How about incorporating griefer's into the gameplay and having groups organize to hunt them down and make their existence miserable? I am reading a lot of suggestions at limiting gameplay to please people but very little about anyone finding clever ways to solve problems that don't limit everyone else. Apparently, being an adult now means something completely different than it did when I was a teenager in the 1980's. Why is everyone so focused these days on forcing everyone else behave in ways that make them feel good? In my day we were told to work it out like adults but for god's sake quit crying about it. Now everyone wants everything and everyone changed to suit their personal preferences.
The Tri-poll: What does multiplayer mean to YOU?
- Thread starter Sandro Sammarco
- Start date
- Status
How about incorporating griefer's into the gameplay and having groups organize to hunt them down and make their existence miserable? I am reading a lot of suggestions at limiting gameplay to please people but very little about anyone finding clever ways to solve problems that don't limit everyone else. Apparently, being an adult now means something completely different than it did when I was a teenager in the 1980's. Why is everyone so focused these days on forcing everyone else behave in ways that make them feel good? In my day we were told to work it out like adults but for god's sake quit crying about it. Now everyone wants everything and everyone changed to suit their personal preferences.
Well, i accept option one with high reservation, and that reservation would be that high secured areas the NPC response to a player that is attacking without reason is very fast and swift.
Meaning that if i fly in a high secure areas to stay safe, if i get attacked for noh reason, extending the combat just a little will give enough time to "police" ships aproach the area and attack the hostile ship.
Meaning that if i fly in a high secure areas to stay safe, if i get attacked for noh reason, extending the combat just a little will give enough time to "police" ships aproach the area and attack the hostile ship.
Here's the problem with the whole thread. "Desired Playing Style"-- That works great with other games that were built to please as many people as possible. ELITE is not other games. ELITE should not be modified to be 'like' other games. If you want to play ELITE, then do. If you want to make ELITE into a different game so you can play the same game you already play with a new backdrop then find a different game. ELITE: Dangerous should be exactly what it says it is. Otherwise it is not ELITE, just the same-old-same-old with pretty stars and planets instead of Orcs and Elves.
I'm continually amazed by this particular answer; "I want a multiplayer game but only if the other players have to follow my rules". In the original ELITE, every single NPC out there would be considered a griefer if it had been a human player. I don't see a bit of difference in random NPC's kicking my butt for no reason and a player doing the same. I have a feeling that if you get 'ganked' enough times by NPC's you'll start complaining that they shouldn't be able to attack you either.
This game is ELITE. It is not EVE, WOW, EVERQUEST or LOTR Online. I wish everyone would stop trying to make it just like those games. If you don't want the ELITE experience, find another space game and get off of my cloud. I like ELITE exactly the way it was and for multiplayer to deviate from that denigrates the experience and makes it not ELITE.
At the time ELITE first came out it deviated from all the current play styles and paradigms. A game HAD to have 3 lives, it had to last about 10 minutes and you couldn't save.
Right now, it seems that at a time when ELITE: Dangerous has the chance to break the current paradigm for multiplayer games, a very vocal minority want to pigeonhole it into the same boring and played out styles they are familiar with. I say just let DB make what he wants and it will again break gaming out of the stagnant pool it has become and deliver something truly refreshing and enjoyable. Everyone won't like it, but that's not what this is about. This is about bringing a truly groundbreaking game back for the fans that enjoyed the originals and adding something NEW and UNIQUE to the gaming industry. Not about copying everything else that is out there because that's what people have been spoon-fed and have come to expect.
Talking PVP and PVE and all that jazz just clouds it up, spins it about and makes it lose any real direction or depth. I trust in DB's vision and that is what I want to see. I am pretty sure he didn't wake up the day before the Kickstarter and say, "OK, let's do WOW in space because it will sell"....
Just my opinion.
Right now, it seems that at a time when ELITE: Dangerous has the chance to break the current paradigm for multiplayer games, a very vocal minority want to pigeonhole it into the same boring and played out styles they are familiar with. I say just let DB make what he wants and it will again break gaming out of the stagnant pool it has become and deliver something truly refreshing and enjoyable. Everyone won't like it, but that's not what this is about. This is about bringing a truly groundbreaking game back for the fans that enjoyed the originals and adding something NEW and UNIQUE to the gaming industry. Not about copying everything else that is out there because that's what people have been spoon-fed and have come to expect.
Talking PVP and PVE and all that jazz just clouds it up, spins it about and makes it lose any real direction or depth. I trust in DB's vision and that is what I want to see. I am pretty sure he didn't wake up the day before the Kickstarter and say, "OK, let's do WOW in space because it will sell"....
Just my opinion.
Don't be ridiculous.
1. Playing single player means I never get to meet other players. It also means I'm less likely to buy in-game items, or maybe even buy the game in the first place.
2. Turning off NPCs literally removes all gameplay, that'd be silly.
3. The original Elite was dangerous and didn't have player combat.
And I want to make MY OWN STORY by playing how I want to. I don't want someone else to force their own story on me if I don't want it.
Er... you're the one limiting gameplay here.
A choice between PvP and PvE is exactly that. A choice. If you want to be able to shoot and be shot by other people, choose "PvP". This option will not be affected in any way by the addition of a PvE mode. You won't be forced to behave in any way. This option limits nobody.
So... Elite wasn't designed to accommodate players that like to trade, and players that like to explore, and players that like to police systems, and players that like to pirate? Good thinking there.
HERE'S the problem with the whole thread.
Your game is not affected.
If you want to shoot and be shot by people in your game, choose that option. Literally, the only difference between your playing experience with the option and your playing experience without the option is the presence of an extra item on the menu.
Why should others not be allowed to play the way they want and make THEIR OWN STORY, even though it has absolutely no effect on your own game?
posted to wrong thread
Unless I have misunderstood the pitch from FD about ED during the KS campaign (wow - so many acronyms
):(emphasis mine)Kickstarter said:
Interesting don't you think ...?
My two cents
As an old Elite fan, my game experience is obviously without multiplayer fights. If I want to trade safely, for example, I can choose to travel to secure systems only, at least long enough to get better ship and weapons.
Resisting an attack is, most of the time in any game, more difficult when you face a real player than when you face a NPC (exception for "bosses" which are difficult to beat by design).
I think for my part that a forced PVP orientation would be bad for every one who prefers PVE and cooperative play, or economical / trading competition only.
This is why I choose the PVP or PVE groups that you can switch at will. I think this is the best way to let anybody play the way he wants, without forcing others.
As an old Elite fan, my game experience is obviously without multiplayer fights. If I want to trade safely, for example, I can choose to travel to secure systems only, at least long enough to get better ship and weapons.
Resisting an attack is, most of the time in any game, more difficult when you face a real player than when you face a NPC (exception for "bosses" which are difficult to beat by design).
I think for my part that a forced PVP orientation would be bad for every one who prefers PVE and cooperative play, or economical / trading competition only.
This is why I choose the PVP or PVE groups that you can switch at will. I think this is the best way to let anybody play the way he wants, without forcing others.
For the benefit of those joining us from the newsletter, please excuse any frayed nerves from people round here - the discussion to date has tended to go round in circles, so people that feel the need to defend their positions are getting tired of repeating their talking points.
One of the oldest MMORPGs introduced a PvE option to a world with unrestricted PvP. It was so popular the PvP world couldn't retain enough players to sustain itself. That was 10 years ago - nowadays there are so many MMORPGs, gamers will probably switch to a different game rather than risk unrestricted PvP. Even if they stick with ED, the single player online and private group options would probably be more attractive than being shot to bits during a nice little trade run.
Some people playing the game will be winding down after a long day at school/work, so their top priority will be to avoid anything that could increase their stress levels. If you ask them to solve the problem themselves, they'll solve it by playing alone.
Ideas for restricting PvP are very much welcome, but it's not as simple as it might appear. Games that construct their own map can easily designate different-but-equal PvP and PvE zones that make everyone happy. But the Elite universe reflects the story of humanity's flight from Earth, which makes things trickier. There will be core worlds with good police forces and a frontier without, but that still means you can't meet new friends and battle NPC pirates together without wading past teenagers eager to show off their manhood. It also means if you fly beyond the frontier to unexplored space and have to send out an SOS, your chances of meeting a fellow traveller are less than the chances of meeting someone that thinks preying on the weak is all part of the experience.
Some people see other players as just better-programmed combatants than NPCs, others get a thrill from beating another human being they don't get when their opponent is a crossword puzzle with delusions of grandeur. Some people are happy to respawn and carry on with their day, others feel peculiarly crushed to know another person is out there taking joy in their failure. Some people (such as myself) have the misfortune of feeling the pain of defeat but not getting the thrill of victory over another person. The developers need to find some way of consistently rewarding every type of player, which isn't easy if they have to mix people who want to shoot and be shot at in with people that want neither.
Remember ED is trying to combine FPS-like combat with MMO-like exploration. For technical reasons you can either have massive battles or detailed battles - twitching your way around in combat creates way more network traffic than selecting an action to perform once per second, so anything more than about 32 players fighting each other just isn't possible over the Internet in a game like ED. Because it would be silly to have players wait in some kind of hyperspace lobby to enter a system, Frontier plan to automatically match-make players with each other. Some people (again such as myself) hope this will improve the situation dramatically, for example by preferentially matching players with similar kill counts together.
Finally, to reiterate the bit about frayed nerves - a lot of people have had their say on the topic and gone back to lurking. Most of the positive responses you'll get to your opinions are in the form of silent nodding, whereas most of the disagreement will be somewhat louder. Silent majorities usually find it easier to agree with people that make their point concisely once and avoid repeating themselves. Please tell us what you think, but please don't feel the need to go round it over and over - you'll run the risk of winning the argument with those that talk back but losing those that keep quiet.
One of the oldest MMORPGs introduced a PvE option to a world with unrestricted PvP. It was so popular the PvP world couldn't retain enough players to sustain itself. That was 10 years ago - nowadays there are so many MMORPGs, gamers will probably switch to a different game rather than risk unrestricted PvP. Even if they stick with ED, the single player online and private group options would probably be more attractive than being shot to bits during a nice little trade run.
Some people playing the game will be winding down after a long day at school/work, so their top priority will be to avoid anything that could increase their stress levels. If you ask them to solve the problem themselves, they'll solve it by playing alone.
Ideas for restricting PvP are very much welcome, but it's not as simple as it might appear. Games that construct their own map can easily designate different-but-equal PvP and PvE zones that make everyone happy. But the Elite universe reflects the story of humanity's flight from Earth, which makes things trickier. There will be core worlds with good police forces and a frontier without, but that still means you can't meet new friends and battle NPC pirates together without wading past teenagers eager to show off their manhood. It also means if you fly beyond the frontier to unexplored space and have to send out an SOS, your chances of meeting a fellow traveller are less than the chances of meeting someone that thinks preying on the weak is all part of the experience.
Some people see other players as just better-programmed combatants than NPCs, others get a thrill from beating another human being they don't get when their opponent is a crossword puzzle with delusions of grandeur. Some people are happy to respawn and carry on with their day, others feel peculiarly crushed to know another person is out there taking joy in their failure. Some people (such as myself) have the misfortune of feeling the pain of defeat but not getting the thrill of victory over another person. The developers need to find some way of consistently rewarding every type of player, which isn't easy if they have to mix people who want to shoot and be shot at in with people that want neither.
Remember ED is trying to combine FPS-like combat with MMO-like exploration. For technical reasons you can either have massive battles or detailed battles - twitching your way around in combat creates way more network traffic than selecting an action to perform once per second, so anything more than about 32 players fighting each other just isn't possible over the Internet in a game like ED. Because it would be silly to have players wait in some kind of hyperspace lobby to enter a system, Frontier plan to automatically match-make players with each other. Some people (again such as myself) hope this will improve the situation dramatically, for example by preferentially matching players with similar kill counts together.
Finally, to reiterate the bit about frayed nerves - a lot of people have had their say on the topic and gone back to lurking. Most of the positive responses you'll get to your opinions are in the form of silent nodding, whereas most of the disagreement will be somewhat louder. Silent majorities usually find it easier to agree with people that make their point concisely once and avoid repeating themselves. Please tell us what you think, but please don't feel the need to go round it over and over - you'll run the risk of winning the argument with those that talk back but losing those that keep quiet.
Last edited:
Pre-moderation buried my post back into the depths of the thread, which means nobody will ever read it, so I'll just throw this out for those who missed it as a possible solution:
This means they can see and be seen by other players, they still can affect each other (mines, line of sight, etc. so 'friendly fire' is still a danger), can still interact, can even join the same team, but killing each other is much more difficult.
If 'being killed by other players' is the main issue with PvE/PvP then this might help solve that one major issue without splitting the player base and removing all the benefits of having a populated universe in the first place.
- One shared universe.- no splitting into separate PvE/PvP servers/universes
- 'PvE' players tick the "Leave me alone" button either at log-on or character creation (depending on whether you want it to be session based or permanent)
- They are fitted with an 'EPF targeting scrambler' - which means they can't be targeted by (nor can they target) other human players.
This means they can see and be seen by other players, they still can affect each other (mines, line of sight, etc. so 'friendly fire' is still a danger), can still interact, can even join the same team, but killing each other is much more difficult.
If 'being killed by other players' is the main issue with PvE/PvP then this might help solve that one major issue without splitting the player base and removing all the benefits of having a populated universe in the first place.
Last edited:
Marsman
Banned
hello
sorry for my bad english
I did not follow the campaign much after it ended but now I have to say something: I read the grouping now (absolute not a fan of it) I read here the same type people like in other Online games do what they always do and always get, request their playstyle excluding players (not want player combat in a \multiplay online SANDBOX\ is completely bizarre, cant even say how much).
I voted option 1 to kick the groups, make it realistic.
debatable is option 2, depending on territory how much police there is to guard. but still, no invincible ships please !! friendly fire is realism, but add with good consequences in game (police...)
option 3-5 is complete total nonsense
and do not let offline single player or LAN player credits destroy the economy of the online sandbox, no transfer from offline/LAN to online
sorry for my bad english
I did not follow the campaign much after it ended but now I have to say something: I read the grouping now (absolute not a fan of it) I read here the same type people like in other Online games do what they always do and always get, request their playstyle excluding players (not want player combat in a \multiplay online SANDBOX\ is completely bizarre, cant even say how much).
I voted option 1 to kick the groups, make it realistic.
debatable is option 2, depending on territory how much police there is to guard. but still, no invincible ships please !! friendly fire is realism, but add with good consequences in game (police...)
option 3-5 is complete total nonsense
and do not let offline single player or LAN player credits destroy the economy of the online sandbox, no transfer from offline/LAN to online
Very well put post altogether and this bit especially. I play to relax after work and I often have our 4-year-old with me, sitting on my lap when I play. She even wants to take controls every now and then.
Philip Coutts
Volunteer Moderator
The great thing about Elite is you play the way you want. If you want a more relaxing time, stick to the core systems with a decent police presence and choose your missions, deliveries carefully. If you want a more difficult life head for some of the less reputable outer rim systems or select some of the more dubious missions. If you want to dissapear go exploring beyond the chartered space. There's plenty to keep everyone happy here.
If there is to a be a separation between PvE/PvP it must be a complete separation.
Nothing the PvE players do can be allowed to affect the PvP universe in any way. If they explore a system in PvE, it remains unexplored on the PvP server.
It would not be fair if I'm exploring a system, about to uncover a valuable find and then a PvE player comes in and takes it from under my nose without me being able to do a damn thing about it. If there's a war in a system, and there are a bunch of PvEers on one side and PvPers on another, neither can affect the other. A large group of PvEers could effectively run rampant throughout the universe and the other players wouldn't be able to do anything but watch.
Edit - another example:
A planet is under blockade. I'm part of that blockade and, with others, preventing other players and npcs bringing supplies through. You hop into PvE mode (you can handle the npcs let's say), fly through the blockade care-free and completely destroy the balance of play.
In a dynamic, evolving universe, if shared between all players, you have to have a balanced play-field. Or separate them entirely. You can't even have 'part-time' PvE, for the same reasons.
I'm all for finding solutions that don't involve splitting the user base, but if there's to be a dedicated PvE mode, it should be exclusively PvE.
Nothing the PvE players do can be allowed to affect the PvP universe in any way. If they explore a system in PvE, it remains unexplored on the PvP server.
It would not be fair if I'm exploring a system, about to uncover a valuable find and then a PvE player comes in and takes it from under my nose without me being able to do a damn thing about it. If there's a war in a system, and there are a bunch of PvEers on one side and PvPers on another, neither can affect the other. A large group of PvEers could effectively run rampant throughout the universe and the other players wouldn't be able to do anything but watch.
Edit - another example:
A planet is under blockade. I'm part of that blockade and, with others, preventing other players and npcs bringing supplies through. You hop into PvE mode (you can handle the npcs let's say), fly through the blockade care-free and completely destroy the balance of play.
In a dynamic, evolving universe, if shared between all players, you have to have a balanced play-field. Or separate them entirely. You can't even have 'part-time' PvE, for the same reasons.
I'm all for finding solutions that don't involve splitting the user base, but if there's to be a dedicated PvE mode, it should be exclusively PvE.
Last edited:
My preferred solution is...
There are some areas of the galaxy where I cannot be attacked by other players
... with the in-fiction explanation that the authorities are jamming ships' IFF and weapons systems in the safe systems so no one can get a weapons lock (a scanner/ID lock should still be possible) on other ships or fire their weapons arbitrarily.
The PvP system definitely needs to be as unambiguous as possible. Do not make the same mistake as Star Citizen where you have a slider that blurs the contours (for the record, I love SC otherwise but their PvP/PvE slider is a bad idea IMHO). People should always at all times be 100% aware of whether they are attackable or not.
If they get player-killed they need to know that it was all their fault and not the system's fault. A game will lose players big time if the system is unfair or too ambiguous because many people will rage-quit if they get PK'ed out of the blue.
Make the system totally unambiguous and transparent for it to be fair.
There are some areas of the galaxy where I cannot be attacked by other players
... with the in-fiction explanation that the authorities are jamming ships' IFF and weapons systems in the safe systems so no one can get a weapons lock (a scanner/ID lock should still be possible) on other ships or fire their weapons arbitrarily.
The PvP system definitely needs to be as unambiguous as possible. Do not make the same mistake as Star Citizen where you have a slider that blurs the contours (for the record, I love SC otherwise but their PvP/PvE slider is a bad idea IMHO). People should always at all times be 100% aware of whether they are attackable or not.
If they get player-killed they need to know that it was all their fault and not the system's fault. A game will lose players big time if the system is unfair or too ambiguous because many people will rage-quit if they get PK'ed out of the blue.
Make the system totally unambiguous and transparent for it to be fair.
This works, but it doesn't answer the problem of the PvEers who want complete freedom without risk of being attacked by other players. The problem is, with a shared dynamic universe, there's no way to implement that fairly outside 'safe zones'.
The only fair way for them to have what they want, and for it to be fair to the rest of the players who have to fight tooth and nail for every gain (and may be having all their hard work taken away from them without being able to do anything about it, if PvEers can influence events too) - is to have entirely separate PvE/PvP servers and never the twain shall meet.
- Status