, if I wanted a different career, for the extra tier I'd suggest you also get a choice, as you do with Iron Man if killed, to continue as a "Normal Player". If killed in "Iron Man All Group", start again, or retain Iron Status but now in the restricted group. (By the way any "nutter" can decide to play Iron Man and STILL go on a suicide run, many will feel that only the All Group will do, and so, "Diamond" or "Normal" Players cannot play in the Iron Man group. Iron cannot play in the All Group).

ED can continue to have an Iron Man group, as a choice made when starting, but I think many would at least like to "shoot for" being the best of the best? Mght the idea put those currently wanting to play Iron Man (as it stands) in with the All, to "see how it goes". It may not be so bad, but if it does go badly, they end up where they would have been, Iron Man Grouped. To me it makes a neater trio, of "possible" Elite Rankings, Elite Normal, Elite Iron and Elite Tungsten Carbide. It might improve the general playability of the All group and while Iron Man Elite would be an awesome achievement, Elite gained on playing Iron Man rules, while having survived and continuously in the All group equals pretty much, Legendary?

Just my 2 rubels.

edit: In summary. Suggest keep Iron Man as it is, but add an Iron Man in All and link them together. Possibly this could include allowing players the option to downgrade, by choice, as well as by death .. eg. If I start in All and it's too heavy, player can downgrade to Iron Man Group, or down again to Normal but cannot go up the way. If killed in Top Level though you must downgrade, or start again.

edit2: clarifying. Permadeath interests me but so does playing permadeath in the All group. Somehow it also makes sense (to me) to keep consistency between options, so Elite Rankings stay relevant.

 

[the-monk]

Iron Man mode all the way for me. Its more in keeping with the original games plus the fact its going to be a lot more adrenalin filled.

 

[Ydiss]

The rules for the game are already written - it seems with every new phase we get folks that don't understand this?

Please see ---> http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=25164

Just my 2 cents.
KB

The rules of this game will change. Online games aren't static. This rule may not change, and I don't think it needs to. I primarily would like the option. I understand your point when someone is saying the game fundamentals need to be altered but I definitely don't want that.

If that's the case then I don't understand where you're coming from. The major point of Iron Man mode is the perma-death aspect. If you've no intention of allowing your Iron Man character to be deleted on death and simply transfer it straight over to Open play when that happens then why enter Iron Man at all? I know that the option to transfer across from Iron Man to Open/Solo online is there but actually using it sort of defeats the whole Iron Man premise in the first place to my thinking.

With that I'm wondering if you actually sat down and properly thought about your proposal before starting this thread or just wanted to see if anyone else thought it was a neat idea (clearly relatively few forumites do).

Currently 25% of the votes do, but neither of us know how many would actually like it, so it's not helpful to suggest insight into what other people want as an argument against. What we do know is iron man does indeed allow you to continue to play on after death, so obviously someone wants iron man to be different to how you want it, otherwise why would that option exist?

I'll have to repeat myself but permadeath is what you want. Iron man interested me because it's different to hardcore modes in other games, which don't interest me.

It isn't that I simply want to play iron man in the all group, without putting any thought into it. It's not that i just thought it's a neat idea. I want it because I'd love to play iron man in the all group.

I'm a bit disappointed that so far a fair volume of replies have been if the "this is how the game is, deal with it" variety. I was up for discussion on the proposal but these responses have surprised me. Most discussion here seeks to be pretty open.

I understand if someone has a point that says why it's a bad idea, or how it'll make their experience negative. But so far it's just been "no need to change the game, it's already been decided on"

I have thought about it and when I want something I always consider the negatives, what might cause it to not work or how it might make the game worse. I've struggled to come up with any.

Iron man is a good idea as it stands, I'd like to have it open to the all group because I see it as more than a permadeath mechanic with the potential to work well in the all group. As an option. And to give me a challenge to hold on to the title without needing to start over if I die. But also because I think it will be significantly more challenging to retain iron man in the all group than it would be in the iron man group. If I play iron man as a main character and wind up dying after a significant enough time, I definitely will continue on in the all group. So I'd quite like the all group to have this elite status mechanic as well.

The argument "what's the point of iron man if you don't delete your character" begs the question "why is it designed that way?"

The obvious answer is "because some players want to be able to continue to play on".

Given that, the logical response to your assertions is that your chosen play style isn't what everyone wants because "that's how the game has been designed".

I would like that game style, not yours, to be extended to the all group.

 

[Ben Ryder]

I voted something else. At the moment you don't need any weapons in Elite Dangerous. If you get interdicted or have pirates, cops, bounty hunters etc. trying to kill you all you need to do is quit and reload. If NPCs were persistent and were still there when you reload he Elite Dangerous might be dangerous but right now, at least as Iron Man mode is concerned its very safe. So I'd like NPCs and encounters to be persistent.

 

[Ydiss]

I voted something else. At the moment you don't need any weapons in Elite Dangerous. If you get interdicted or have pirates, cops, bounty hunters etc. trying to kill you all you need to do is quit and reload. If NPCs were persistent and were still there when you reload he Elite Dangerous might be dangerous but right now, at least as Iron Man mode is concerned its very safe. So I'd like NPCs and encounters to be persistent.

This is definitely a concern. I read the DDA topic on how to handle disconnects. It's a difficult mechanic to get right because some people do genuinely disconnect through no fault of their own. Yet some will do exactly what you say.

I believe there will be a time out mechanic eventually. Maybe it's not in currently due to this being beta where disconnections do occur more frequently than they may do in live. I think this mechanic will get tested before gamma.