Why does it matter if some players make the game easier for themselves?

[Cathy]

I don't agree that players are compelled to choose a path of least resistance. E.g. lately WoW players level fastest and easiest by grouping for dungeon after dungeon, but that does not stop plenty from taking the time to explore and experience the rest of the content instead and level much more slowly. If the choices are there, different players will choose differently.

The area where designers need to maintain balance and fairness is at the sharp end, especially combat. Step back a bit, and balancing the risk/rewards of the various roles (trader, pirate, explorer, hunter, etc.) needs attention. But once you back up to the point where players are choosing when, where and with whom they want to play you really need to give as much choice as possible and not concern yourself too much with the "fairness" between these choices. The fairness is there in the simple fact that all can choose.

If a player truly believes that they will get to Elite fastest by playing solo or by grouping only with friends or by avoiding PvP or by maximizing PvP, and if getting to Elite fastest is what matters to them most (e.g. over content), then they will probably choose their perceived path of least resistance to the goal that matters to them so much. Good luck to them if that's the case, but that's a few ifs that won't apply to all of us, and I doubt to most.

The Ironman group decision is a sound solution to a division of death penalty issues arising out of a player choice. Beyond that group options which players can select per session are not about "fairness" in how fast you get your ratings up or accumulate credits, but about p2p sessions giving players their most desired experience possible - in all their differing day-to-day flavours - of a game they've all bought or backed. That's fairness. And good design

 

[Elrawkum]

For me the question has nothing to do with reaching a rank. It's the level of influence a player has in a shared, dynamic, evolving universe. This last is key.

Using David's example in one of the early dev diaries (maybe even the first?) of a system under blockade, where players can tip the balance of power over time, the question of fairness becomes important.

If a blockade is really difficult to run in PvP, because you're being opposed by, say, 10 really good human players (+NPCs), but in PvE/solo/private group/easy mode you just have to break through an equivalent no. of NPCs (there's no real way FD can measure human player skill to balance it truly equally), or have damage nerfing mode on, or faster regenerating shields, or whatever, you can tip the balance of power more easily than more skilled players can. You effectively nullify the hard work they've put into the game without the same effort.

You have more influence over the galaxy the 'easier' the options you choose.

That just doesn't seem right.

If it's easier for you to explore the galaxy - the same galaxy I'm (e.g.) exploring in PvP, you'll 'steal' discoveries, while I'm fighting through tougher encounters. In cases like that, I'd be stupid not to switch to an easier mode myself.

Cases like this may be rare, a single player's influence almost negligible, but multiply that by 10,000 players, 100,000... the imbalance becomes significant.

The obvious solution is to have two entirely separate galaxies on entirely separate servers. One for PvP and the other for non-PvP. Within those, the rule-sets would have to be consistent. Whichever you choose, only your skill, equipment, brains, the routes you choose and the friends you make decides how easy or hard the game is. Easier is a bigger gun. Or a bigger friend.

If FD can resolve these issues and give us a truly balanced and fair shared universe between all, that would be fantastic. But there are greater concerns about making the game easier for some than just reaching Elite before someone else.

Edit: In Solo Offline, you should be free to set the game up pretty much as you like, of course, from ultra-hard to GIMMEANANACONDA cheatery

 

[Cathy]

Why the assumption that a PvP galaxy is more difficult?

If it has a smaller user base, e.g., you can discover something first more easily because you have far fewer rivals in exploration.

But that is not how the proposed game works - it's one galaxy with many instances of it. If players are blockading a system in one instance, the effects are felt by all players as the Sim updates. I like this.

The explorer example was just off the top of my head. In much of the tri-poll discussions which focused on PvP/pve, I sensed an assumption (laced with disdain from some posters) that pve is some kind of "easy mode". Ironic if FD split the user base further with PvP and pve-only options and then the PvP galaxy turns out to be easier to progress in (because they would have to divide them in that case, I think).

Is anyone who intends to try Ironman unhappy about sharing the Sim with normal mode players?

My hope is that FD stick to their finalized proposal on groups and let the friending/ignoring system take care of differing play style preferences. Players will create their own PvP/pvall/pve/solo universes if they want them with the currently proposed tools by mutual consent. And I think it would be complicated and difficult to predict results if different rules on Sim effect were implemented - there's a danger of blowback.

 

[metatheurgist]

Depending on how accurate NPCs are with weapons at range. It's entirely possible that NPCs will be deadlier than humans. It'd be amusing if it turned out that way.

 

[Minti2]

Depending on how accurate NPCs are with weapons at range. It's entirely possible that NPCs will be deadlier than humans. It'd be amusing if it turned out that way.

Totally disagree, if one on one, human players i would be more afraid of, just my experience in playing many games with either NPC or human opponents.

NPCs can be very good, but again its the unpredictability of humans that make a fight more interesting and therefore harder in my opinion, but we will find out when ED comes along.

 

[Rollo]

Why the assumption that a PvP galaxy is more difficult?

If it has a smaller user base, e.g., you can discover something first more easily because you have far fewer rivals in exploration...

Exactly what I thought too, infact I still have a problem to understand why anyone would want to play as an Explorer in a multiplayer game at all. Isn't that contradiction in terms in a way?
"Oh great, we now have a multiplayer Elite! (which "I" have strongly advocated mind you!) Now I'm heading out to the extreme frontier...alone! Sure I can accept some NPC's or even Thargoids...but pretty please no humans, I so want to be the first and only one out here!"

Totally disagree, if one on one, human players i would be more afraid of, just my experience in playing many games with either NPC or human opponents.

NPCs can be very good, but again its the unpredictability of humans that make a fight more interesting and therefore harder in my opinion, but we will find out when ED comes along.

Indeed, but only after you have started to master the game. In the beginning the NPC's will own us all...hopefully.

 

[jabokai]

If a blockade is really difficult to run in PvP, because you're being opposed by, say, 10 really good human players (+NPCs), but in PvE/solo/private group/easy mode you just have to break through an equivalent no. of NPCs (there's no real way FD can measure human player skill to balance it truly equally), or have damage nerfing mode on, or faster regenerating shields, or whatever, you can tip the balance of power more easily than more skilled players can. You effectively nullify the hard work they've put into the game without the same effort.

What if you're being opposed by 10 human duffers? Then the PvP option would be easier as they'd be less skilled than the defending NPCs? Humans aren't ALWAYS better than NPCs - if that was the case we could possibly expect to play ED and NEVER get killed by an NPC.

What if you're being "opposed" by 10 friends who simply let you through with a few token shots to game the system? Again, PvE suddenly becomes the harder option.

Quite a few ifs and buts with that one scenario.

 

[amigacooke]

Ah I believe you've made a terrible mistake which makes me doubt the credibility of your entire post. You see there are 24 hours in a day not 25.

What a very 'earthist' point of view. There must be a planet somewhere that has 25 hours in a day.

 

[Minti2]

Indeed, but only after you have started to master the game. In the beginning the NPC's will own us all...hopefully.

Absolutely agree with you, NPCs will own us to begin with! and it will be fun trying to get the better of them, but in my case failing miserably for some time!

and to be honest i dont think there will be a point even further down the line that you will think "oh just an NPC should be easy now" they will always provide challenges, but the human players will be in my opinion more skillful at some point, but not all of us!

 

[Elrawkum]

Guys - you're missing the point - the example is only an example to illustrate the difference between players who can choose different rule-sets/levels of difficulty in the same shared universe.

The fact remains: "You have more influence over the galaxy the 'easier' the options you choose."

That's the key point, however it's arrived at.

The examples merely show the importance of having a level playing field.

 

[jabokai]

The fact remains: "You have more influence over the galaxy the 'easier' the options you choose."

Possibly... but as with that example you gave, it'd be easier to game the system in PvP mode. PvE players have LESS choices and therefore it will be more difficult to do such things. If everyone was playing "fairly" what you said is true, but given that the worry is that other players will have undue influence/progress, you would obviously accept that doing such things (for more influence and faster progress) will happen.

I'll be in Ironman (until I die) and don't really mind that the galaxy will be influenced by other rulesets. But I wouldn't object if they, as others have suggested, simply apply a modifier to supposedly "easier" rulesets such that their influence is reduced... once they've abolished ALL exploits like the one I detailed for your specific example of course.

 

[Elrawkum]

Like I said, it they can make it so things like this are fair and balanced between different rule-sets, that would be great. I'm just not convinced it's not an issue or easy to solve, and just a little concerned about what the consequences (foreseen and otherwise) might be if the imbalance is significant over time.

I can see no argument for any kind of 'easy mode' or options which make the game easier by default in a shared universe. That's effectively 'cheating' in my book.

Edit: Unless you voluntarily abdicate your ability to have any influence over the galaxy. You'd effectively be a 'ghost'. Anything you did would affect you and you alone. You could run a blockade and receive the material reward, but to the rest of the galaxy you were never there. You would not be able to influence the balance of power at all.

You could map systems and sell the locations and receive the monetary reward, but to the rest of the galaxy that system would remain unexplored.

That could work, but only if the 'easy moder' is happy to make that sacrifice.

It would not the the same as 'solo offline' because the galaxy would still evolve around you, and you could even group up with other 'easy moders' - as long as the effect they have on the shared galaxy is zero, it wouldn't matter.

Edit2: 'Fractions' of influence don't really work (e.g. "this option gives you 80% influence") - it's impossible to calculate ahead of time how much influence any particular player can have, or how many people will use each option/mode. For fairness, it's either a zero or non-zero proposition, to my mind (i.e. you either have no influence at all or exactly the same as everyone else, with your skill, equipment, etc. being the only deciding factor.)

 

[Majere]

The fact remains: "You have more influence over the galaxy the 'easier' the options you choose."

That's the key point, however it's arrived at.

I am not sure you have proved that. The only 'easier' path that is currently known about is those with higher pledge levels have access to better ships and more credits from day one. No-one has played the game outside of FD so anything else is conjecture.

The examples merely show the importance of having a level playing field.

Only in your opinion though, be careful not to promote your own views as fact.

Actually, I disagree.

I am really struggling to see why it matters. I guess there is something you are worried about how it will adversely affect you but sorry, I have not been able understand what that it.

For what it is worth, these are my own views :

Level playing fields are for sports. (racing, ball-games, gladiatorial arenas etc.)
This type of game can never be level, you would have to have everyone starting at the same time, never allow in new players, everyone has to be signed on at the same time and pledge starting bonus' are cancelled.

This game has a bigger aspect so someone, somewhere has an advantage. How they get to that advantage does not really matter to me.

There is no score, you are not award prizes for finishing first. You don't have 3 lives and there is not a leaderboard. This was a massive reason why Elite proved so popular at it's inception in 1984 and lays at the heart of the culture that formed around it.

Multiplayer is new for Elite but the other players are just actors in your game. Most of the time, you won't even know individual players are there unless you have grouped with them. You will feel the effect of all the players on a macro level, you witness some on a micro level within an instance. Both of these supplemented by injected scenarios and NPCs.

 

[Cathy]

Guys - you're missing the point - the example is only an example to illustrate the difference between players who can choose different rule-sets/levels of difficulty in the same shared universe.

The fact remains: "You have more influence over the galaxy the 'easier' the options you choose."

That's the key point, however it's arrived at.

The examples merely show the importance of having a level playing field.

I got your point, and understood your illustrative examples (which made it well). But I question the assumption that certain options are "easier" (excluding Ironman mode, which I highlighted) and doubt the definition and therefore "importance of a level playing field" regarding the shared background simulation (yes, even for Ironman, which I intend to have a stab at).

 

[Elrawkum]

@Majere/Cathy: Read the question asked in the thread. I'm answering that. I see an issue with making the game easier for some than others and I'm voicing that concern, however 'making the game easier' is achieved. Don't necessarily fixate on the specifics, see the 'bigger picture'.

Every player in a shared universe has influence over the galaxy. If someone is able to select options which make it easier for him to affect the power of balance and therefore give himself greater influence, it's not fair. I'm not sure what you find hard to follow about that.

Simplifying it to a straight one v one scenario and removing all different modes for the sake of comparison: Two players have the same equipment, same skill level (for the sake of argument). If you have an option selected which makes the game easier, you win that battle. Unfairly. Again, don't fixate on the battle - just the basic logic. Why should your desire to have the game made easier make the game harder for someone else? IN A SHARED UNIVERSE this is the effect of having easier modes for some than others.

This is not your usual MMO, where any changes you make only affect you. Everything you do affects everyone else, no matter how small that effect. And when you mulitply all those tiny imbalances by thousands of players the overall effect becomes significant.

This is not about my selfish desire to be better than someone else or to reach a higher ranking. It's about game balance and fairness. Feel free to disagree, not care or not understand the issue. I'm respectfully, but genuinely not concerned if you 'get it' or not, only that FD do.

My concerns may be baseless, FD may have it all under control, but until FD say something which indicates they're aware of the potential imbalances and have implemented ways to rectify it, I'll remain concerned.

It's all conjecture and opinion at the moment - you can take that as read. At no point am I stating anything as fact. But the logic of the argument is pretty easy to follow - and I'm sorry if you can't follow it (maybe it's my inability to explain it well), but it's a concern for me.

 

[Elrawkum]

This type of game can never be level, you would have to have everyone starting at the same time, never allow in new players, everyone has to be signed on at the same time and pledge starting bonus' are cancelled.

Not the argument I'm making - none of those involve operating under a different 'rule-set' than other players. Yes, there are many ways to get an advantage, but this is not the same as operating under an inherently different playing field than someone else. Every player (ideally) starts with exactly the same 'rule-set' regardless of initial starting equipment, location or 'bonuses' they've picked up from being a KS backer. Their player to player influence given the same equipment is still the same. Choosing options where the same players with the same equipment are NOT equal, based on the options chosen is unbalanced.

How they get to that advantage does not really matter to me.

It matters to me. If they do it 'fairly', and I have the same opportunities to accrue the same advantages, that's fair. If they're getting advantages I cannot, unless I switch to the same rule-set, then it is not. Mike Evans makes this very point earlier in the thread.

Edit: e.g. If someone wants to suggest 'easy' option being no more than a different amount of starting cash and location, I'd have no complaints, but suggesting options to make the game itself easier rings all sorts of alarm bells.

 

[Cathy]

Other than Ironman mode, everyone is playing with the same rule-set. There are no "easier modes".

Perhaps if you are specific - i.e. identify which different options you perceive in the Groups "skinny" give you cause for concern - we might get what you're saying

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Does this change your opinion on things ?

For what it's worth, my take at the moment is that if in the end it starts coming down to further splits in the user base versus losing the interest of chunks of the potential player base, I'll favour splitting.

 

[Majere]

@Majere/Cathy: Read the question asked in the thread. I'm answering that. I see an issue with making the game easier for some than others and I'm voicing that concern, however 'making the game easier' is achieved. Don't necessarily fixate on the specifics, see the 'bigger picture'.

Yes, I understand the thread, hopefully we are just having a civil disagreement about it and by discussion hope to understand the other's viewpoint.

Every player in a shared universe has influence over the galaxy. If someone is able to select options which make it easier for him to affect the power of balance and therefore give himself greater influence, it's not fair. I'm not sure what you find hard to follow about that.

As I said before, I am not sure there is an easier path. There are different paths, wether they are 'easier' or not remains to be seen.
Regardless, even if it were not fair, as you propose, I am arguing that it does not matter that it is not fair.

Simplifying it to a straight one v one scenario and removing all different modes for the sake of comparison: Two players have the same equipment, same skill level (for the sake of argument). If you have an option selected which makes the game easier, you win that battle. Unfairly. Again, don't fixate on the battle - just the basic logic. Why should your desire to have the game made easier make the game harder for someone else? IN A SHARED UNIVERSE this is the effect of having easier modes for some than others.

Player will be matched so you would not be up against a player who is on a different path (although I there is some debate about IronMan dropping down to a personal group - but in that circumstance you are in a tougher situation as you have it all to lose) So it would not make the game harder for you.

This is not your usual MMO, where any changes you make only affect you. Everything you do affects everyone else, no matter how small that effect. And when you mulitply all those tiny imbalances by thousands of players the overall effect becomes significant.

Well, firstly, it is not an MMO so in a sense you are right. Everything you do affects everyone else? I'm not so sure, the effect would be so small as to be immeasurable. Again the Universe is BIG. Scale is very important to this theory. Other games probably have a much smaller scope and so effects are felt more keenly. There will be effects but in particular areas, if you are not happy about that - there are a 'few' other star systems available.

This is not about my selfish desire to be better than someone else or to reach a higher ranking. It's about game balance and fairness. Feel free to disagree, not care or not understand the issue. I'm respectfully, but genuinely not concerned if you 'get it' or not, only that FD do.

My concerns may be baseless, FD may have it all under control, but until FD say something which indicates they're aware of the potential imbalances and have implemented ways to rectify it, I'll remain concerned.

I am sure they are well aware. We have not even reached alpha stage yet. This type of topic has come up 'once or twice'. Actually I do care what other people think as the forums have been a hot bed of argument about this kind of topic and quite frankly I would be happier if everyone was more relaxed about what was going to be implemented. Jeesh, I am starting to sound like a hippy and you would laugh if you knew me.

It's all conjecture and opinion at the moment - you can take that as read. At no point am I stating anything as fact. But the logic of the argument is pretty easy to follow - and I'm sorry if you can't follow it (maybe it's my inability to explain it well), but it's a concern for me.

Well, in a sense you were stating a 'fact'. You said that not having a 'level playing field' was a problem and that in needed sorting.

I am, hopefully respectfully, disagreeing with your axiom.

My point being that there are many ways in which the playing field will not be level so it makes no sense to isolate one particular method, additionally that the method you are concerned about is still elusive to me.
Fear of the unknown is a powerful force and what myself (and possibly Cathy, I would not like to speak for them) have not managed to fathom is how this would affect your gameplay and enjoyment of the game.

'Just not fair' is not an argument becoming of someone with obvious intelligence. Seriously, I am trying to understand how your experience will be lessened by an 'easier path' if one exists.

I think perhaps we have different ideas of what form the game will take.
Of course, it is perfectly acceptable to agree to disagree, I guess I am trying (and failing) to reassure you.

 

[Majere]

For what it's worth - I will be playing in an open group as possible, quite probably Iron Man to start with.

Assuming trolling is under control of course, which I expect it to be.