So, that's POSITIVE interaction?
- Status
So, that's POSITIVE interaction?
Your ETA just made my month. I was saying this was sorely needed I the crime thread Sandro started to... make the game like Elite. Rep inbound when next on pc. Tyvm Sir. Is it on YouTube I would like too see the whole thing.
Link please, pretty please, bueller, bueller, anyone
Link please, pretty please, bueller, bueller, anyone
Last edited:
All of this can currently happen in open or group.
As for your gold mine analogy, a lot of gold miners were not very trusting of others, and were solo players, so others wouldn't steal there gold or there mine.
You criticize others for being "anti-social" and yet your action in the scenario is "anti-social" that is rather funny. Why is it that some feel they must FORCE others to have the type of fun they are having? There is no "disappearing" into solo, there is people playing in solo because they want to.
You keep blaming solo and solo players for the actions of pvp players who will do anything to win and not loose.. that is like scolding the dog because the cat is in the trash can.
No idea about self destruct but I would try it if there was nothing else POSITIVE to try.
Anyway how would his harpoon disable my weapons I wonder just because i'm being towed?
That's a rhetorical...
Nice to see that FD listens and is taking stuff on board.
As I said, its not the OPEN concept which is flawed , it their current mechanics.
Perhaps as this is their first online multiplayer version, they are still finding their way.
Anyway how would his harpoon disable my weapons I wonder just because i'm being towed?
That's a rhetorical...
Nice to see that FD listens and is taking stuff on board.
As I said, its not the OPEN concept which is flawed , it their current mechanics.
Perhaps as this is their first online multiplayer version, they are still finding their way.
Last edited:
Which are conscious choices by developers that want to force players to obtain their gear by playing the game, rather than crafting or trading, due to a misguided view that "playing" is fun and engaging while crafting is boring.
The funny thing is, in those games much of the player base defends this by beating on the "risk versus reward" drum, by saying that someone that doesn't brave the hardest content the game has to offer doesn't deserve being able to create or purchase gear that can match that which drops from that content. Thus, alternatively complaining about this and talking about "risk versus reward" is inconsistent at best.
Which is another thing entirely, even if it uses both crafting and commerce as a basis. You don't need to have players be able to prosper without combat in order to have good crafting or a reasonable player economy.
BTW, I'm not the kind of player that will ever support this because, while I love crafting, I don't want to take part in player commerce. In any game I will either be self-sufficient or I will not play; there is no other alternative. As such, any measure meant to create a consumer base for the commerce-oriented player will instead just serve to drive me away from the game.
As far as I can remember, crafting in UO isn't deep; that game merely forces players to trade among themselves by restricting or removing all other sources of gear in order to please the commerce-oriented players.
(Which is the reason I have seven character slots in Shroud of the Avatar; I will have characters of every crafting specialization, so I never have to purchase anything from, or sell anything to, another player. As I said, I love crafting, but I hate commerce.)
It also pushes players into playing either dedicated crafters or dedicated fighters due to the skill limits, and more specifically how both combat and crafting skills share the same pool, something Richard Garriott, UO's creator, has since abandoned.
EVE is similar; the game is designed to have player-crafted items be the main economic driver. Crafting per see in that game is reasonably simple, based on just a few base materials, the only thing that makes it appear to have depth is the web of skills that one needs to learn before becoming an efficient crafter.
Given that, I'm quite confident in saying that what you truly want is commerce(AKA selling things to other players); your desire for crafting (AKA creating things) seems to be only as a way to have things to sell. Whereas I'm roughly the opposite; I want to create things, preferably things that can hold their own against the best dev-supplied items (so I don't have to discard them in the name of efficiency), but I have absolutely no interest in selling to or purchasing from other players.
Yep, slower. Much slower than a direct transfer of credits would be, to the point transferring large sums can be quite a bit of work. Given how easy it would be to implement a credits transfer, it's obvious that allowing player trading either isn't among the devs' priorities or is seen by the devs as not worth the risk of players bypassing progression through in-game gifts (including the kind of in-game gift paid for with real money).
Risk versus reward is a fallacy when it comes to games. What matters, as any minimally experienced developer can tell, is rewarding the behavior that the players will find more engaging, to get the players to try it and hook them. There are games that even intentionally reward players less for doing the riskier content, because the devs are aware that pushing common, non-hardcore players towards that content would only serve to make them burn out with the game faster, while the players that truly enjoy that harder content will do it even without reward.
(It is a fallacy when it comes to the real world, too; better paying jobs typically aren't the riskier ones, your typical lawyer earns more than the typical policeman despite facing far less risk. But the reasons are nearly opposite; in the real world there is a need to attract people to jobs that are unenjoyable, either in themselves or the process of getting the qualification for them.)
Besides, Group mode has everything Open has except for the PvP, which means it's better for anyone that doesn't want to be subject to PvP. And an Open PvE mode would be even better at that.
Also: "wasted potential", in the way you used the expression, is highly subjective. I see any kind of non-consensual PvP as the thing that ruins otherwise good games, wasting their potential.
Not quite. Elite has always been about emergent gameplay.
After all, what is its objective? To get to the Elite rank? To jump through all the galaxies? To get the most expensive ship?
And, even if you do define an objective, how will you get there? Trading? Fighting? Doing a bit of both? In safe systems, anarchies, or somewhere in between?
Elite, ever since the first game, was never about providing players a clear way to play, but rather about providing players with many options and allowing them to have fun in whichever way they wanted. It has always been about emergent gameplay, long before that term became a buzzword. The whole going against the "three lives, with a score, and finishable in 10 minutes" model shows how Elite was enabling emergent gameplay.
Which, incidentally, makes Elite proof that there is no need for PvP, or even of multiplayer, to have emergent gameplay.
I totally agree. What so many people seem to think of when "emergent gameplay" is mentioned is "We whupped the other team and we IS L337! BOO YAH!"
I don't see the difference between someone murdering and role playing murder.
That's a cop out, both should be heavily punished.
I'm not saying punish like destroy instantly - I'm saying punish like something that stops them from doing it each day for "teh lulz"
I never said they had more fun in solo - This is the exact dillema of path of least resistance. If people find a boring and easy way to do something, they will do it over the more risk and challenging option. Why do you think so many people stop playing the game because it's a grind yet Open and massive role play exists? (apart from it being a massive gank fest)
So what your saying is that actual sales , just because they are not from the Elite Store are not valid as a metric at all?
They still had risk. Did not make them invisible
That's all part of the game tho.
I mean, why don't they just give everyone a free 1 billion credits? Instead of making it a skinners box xD
While true. Does not mean it's good emergent gameplay, evidence by a lot of people calling the game a grind or simply not playing, or a third type of perseon - me.
So i'l jump right into group mode right now and meet some new people right? Or some unexpected gameplay? Mobious is like the group finder, but to find the grind.
That's what was so interesting about my post and reducing the crime system a load, most of the non-consensual gankers/murderers have no penalty or commitmetn and do it for the lulz. Pirates and murderers would be few and far between and consenual pvp like powerplay and cg would be a lot more common.
Last edited:
Good and bad is subjective. You see antagonistic gameplay as good, interesting; I see it as bad, somewhere between boring and frustrating. By the same token, you seem to perceive objective-less solo games as boring; I see many of them, including the early objective-less space sims, as quite engaging.
BTW, the quality of the emergent gameplay depends more on those that are playing than on the devs. You can even have very good emergent gameplay without a game to serve as the basis; I've seen fantastic roleplaying games played over a basic forum or chat room, with no gaming oriented features worth mentioning.
Apart from non-consensual PvP, yep, you can find it all, including unexpected gameplay. You can even find some unexpected (though agreed upon) PvP in Mobius, in the conflict zones. Though, of course, Mobius is not for those that believe the game to be boring without the chance of random player attacks or the opportunity to attack unsuspecting players anywhere.
"Few and far between" is still too much for me and many others. I won't open myself to any kind of non-consensual PvP, specially piracy. And this game, with the early promise to allow players to choose who we would allow to play with us, was explicitly advertised and sold to players like me.
- - - Updated - - -
Not really. It's just a variation of the "other players are my content" argument that surfaces from time to time. I clearly remember someone a while ago even providing a quote of how much he would charge to be content for the PvPers
Perhaps the various game modes are a reflection of the players personality, open for those that are sociable, group for those that like company occasionally and solo for those that find most people annoying, none are wrong. I've been playing solo most of the time but decided to go to open to see what it's like and add an unstable element to my game play.
The problem is, that FD want to encourage players to kill in the game, whether it be NPCs or other players. The main ranking is combat... If they start to punish player killers, they will effectively kill off PvP. A pirate would have no leverage over a trader, because the trader knows that the pirate will have to kill them to get cargo, and will then be severely punished. Getting the balance right would be a nightmare IMO, you either make it something that is not done, or you do as FD have done and make the punishment trivial.
Not done each day? So how often, every other day, once a week? Not trying to be argumentative, but this isn't a sliding scale thing, and as others have said, if it's allowed, even if it's only once a week, that won't satisfy the victim.
But plenty of players do have fun in Solo. What you see as boring grind, plenty of players see as engaging gameplay. I'm not convinced it has anything to do with challenge, and I freely admit that I don't particularly play this game for a challenge, I play it for fun. In fact, if it becomes so challenging as to stop being fun, I'll stop playing it, because I have other things vying for my fun time.
As I said before, players who want the Open environment have it, role play (which you can happily do in Group and Solo too), PvP challenge, whatever, it's there, organize yourself and other like minded players and have a blast, nothing is stopping you except yourself.
If you expect others to join you just because you think it's the right way to play the game, you will be disappointed.
Because the good PvPers can get action if they look around anyway. There are always PvP opportunities in Open. The poor PvPers don't want a group, because that group would just be full of people in maxed out Anacondas that they ground their way to via trading and nobody flying trade ships for them to effortlessly blow up.
Note: This post may consist of a tiny amount of hyperbole, speculation, and sarcasm.
Well.... I generally agree with your sentiment and think it's great that people can play in Solo because they aren't the slightest bit interested in PvP. There are, however, those who use Solo as an exploit (for want of a better term). I have read comments from commanders in the forums that basically come down to, "I was in Open. Got into a fight. Started losing. No worries. Log off. Log into Solo. You can't find me now!" It's possibly players who do this that are tainting the reputation of legitimate Solo players.
DISCLAIMER: Not suggesting that players shouldn't be allowed to switch modes. Possibly suggesting that switching modes purely to avoid combat which you were only just otherwise happy to be involved in... until you started losing... isn't cool. All other offense and misinterpretations unintended.
I've brought this up in all 3 megas, the only real answer I was given really did explain a lot;
Because it is too hard to do and manage, so no one wants to be the one to do it - though no one objects to someone else doing it.....
Last edited:
Realistically there isn't much that can be done about players who want to play like that. If you locked everyone into open then that type of player would just pull the plug.
Sandro kicked the "combat logging" question into the long grass on the livestream last night - twice actually - the 2nd time for the benefit of people who missed it when the stream went down.
"There are some things we could do ... but we wouldn't want to get it wrong - really we need more data" - paraphrased - not verbatim.
I don't blame Sandro for fudging it - he really doesn't have much choice. When it comes down to it they can't differentiate between a circuit that genuinely falls over and one that's pushed - either by it's owner or some other third party.
People need to realise that you will never get a guaranteed solution to people want to fight then disconnect when it suits them - it just can't be done on the internet.
So if it bothers them that much best look for some non internet based game that can be controlled.
ETA - for clarification I'm not likening legitimate mode switching or logging out to combat logging. I'm saying that the type of PVPer who would start a fight then bail when they are losing would not be stopped from bailing by being locked into open or a lengthened disconnect timer. They would simply disconnect - which is why I mentioned the combat logging thing.
Last edited:
- Status