In my option 3 above, the Solo player could have other players on his side as well as opposed to him. There's nothing inherent in Solo-online that says you can never run into other players (either allied or opposed). Most of the time you'd be instanced alone,or in your private group, as per your preference, but in situations where your actions might affect others (e.g. you're exploring a system at the same time as another player, or running a blockade) then you might receive a "PvP possibility" warning. It may never go PvP - the other player might waive his claim, you might agree to share finds, there might not be any other players at the blockade at that point in time, etc. But you'd have to run the risk if you wanted to claim the reward when potentially in competition with other players directly. This seems fair to me.
Why does it matter if some players make the game easier for themselves?
- Thread starter Zplintz
- Start date
You're talking about the tri-poll?
In that I voted option 1. Because we have private and solo groups
Interesting. Did you do so with the presupposition that those groups would automatically exclude any encounters with other players in all instances and at all times? Effectively PvE by another name?
I never assumed that. I confess I'm a little confused about exactly what they do mean, but I always assumed the groups were mainly a social mechanic (and instance 'preferencing'/matchmaking tool), not a way to exclude any chance of interacting with or coming into opposition with others.
I play DCUO 'solo', for example, but in full PvP. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that solo-online was a similar thing in that you mission alone, and generally would get instanced alone, but in certain situations, missions, areas, etc. might run into others, choose to group, fight them, run away or whatever (I'm aware this is confusing, because I confused myself writing it), and I thought the Private Groups thing was a way to get together with your friends and prevent any others from 'muscling in' to your group and muscling out your friends, so to speak. But still with the potential to meet others, fight them, join together, run away and so on in certain situations.
Am I way off the mark then?
Edit: Solo-online - I remember now what I originally thought it meant
- exactly the same as solo-offline (i.e. no PvP) but with the meta-universe data (from the 'real' online players) feeding back into your Single Player game. I didn't think it would work both ways though - i.e. I didn't think my Solo-online actions would reflect in YOUR game. I'm getting confused between a single player game updated with online data, starting off on my own - solo - in a shared universe, and a lone-wolf, non-grouping, essentially PvE mode. I don't know why... it's all so clear!
Last edited:
Sadly the confusion is caused by FD's terrible choice of words that are against the norm for the gaming community:
- When you and I think group, FD calls that an 'alliance'
- FD's 'group' is more like when you and I play CoD / BF3*, are in the same map online, but the game is password protected to prevent others from joining. Hundred of others may also be playing the same map but we don't see them (instances basically)
*Which incidentally is how FD described ED - more how BF3 works than a traditional MMO, minus the lobby as it's seamless.
Last edited:
PvP is fine as long as we don't get people who attack anyone on sight just because they can and don't care about consequences, or the ones who have a fully decked out ship and prey on new players who will stand no chance at all, once again to scream I rulz or for the thrill of ruining another's person's game time.
I have a hunch that is the main reason many don't want PvP, it isn't for those that play it for gain, drop cargo or be fired upon, but those that will fire upon any ship for any or no reason and if they lose, will just go get a new ship and do it again, strictly to ruin the fun of others.
I know bounty hunters and hey your in unprotected space, but even criminals are out for gain, not to shoot ships on sight for no gain and potential loss. The PvP people fear and rightly so. are those who will prey on easier ships for no gain or just want to cause havoc and not enjoy as Duck says the experience of the game and all it offers, they want to only grief.
As often as people say we don't want that either, we all know it will happen, it is impossible to stop in this type of game easily or quickly.
No easy answer, I personally prefer PvE, but don't mind some PvP if a fair fight and a reason for it, but just because I launch and am exploring with no cargo and someone attacks me for no reason and no expected gain is where I draw the line. If carrying cargo, I am fair game, but then again my ship will always be heavily armed, so be wary. It is the unprovoked disruption of my game time for no reason other then to harass others is what the concern is.
Calebe
I have a hunch that is the main reason many don't want PvP, it isn't for those that play it for gain, drop cargo or be fired upon, but those that will fire upon any ship for any or no reason and if they lose, will just go get a new ship and do it again, strictly to ruin the fun of others.
I know bounty hunters and hey your in unprotected space, but even criminals are out for gain, not to shoot ships on sight for no gain and potential loss. The PvP people fear and rightly so. are those who will prey on easier ships for no gain or just want to cause havoc and not enjoy as Duck says the experience of the game and all it offers, they want to only grief.
As often as people say we don't want that either, we all know it will happen, it is impossible to stop in this type of game easily or quickly.
No easy answer, I personally prefer PvE, but don't mind some PvP if a fair fight and a reason for it, but just because I launch and am exploring with no cargo and someone attacks me for no reason and no expected gain is where I draw the line. If carrying cargo, I am fair game, but then again my ship will always be heavily armed, so be wary. It is the unprovoked disruption of my game time for no reason other then to harass others is what the concern is.
Calebe
No. I did so with the knowledge that I and everyone else can play the full game, including PvP combat, with players of our choosing in a private group; and play solo online - i. e. no chance of encountering other players whether friend or foe.
Solo online is a private group of one. It is essentially a single-player game which updates with the Background Sim (injected events, evolving universe). The solo player is affected by the cumulative effect of the online player base; but since one individual has such a small effect by themselves they will hardly see the Sim respond to their solo efforts.
But we will see the effect of 10,000 of them, or 20k, or 100k, yes?
And nobody can stop them!? They are a plague upon the galaxy! Burnthem! Burnthemtodeath!
Private groups: So if I knew that some big clan was helping blockade a system, round the clock, for days or weeks, and it was really hard to make inroads there, I could just form a private group and ignore them? Cool to know.
Well, that's decided how my game's going to be played. I want to explore so one of the above is clearly the way to go. Don't need pesky players getting in my way. Shame about the PvP aspect, but I guess I can just pop into that when I'm feeling in the mood.
I'm kidding of course. I'll be playing solo-offline.
And nobody can stop them!? They are a plague upon the galaxy! Burnthem! Burnthemtodeath!
Private groups: So if I knew that some big clan was helping blockade a system, round the clock, for days or weeks, and it was really hard to make inroads there, I could just form a private group and ignore them? Cool to know.
Well, that's decided how my game's going to be played. I want to explore so one of the above is clearly the way to go. Don't need pesky players getting in my way. Shame about the PvP aspect, but I guess I can just pop into that when I'm feeling in the mood.
I'm kidding of course. I'll be playing solo-offline.
Yeah but they'll have no command and control, so they don't scare me
I have a soft spot for heretics.And nobody can stop them!? They are a plague upon the galaxy! Burnthem! Burnthemtodeath!
Indeed. I would not want it otherwise. The idea that a subset of players could simply block content to everyone else is very unappealing - that would be a rubbish game. It's going to be cleverer than that - their cumulative effect is more subtle and meaningful, influencing the background Sim re. politics and economics, and triggering events if certain thresholds are met.
Lone wolf exploring is perfectly understandable. I'm going to try it myself. We'll have to watch out for those deadly NPCs, though... we won't have many players to help us scare them away
But we will see the effect of 10,000 of them, or 20k, or 100k, yes?
And nobody can stop them!? They are a plague upon the galaxy! Burnthem! Burnthemtodeath!
Private groups: So if I knew that some big clan was helping blockade a system, round the clock, for days or weeks, and it was really hard to make inroads there, I could just form a private group and ignore them? Cool to know.
Well, that's decided how my game's going to be played. I want to explore so one of the above is clearly the way to go. Don't need pesky players getting in my way. Shame about the PvP aspect, but I guess I can just pop into that when I'm feeling in the mood.
I'm kidding of course. I'll be playing solo-offline.
How would you know if a big clan was playing to blockade a system if you were playing offline?
And if you want to play PVP but don't want "pesky players" in your way to be honest I think that for the benefit of everyone I'm not sure you should sacrifice PVP just because it's the easier route - I hope that saying that doesn't offend you..
Sorry if this has been covered upthread.
Last edited:
Initially, I fully intended playing online because I figured that would be the only way to experience the shared universe. As in Mike Evans' "if I had my way" without the IronMan part. If that isn't the game being proposed, and I know I can have an easier ride, I'd be a fool not to take it.
But then it's not PvP any more. It's single player, but with other players nicking all the good stuff and ****ing with your **** x 10k+
So, rather than choosing a balance between exploring cautiously and speedily, knowing that at any time another explorer might make a discovery ahead of me, or jump in system and beat me to the punch, I'll now just skip that part of the game entirely because it's much easier for me not to have to worry about it at all, obviously.It doesn't because I'm mostly arguing from a 'third person' perspective anyway. A 'what if someone did this' way of looking at it, rather than purely what I intend doing, because until the game comes out, nothing is set in stone and I don't know how I'll play it for sure yet...
But right now, if the things I'm hearing are remotely true, I don't see the attraction of 'open' PvP at all. What possible benefit could it bring? Everyone is just making it sound like more hassle than it's worth. Even normally, I'd only group to do harder missions than I could do alone, but if Solo-online makes that unnecessary I'm just more likely to do it alone than bother with the random element of multi-player. Maybe group up with a friend every now and then to do a co-op mission.
All of which sounds great btw, but it's a massive step down from what I originally envisioned. Even with the massive step down from realising it wasn't going to be hundreds of players in colossal space battles anyway.
No. You guys have won me over. PvE is definitely the way to go. Screw the potential of what a fully multiplayer Elite might be - let those who want that have it. Path of least resistance for me all the way.
/devil's advocate.
Last edited:
This thread is aprox 1 au off topic atm....
Not really. We might be off where the original poster intended the discussion to go (and you should know because you started it - blame Zplintz everyone!
), but we're still discussing the implications of "why does it matter if..."The topic is just slightly more complicated than how quickly someone reaches Elite.
That's a shame. I intend to enjoy getting my butt handed to me on a plate by my friends, and occasionally handing them theirs
Hi Cathy.
That does sound quite interesting but to be honest I didn't think this was that kind of forum!
*shocked*
That's a shame. I intend to enjoy getting my butt handed to me on a plate by my friends, and occasionally handing them theirs
So we're back to "it doesn't matter to me, so I don't care about you"? The "I'm alright Jack" position?
Ok.
Obviously some aren't concerned about the implications, because they're already happy with what they have and aren't really bothered about anything - or anyone - else. Others, however, are still a little concerned about what the implications might be on the game if there is a 'path of least resistance'. I'm one of them, although I should stress only in speculative terms at the moment. I'm still optimistic that FD will be able to make a great game and resolve most, if not all, of these problems before launch.
Edit: I was talking about 'open' PvP - private groups sounds like a doddle, and fun, so yeah, that would be one of the paths of least resistance I might choose too.
Last edited:
Optimistic is still a very long way from convinced or 'at ease'. If there is a path of least resistance, people WILL take it. If enough do that it might kill the PvP aspect completely, apart from those still enjoying having their butts handed to them by their friends. That's what worries me - not that MY enjoyment specifically might be impacted - I'll still have solo offline to keep me busy regardless of what else the game offers - but that the PvP environment will become so diluted that it'll effectively be non-existent outside private groups between people who already know each other. That would be a shame.
I'm not trying to be a doom-monger, even if might sometimes seem that way. I'm just trying to think of some of the unforeseen consequences of some of the suggestions people are proposing (make them slightly more foreseen...)
I'm not trying to be a doom-monger, even if might sometimes seem that way.
I'm just trying to think of some of the unforeseen consequences of some of the suggestions people are proposing (make them slightly more foreseen...)You might want to look at the current iteration on how groups will work: http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300
The results of the multiplayer tri-pool can't be used to predict PvP/PvE preference because all options would effectively allow players to completely avoid PvP thanks to the concept of groups, which Sandro Sammarco explicitly asked voters to take into account (see the first post at http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6304).
Optimistic is still a very long way from convinced or 'at ease'. If there is a path of least resistance, people WILL take it. If enough do that it might kill the PvP aspect completely, apart from those still enjoying having their butts handed to them by their friends. That's what worries me - not that MY enjoyment specifically might be impacted - I'll still have solo offline to keep me busy regardless of what else the game offers - but that the PvP environment will become so diluted that it'll effectively be non-existent outside private groups between people who already know each other. That would be a shame.
I'm not trying to be a doom-monger, even if might sometimes seem that way.
I have nothing against PvP existing and being viable, if not popular - as long as I'm never required to take part in it, and I'm not at a meaningful PvE disadvantage for not taking part in PvP. But, on the other hand, if the only way for PvP to survive and thrive is to force everyone to take part, or else to give PvE advantages to players that take part in the PvP, then I want PvP gone from the game altogether.
You talk about players taking the path of least resistance. I will take the path of least PvP, even if it's not the path of least resistance.
Won't some of the anxieties people have about "griefers" be offset by the level of policing? Firing on a player will be breaking the law in most cases. If the arrival of the police (dozens of ships maybe) means you've got a 90% chance of ending up dead then pirates and griefers will restrict their activities to anarchy systems where no sensible player would go without being heavily armed. It's a balancing issue.
Not really. We might be off where the original poster intended the discussion to go (and you should know because you started it - blame Zplintz everyone!
Sorry
- It is my fault for not paying closer attention to a thread I started ....but we're still discussing the implications of "why does it matter if..."
The topic is just slightly more complicated than how quickly someone reaches Elite.
If I am right then, the reasons for the recent discussion (when related to the posed question) is now about whether it is right, fair or desirable to have multiple modes of play (including modes of play and groups) where those options affect how easy (or hard) it will be to reach Elite status?
It was these particular discussions in other threads that led me to start the thread because personally I don't care enough about the Elite ranking to feel hard done by if someone reaches it first but had an easier path. Sometimes on forums (and in life) those that shout the loudest and strongest about a subject give the impression that it is a problem for everyone when in reality the majority don't have a problem. The first DDF poll results definitely showed this. However in the process of checking this, I seem to have (ironically) started another one
.