Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jordan Cobalt]

I thought that shooting up cargo ships/weaker opponents is the definition of "emergent gameplay". I've ever seen anything else described as "emergent gameplay".

There's very few possible way to create emergent gameplay in elite. It's either destroy people, ala pking, bounty hunting, pp. ..etc, or give people stuff, ala fuel rats, or players dropping cargo for others. You could also theoretically protect others, but that's pretty rare and difficult to do. Although that usually involves shooting another player, it might fit into the first one.

 

[Ian Phillips]

I thought that shooting up cargo ships/weaker opponents is the definition of "emergent gameplay". I've ever seen anything else described as "emergent gameplay".

Then you obviously didn't read the first part of the post that you quoted.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

There's very few possible way to create emergent gameplay in elite. It's either destroy people, ala pking, bounty hunting, pp. ..etc, or give people stuff, ala fuel rats, or players dropping cargo for others. You could also theoretically protect others, but that's pretty rare and difficult to do.

The interesting thing is that the "positive" actions - like the giving (not forced) fuel or cargo or protecting others - are never (or almost never or seldom) described as "emergent gameplay". For some reason "emergent gameplay" has become a code word/euphemism for ganking.

It shows, in my opinion, the mindset of the gankers and their desperate need to justify their actions. I think it's not needed, but somehow they themselves need to justify it to themselves.

Other than that, the open world gameplay in elite needs a lot of adjustments, additions and balancing to make real emergent gameplay possible without driving a lot of players away.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Well yes everything affects everything but I don't think you can compare tiny indirect influence that can be easily countered indirectly - and probably doesn't even work half the time with the BGS being what it is - with direct player to player interaction that is wholly unequal in favour of the attacker(s).

You can't remotely compare the two in terms of the action itself or the outcome.

And direct actions can easily be countered directly. They are not wholly unequal in favor of the attacker, they are only unequal infavor of the better ship.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Then you obviously didn't read the first part of the post that you quoted.

OK, you where the first that used "emergent gameplay" that way. Please stop using it that way

And yes, I know you weren't the first, but sometimes I get a bit lazy to add a ton of "in my opinion", "I think", "might", "probably", "often", "in many cases" into sentences. So please forgive me that my posting might have been a bit over generalized to make my point a bit more clearer. Thinking about it could come across as baiting or something like that. Please be assured that this wasn't my intention.

 

[ianw]

And direct actions can easily be countered directly. They are not wholly unequal in favor of the attacker, they are only unequal infavor of the better ship.

Yes. But they don't pick on ship(s) that are able to fight back.

Hence my assertion that they add nothing to anyone's gameplay but their own (with the exception of those that genuinely like being on the losing side - there must be some I suppose).

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

And direct actions can easily be countered directly. They are not wholly unequal in favor of the attacker, they are only unequal infavor of the better ship.

It's unequal in favor for the attacker as the attacker can decide who to attack and is prepared. The attacked is probably surprised and in a weaker ship (unless the attacker likes a challenge).

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Yes. But they don't pick on ship(s) that are able to fight back.

Hence my assertion that they add nothing to anyone's gameplay but their own (with the exception of those that genuinely like being on the losing side - there must be some I suppose).

Someone has to be the bad guy. Antagonists add to the story. A story without struggle and loss is boring, hero's journey and all that.

 

[Mouse]

Whilst I'd agree that some characterisations of people's behaviour IRL are a bit OTT it's no worse than calling people cowards and carebears and all the other nonsense people come out with.

As far as I'm concerned it's simply that some people demonstrate by their actions/posts that they just don't care how their playstyle affects anyone even when it's obvious from the forums and from someone's loadout that they aren't looking for combat.

It would save a lot of pointless argument if these people (and others on their behalf) would stop trying to justify what they do as anything other than not giving a stuff for how anyone else wants to play.


I don't see it as any different to going to a pub and ignoring the unwritten rules about queuing for the pool table or intimidating people in a park to get off the tennis/basketball/football court or pitch. You don't just walk up to someone and demand they stop what they're doing and play with you.

Just because you can do this to people in game doesn't mean you should unless of course they consent to it. If they don't know whether someone consents they could err on the side if caution but they don't - either because they like spoiling other people's games or because they simply don't care.

It doesn't bother me personally - I play in open all the time and deal with it.

But those people add nothing to the game for many people and if they weren't here the only people it would spoil things for would be themselves.

Well said

 

[Robert Maynard]

Someone has to be the bad guy. Antagonists add to the story, a story without struggle and loss is boring, hero's journey and all that.

No-one has to be the bad guy - they choose to be and justify it with the premise that there is a need to be fulfilled.

Struggle and loss are able to be found with the increasingly capable NPCs.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Someone has to be the bad guy. Antagonists add to the story, a story without struggle and loss is boring, hero's journey and all that.

Reading the Open vs. Solo threads make me think that the problem is that somebody has to be the hero. It's my impression that a lot of players choose the "bad guy"* part and to few chose the victim or hero part in open mode to sustain the population of "bad guys"*.



*) and "bad gals"

 

[ianw]

Someone has to be the bad guy. Antagonists add to the story, a story without struggle and loss is boring, hero's journey and all that.

For those that enjoy that - yes. For others they make do perfectly well with the AI.

As I said elsewhere - I don't have a problem with it in this game personally - I just get fed up with seeing people making excuses for it.

It boils down if you attack someone in game - particularly if they are outgunned/outnumbered then at that point you have decided that at that moment they're gonna do what you want.

We all know some people are not up for that.

Just wish people would stop pretending otherwise. If they think it's okay to attack someone like that then own it - stop blaming the cat, the rules, their rights, the phase of the moon or whatever else and don't get upset when people call them on it.

On the other hand though if people did that we wouldn't have much to argue about...

 

[Muetdhiver]

I did not know there was struggle in killing a trading a T7 with a combat fit python.

I guess I learn everyday...

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

No-one has to be the bad guy - they choose to be and justify it with the premise that there is a need to be fulfilled.

Struggle and loss are able to be found with the increasingly capable NPCs.

<looks angry at Jordan>
I have to agree with Jordan on this one. There has to be "bad guys and gals" in some way to make an open world interesting. NPCs aren't enough for that role. My problem is that there are simply to many "bad guys and gals" and that often their behavior doesn't fit in to my view of the galaxy.
There doesn't have to be those extreme "bad gxx", they could be a bit toned down to slightly less bad and being more meaningful. And with a way to avoid them, if a player wants to avoid them.

 

[Mouse]

Someone has to be the bad guy. Antagonists add to the story. A story without struggle and loss is boring, hero's journey and all that.

OK... no.


Someone does not have to be the bad guy.. they can if they want to .. but they don't "Have" to be. If someone wants a player to be a bad guy instead of an NPC.. that is one thing.. ganking people and trying to ruin others gameplay isn't playing the bad guy, it is being a huge jerk.. and struggle and loss? The only one suffering loss is the trader.. there wasn't much struggle as they were completely overwhelmed.. as for a story without struggle and loss is boring.. must be a lot of bored gankers out there.. for their targets were no threat to them..

 

[Robert Maynard]

And direct actions can easily be countered directly. They are not wholly unequal in favor of the attacker, they are only unequal infavor of the better ship.

Not necessarily "easily" - it depends on the defending ship and loadout - it is the attacker who decides to start the engagement after all - target selection is part of that decision making process.

As you allude to, some attackers only attack ships that are highly likely to be unable to defend themselves - so no, definitely not "easily"....

 

[Robert Maynard]

<looks angry at Jordan>
I have to agree with Jordan on this one. There has to be "bad guys and gals" in some way to make an open world interesting. NPCs aren't enough for that role. My problem is that there are simply to many "bad guys and gals" and that often their behavior doesn't fit in to my view of the galaxy.
There doesn't have to be those extreme "bad gxx", they could be a bit toned down to slightly less bad and being more meaningful. And with a way to avoid them, if a player wants to avoid them.

The number of players in the single largest known Private Group in the game would suggest that there are a significant number of players who would not agree with your opinion.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

No-one has to be the bad guy - they choose to be and justify it with the premise that there is a need to be fulfilled.

Struggle and loss are able to be found with the increasingly capable NPCs.

No individual person has to play the bad guy, but someone has to. You say npcs can play the bad guy, I disagree. As capable as they are getting, they still aren't capable enough. They also aren't persistent so you can never truly get revenge on them, and overcome one.

Reading the Open vs. Solo threads make me think that the problem is that somebody has to be the hero. It's my impression that a lot of players choose the "bad guy"* part and to few chose the victim or hero part in open mode to sustain the population of "bad guys"*.



*) and "bad gals"

There's plenty of people willing to play the good guy, at least if they pay is right. When I had my multimillion credit bounty, I'd have players target me all the time. Intentionally, or unintentionally stopping my piracy attempts to collect my bounty.

Part of the reason it seems so lopsided is, the bounty system is bad, and there's no way to track high bounty players.

 

[Muetdhiver]

I guess the loss of the trader/noob must be the excitment here, not the struggle, since there is none.

Look at what happend in the Lembava exploration CG : did they attack pythons and FDL, of course not. Only harmelss explorers in ASP and cobras,
which had no way fighting back. On the other hand, high Wake in front of anything remotely challenging. Emergent gameplay I guess :/

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Someone does not have to be the bad guy.. they can if they want to .. but they don't "Have" to be. If someone wants a player to be a bad guy instead of an NPC.. that is one thing.. ganking people and trying to ruin others gameplay isn't playing the bad guy, it is being a huge jerk.. …

I guess it depends on the definition of "bad guy" used.

For an imperial aligned CMDR a federal aligned CMDR could be the bad guy. For a trader a pirate (one that demands cargo and doesn't kill) could be the bad guy. For a pirate the bounty hunter is the bad guy…

I don't think that gankers are "bad guys" as they don't play a part in the game/story, their main motivation is outside the game. Nobody needs them and nobody has to be a ganker - in my opinion.