Does that make you Donald Trump Gluttony?
Lol I certainly hope not... Despite being a Republican...
- Status
Lol I certainly hope not... Despite being a Republican...
Actually, your first diagram probably was correct...it's just that your diagrams in the past always seemed to call for separate galactic states for each of the different choices. As long as we are all in one galaxy with the same states...I see no issue with the first diagram....other than the topline currently does not include the PVE states in Private or Open.
The above graphic only deals with the justice system and, unless the devs change their expectations of crime, this will only receive an incremental pass for balance someday.
Well without sounding like the new guy in the room (metaphorically) why don't we call the "open play" PvEvP? However small I think people think CQC is it's still a blast and a nice addition to the game and i'd say it was PvP. But again with all due respect to everyone in here and in the game why are we debating the issue of what this game can be grouped in? I don't think it's semantics but I feel we're not far away from that. Of course being new I maybe missing the fact that this thread is a staple of the forums. Very interesting though reading it all and taking it in
Welcome to Hell, Jimmy.
Ill answer that for you (the CQC part, anyhow).
CQC may be fun, and yes its quite obviously pvp. But its arena based... its not part of the game itself, and has no effect on the REAL game. I use it as a method to train my furball skills against other pilots. But again - thats where it stops at. Zero affect on the rest of the game.
It limits player generated content when multiple groups fighting over area domination. With relatively weak mission system the player generated content is vital for sandbox games.
Not entirely, it is what the game Frontier promised and delivered is about, across the board.
Oh you came back .-.
I mean, the idea was always vaguely there, which is why I supported and support the flag system.
Phew, mind you, I'm hardly getting a Jeb Bush or Hilary Clinton vibe off you either!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The instancing system, mutual ping times, timezones (as well as Solo and Private Groups) make any kind of territorial control rather hard.
Frontier said a lot of things in the Kickstarter.
Not all of them have come to pass, and other parts of their initial vision have been changed due to community feedback (eg. supercruise); so it's not unreasonable to imagine that Frontier might take further feedback on board.
True! Its working as it was designed! So, if you can "formalize" another mode, why cant I "formalize" another background simulation?
I don't know, that entire view seems like any given party of the two parties I described .-.
How can multiple groups in instances of max 32 people "dominate" areas? You can't own systems in Elite. You can tweak the BGS, and the most efficient way of doing that is for these groups to ignore other players, and work on BGS activities in Solo where they can show the other groups who's boss.
What you previously described perfectly falls into the definition of Solo Mode. Looks like FD managed to keep their "promises" after all. I'll quote your statement again:
"I would be able to just keep out of my gameplay everyone that I deem detrimental to my experience, for any reason whatsoever, including the mere fact the other player wants to engage me in PvP. It's, after all, a game I only purchased after making completely sure I would have a (legitimate, non-exploitive) way to go everywhere, experiment every non-PvP piece of content, without having to ever worry about someone else attempting to pick a fight with me.
Frontier advertised ED as a game where players would be able to completely avoid PvP without any downside. " <- Solo Mode.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Unfortunately you missed the point of this sub-discussion. Please re-read again.
What I mean is in terms of community view on balancing and many aspects of the game will become even more diversified, the recent 2.0/1.5 beta is already an alarming warning.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Phew, mind you, I'm hardly getting a Jeb Bush or Hilary Clinton vibe off you either!
Welp, as Aristotle once said, virtue is the mean between extremes
Boom. +1
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Another launcher offered setting on the matchmaking system would not cost as much to implement as the development, hosting and curation of a separate galaxy state (that would quickly diverge from the existing shared state).
To some extent perhaps but there multiple angles to this discussion.
We often trade in stereotypes on this thread. It's easy to do and for every stereotype we can come up with that embodies the extreme our own play style we can easily conjure up - usually from the population of this thread - its evil twin, somehow diametrically opposed on almost every point. Once we've done so, however, we tend to lump people into those two camps. We lose sight of two things, that it's not a discrete either/or, it's a spectrum and that furthermore it's a space that has considerably more than one axis. Our two opposed stereotypes are simply two points on the peripheries of that multidimesional space which contains all players, the line between them passing through the origin.
As far as I can see, the status quo sits pretty near that origin and therefore pressure to move it in any way will be met with resistance by close to half the player base.
Ok I have to laugh at this.. so with the current modes you can jump people who don't want to be and your gameplay is fine while you are effecting their experience and it is unfair to them.. but give them their own server and suddenly you are concerned about fairness and people affecting others.. why.. oh yeah.. because now it may affect you.
Leto can you be any more transparent?
Haha thank you and I do see what you mean now about how it is Arena based and that is it. Kind of like a Sim for combat I guess in some ways. Anyway don't mind me, i'll enjoy the points being explained =)
IMHO, you are attempting to use it in a place where it isn't valid. Applying real world concepts in a game context is a tricky proposition in the first place, and ED — thanks to its heritage and how the core concept of its multiplayer has always been player choice — is even further from the real world when it comes to the concept of equality you explored than most MMOs.
Those things that are "illegal" within the galaxy, but aren't as far as real world consequences (bans) for player interaction are concerned, aren't truly "illegal". Rather, they are legal moves in the game we call Elite Dangerous. No more illegal than doing an en passant capture in chess.
And, because they are legal moves in the game, the real world concepts meant to deal with illegal actions are not appropriate to them. Which throws a spanner on the ideas of fairness, equality, and so on whenever they meet the concepts of crime and punishment, as applied to the game. Heck, the consequences for piracy and murder were never meant to stop them, but rather to be fun challenges for the players that enjoy those play styles; this alone shows how you can't even think of those in-game activities as in any way similar to their real world namesakes.
To make things even more convoluted, as I said before, the game is not, and was never, about player competition. So, even the ideas of fairness as applied to competitions can't be directly applied to the game.
We have the specific case of a game built around players having full control over who they meet, of a game where everyone is supposed to influence the unified environment but without any requirement for the players to ever face each other. I'm not aiming for a general formulation, I'm just aiming for arguments to apply to what ED sought to be from the start. And I fully agree that much of what I said would be invalid if we were talking about, for example, EVE; different game, different intended experiences, different target audience, and so on.
Yep. Which is why, for example, as the devs have explicitly said, the NPCs are far easier to fight than they could be. The devs exercise control over the elements of the game to increase enjoyment, remove frustration, and as a whole achieve a more fulfilling and entertaining experience.
And, while the devs don't have control over the players like they have over NPCs, they can, and should, influence and limit what players can do in order to make for a better environment for the game's intended player base. Which, I might remind you, includes players that want to completely opt out of PvP and even players that want to never meet another soul, as in interviews, AMAs, the Kickstart page, etc, the game was explicitly advertised for those groups.
Risk versus Reward is only valuable when it serves to nudge players towards content they will enjoy doing, and many (though not all) devs are aware of it to some degree. It's why the hardest challenges in many, if not most, games either don't offer rewards or else offer something that only has value for bragging rights, like purely cosmetic items or achievements.
That contrast can also be seen when the devs need to make the players avoid certain kinds of behavior without outright prohibiting it; that behavior then loses the rewards, regardless of how risky it is, becoming less rewarding than easier content that the devs want to promote. What happened to PvP in WoW close to the end of Vanilla, when the devs decided to move it from the open world into the battlegrounds, provides a prime example; when all open world PvP rewards were removed, and Battlegrounds started being the best place to earn PvP rewards by a wide margin, open world PvP mostly died out.
Risk versus reward has another issue with games when you narrow down the definition of rewards to things that help in-game — and, thus, that make further play easier. When the dev blindly follow risk versus reward, they often arrive at the undesirable effect of, for all intents and purposes, inverting the tools built in the game to let players manage the game's difficulty, be they extrinsic like difficulty settings or intrinsic like the choice of where in the game world to go. I've played more than a few games where the increased accumulation of rewards from choosing the "hard" difficulty leads to it being effectively the easiest one after the very beginning of the game, where the difference in difficulty is the least to begin with.
Except in a few specific games where the whole fun lies in the players challenging themselves to the furthest, and some pathological cases where the devs lost track of in-game incentives, the game systems of most games are in line with what I said. Risk versus reward is used where it's useful to push players towards content the devs consider to be more enjoyable — which, of course, often includes harder content, up to a point — and discarded otherwise.
ED, particularly, if you start from the assumption that PvP is more challenging, completely discards risk versus rewards when it comes to PvP. PvP has, after all, no extra rewards. Given that, as far as we heard from the devs, that state of affairs is intentional, this either proves that PvP doesn't bring extra risk or that risk versus reward isn't as widespread as you pointed, take your pick.
Only truly enriches it if you add it to every mode, without singling a specific one. Otherwise it's just a bribe meant to drive players to a game mode they don't quite enjoy, something that makes the game as a whole worse, lesser.
In ED, from what I can tell, that is exceedingly rare. The extra control you have over the outcome of PvE encounters when in a wing more than makes up for the off chance that another wing aiming to fight a wing will come by, or that some anti-PK would be using a player as the lure for a PK wing. End result, being in a wing offers reasonably more control over the consequences than being in solo can ever provide.
Unless I'm missing something, not with any reliability. The more players already in the instance, the less a chance of more players being drawn into the instance. Also, for players to intentionally pull allies into the instance, they need to have someone in their wing that isn't already in the instance, which makes it particularly tricky to coordinate more than four players into a single fight. So, getting tricked into such a trap while flying as a wing might be possible, but seems less likely than the chance of appearing in the middle of a star.
And that is even before taking into account that players in the wing might be able to intentionally manipulate the matchmaking.
Yep, the experience has nothing to do with the difficulty of the encounter. Exactly what I said. Other elements have as much, if not more, influence as the difficulty over whether an encounter is a bad or good experience.
For many players, including myself, whether random opponents we meet are NPCs or players is a key element in whether the event will be enjoyable or not, even with everything else, including difficulty, being the same. Which, in turn, makes the control over whether the player will face in combat NPCs or other players an important element for the devs to tune in order to provide the best experience for the players.
- Status