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

[Ian Doncaster]

@Ian: I posted examples above. More than once.

Yes, but I don't see how they fit the requirements for an action where "blowing up the competition" is the only way you can stop interference, which is why I specified that carefully in my request for an example. Looking at your previous examples (and apologies if I miss the one exception - it's been a long thread):

1) Trying to influence the background events - some parameter like "system stability" or "price of trade good X" - I think is only going to be possible (at least to the extent where your actions are definitely having an effect greater than random noise) through coordinated actions of an organised group, because otherwise it would be too easy for one person to accidentally destabilise systems. You'll need to do a lot to get a fairly small effect.

So once you've got a group together to successfully influence that parameter, no-one's going to be able to shift it back again without a similarly-sized group. If they don't have a similarly sized group, you don't need to shoot them - at most they'll slow down your progress a little. If they do have a big enough group to stop you entirely, you aren't going to be able to stop them by fighting them either - either the instance limit kicks in so you don't meet them anyway, or the fight is so costly to both sides you don't actually make any profit from the original manipulation because you're spending so much on repairs, dying, etc.

The only way I can see that a much smaller group (which you could easily take on in a fight if only you could see them) could stop your larger group from influencing the parameter is if the parameter itself has a strong status quo bias to it. But even if that's the case, how do you know who to shoot if it's a smaller PvP group? Your rivals are hardly going to advertise themselves to you, and you can't go around shooting every other player who enters the system on the off-chance that they might be trying to work against you.

Well, okay, I suppose you can. The swarm of bounty hunters this attracts is likely to be a big distraction from whatever it was you were originally trying to do, though.

2) Sides in major events - wars, blockades, etc. This looks different to the previous one, but I think is basically the same. The result of the war is going to be decided by aggregating the results of lots of battles, some of which you participate in, some of which you don't. If it's a popular war, the battles are going to end up spread across several instances anyway, even if we're all in one big PvP group. So let's take the extreme case: your PvP group is fighting on one side, and an inferior PvE group is fighting on the other side. You beat your instance's NPCs convincingly. They beat their instance's NPCs narrowly. Your side wins. Now let's replace them with a PvP group: you end up in the same instance, and beat them narrowly. Your side still wins. Either way, you win the aggregate result by being better than your opponents: you don't need to ever be in the same instance to do that. (Obviously it would be more fun to be fighting other players in the war, but in practice there's going to be PvPers on both sides anyway, so you will)

3) Prospecting. You find a rich asteroid and start mining. A PvEer comes along... If you're still at the asteroid, they won't see the asteroid at all: it's in your instance, not their instance. If you're not still at the asteroid, you couldn't stop them even if they were a PvPer. (same as the convoy, really)

4) Exploration. Frontier haven't said a lot about how exploration is going to work, but from what they've said about the universe, there are going to be tens of thousands of systems which could plausibly be explored at any time. The chance of two players meeting at the same time in the deep space beyond humanity's borders is miniscule anyway. I can see this is a case where shooting someone to guarantee an exclusive discovery might be valuable, but on the other hand, you're several jumps away from the nearest station, and it only takes one lucky hit on your fuel scoops... If they rush back to beat you to this discovery, it'll take them quite some time to return and then go back again. You can scan several more systems and then head home, and make a bigger profit on the trip than they did.

I just don't see any of these as being examples of a situation where you can beat a rival in combat who you couldn't beat anyway without combat.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Don't read too much into this poll, it's NOTHING more than an attempt to gather some data.

(Emphasis mine)

I don't care playing a game by this company blatantly ignoring community poll results

gonna sell my pledge on ebay or give it away for charity

would you be so kind to delete my account and point me to a link where to request refund for my pledge, thnx and goodbye

I see no option to delete my account.

Click here

Take your pick .. I would suggest Ashley or Michael Brooks

press "Send PM"

Write them a message and wait for reply.

Remember it's Saturday today so don't expect a reply for a few days - weekend in UK.

 

[Elrawkum]

The tone of the discussion has really taken a turn for the unpleasant, so I'll say nothing more on the subject. I apologise for any offence my opinions and concerns have caused.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I apologise for any offence my opinions and concerns have caused

Indeed - back at you for my suspicions of your self quoting earlier.

When people come into a thread and start throwing their toys around, making demands and threats of wanting a refund, generally being unpleasant and deliberately obtuse / argumentative I have no time for it personally - I did try to defuse the situation quite a number of pages back by stating we should really wait for a direction from FD but the argument still rages on.

Sadly, some of our more seasoned posters have yet to realise that logic, reasoning and common sense does not apply to everyone as some come here only here to argue. I recognised it some time back but they didn't and continued the debate.

We also had some unwelcomed visitors a few weeks back who represent the rather nastier side of the internet, combined with a forum poster in this very thread who was banned, a couple of new people posting along similar lines, and then you turn up. Unfortunate timing is what I will put it down to and also quite sad that you were caught up in the crossfire as having looked calmly at your posts it seems that you simply disagree with people and have been quite nice about it - no apology then is required from you.

I do have my own moments of drama, hence the avatar and signature, but I usually recognise it for what it is - a moment of madness - try to rectify it when I realise (like I am trying to do now) - we're all human after all and prone to mistakes. The good thing though about this forum is that the majority of the people here get along - not everything is rosy and kum-by-yah like but that said no one holds grudges for long.

Can we have a group hug now

 

[psykokow]

Sorry no player to player contact in PVE mode!!

 

[Marsman]

When people come into a thread and start throwing their toys around, making demands and threats of wanting a refund, generally being unpleasant and deliberately obtuse / argumentative I have no time for it personally - I did try to defuse the situation quite a number of pages back by stating we should really wait for a direction from FD but the argument still rages on.

Sadly, some of our more seasoned posters have yet to realise that logic, reasoning and common sense does not apply to everyone as some come here only here to argue. I recognised it some time back but they didn't and continued the debate.

Can we have a group hug now

No, I don't need a "group hug". You twist the situation like I was the one starting the refund debate here: It was your same opinion friend who is threatening to call refund.

So, what I'm saying is that, if a feature that actually made me pledge is removed, I want my money back. Specially because the only reason to remove it would be to make the game into some kind of EVE clone with joysticks, which for me would be completely worthless as entertainment.

people using that term Eve clone instantly use their credibility, no clue about anything. I can say they want Elite Rift clone or Wow clone, works both ways

I would want my money back if something we have been promised from the start, and I relied upon in my choice to actually back the project, was removed. Big difference.

So as you see ~he~ gave me the idea to request refund.

It was said there will be DESIGN DECISIONS. Those got ignored. Give me refund?

It was said it would be danger, not switch off danger at will. Give me refund?

No where did it say different rulesets will be all in the same universe.Give me refund?

It said single player offline and groups.
Ok, have your group via LAN. So what?

No where did it say people will get the possibility to earn easy money in simplified mode and will be able to have influence to the universe where the harder modes take place. No where did it say I will be tempted or even forced to switch off "problems" in a quick way by moving to a pivate group.

So yes I am the one who can rightfully ask for refund because this was supposed to be a realistic competitive simulation multiplay game.

also look what I found, this seems to be a smart game designer with a grasp of the situation:

In all seriousness though the path of least resistance is extremely bad from a game play experience point of view. It's all very well saying you should be able to play how you want and have option to make your experience easier but by just having such a choice people will be compelled to use it and ruin the experience they could have had if there was no such choice available to them.

I always remember seeing people playing Oblivion and spending every second going from A to B jumping up and down to level up a stat or continuously summoning a skeleton ally because it would improve their ability to do so. This was the path of least resistance and made the whole experience lesser for it despite the good intentions of the mechanic (improve your abilities by using them). It didn't matter how silly it looked to do and how annoying it was to actually keep repeatedly doing something out of context you would do it because it would improve your character.

Secondly this is a multiplayer game and fairness is extremely important and it does become an issue if someone else you interact with can have an unfair advantage over you because they selected some option you didn't. People will be compelled to also select that option despite their wishes because it'll be the only way to compete on a level playing field. Being able to advance further in the game because you can play it for longer in the day is not an unfair advantage in this case and isn't an issue.

^
YES THIS is exactly what will happen unless you change that dreaded system. This guy is the last hope to turn this around before the iceberg crash. he knows exactly what the problem is for everyone

If it were entirely up to me I would only have an iron man all players group However we said there would be ways for players to play with their friends only on the KS and I don't see how we could get away with taking that particular feature away.

just get away with it by doing it.

Let them play with their imaginary "friends" via LAN and over peer to peer. Lock their credits and ship in to that mode. Done, KS promise fulfilled.

Let the single players play their single player game offline, lock in their credits and ships to that mode. Done, KS promise fulfilled.


anyway this will lead to nothing.
But thanks for the mod contact Liqua, my account removal is in progress.
No more replies from me on this whole thread , go celebrate------ bye

 

[withnail]

Removed. Post didn't serve any purpose.

 

[Slawkenbergius]

YES THIS is exactly what will happen unless you change that dreaded system. This guy is the last hope to turn this around before the iceberg crash. he knows exactly what the problem is for everyone

Help us Mike Evans. You're our only hope.

'Mike Evans: Bounty accepted. Help's on the way.'

I'm hopeful that the devs are pretty good at filtering out backers' angst, and will still make the game they're interested in. My prediction is that will include PVP by default in the 'all' group, but with the 'private group' tools to let people bypass that if they really want. Personally, I do feel that creating a parallel PVE only zone will leave us with a less-focused game. Painting myself as a villain, personally I wouldn't feel too bad about PVE players getting shafted, if it meant a more focused game. Then again, I think I might be even more happy with a co-op focused game.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

But thanks for the mod contact Liqua, my account removal is in progress.
No more replies from me on this whole thread , go celebrate------ bye

welcome

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Painting myself as a villain, personally I wouldn't feel too bad about PVE players getting shafted, if it meant a more focused game. Then again, I think I might be even more happy with a co-op focused game.

Change minds much ?

already put a post in DDF to close these threads nd FD to step in and tell us the direction.

making same post here in hope (though it is Sat night )

Reported my own post - lets see if they get the notification

 

[Patrick_68000]

and point me to a link where to request refund for my pledge, thnx and goodbye

Refund ? Not possible, the money is already spent. Next time, you will think before to give your money without return. And yes that's life. You either,you would not have qualms about resell your commitment on Ebay.

 

[Slawkenbergius]

Change minds much ?

I run my minds in parallel...

Honestly, I think FD should let the argument run, and make an announcement when they've made a decision. Stay out of all the politicking, and don't ever give in to demands. As a group, I think we've got a massive amount to give, but at the same time we're a terrible prism to see the game through.

 

[Brett C]

Evening all,

I am quite aware that this thread has become quite the electrified hotspot of debating and opinions. While this is perfectly fine and welcome, I would like to state that you all need to keep your posts on topic, not flaming one another and causing opinions to slide into the point of no return.

As for the ones wishing to discuss their pledge and other sorts of subjects regarding the kickstarter, you are welcome to email abarley@frontier.co.uk regarding as such.

As for this threads continuation, it will remain open until an official Frontier employee makes the call to sink the thread. I do apologise for not closing the thread, but at this point in time, this thread will remain open to gather data as per Sandro's original post.

As per quote;

There's much speculation and debate on what multiplayer should mean in Elite: Dangerous (and rightly so).

I've set up a simple poll, which I'm going to run in the Design Decision forum, the Private Backers' forum, and the General forum at the same time, probably for a week or so.

Don't read too much into this poll, it's NOTHING more than an attempt to gather some data. Please feel free to vote in all polls you have access to.

edit; Seems the portion down here got trimmed out!

Please do note when us moderators do close a thread, it locks out the poll voting as well - which is something we wish to not do.

 

[PacalB]

Indeed - back at you for my suspicions of your self quoting earlier.

When people come into a thread and start throwing their toys around, making demands and threats of wanting a refund, generally being unpleasant and deliberately obtuse / argumentative I have no time for it personally - I did try to defuse the situation quite a number of pages back by stating we should really wait for a direction from FD but the argument still rages on.

Sadly, some of our more seasoned posters have yet to realise that logic, reasoning and common sense does not apply to everyone as some come here only here to argue. I recognised it some time back but they didn't and continued the debate.

We also had some unwelcomed visitors a few weeks back who represent the rather nastier side of the internet, combined with a forum poster in this very thread who was banned, a couple of new people posting along similar lines, and then you turn up. Unfortunate timing is what I will put it down to and also quite sad that you were caught up in the crossfire as having looked calmly at your posts it seems that you simply disagree with people and have been quite nice about it - no apology then is required from you.

I do have my own moments of drama, hence the avatar and signature, but I usually recognise it for what it is - a moment of madness - try to rectify it when I realise (like I am trying to do now) - we're all human after all and prone to mistakes. The good thing though about this forum is that the majority of the people here get along - not everything is rosy and kum-by-yah like but that said no one holds grudges for long.

Can we have a group hug now

Liqua, there's no unfortunate timing behind any of this I'm afraid. It's what the likes of the SA do, it's part of their whole game/disruption mechanic (its called community warfare/divide and conquer) and has played out exactly the same way as this on other forums [eve & mwo]. It's not just shear coincidence people turn up and go into freak mode on the same thread whilst virtually ignoring everything else.

 

[PacalB]

(Emphasis mine)

Click here

Take your pick .. I would suggest Ashley or Michael Brooks

press "Send PM"

Write them a message and wait for reply.

Remember it's Saturday today so don't expect a reply for a few days - weekend in UK.

Doesn't need to, with respect to contributions made to Elite Dangerous it's quite clear.

Terms of Use

3. With regard to your deposit the following shall apply:

a. The deposit shall be earned by FD and become non-refundable to the extent that it is used for the Game Cost, with each Contributor’s deposit being applied as follows: first to the fulfillment of the reward items, and then to the Game Cost in a percentage equal to the total applied Game Cost in relation to the total Contributor deposits remaining after the cost for the pledge items.

 

[Patrick_68000]

Doesn't need to, with respect to contributions made to Elite Dangerous it's quite clear.

And yes, what is given, can not be rendered

 

[Patrick_68000]

Doesn't need to, with respect to contributions made to Elite Dangerous it's quite clear.

Not to be refunded as much keep his account, that losing everything, finally

 

[Darkoba]

Human nature v Humanity

Some of the arguments / discussion presented in this thread give clear indication of the sorry state of human nature.

Paranoid cries of "It's not fair!" abound. Fears of other people having advantages that 'we' don't have, etc., etc.

Gaming aside (if that's at all possible :S), we all live in one universe at the moment, and all have the same opportunities. You might argue that some are born with advantages. True, but to counter that, think of those born with nothing, who live successful lifes (success being measured in many different ways, not just money).

Some (most?) people choose to live peaceful lives, neither attacking others, nor wishing to be attacked. My wife is an example of this... one of the sweetest people you could hope to meet, yet she has been attacked on the street six times over a period of 20 years. It has toughened her up, but not removed the desire to not fight (is she PvE?).

Other, misguided, people choose a life of aggression, seeing all others as a means to justify their own inadequacies. These are sad people. If the justice systems worked correctly, these situations would be removed from society - however, so-called 'human rights' for the 'doers' prevail, apparently, over human rights for the 'doees'.

Now, in the Elite universe, we have a chance to build a correct and just system of justice. Ideally we would all fly around trying to make the living that satisfies us individually, perhaps co-operating with others to mutual benefit, and occasionally showing human kindness by helping others in need. Of course, there will always be those who will try to take advantage of our good natures. Then we defend ourselves!!! And if the Elite justice system is set up correctly and effectively, it too will come to our defense.

It has been rightly stated that the universe is vast, so the chances of meeting other (live) players unintentionally are likely to be slender. It will be easy for the (justice) system to spot anybody whose sole intention seems to be causing grief to legitimate players, and it shouldn't be difficult for that system to deal with the miscreants with an appropriate level of harshness.

It may be feasible, if absolutely demanded for, to allow players to flag their ships as not combatant (against other players), but I don't really see the point. My wife is non-combatant - or was - but her 'dander' is now 'up'. That's real life, that's 'immersion'.

We all live in one universe with its beauty and its dangers. I say let's put our trust in FD and all live in one Elite universe with its promises of beauty and dangers.

 

[Kerrash]

A very good point indeed. To that end I vow to stand against all griefing I encounter in game, and I encourage all others to do so.

We can build a better galaxy together!

 

[Matt168]

Personally I had always read multiplayer Elite as meaning I would be getting my backside shot to pieces on a regular basis. Perhaps less if I invested more time in it. As long as the game remains fun despite the setback that is fine with me

Perhaps there could be systems where flying with weaponry online is illegal to the extent that you will attract the attention of Vipers within twenty seconds or so. You then should have a fair way to discourage aggression in safe areas.