The Tri-poll: What does multiplayer mean to YOU?

[DigitalDuck]

I don't think this sort of progression tuning is necessary. Yes, a PvE universe would (probably) allow for faster "progress" towards Elite rank than a PvP one - perhaps not though, I can envisage creative uses of mechanics for fast progress when in PvP combat... Regardless, even if PvE gets you to Elite faster, does that matter? No, everyone will look at "PvP Elite rank" as the gold standard of respect and a "PvE Elite rank" as a lesser one. Of course "Ironman Elite" will be what you really should aspire to...

Also, if you remember that combat is one of the major components of the Elite rank (and originally the only component) and that the number of people you can possibly shoot at is reduced in PvE, you'll see that it's going to take a bit longer anyway.

In other words, if you're half decent at the game it'll be quicker to get it in PvP mode because you can shoot people.

 

[Fromhell]

Not crippling the game for anyone.

Most people will cripple the game for themselves since they have the option to do so.
It happens over
and over
again.
At least it seems FD are aware of this:
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=119223&postcount=5

Don't like PvP? STAY AT HOME! That sounds fair.

Territory based security means "stay at home"? What a ridiculous exaggeration.
50% of the galaxy would still be 50 000 000 000 systems, more than the PvE-only player will ever see in their entire lifetime, but hey let´s argue for the sake of argueing. Let´s go for an obcscure filtering system instead, ´cause the galaxy is not big enough.

You can't ever meet, so it can't possibly open up any balancing problems.

Will PvE-only and single players get locked out of the PvAll environment PERMANENTLY together with all goods, reputation, credits and anything else which might leak into the "real" Elite PvAll universe?

Will patched/hacked offline characters using the inevitable single player game cheats will be locked out from taking their stuff into the online universe?

Will playing in an "Elite Dangerous" PvAll environment give higher rewards and benefits than playing in "Elite Safemode" PvE?

If "NO" is the answer to any of these questions it´s not just a balancing problem, it´s game breaking.

Not if you can't switch, which is what the guys you're arguing against want.

Good, here I agree, the PvE-only people need to be filtered out permanently.
They shouldn´t be able to take the riches they aquired in offline/PvE easymode to other modes, to give them any advantage in the PvAll online universe.

Also "no" to hacked/patched/otherwise tampered with offline single player characters having access to the online universe. With obviously no server side characters in offline mode, I expect the first "unlimited credits patch" to show up week 1 after release.

Only in the PvE universe. If you want realism, stick to the PvP universe which is completely unchanged.

There is no PvP universe, mate - It´s a PvAll universe. Those who like a chance of PvP happening are still forced to do PvE too. But hey, since minorities get their way:
I demand an option to filter out NPCs too. If I get "griefed" by a NPC one single time in a non consensual fight, I´ll deinstall and go back to World of Tanks.
(look PvE guys I can do it too!)

Different modes and player filters are in already.

I doubt anthing is "in", this early in production

"Play the way I want you to play or play offline."

Any problems with democratic voting? The PvE-only lobbyists are completely overrepresented minority anyway. Give them three ways to play and they will demand a fourth one, otherwise they threaten to quit and go back to WoW.

Okay, online multiplayer rules are now set as follows:
- PvP at all times. You can't stop PvP in real life.
- No loading/saving. You can't load/save in real life.
- Permadeath. You can't come back to life in real life.

+1 all of it please. Even Star Citizen has permadeath with an inheritance system

Meanwhile, seperate PvP and PvE seems to work for WOW's paying 8300000 subscribers.

it was only a matter of time until some WoW players find this game and come here to ruin it.

Others, including myself, want to NOT be able to switch groups at any point during gameplay.

How about no groups at all, that would be even better.
If the group concept really gets into game, I agree at least the selections need to be permanent and 100% secluded from other game modes. (No mailing, no credits or goods transfer, ...)

 

[jabokai]

I doubt anthing is "in", this early in production

From the very same thread you linked to in your post, seeing as you seem to have missed it the other times I've mentioned it - http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=119231&postcount=7

Private groups will be in. The "exploits" you worry so much about will be in, regardless of an open PvE group IF group switching is allowed. You'd be better to argue against switching groups than against groups themselves... and if you did, you'd be in agreement with DigitalDuck (on that part at least) and not be affected at all by a PvE group.

 

[psykokow]

I understand that thinking too, I just assumed that you could not jump group to group... but that doesn't make sense..

Im nipping on for a quick mission... hey bud fancy a quick run? sure...

Private group off you pop......

I suspect the thing we are missing out on.. is everyone is actually in the same universe... just the grouping controls the priority of instances...

with that thinking.... PVE toggle seems fine. It should have rules... maybe only change it at a station? that means you could be chased to the station and then pop out in a pve instance safe having essentially escaped..

The persuer would not know you have gone or seen you leave... so its not like you are there but he cant shoot you..


That seems workable to me now.. I didn't see it that way before..

That would significantly allow the PVE group to be involved in the same universe...

Otherwise what we are really saying is... PVE wanters... be in the all group in core systems... but if you want to head off to the frontier... just drop into a solo online group and youre sorted.

I always beleive if the solution can be acheived by using the mechanisms already in game...why not add the easier way and put a PVE group in..

I imagine you would need to dock to save your game and quit out with sense, so it makes sense that this is the time you can change your game type...

essentially bring up the save game screen, quit game, load game , pick solo online, select your pilot.. off you pop.

So unless your pilot is restricted to one group picked at startup, then there is No reason not to try to include the PVE grouping anyway..

IF however your pilot group is PRE SET and unchangable.. ie this is my private group pilot, this is my main ALL group pilot and this is my solo online pilot..

All are connecting to the same server, just when instances are formed they follow different rules.. so to lock them to that group would be quite fair and quite right.... but equally how nice would it be to play solo for a while and then show off your gains in the All server...

So my opinion has changed a little today... I see how a toggle would work and NOT break immersion..

If it is not a case of LOCK SCANNERS oh thats a PVE ship I cant shoot it... then your immersion can not be broken..

IF the target gets to a station and you never see them again, they've simply escaped you... you could follow the trail to get to them and then when they pvp group it... jump them.

This would keep the universe full and players happy, keep risks and if EVERYONE goes to PVE...then who really cares.. ITs fine.

 

[DarkWalker]

I don't think this sort of progression tuning is necessary.

I would prefer that kind of tuning because, if well done, it would remove efficiency as a reason to decide between PvP and PvE.

If both paths are guaranteed to allow the player to progress at the same speed, or close enough, players are then free to choose which one they really prefer. If one path is faster than the other, players that are interested in gameplay efficiency are prone to take the fastest path even if they actually dislike it.

In other words, tuning would allow players to choose whichever group, PvP or PvE, they actually prefer.

 

[PacalB]

btw it´s ridiculous what people say about EvE, I played 3 years and all the inner parts of the galaxy are almost 100% PvE and they are adding more stuff to do with every update, you can mine, trade do missions for Agents, no one forces you to go to Null-Sec to be competitive. I have *never* been "ganked" in High Sec, it´s all a myth and probably happens to 1 out of 1000 players.

What absolute rubbish, absolute claptrap. 1 out of a 1000 players? So, scanning out of mission sites in highsec and can-flipping to get red flagged so you can kill some poor sod who hasn't got a clue doesn't happen on a daily basis? In highsec? You say, you've played for 3 years and never been ganked? lol What are/were you? some kind of monk locked up in a Sisters of Eve station?

 

[psykokow]

I played for a while... been ganked a lot... even in a what I thought was hi sec... but i may have strayed by 1 jump... I had 2 seconds to even know what was happening
which sucks... TOO QUICK
Battles should ALWAYS be battles...

 

[DigitalDuck]

Most people will cripple the game for themselves since they have the option to do so.

That's their choice to make.

Will PvE-only and single players get locked out of the PvAll environment PERMANENTLY together with all goods, reputation, credits and anything else which might leak into the "real" Elite PvAll universe?

Will patched/hacked offline characters using the inevitable single player game cheats will be locked out from taking their stuff into the online universe?

Will playing in an "Elite Dangerous" PvAll environment give higher rewards and benefits than playing in "Elite Safemode" PvE?

If "NO" is the answer to any of these questions it´s not just a balancing problem, it´s game breaking.

False.

The first is a question of debate. The second is obvious. Neither of those have anything to do with PvE.

The third isn't a balancing problem if the PvP players never see the PvE players. Because they're playing two different games. It's not a problem if Mass Effect is easier than Elite, because my Mass Effect commander isn't going to appear in your Elite game.

Also "no" to hacked/patched/otherwise tampered with offline single player characters having access to the online universe. With obviously no server side characters in offline mode, I expect the first "unlimited credits patch" to show up week 1 after release.

Nobody wants this. It has nothing to do with PvE.

There is no PvP universe, mate - It´s a PvAll universe. Those who like a chance of PvP happening are still forced to do PvE too. But hey, since minorities get their way:
I demand an option to filter out NPCs too. If I get "griefed" by a NPC one single time in a non consensual fight, I´ll deinstall and go back to World of Tanks.
(look PvE guys I can do it too!)

Why not? I'm sure you'll kill all four people you meet in that mode.

I doubt anthing is "in", this early in production

It's been eight months since the Kickstarter was revealed. I'm surprised there's still stuff that ISN'T "in".

Any problems with democratic voting? The PvE-only lobbyists are completely overrepresented minority anyway. Give them three ways to play and they will demand a fourth one, otherwise they threaten to quit and go back to WoW.

Okay, let's play this game.

"Most people prefer bananas to apples. Therefore we shouldn't cater for those who like apples, and should only offer bananas in fruit bowls."

"Most people are right-handed. Therefore we shouldn't cater for those who are left-handed, and every device should be made to work with the right hand only."

"Most people don't want to marry someone of the same sex. Therefore we shouldn't cater for those who do, and should only allow opposite-sex marriage."

Let me know when I can stop.

+1 all of it please. Even Star Citizen has permadeath with an inheritance system

Seriously? You're on your own.

it was only a matter of time until some WoW players find this game and come here to ruin it.

I'm not a WoW player. I haven't come here to ruin this game.

On the contrary, considering a PvE group has no effect on anyone else's game, I fail to see how it could possibly do anything but improve it.

How about no groups at all, that would be even better.

Sure, but good luck with letting A shoot B without letting B get shot by A. Unless you just want to say "**** you" to a significant portion of the player base.

 

[PacalB]

I played for a while... been ganked a lot... even in a what I thought was hi sec... but i may have strayed by 1 jump... I had 2 seconds to even know what was happening
which sucks... TOO QUICK
Battles should ALWAYS be battles...

Hehehe

And the lesson of the day there was; Don't jump into lowsec accidently, cause that will happen from time to time. A nice sentry tank gank crew waiting for mistakes and chancers to mop up.

 

[DarkWalker]

Territory based security means "stay at home"? What a ridiculous exaggeration.
50% of the galaxy would still be 50 000 000 000 systems, more than the PvE-only player will ever see in their entire lifetime, but hey let´s argue for the sake of argueing. Let´s go for an obcscure filtering system instead, ´cause the galaxy is not big enough.

Territory based security typically means that the easiest, kiddie space is PvE and the actually fun and challenging part of the game is PvP-only.

If this was inverted somehow, so the zones with the hardest PvE fights were the ones where PvP wasn't allowed, I could live with this. Otherwise, just no. I want absolute control over when I engage in PvP, but at the same time I want the most challenging PvE content the game can throw at me.

There is no PvP universe, mate - It´s a PvAll universe. Those who like a chance of PvP happening are still forced to do PvE too. But hey, since minorities get their way:
I demand an option to filter out NPCs too. If I get "griefed" by a NPC one single time in a non consensual fight, I´ll deinstall and go back to World of Tanks.
(look PvE guys I can do it too!)

I fully support this. Have an optional mode that is PvP only, no PvE, as well as an optional mode that is PvE only.

Any problems with democratic voting? The PvE-only lobbyists are completely overrepresented minority anyway. Give them three ways to play and they will demand a fourth one, otherwise they threaten to quit and go back to WoW.

Actually, the silent majority is typically made mainly of players that are not really confident in asserting themselves against other players and / or want to avoid conflict. Guess if they are mainly PvP or PvE.

It was very funny in Star Citizen when the devs decided to create an official pool, announced in the project's home page, that included a couple questions about whether players wanted PvP or PvE. Up to that point every pool in the forums was showing between 10% and 20% of PvE players, with typically less than 1K players taking part; the official pool, with over 7K players answering, showed that 75% of the players mainly look forward to PvE (51% towards co-op PvE, 24% towards solo PvE), and 51% of the players prefer having just PvE combat (as opposed to 20% that want PvP, and 26% that want both PvP and PvE).

+1 all of it please. Even Star Citizen has permadeath with an inheritance system

Or, as I call it, cosmetic permadeath, because it's effects are only cosmetic (pick another name and appearance). Worse, with lives; you can die a number of times and get a permadeath when your lives run out.

It's silly, with little to no gameplay impact, almost as if it was only created to spite roleplayers, which are the kind of players that are most attacked to their character names and appearance. For me that cosmetic permadeath wouldn't matter anything, as I simply choose to never attach any importance to anything that I can lose in a game. Or, rather, it would matter in one thing; I would create further character names intentionally joking with the whole cosmetic permadeath concept.

BTW, one of the first questions asked CR about that system is if players can disable it in private servers (they can).

it was only a matter of time until some WoW players find this game and come here to ruin it.

He didn't quote what is perhaps the most important part.

There are 8.3M WoW players out there.

At the same time, there are over 16M previous WoW players out there looking for new games.

For some time yet anyone that creates any MMO game is bound to get a healthy number of interested previous WoW players

How about no groups at all, that would be even better.
If the group concept really gets into game, I agree at least the selections need to be permanent and 100% secluded from other game modes. (No mailing, no credits or goods transfer, ...)

Unless Frontier breaks promises made during KS, both groups, and the possibility of changing groups without restarting, are already in.

BTW, the non-consensual PvP play style depends on having prey ("sheep"); but, if the choice of group happens at character creation and can't be ever changed, where do you think most prey will end? Quite likely it won't be in a PvP-enabled group, just like the prey in UO mostly migrated to Trammel as soon as that world was made available.

With players being able to switch groups you would get some of that prey making forays into the PvP groups, perhaps some of them even deciding to stay there for good, just like in UO some players "graduate" from Trammel to Felucca; but, without the ability to change groups, anyone that flees to a PvE-only group will be there to stay, never again seen in a PvP group.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

50% of the galaxy would still be 50 000 000 000 systems, more than the PvE-only player will ever see in their entire lifetime,

Though, most of that is going to be reachable only by the most prepared of deep space explorers, if at all. Michael in the latest fiction diary said "250 LY bubble" of inhabited space, though it's unclear if that was radius or diameter.

If it's diameter, then that's around 30,000 stars (assuming a realistic star density of around 8 cubic parsecs per star, and they've said they'll be using the real star catalogues for at least some of local space). If it's radius, then that's over 200,000 stars.

Even if it's diameter, and even if most of those systems are uninhabited and only used for hyperspace jumps, and even with the "try to make it so people in the same system meet each other" effects in the game engine, then outside of a few famous named systems, likely to be massively patrolled, the chances of meeting anyone except NPCs at all is going to be fairly small.

 

[DigitalDuck]

With players being able to switch groups you would get some of that prey making forays into the PvP groups, perhaps some of them even deciding to stay there for good, just like in UO some players "graduate" from Trammel to Felucca; but, without the ability to change groups, anyone that flees to a PvE-only group will be there to stay, never again seen in a PvP group.

Indeed, and this is what needs to be discussed. There are pros and cons of locking people into a group, so we should be talking about them (if we're allowed to actually discuss something relevant at some point ).

Other alternatives to "allow switching/don't allow switching" would be to make group switching come at a cost to the player; meaning that players don't simply switch out to make their game easier or to gain advantages over other players. Would create another money sink, but I'm not a fan of the option myself as it means in-game penalties for meta-game activity, which is a no-no in my book.

Even if it's diameter, and even if most of those systems are uninhabited and only used for hyperspace jumps, and even with the "try to make it so people in the same system meet each other" effects in the game engine, then outside of a few famous named systems, likely to be massively patrolled, the chances of meeting anyone except NPCs at all is going to be fairly small.

You're forgetting that (aside from backers) everyone starts in the same place.

 

[Juniper]

What absolute rubbish, absolute claptrap. 1 out of a 1000 players? So, scanning out of mission sites in highsec and can-flipping to get red flagged so you can kill some poor sod who hasn't got a clue doesn't happen on a daily basis? In highsec? You say, you've played for 3 years and never been ganked? lol What are/were you? some kind of monk locked up in a Sisters of Eve station?

You don't have to be a monk. You just have to avoid low sec or null sec, or do anything stupid. Warping to 0km of a gate helps too, as well as careful use of the autopilot button.

It's very easy not to get ganked or otherwise PvP killed in EVE. The whole "PvP only" thing is a myth. EVE is basically two different games - and one side will always say it's "better" than the other, and ridicule the other side. With a player based economy though, the two sides need each other. That's the funny thing.

[/eve]

 

[PacalB]

You don't have to be a monk. You just have to avoid low sec or null sec, or do anything stupid. Warping to 0km of a gate helps too, as well as careful use of the autopilot button.

It's very easy not to get ganked or otherwise PvP killed in EVE. The whole "PvP only" thing is a myth. EVE is basically two different games - and one side will always say it's "better" than the other, and ridicule the other side. With a player based economy though, the two sides need each other. That's the funny thing.

[/eve]

So,

• don't do lowsec [check]

• don't do nullsec [check]

• don't use autopilot [check]

• don't do anything errr? stupid? [check]

• remember that "pvp only" is only a myth! [check]

NEWS FLASH! Special addition just in!

• Your corporation getting multi dec'd is just an illusion! You're corp will never be ransomed wardec and hisec ganked by PvPers! [check]

Gotcha! I now know how to play Eve! Gee ... thanks Juniper! I've been enlightened !!!

 

[Juniper]

[*]Your corporation getting multi dec'd is just an illusion! You're corp will never be ransomed wardec and hisec ganked by PvPers! [check]
[/LIST]
Gotcha! I now know how to play Eve! Gee ... thanks Juniper! I've been enlightened !!!

Haha, OK, you got me on the last one.

For me, I had my own corp in there - and didn't have that problem... but yes - for the unitiated, corporation war (which can be one way) are a gateway to PvP in high sec.

It costs money to maintain a war declaration though, and it may not be worth their while to do it.

BTW - I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play, I'm only saying that it is perfectly possible to play it this way and still get enjoyment from the game (and you don't have to be a monk either).

 

[Barns]

I'm only saying that it is perfectly possible to play it this way and still get enjoyment from the game (and you don't have to be a monk either).

I've given Eve several good attempts over the years, despite my general dislike of PvP combat. Each time I give up after a few months of trundling around highsec areas trying to make a go of things but all the time knowing "all the good stuff in this game is out there in PvP lands" and "you really need to be in a corp in this game, soloing is nigh on impossible to make progress with". I'm sure some players find enjoyment soloing around in highsec, but I just found it frustrating and far too limiting.

This experience forms much of my reason for being anti-PvP and anti-group-content as far as ED goes. I really want to avoid ED turning into a game where either a) the best (most profitable, most fun, best gear, etc) content is off in "PvP" zones, and b) you are required to be in an organised group to take on the best content and receive best rewards (gear, etc) - I don't want Raids In Space.

If somehow FD can design it so that there are open PvP zones that are completely optional in every way, so I'll never need to go anywhere near those zones for any reason whatsoever other than to PvP, great! But experience with games over the years indicates to me that it's likely that if the "PvP zones" design was used, they'd also put desirable non-PvP content in those zones "to encourage players to PvP". Hence locking good content behind a PvP gate.

The group thing, I don't mind group content, as long as it all scales right down to solo-able in some form - whether that's by hiring NPC wingmen, or "solo" in the form of an auto-formed group (e.g. in Guild Wars 2, or Rift), where every player in the mission area automatically gets grouped for the purposes of the mission without any sort of pre-organisation or coordination - you just turn up and it happens and if noone else is there, it scales so you can solo the thing.

 

[Listeri69]

Thing I see about E: D is there is a billion star systems, and all that goes with it, there are going to be a fair few inhabited systems ( i expect since 1st Encounters that there has been some expansion in the time that has elapsed)

I don't remember any mention of players (other than backers obviously) starting from the same place. If some backers rewards offer randomised start points for multiplayer reasons then I'm sure non-backers would be randomised too, you then have pretty much your own choice where to fly within the X,Y and Z axis, some of these systems may be inhabited by pirates, some maybe heavily policed, some maybe empty of all life.

The point being Eve has a universe of around 5000/6000 systems which is so tiny compared to the scale of this game (which i said earlier contains around 1,000,000,000 playable systems probably many many more). I expect though a lot of the Elite universe will be unexplored space. how long it stays that way is anyones guess though.

I'm sure you will be easily able to avoid 'griefers', people will soon map routes that cut out anarchic systems for the safer player, heavy PvP systems with constant war ect will be able to cut out too.

I'm sure within the first few weeks this forum for one will be full of peoples experiances, safe routes ect ect. I'm also pretty confident that there is around 30,000 people who have backed this product that want nothing to do with 'ganking' and will fight to keep it that way.

But like it was mentioned in the Podcast I listened to yesterday, there is a fine line between ganking, piracy and you being just plain stupid, like they said if you have a poor ship and fly into a system and get shot and killed, then you go back and repeat ad nauseum then thats not ganking thats your own stupid fault.

I've said before I want a risky universe I want to feel that slight feeling of this isn't perfectly safe that someone may try and shoot me down, but also vice versa I might start a game as a pirate one time. As for mass collections of gankers, yes it may happen but I feel there is going to be FAR too much universe for it to be full of them.

 

[PacalB]

If somehow FD can design it so that there are open PvP zones that are completely optional in every way, so I'll never need to go anywhere near those zones for any reason whatsoever other than to PvP, great! But experience with games over the years indicates to me that it's likely that if the "PvP zones" design was used, they'd also put desirable non-PvP content in those zones "to encourage players to PvP". Hence locking good content behind a PvP gate.

Nicely put Barns [your whole post], I hope the devs are listening. I spent years of PvPing in Eve in exactly what you describe above. When I think back, it was nothing but a slog. Fun at times sure, ran with some great people yep, but it was a slog fest at its heart. I mean, who the hell wants to get up a 5am so you can attack a POS [player owned station], or move capital ships around in 'quiet' times, or sneak through normally camped bottlenecks in lowsec or back to nullsec?

Tell you the truth, I'm dead tired of all of that. I don't want a game full of extreme mega tension, or extreme brain death the other end. I had enough of all of that, I'd like space game where at times and if I want, I can just chill and think ... "Damn, one day us humans might just see all this beauty for real." So down with annoying twits, griefing ats and egotistical troglodytes and up with all those that appreciate space in all it's beautiful glory.

If I had it my way, I'd create a method where you could invite blocks of RPer's only and have them as part of your universal player base. Leave the metagamers, dross and ats out there on the other side of the net wall and never see them. Let them live in their own universe if they wish. This way, whatever the profession they choose you know they are in the roll and it's just that, a roll that they are playing out and not some twit or group of twits on egotistical drives that you are 'forced' to play with.

 

[PacalB]

Thing I see about E: D is there is a billion star systems, and all that goes with it, there are going to be a fair few inhabited systems ( i expect since 1st Encounters that there has been some expansion in the time that has elapsed)

You going to be in a 250 lightyear bubble at first and there will be hubs that people focus around.

I don't remember any mention of players (other than backers obviously) starting from the same place. If some backers rewards offer randomised start points for multiplayer reasons then I'm sure non-backers would be randomised too, you then have pretty much your own choice where to fly within the X,Y and Z axis, some of these systems may be inhabited by pirates, some maybe heavily policed, some maybe empty of all life.

Who knows? We don't currently.

The point being Eve has a universe of around 5000/6000 systems which is so tiny compared to the scale of this game (which i said earlier contains around 1,000,000,000 playable systems probably many many more). I expect though a lot of the Elite universe will be unexplored space. how long it stays that way is anyones guess though.

Again, you go play Eve then you'll know that people focus around hubs and die or earn their bit near them.

I'm sure you will be easily able to avoid 'griefers', people will soon map routes that cut out anarchic systems for the safer player, heavy PvP systems with constant war ect will be able to cut out too.

You don't know that, none of us do yet.

I'm sure within the first few weeks this forum for one will be full of peoples experiances, safe routes ect ect. I'm also pretty confident that there is around 30,000 people who have backed this product that want nothing to do with 'ganking' and will fight to keep it that way.

The 30k of people here is tiny to what will come in the future, everyone here will be drowned out once that happens be it on here forum wise or in game player base wise.

But like it was mentioned in the Podcast I listened to yesterday, there is a fine line between ganking, piracy and you being just plain stupid, like they said if you have a poor ship and fly into a system and get shot and killed, then you go back and repeat ad nauseum then thats not ganking thats your own stupid fault.

The podcast comments were naive, who knows what it'll take to get out of a star system after your ships been destroyed. The person may have a basic ship, gone into the system docked up, gone to leave and then been destroyed. The pod goes back to the station they get their new ship only to try and leave the system to have the same thing happen over and over again. They stupid?

I've said before I want a risky universe I want to feel that slight feeling of this isn't perfectly safe that someone may try and shoot me down, but also vice versa I might start a game as a pirate one time. As for mass collections of gankers, yes it may happen but I feel there is going to be FAR too much universe for it to be full of them.

Good for you and no ... you don't know how star system choke points might or might not work, none of us do yet.

 

[Listeri69]

The person who got to the station in a system and griefed on the way out no he's not stupid but the person who was constantly trying to jump in yes. Considering most of the answers you had to my theorizing was nobody knows is pretty much the point really. if your so concerned play single player nobody forces anyone in this game to play PvP, what I will say is give it a chance if you hate it then you don't have to play it.

The other thing is the max instance they are designing for at the moment is 32 players, so i feel 30,000 is a pretty large number. Personally I stick with the arguments I made earlier. people may focus around hubs but if you fail to supply them then the evolution of the galaxy is going to collapse that system and if its a federal/imperial system there going to try and retake control, if its a frontier system, well then you should be expecting some level of anarchy be it from NPC's or Players. I feel you worry too much. This game ISN'T eve. ok I make some points that none of us know yet, but if we don't know its hard to argue for or against them I'm just saying what I think will happen. I have a glass always full attitude (and it is half water half air ) and I have faith that they are trying to make this as much a non issue as they can........