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

[DigitalDuck]

A little more than position! You need to know where they're facing and when they start stop too! Also, if you don't want it to feel like you're in a world of mindless automatons then you have to have some other basic movements too - sitting, multiple gestures, etc.

You don't, actually... if you know where they were x time ago and where they are now, you know which way they must be facing, and when they must stop.

Gestures are relatively cheap network-wise - they won't be used constantly, and require less info sent than chat does.

If they do add in weapons, etc, you're back to the same amount of traffic as a ship.

Depending on how it's implemented, but potentially, yes.

 

[jabokai]

You don't, actually... if you know where they were x time ago and where they are now, you know which way they must be facing, and when they must stop.

So if I stand still and dab my "turn left" key repeatedly, other players don't need to see that? And when I start moving it assumes I'm facing the direction I was when I stopped? Now you're being silly!

 

[ianw]

I don't think our lack or otherwise of thought is the problem - it's the fact that the question is so loaded:-
Why does it matter if some players make the game easier for themselves?

- presupposes that they can
- presupposes that it matters

Can they, and and if so does it matter, and if so why, are better questions.

No wonder our discussions got a bit discombobulated

Good point.

I'm not sure you can really make meaningful comparisons anyway - there are so many variations on ability; experience; PC equipment; broadband and just luck of the draw on the day.

If I have what I consider to be an epic battle in which I scrape through in one piece against superior odds how can anyone really tell if that was better or worse than someone else's similar experience?

And on the subject of instances and P2P - do we yet know how that will work with matching and broadband quality.

Does the instance responsiveness and speed go down to the level of the poorest performing connection in it? Or does that just effect the user of that connection?

 

[DigitalDuck]

So if I stand still and dab my "turn left" key repeatedly, other players don't need to see that? And when I start moving it assumes I'm facing the direction I was when I stopped? Now you're being silly!

You're assuming there's a "turn" left key - in most games I've played that don't have weapons, you simply have movement; in order to turn left you move left a small amount, and thus you have a new position, in which the direction you're facing can be determined.

And when you start moving you have a new position - it doesn't assume you're facing the direction you were when you stopped, it assumes you're facing the direction in which you're moving, which is determined by new position - old position.

Again, if there are weapons then this does get a lot more complicated as the player doesn't necessarily face the direction they move in and there's player interactions to deal with etc., but for just the basics you need little more than the position.

 

[jabokai]

You're assuming there's a "turn" left key - in most games I've played that don't have weapons, you simply have movement; in order to turn left you move left a small amount, and thus you have a new position, in which the direction you're facing can be determined.

And when you start moving you have a new position - it doesn't assume you're facing the direction you were when you stopped, it assumes you're facing the direction in which you're moving, which is determined by new position - old position.

Again, if there are weapons then this does get a lot more complicated as the player doesn't necessarily face the direction they move in and there's player interactions to deal with etc., but for just the basics you need little more than the position.

No "turn left" key? Ridiculous, I'm not always turning right!

I hope they don't introduce an expansion with such mannequinesque characters and movement though! What's the point? As they've said, if they're going to do it, they'd do it right and that means making everything feel alive, not like some automatons moving at a constant speed from A to B and then on to C!

Anyway, point is, you're right - barring combat they should be able to get more people in an instance than 32. If they introduce EVA combat then I don't really see much less traffic than ships fighting ships and imagine a similar sort of limit.

 

[Elrawkum]

It will be interesting to see how docking works. From various dev comments, my impression is that it's a seamless process, and that the trading screen will be shown as a hologram from your ship computer. That would suggest a view from the ship window. It does seem like a lot of work though, as you'd at least want to see NPCs scuttling about.

The way I see it working, both now and when we can go walkabout, is similar to the way Skyrim pre-loads cells. As you approach a station, it could be pre-loading the internal geometry and during the docking sequence, transition in players and npcs on some kind of radiant system so from our perspective it all seems seamless.

I can see them using a different system to the instancing inside space stations and other 'non-flight' areas, because once we can go walkies, surely they'd act as great big socialising hubs where you'd want people to encounter more than just an instance worth's at once. Even with guns, players will have far less things to keep track of than ships (cargo, leaks, damage to different areas, shields, etc., etc.).

 

[Firestarter]

I don't think it does matter that there are easier paths in the game.

People will pay for better equipment, they will join guilds or they will fly with their mates. I just accept it will happen.

Even people playing solo can't forget what they have done before. How many hours of Elite or Elite II will you bring to the game? Hundreds, Thousands? - That would give you a massive edge that you can't unlearn.

 

[Fromhell]

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 think they can only achieve that if they completely

a) isolate the solo/private modes from the online sandbox
or
b) trash the concept of different rule-sets in one sandbox
or
c) make rulesets based on territory, simply governed by NPC police

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.

Yes in fact it is a giant issue, and the core aspect which will either make or break the game

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.

very true

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.

Or even better, let them play together in the latest downloaded version of the universe but separated from the online universe.

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.

good call, didn´t think about that yet.

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

They won´t but they´ll have to accept some compromise to play "easy mode"

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.)

+ 1000

 

[Dave Leestir]

Easy over

Does anyone know for certain what "easy mode" really means?

I used to play a game along time ago, which was probably under the category of "Solo" and also "PvE" - there were no other players to attack me, just NPCs.

The game was called "Elite", and these "easy" NPCs could often kill me.

So, are we sure that there is really an advantage to playing "easy" modes?

Ok, AI can't match the best human players, but it probably outguns the noobs.

Who in the original Elite, when killed by an NPC would really say "that's not fair, I should be invincible?"

I'm not making any assumptions here, or jumping to conclusions, just asking some questions, because I don't understand the problems yet.

 

[DarkWalker]

I'm not one of the 'stamp my feet and demand my KS money back' types, so I'm not making a massive deal of it, but it's something I'd like to be taken into consideration when people ask questions like "Why does it matter if some players make the game easier for themselves?" in a shared universe is all.

Since this might be a reference to previous posts of mine, a bit of clarification: I reserve this kind of "threat" to if something that was clearly promised, and that was an important element for my decision to back the project, is removed.

As an example, imagine if the whole multiplayer aspect of the game was removed. Do you think players would then be justified in asking for their money back?

That would basically be the effect, for me, of removing solo / private groups, when combined with locking everyone into a single, PvP, rule set. It would render the online game absolutely unplayable for me, and worse, in a way that could never happen if the KS promises are kept. This is why, if that happened, I would likely ask for my money back.

On the other hand, as long as the devs don't break promises from the KS campaign, I won't ask for my money back even if something else that makes me hate the game is introduced; as long as the devs keep their end of the bargain - in other words, as long as they honor the promises from the KS campaign - I will keep my end by letting them keep what I have paid without opposition, no matter the result.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Does anyone know for certain what "easy mode" really means?

If you mean "Does anyone know how difficult the game will actually be" then no - no one does as it hasn't been released yet.

However in general NPCs are not as difficult as humans so sadly the term is used in a derogatory manner to describe PvE.

 

[Fromhell]

Does anyone know for certain what "easy mode" really means?

to be fair it should rather be called "easier mode"......
Fighting NCPs in any online game is significantly easier than fighting real players. It is the kind of lowest common denominator gameplay so the game stays "accessible" for everyone.


.

 

[Cathy]

to be fair it shoul rather be called "easier mode"......
Fighting NCPs in any online game is significantly easier than fighting real players. It is the kind of lowest common denonimator gameplay so the game stays "accessible" for everyone.

I've had many encounters with players who were less of a match than NPCs. Given my own lack of aptitude for PvP, that's saying something.

 

[ianw]

I could well be one of those players seeing as I've never played any kind of online combat game.

Hopefully I will pick it up quickly - but in the meantime if anyone's looking for an easy target I'm your man!

 

[Cathy]

I could well be one of those players seeing as I've never played any kind of online combat game.

Hopefully I will pick it up quickly - but in the meantime if anyone's looking for an easy target I'm your man!

lol, it won't take you long to out-class me.

It is amusing to see the same old flawed superiority claims trotted out about PvP being a "harder" way to play. I've heard it from several who turned out to be utterly useless in a raid (i.e. big pve battle). And not because they didn't have the gear. They just couldn't handle the complexities, timing, sustained level of teamwork and concentration necessary when taking on the NPC bosses and their many minions.

 

[DarkWalker]

lol, it won't take you long to out-class me.

It is amusing to see the same old flawed superiority claims trotted out about PvP being a "harder" way to play. I've heard it from several who turned out to be utterly useless in a raid (i.e. big pve battle). And not because they didn't have the gear. They just couldn't handle the complexities, timing, sustained level of teamwork and concentration necessary when taking on the NPC bosses and their many minions.

I've seen the same happen with single player games, BTW. I personally know a few players that keep saying that PvE can never be as challenging as PvP but that, nevertheless, can't handle single player games that are actually designed to be challenging

PvP is not about being "harder". Specially in games with a good matchmaking system, where the matchmaking tends to make the game exactly as difficulty as the player is skilled (which means an unskilled player in such a PvP game is playing a far easier game than anything PvE I bother to play).

Rather, PvP is merely a different kind of challenge, one that some players find thrilling, and some can't stand.

BTW, an idea to fix the imbalance: whenever the player is in an instance alone, or only with other players that either can't start PvP or aren't likely to start PvP, bump up the NPC difficulty to the effective difficulty of a PvP fight, whatever that might be. If PvPers enjoy a challenge that much they will welcome this, though gankers beware: those NPCs would likely be far more challenging than the kind of player gankers typically target

 

[Elrawkum]

That would basically be the effect, for me, of removing solo / private groups

But nobody said they would. There's a big difference between talking about what effect different modes might have on a shared universe and the devs 'breaking a promise'. If someone wants to argue that ED should be a single player game only, I'd disagree, but I wouldn't threaten to withdraw my support. That would be... an overreaction.

I wasn't specifically referring to you btw (although if you have a guilty conscience... ), but it's something I noticed a few people doing.

What if the 76% who want full PvP/with limited safe zones threaten to withdraw their support if the others get their wish?

Where's the room for compromise?

I really don't think it's remotely constructive to threaten withdrawal of your support until FD tell us how things will be implemented in the final game.

Personally, even then it would feel dishonourable to me - we pledged in order for THEM to make the game they want to make, not for us to dictate how they make it. Having feedback and input into the design decisions is a privilege that came with that support, not a right to stamp our feet and throw a wobbly if we don't get it all our own way. I'm already disappointed we're not getting colossal space battles involving hundreds of players across vast swathes of space, but I'm still in. :smilie:

when combined with locking everyone into a single, PvP, rule set.

But we'd have solo offline, so that's not the case anyway.

It would render the online game absolutely unplayable for me

Why? Isn't this slightly hyperbolic?

I imagine us meeting in deep space - me waggling my wings at you in greeting and you rage-quitting shouting "this is just unplayable dammit! I want my money back!" :S

The galaxy is very big. Most of the time you might not run into human players at all. What's the difference between an NPC and a human shooting at you? Half the time you won't know the difference anyway, and there's actually a greater chance of a human not shooting at you, if you think about it. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone is out to get you.

What's wrong with making player-avoidance a game-play mechanic (e.g. stealth tech, faster engines, choosing safer routes, convoys for safety, etc.) rather than a 'right' or simple switch-able option which might kill one of the main aspects of the game (Mike Evans' path of least resistance problem)?

Just playing devil's advocate a bit, but I'm interested why the massive reaction by some against, what I'd assumed at least, was going to be the default form the game. Multiplayer Elite was the 'pitch', by which I took it that we'd all be online together with the same rules. It just seems odd to me that some people are so vociferously opposed to that, seemingly on principle.

If having different modes aren't mutually exclusive and game-breaking, great, but I don't think it's unreasonable to question (a) what effect they might have; (b) how these might be resolved to everyone's satisfaction; and (c) will it mean making sacrifices of some kind - in the shared universe - if you choose a certain mode over the default.

On the other hand, as long as the devs don't break promises from the KS campaign

I don't recall PvE specifically being any part of the KS promises, if that's the issue we're talking about (for the record, I wasn't, or not specifically, but I'll come back to that later). They promised a solo option and a private grouping option - but they didn't say exactly how they would be implemented (and was this an initial 'promise' or something they said after the initial pitch? I genuinely can't recall, not doubting it).

It needs re-stating though: The option to do either isn't the issue. Nor even a PvE mode in and of itself. It's what potential effect they might have on a shared universe where everyone can influence the balance of power and/or affect other players experience through gameplay - especially if some have 'easier' routes than others.

If the same person in the same ship with the same equipment has an easier ride in one mode than another, and can have the same influence regardless of which he chooses, there's a potential imbalance which could have a significant effect on the game over time. Both in what players do and in the attractiveness of 'harder' modes - the path of least resistance problem again. It's not a given that everyone will take that path, but it's not hard to imagine some feeling forced down that avenue against their will either.

Moreover, the question being asked in the thread was far more general - a speculative 'why would it matter if some players made the game easier for themselves?', without specifying exactly how, so it's not necessarily even about PvP/PvE (although that's obviously a concern for some, including me).

This is not just about having a material advantage - if we all have the same opportunity to accrue those same advantages, then it all balances out (the same guy with the same ship with the same equipment is equal). The ONLY concern is what effect different modes or options to make the game easier for some - or even just DIFFERENT to some - might have in a shared universe, where what we do might have a measurable effect on another player's efforts (the blockade example, 'stealing' discoveries, etc.).

bump up the NPC difficulty to the effective difficulty of a PvP fight

How can you possibly measure the skill of a human player? Especially when figured against other players. It's not nearly as simple as replicating their ship type and equipment - without factoring in the abilities of the human behind the 'wheel' it's meaningless. Players are the random element.

I'm not saying this is completely unworkable - but it would be a bit of a fudge at best.

My favoured solutions are:

1. Gameplay solutions - easier = a bigger gun, bigger friends, safer routes, escorts, stealth modes, faster engines (players would have to balance offensive/defensive/stealth options). The different modes would be purely a social gaming function - you want to play solo or in a private group that's fine, but you might still run into other players.
2. Abdication of the ability to 'change' the shared universe in easier modes, PvE, etc. (or limited to just yourself/your group - i.e. any influence you have or discoveries you make would alter your gameworld only, not the meta-verse)
3. Certain tasks requiring players in PvE/Solo to risk PvP combat if they want to affect the balance of power in a system where there are mixed groups playing. E.g. in the blockade example, nobody could run it in PvE if there were other players involved in the action - they'd have to risk coming up against other human players, regardless of whether they'd chosen solo-online, private group or PvE mode.
   
   This means when you're "going about your bidness" you wouldn't be instanced with other players, but if you wanted to "get involved in galactic affairs" then you'd have to risk being opposed by other players as well as npcs. I also think exploration should fall under this 'risk-reward' mechanic too - as you'd effectively be preventing another making that discovery without him being able to prevent you preventing him, if you see the distinction.

Fire away.

 

[Cathy]

If you're suggesting that the actions of players in the all group only should affect the Sim, that could rule out a lot of players. It might rule out most players.

We know that the devs want to maintain one Sim "at all costs". We also know there will be private and solo groups. We also know there will be friends and ignore lists, which have the potential to create near-private groups in effect even while those players are in the all-group. Any like-minded group can choose not to attack each other, PvP/pve flag or not (which we don't know about yet). This grouping system is not just a means to give players choice, it is essential to the p2p hosting of the game (unless you want apparently random groups in which no player can choose who they can see, like friends and family, which would be hopeless).

I don't believe there's anything to gain by imposing some limit on the effect of any players on the Sim. The assumption that choosing one group over another translates to "easy/hard" is fundamentally flawed imo. Two mates flying around in the all group make the game easier on themselves just by being mates, always covering each other's backs. Should they have more/less influence on the Sim just because they're mates? More than a solo-online player who never has a friend to help him run that gauntlet of NPC pirates? No. It's pointless.

 

[Elrawkum]

It wouldn't be most players, according to the polls. 76% would prefer either complete PvP or limited safe zones only.

Two PvPers being mates making the game easier for themselves in any one moment isn't addressing the problem either. Two other players (or more) can oppose and/or counter them. The same cannot be said for non-PvPers.

You keep reiterating that you're not convinced that different modes make the game any easier or harder, but once again, the question we're concerned about is WHAT IF IT DOES? Sorry to capitalise, but you keep insisting we assume there's no question to answer, when the question specifically asks "why does it matter if?" You say, "oh, but the question pre-supposes..." Yes. It does. More than that, it also presupposes people will WANT to make the game easier for themselves and should, if they want.

If everything is perfectly balanced, fabulous; we can all go home happy. But let's not just make that assumption just yet, eh? Let's not bury our heads in the sands and not even consider the implications.

This is not a dummy removing proposal. Even if PvE is harder than PvP, because nobody's playing PvP or the PvPers are all mates, then the game's just as broken. It's about what potential effect having different modes in the shared universe might be. Whatever they may be.

I know what the 'set in stone' modes and options are. None of that invalidates the concerns they raise.

Edit: I personally think option 3 is the best compromise.

 

[Cathy]

You're talking about the tri-poll?

In that I voted option 1. Because we have private and solo groups