"The path of least resistance"

[Fromhell]

Here a quick mock up of a working risk vs. reward system

surprise-> no grouping system necessary!

Both outer rims would obviously not be accessible in single player mode, those pilots would be permanently locked into the single player online/offline/co-op/PvP prohibited carebear galaxy. Still leaves you with 200 billion star systems which is a lot more than the original Elite had, still more than you can visit in 100 lifetimes. So, no reason to complain. (Well of course I know the usual suspects will complain anyway)

 

[Nagual]

Haven't you essentially copied EVEs security status? 1.0 same as your carebear, right down to 0.0 and nasty NPCs Player controlled space etc.etc? I don't mean this to be confrontational but if that's what you've done, why not just play EVE? I'm genuinely wondering. Is it because you like the idea of a EVE universe, but with the flight mechanics etc from Elite or something else. I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

There are certainly going to be common areas / rule sets. The further the player is from established trade routes or centres of civilisation should get progressively harder.

 

[Fromhell]

why not just play EVE? I'm genuinely wondering.

hmmmm maybe there is more to EvE than the single aspect how the galaxy is structured, thought about that?

Like -- almost everyone who ever quit EvE did because of the RPG type "roll a dice" combat, or cluttered menus, no joysticks, no cockpits, no immersion, your avatar locked into a small room and all you see is your spaceship from the outside?

The universe structure is PERFECT in EvE, but some other aspects, are NOT

Countless people are waiting for an EvE type sandbox MMO with joysticks. ED could be that if it would not try to be a game for people stuck in the 80ies or thinking in WoW paradigms

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

Here a quick mock up of a working risk vs. reward system

The risk vs reward system works in Eve because everyone is squeezed into a tiny gameworld so encounters are commonplace, but you'll never be able to recreate the Eve-style pvp risk vs reward aspects in Elite Dangerous even if you split the galaxy into the playstyle subsections you've highlighted on the map. ED is far too big a gameworld. 100 billion anarchy systems are just as safe to play in as 100 billion high sec systems. The odds of being found and attacked by other players are infinitesimal in either when you really think about it.

I think Frontier Developments have done the right thing in regards to tailoring this game to appeal to the widest playbase possible - which is not pvp'ers but players who enjoy leisurely PvE aspects and exploring. Its the only viable way a game of this size can work unless you start adding stuff like choke points and battlegrounds to force people together. That's one thing I'd hate to see and it goes against the true sandbox spirit of what the original Elite and Frontier where.

You have some really good points and everyone can see how passionate you are but you should focus your energies on how FD can overcome the path of least resistance scenarios that this thread is about. If you want to pvp in ED you'll be able to, there will be plenty of people to fight who will seek each other out - probably via social networking and out of game forums where player initiated disputes, politics, and wars will be born - and then acted out in-game.

My concerns on risk vs reward are those relating to solo play and mulitplayer being inter-switchable. I can see a whole can of worms there - some of which have been touched on in this thread. That's the part I'm interested in to see how FD deal with it.

 

[Fromhell]

The risk vs reward system works in Eve because everyone is squeezed into a tiny gameworld so encounters are commonplace, but you'll never be able to recreate the Eve-style pvp risk vs reward aspects in Elite Dangerous even if you split the galaxy into the playstyle subsections you've highlighted on the map. ED is far too big a gameworld. 100 billion anarchy systems are just as safe to play in as 100 billion high sec systems. The odds of being found and attacked by other players are infinitesimal in either when you really think about it.

Well that´s what I said in the first place, before offering the above compromise to offer some "safe mode".
With 400 billion star system ONE global ruleset for everyone (sandbox PvAll realism) would have been perfect, and no one would ask for different rewards if the rules are the same for everyone.

The above compromise would work too, I can be in the PvAll territory and maybe never get attacked, or there could be guild warfare for the sake of attacking and conquering. Maybe you could "stealth" your stations so you wouldn´t be found so easily by someone doing a long range scan. Countless possibilities.

I think Frontier Developments have done the right thing in regards to tailoring this game to appeal to the widest playbase possible - which is not pvp'ers but players who enjoy leisurely PvE aspects and exploring.

yeah.. no, don´t agree, widest possible playerbase already smells like fail, sorry.
Dark Prophecy -> went the way of the Dodo, dead and shutdown - had everything for the "widest possible playerbase".
EvE-> very much alive, "niche" half a million paying subs
Star Conflict -> only very basic lobby PvP, very much alive, making loads of cash from the ingame store

Its the only viable way a game of this size can work unless you start adding stuff like choke points and battlegrounds to force people together. That's one thing I'd hate to see and it goes against the true sandbox spirit of what the original Elite and Frontier where.

don´t see why this should be necessary

You have some really good points and everyone can see how passionate you are but you should focus your energies on how FD can overcome the path of least resistance scenarios that this thread is about. If you want to pvp in ED you'll be able to, there will be plenty of people to fight who will seek each other out - probably via social networking and out of game forums where player initiated disputes, politics, and wars will be born - and then acted out in-game.

I don´t play PvP if it´s tacked on and not an essential part of the core design of a player driven virtual world, I even played that fail of a game called SWTOR on a PvE server because the PvP was generally unrewarding, meaningless and nothing but an unnecessary nuicance. Arena PvP? Yeah the WoWclone themeparks can keep that useless trash gameplay-- not interested. And so far it looks like I´ll play single player in ED too.

My concerns on risk vs reward are those relating to solo play and mulitplayer being inter-switchable. I can see a whole can of worms there - some of which have been touched on in this thread. That's the part I'm interested in to see how FD deal with it.

absolutely, the box of Pandora... but hey NPCs are hard too, why give you an extra incentive to bother with real players...

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

yeah.. no, don´t agree, widest possible playerbase already smells like fail, sorry.
Dark Prophecy -> went the way of the Dodo, dead and shutdown - had everything for the "widest possible playerbase".
EvE-> very much alive, "niche" half a million paying subs
Star Conflict -> only very basic lobby PvP, very much alive, making loads of cash from the ingame store

But those games are tiny compared to ED. ED will be the biggest gameworld ever devised - thats the point I'm making when I say it has to appeal to a mass market. By definition it has to appeal to the widest possible audience otherwise whats the point of having 400 billion systems aimed at a niche market? Surely with a game this size the more players the better? And with the mechanics ED has it doesn't matter if 99% of them only like PvE - a PvEer is still far more interesting to interact with than a scripted NPC because the PvEer still has the potential to turn to PvP for a moment and blow you to bits if you annoy him, or more intriguingly lure you into a false sense of security - then do you harm when you least expect it

 

[Nagual]

Been having a thunk, and I've came to the conclusion I'm not at all worried about a 'path of least resistance'. If this was a true MMO, I may have some concerns, but since it's not, and we really don't know the full workings of the multiplayer aspect yet, I'm not too fussed.

Even if it were, I'm not sure I'd be too worried, as others have pointed out the sheer size of the playable areas at launch should allow for those who wish to be alone-ish to do that.

I think the path of least resistance could be a reflection of poor game design, and by that I don't mean if something is hard or easy, but if something is entertaining or fun. In all games you will get people who will want to gain as much as possible regardless of the fun involved, I don't think you can stop that. You can however make the actions and experiences in game to be rewarding in themselves.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

I'm working my way through the fascinating Extra Credits webseries, and the Intrinsic or Extrinsic episode made me ask a similar question to Nagual - when we talk about the path of least resistance, what is it a path to? What is it about the game we want to get?

To take Mike Evans' Oblivion example, the goal was to beat other players in combat, so the question in people's heads was "how do I become the best combatant?". If combat in ED is as expensive as Frontier make it sound, the goal might be to minimise costs and maximise benefits in confrontation, leading to an endemic warfare situation where people instead ask "how do I make myself look expensive to attack?". Then the path of least resistance might pass far less through practicalities like HUDless views, and more through paint jobs and hardpoints bristling with missiles.

And on the topic of ritualised combat, if great battles could include a rousing vocal segment, that would be grand.

 

[Cathy]

The essential problem I find with your model, fromhell, is that you build a universe and then segregate (block off) swathes of content based on players' play-style choices.

It strikes me as a much better design from the outset to create content and a grouping system in which all players can enjoy all the content as they like.

Which is where ED's approach as it stands is so refreshingly good.

 

[Out2lunch]

If you ever played the original Elite you had 2 systems next to each other one would be Corporate and next to it would be an Anarchy system.

I don't want to have to fly in real time 2 weeks to get to uncontrolled space.

I don't want your model we went playing Eve Online this is a different game all together.

Why do all the new posters want this to be an Eve Clone. If you want Eve go play it. I liked Eve for the 8 months I played it even with its flaws, but it wasn't what I wanted which is a modern Elite.

 

[Slawkenbergius]

I'm working my way through the fascinating Extra Credits webseries, and the Intrinsic or Extrinsic episode made me ask a similar question to Nagual - when we talk about the path of least resistance, what is it a path to? What is it about the game we want to get?

Re-watching that episode made me think about DiRT 3 (again). There are these awful Gymkhana sections, where you have to do donuts, spins, drifts, etc. with each trick scored depending on how well you pull it off. You're actually forced to do the events if you want to unlock the next race, so I've taken to dropping the difficulty level so I can win without trying, and get back to playing the bits I actually enjoy.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I'm working my way through the fascinating Extra Credits webseries

Just wanted to say thanks for the link - started to watch them myself and enjoying it quite a lot.

 

[Fromhell]

But those games are tiny compared to ED. ED will be the biggest gameworld ever devised - thats the point I'm making when I say it has to appeal to a mass market. By definition it has to appeal to the widest possible audience otherwise whats the point of having 400 billion systems aimed at a niche market? Surely with a game this size the more players the better? And with the mechanics ED has it doesn't matter if 99% of them only like PvE - a PvEer is still far more interesting to interact with than a scripted NPC because the PvEer still has the potential to turn to PvP for a moment and blow you to bits if you annoy him, or more intriguingly lure you into a false sense of security - then do you harm when you least expect it

Yes those other games are tiny, that´s why we would have more than enough territory for different flavors of gameplay and risk level -- right?

I don´t quite understand what you imply..?

a) the universe is so big that you don´t meet anyone and one ruleset wouldn´t be a problem ?
or
b) the universe is so big that different rulesets territory based don´t matter because you woulnd´t meet anyone to bother with "guild warfare"?

Also there is flaw with your plan to interact with "PvE-only" players because they won´t exist in your universe, so there you have the playerbase split already.

at the current model you can only interact with the PvAll player who does PvPvE in the All Group, if he doesn´t decide to go least resistance mode and magically vanish from the 400 billion systems universe to avoid trouble

The essential problem I find with your model, fromhell, is that you build a universe and then segregate (block off) swathes of content based on players' play-style choices.

It strikes me as a much better design from the outset to create content and a grouping system in which all players can enjoy all the content as they like.

Which is where ED's approach as it stands is so refreshingly good.

oh wait, you mean 200 billion star systems are not enough.. seriously? Considering the unlimited number of systems, this is a totally ridiculous argument, sorry. Besides the PvE-only player segregates himself from content, you have the choice to go where the risky systems are or not, no one tells you "don´t go there", there is no wall blocking you, just the fear in your mind. You don´t want to take more risk, your own choice.


So what about content which is specifically PvPvE oriented, like two opposed player groups, one fighting against a group of NPC, the other defending the same group of NPCs ? Yep you´re already blocked off that content if you don´t want to fight real players, right?

If you prefer the unrealistic grouping thing, all you win is twice the amount of systems you can´t visit in your lifetime anyway.

I don't want your model we went playing Eve Online this is a different game all together.

Why do all the new posters want this to be an Eve Clone. If you want Eve go play it. I liked Eve for the 8 months I played it even with its flaws, but it wasn't what I wanted which is a modern Elite.

here we go again... YES EvE is different, we know that, thanks.
And once again I say, copying ONE ASPECT of EvE like the universe layout doesn´t make ED an EvE clone.

You could also say every car with four wheels is a Ford T-Model clone...

Joysticks, cockpits, twitch combat, avatars, procedural galaxy, planet landings, no skill training queues are enough to be not an "EvE clone", wouldn´t you agree...

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

Yes those other games are tiny, that´s why we would have more than enough territory for different flavors of gameplay and risk level -- right?

I don´t quite understand what you imply..?

a) the universe is so big that you don´t meet anyone and one ruleset wouldn´t be a problem ?
or
b) the universe is so big that different rulesets territory based don´t matter because you woulnd´t meet anyone to bother with "guild warfare"?

What I'm saying is the universe is so big that the game mechanics we've seen in other games (like Eve) won't work in ED so its pointless trying to make them fit. Those games are designed to force people together due to their limited size, and forces player vs player interaction due their mechanics (jumpgates and limited resources in Eve for example).

Those boundaries won't exist in ED but ED still needs players to influence the evolution of the galaxy as D. Braben puts it, and the more players the better. So I understand why solo players are allowed to switch into the MP game - I just don't agree with it from a path of least resistance viewpoint.

Also there is flaw with your plan to interact with "PvE-only" players because they won´t exist in your universe, so there you have the playerbase split already.

at the current model you can only interact with the PvAll player who does PvPvE in the All Group, if he doesn´t decide to go least resistance mode and magically vanish from the 400 billion systems universe to avoid trouble

I see the "All" group as being made up of PvEers who like to have the option of real player interaction as and when they chose to. They can go seek it or stay 'hidden' in 400 billion systems if they so wish. That's where I'm coming from anyway. As others have mentioned, if you think of ED as a single player game with multiplayer elements it sort of makes sense that way. I'm a PvEer but I'd be bored silly within a week if the only encounters I could ever have in a game this size were with NPC's only. I like the element of the unknown and risk that really only comes from having other human beings present in my gameworld.

And as mentioned on another thread, it'd be even better from a tension point of view if at first glance NPC's and real players were indistinguishable!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Countless people are waiting for an EvE type sandbox MMO with joysticks. ED could be that if it would not try to be a game for people stuck in the 80ies or thinking in WoW paradigms

You would be better off asking CCP to develop a new pilot based combat model for EvE than asking FD to rehash EvE in Elite: Dangerous.

I think you would have more success in achieving your aim.

 

[PacalB]

You would be better off asking CCP to develop a new pilot based combat model for EvE than asking FD to rehash EvE in Elite: Dangerous.

I think you would have more success in achieving your aim.

Maybe he could go grovelling cap in hand on the CCP's forums for a continuation and addition of this to the EvE universe:

http://youtu.be/fdU-f456N-E

http://youtu.be/hWKpjwxNIMI

You never know, with enough griping and whining there he might just get the perfect game he wants? Then finally he'll be able to live up to his name and exist in that nice place he seems to aspire to so much ... Hell! ... with the rest of his mates for an added bonus! That would go a long way on saving our eyes on these E: D threads at least.

 

[Cathy]

Countless people are waiting for an EvE type sandbox MMO with joysticks. ED could be that if it would not try to be a game for people stuck in the 80ies or thinking in WoW paradigms

Don't know about the countless, but I coulda sworn I was waiting for Elite Dangerous.

btw, is your handle a Johnny Depp movie reference?

 

[Slawkenbergius]

btw, is your handle a Johnny Depp movie reference?

I'd hope it was a reference to the graphic novel original, by Alan Moore. The Depp movie was atrocious. Seem to remember Heather Graham was in it too, unfortunately...

 

[Cathy]

oh wait, you mean 200 billion star systems are not enough.. seriously?

How long is a piece of string?

I would not make 2, 200 or 200 billion and then ghettoize them by play-style. I would open all the content to all players and let them choose their style across it.

I'd hope it was a reference to the graphic novel original, by Alan Moore. The Depp movie was atrocious. Seem to remember Heather Graham was in it too, unfortunately...

It was indeed bad.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Don't know about the countless, but I coulda sworn I was waiting for Elite Dangerous.

So true .. so very true.