Not really - the point of Ironman is to enforce a 1 death rule on the willing participants. How you play whilst in the galaxy is up to you - naturally being more cautious would help longevity, but it's not a requirement.
"The path of least resistance"
- Thread starter jabokai
- Start date
Not really - the point of Ironman is to enforce a 1 death rule on the willing participants. How you play whilst in the galaxy is up to you - naturally being more cautious would help longevity, but it's not a requirement.
I was just rewatching the 'player roles' video, and noticed an interesting snippet that had slipped me by the first fifty or so times.
The info might be out of date now, but it does suggest the reward for PVP will be higher, at least for some people.... I wonder whether, conversely, player-traders will tend to drop better loot than you might expect from a generic NPC trader.
David Braben said:
The info might be out of date now, but it does suggest the reward for PVP will be higher, at least for some people.... I wonder whether, conversely, player-traders will tend to drop better loot than you might expect from a generic NPC trader.
I'd say that they will drop the sort of loot that they are actually carrying, so you'd better haunt the kinds of trade routes that will have better loot on the offing in the first place.
Of course, but the devs could still balance it so that on the whole players are a better bet. At a very simple level, NPCs might not travel with full cargo holds. Also, the devs could look at the statistics about the average value of what's being dropped by players, and use it to set the average value of what's dropped by NPCs slightly lower.
Tiwaz said:
That is not the path of least resistance. That's just PvP.
The path of least resistance is more to do with using game mechanics to find the easiest path to success. For example, the grouping system - i.e. the ability to switch between Solo, Private, or Multiplayer play styles to find one that suits you and make your life easier while still having access to the other groups. If it becomes too big an unfair advantage it'll force (some) players to change their playstyle to compete.
Its along the lines of what the game designers speak of here...
Mike Evans said:
From what I can gather from the grouping post in the DDF there will be an "Ignore" feature in the PvAll group so the rest of the rhetoric you go on about about how PvPers only want to fight weak players who can't PvP could be irrelevant in ED. Those that don't want to PvP can use the ignore option and effectively change the mechanics so the odds of meeting that PvP person ever again are minimal.
Its why I think those dreaming of being notorious badass pirates in ED are deluding themselves. A lot of players they kill will just subsequently put them on ignore. And as their badass rep grows via forums and such, players they don't even meet will put them on ignore out of fear. A pirates world will be a pretty empty one unless he's mature about his playstyle or roleplays with his victims and can find a way to make it a fun experience for both parties. Which would be fantastic for the game if there's enough of them! :smilie:
So you needn't worry about indiscriminate killing of non-consensual participants by pro PvPers in ED - the mechanics are there to police it.
+1
After reading more about the grouping systems and the features they have I tend to agree with this. The emphasis is on PvE and seeing Elite Dangerous as a single player game with options to add real players to your game and tailor those options to suit you.
I think the mistake a lot of people made (me included) was to see ED as a multiplayer game first, with single player options. Its not, its the complete opposite. Its a PvE game, where you can occasionally engage in PvP if you seek it.
The ignore function is primarily for comms and invites, it won't have much impact on whether you see the person again or not -
- People on others ignore lists will not be favoured if a choice exists when match making players together
- If all players in a session have the same player ignored then that player will never be able to join that session
- If at least one player is neutral or friends with the ignored player above then they will be able to join that session providing there is no better suited players trying to get in at the same time when only one slot is available
So if you're in an instance of anything up to 31 players and someone on your ignore list happens along, they'll be in your instance unless someone else is trying to get in at exactly the same time, or all the 31 players have him on their ignore list, or another instance exists where he isn't on an ignore list.
Basically, it'll help you not meet the person, but probably not very much.
I asked a question similar to this at Lavecon -
Are we able to be in multiple groups at the same time?
Michael Brooks said no this won't be possible as if people have friends and others ignores of the same person the matching system would go into melt down trying to fill the instance, so I don't think it's possible to have a friend to one player and an ignore to another in the same space with you.
Are we able to be in multiple groups at the same time?
Michael Brooks said no this won't be possible as if people have friends and others ignores of the same person the matching system would go into melt down trying to fill the instance, so I don't think it's possible to have a friend to one player and an ignore to another in the same space with you.
![[VR] Shadowman](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/16/16608.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
That may work for 5,10 pirates. But what about 100s? 1000s? You can't ignore them all...
Nope, it's a MP game first and foremost. Eg, the DB quote in this post.
The part I'm trying to interpret is this...
All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Its that Ignore List reference that's a bit confusing. Is it just for communication purposes? Or does it mean I can add anyone I want to it and physically reduce the odds of me ever appearing in an instance they're currently in?
That's what I hope it means as it'll give players the ability to reduce the chance of running into the type of players Tiwaz mentioned
All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
- A player’s Friend List and Ignore List is used automatically to indicate preferences in match making so that friends will be matched instead of others if a choice exists (though this is a fuzzy system so there are no guarantees)
Its that Ignore List reference that's a bit confusing. Is it just for communication purposes? Or does it mean I can add anyone I want to it and physically reduce the odds of me ever appearing in an instance they're currently in?
That's what I hope it means as it'll give players the ability to reduce the chance of running into the type of players Tiwaz mentioned
Last edited:
That may work for 5,10 pirates. But what about 100s? 1000s? You can't ignore them all...
You'll be surprised how much time and energy people will put in creating ignore lists!
Won't bother me though, I'm going into the All group and treating it as a proper MP experience, good people or bad
I know he said that but I still get the feeling that if it was truly the case we'd have one muliplayer world, and a single player game separate from each other. Its trying to be both so I'm interested to see how it all pans out.
Last edited:
Why would you add someone you like to your ignore list? Yes, I realise what you really meant.
Like I said, the ignore list is mainly for comms and invites but it will affect matching although only to a fairly limited degree, like the examples I gave. The initial proposal was for ignore lists to mean you'd never see the people on it again, but when it got to combining and cross-checking people's ignore lists with other people's it was going to get very messy so was abandoned.
Why would you add someone you like to your ignore list? Yes, I realise what you really meant.
Haha, I can see how that sounds a bit confusing now (post edited)
Limited matchmaking is probably better than absolute blocking/ignoring features anyway since it still allows that random element to exist. Which is crucial to multiplayer games imho.
Last edited:
To the OP - I think I understand what is meant by the developers when they say path of least resistance.
Though I can't help thinking a lot of posters try and use it as an argument winning trump card - along with the unfair; immersion; sandbox; freedom of choice; level playing field argument trump cards...
Of course when all is said and done the developers don't need a trump card as their word is the law.
I'm actually struggling to think of any competitive environment that can be more unbalanced than a multi-player online PC game - when you take into account all the uncontrollable factors. Which to my mind makes the effort to avoid the path of least resistance a bit pointless - though I acknowledge they have to try and do something..
On instances and grouping - do the mechanics of this and the current 32 player count effectively mean that to stand the best chance of being able to interact with your group buddies you have to synchronise watches and logon at precisely the same moment?
Though I can't help thinking a lot of posters try and use it as an argument winning trump card - along with the unfair; immersion; sandbox; freedom of choice; level playing field argument trump cards...
Of course when all is said and done the developers don't need a trump card as their word is the law.
I'm actually struggling to think of any competitive environment that can be more unbalanced than a multi-player online PC game - when you take into account all the uncontrollable factors. Which to my mind makes the effort to avoid the path of least resistance a bit pointless - though I acknowledge they have to try and do something..
On instances and grouping - do the mechanics of this and the current 32 player count effectively mean that to stand the best chance of being able to interact with your group buddies you have to synchronise watches and logon at precisely the same moment?
Last edited:
Just give me batches of names and I'll be adding them to that list, hell I'll dedicate a whole nights play, a whole week or more if need be. Why? Because I really can't stand the destruction of immersion, gaming story, and possible RP at the cost of the plethora of oikes on ego trips. Oikes with their metagamer palls who constantly go out of their way on not giving a squat about story or RP and feel the need to constantly tell everyone about it. So when they say, "you can't do 1000's people!" Oh hell you can, hell I can! More so, if its going to spoil my gaming time (which is limited enough already).
I spent years watching EVE's RP community and storyline slowly destroyed by these very same kind of characters. Years watching them rip the heart out of the game whilst every other person turn into just "another toon", just "another alt". Can I be bothered to give these kind of characters the time of day in E-D? No bloody way, I'll take that block list and fill it to the max (for that matter there better not be a max). Dev's no limiting the block lists please, thank you.
The rock said there's no hiding place...
Ignore doesn't mean existing in a bubble. Bounty hunters, pirates and anyone with a hyperspace tracker or whatever, can still follow a player into the next instance. Also doesn't mean no communication, just limitation to pre-set messages. The only way to not get hounded by another determined player is not be in the All group.
Ignore doesn't mean existing in a bubble. Bounty hunters, pirates and anyone with a hyperspace tracker or whatever, can still follow a player into the next instance. Also doesn't mean no communication, just limitation to pre-set messages. The only way to not get hounded by another determined player is not be in the All group.
If ultimately that's what it takes, I'm fine with that, that's what it'll be. 'Ignore' normally means you don't see the drivel being spewed in any kind of chat or messaging as well, for me ... that's a good start.
Privateering takes on a new meaning...
In that case, I can be safe in the knowledge that you won't be hunting my bones!
Now I read a bit more on it, I think the Privateer style of raiding with letters of marque from one or more of the factions might be more profitable and slightly less risky...
In that case, I can be safe in the knowledge that you won't be hunting my bones!
Now I read a bit more on it, I think the Privateer style of raiding with letters of marque from one or more of the factions might be more profitable and slightly less risky...
AFAIK, they will drop part of the loot they are carrying, but any cargo marked "fragile" will be completely destroyed (Frontier plans to use this to prevent duplication of rare cargo), mission cargo will depend on the mission parameters, and destroying a ship through overwhelming force should also destroy all included cargo.
Actually, from the description, if I put someone on my ignore list, and I'm alone in an instance, then the ignored player won't be able to join the same instance; the game would forcibly put him in another instance, even if this means creating a new instance for him. Also, it appears that, if there are multiple instances open, the game will refrain from adding a new player to any instance where he is on the ignore list of anyone in the instance, unless there was no other choice.
So, seems like ignoring small numbers of players will actually work to mostly prevent you from seeing the ignored players. The system will likely break down for anyone that ignores too many players, though.