Why play online?

[DancesWithHogs]

Here's a fun question.

How is combat-logging to avoid ship destruction such an example of bad sportsmanship that the logout system must be changed but toggling to solo mode to completely avoid player interaction is okay?

When the game goes live I'm not going to be out to pirate people or needlessly kill. I'll probably sit in Alliance space and play Sheriff by scanning for contraband. Is it fair for me for my efforts to be completely circumvented by toggling to solo?

 

[macdog]

The developers have repeatedly stated that they are creating what they personally want to play. They raised their funding target on that proposition, so they have the mandate from the backers to do so. Therefore they don't need to cater to the tastes of anyone else, or even explain themselves.

Indeed, and that's why its not worth getting worked up over regardless of your slant on how the game should be (well that and its just a game after all).

I'm attracted to the open play model with a combination of taking risks myself in order to progress (or progress faster/further/etc...) and also taking advantage of others taking those risks (works both ways). If/once the game is well balanced, taking that advantage will come with its own risks in itself.

I personally don't like the solo-play toggle approach. Well at least in its current form; but then I remember its a beta and will likely change.

Why? Well I think its obvious to anyone (and has been mentioned many times already) that without incentives to take risks, very few (I would suggest near zero) will do so.

So whats wrong with that? Nothing in of itself, it depends on the type of game FD is trying to create. I guess my interpretation of the various statements made by FD is that this is not the case. There are various styles of gameplay that are wholly dependent on players taking risks (in a online/PvP sense).

The FD team clearly aren't stupid (technically or from a general gaming perspective) so if they want a game world with for example, piracy, then being able to toggle solo and do the exact same trade run in your Lakon-9 isn't going to deliver that. That's not to say you couldn't have a "complete" solo game that is very enjoyable/playable, but I don't see that as being mutually exclusive from having certain incentives from making trading runs in open play (and those incentives could take many, many forms).

I could be wrong, and misinterpreted the FD goal. Maybe they want to create a PvE game with arena based combat or something like that, but its not how I have read things to date...

 

[Armour]

When the game goes live I'm not going to be out to pirate people or needlessly kill. I'll probably sit in Alliance space and play Sheriff by scanning for contraband. Is it fair for me for my efforts to be completely circumvented by toggling to solo?

What about if, due to the size of the game, you spend large amounts of time picking off NPCs regardless of the amount of players in Open Online at the time? I mean it's possible, even likely. Do you want fewer systems to exist to ensure more prey in your locale?

 

[Armour]

I'm attracted to the open play model with a combination of taking risks myself in order to progress (or progress faster/further/etc...) and also taking advantage of others taking those risks (works both ways). If/once the game is well balanced, taking that advantage will come with its own risks in itself.

Same here.

I personally don't like the solo-play toggle approach. Well at least in its current form; but then I remember its a beta and will likely change.

I think it's a great move, personally, because it could be a gateway drug to the open online for the unconvinced.

Why? Well I think its obvious to anyone (and has been mentioned many times already) that without incentives to take risks, very few (I would suggest near zero) will do so.

Why? People like playing with others, and like danger. The game even has "Dangerous" in the title. I would guess that most will actually choose to head out into open online mode, and will stay there as long as they aren't turned off immediately by a difficulty curve that looks more like that big wall in Game Of Thrones, i.e. basically impenetrable.

So whats wrong with that? Nothing in of itself, it depends on the type of game FD is trying to create. I guess my interpretation of the various statements made by FD is that this is not the case. There are various styles of gameplay that are wholly dependent on players taking risks (in a online/PvP sense).

The FD team clearly aren't stupid (technically or from a general gaming perspective) so if they want a game world with for example, piracy, then being able to toggle solo and do the exact same trade run in your Lakon-9 isn't going to deliver that. That's not to say you couldn't have a "complete" solo game that is very enjoyable/playable, but I don't see that as being mutually exclusive from having certain incentives from making trading runs in open play (and those incentives could take many, many forms).

Or solo could have levelling set up so the NPCs get tougher and better as you do. Who can say for sure yet?

 

[macdog]

I think it's a great move, personally, because it could be a gateway drug to the open online for the unconvinced.

I should have emphasised "in its current form". Its the toggle mode (with zero downside) that I don't think will deliver the on-line experience that I prefer and what I interpret FD are trying/intending to create.

Why? People like playing with others, and like danger.

I get that, and honestly did expect someone to say it. Heck, I was hauling today in a Larkon-6 in open play (haven't even clicked solo once so far). However I guess I am sceptical that things will pan out that way post beta if the mechanics and incentives stay as they are. If I'm honest, I'm not sure I would do this if this wasn't beta with a guaranteed wipe prior to release. This isn't an appeal to FD or a whinge (I really don't think I am telling them anything they don't know, which is why I think ultimately its the type of game they want to create that will influence this more than people like me pointing out what I consider to be obvious). My personal experience has shown me that in the vast majority of circumstances, people will look to take the low risk option if it exists - despite enjoying the danger. That is unless they have a reason to do otherwise. This could be a shortcut (lazyness/efficiency), more profit (greed), some otherwise unattainable item (ego/prestige) to name a few examples.

Or solo could have levelling set up so the NPCs get tougher and better as you do.

Not sure I understand this (in the context of a reply to what I put). That sounds like a fairly standard solo-type game feature.

I guess what it comes down to (and maybe this is over simplifying it) is whether the FD vision is for what is essentially solo play with arena-style PvP, or whether the PvP experience is more open ended and less organised (you can of course have piracy, etc... being the exclusive domain of NPCs). The main thrust of my post is that I think the current mechanic will almost certainly lead to the former, but my interpretation of the FD vision is the later, so I expect things to change come release (or before). Of course my interpretation could be way off, as like you said:

Who can say for sure yet?

 

[DancesWithHogs]

What about if, due to the size of the game, you spend large amounts of time picking off NPCs regardless of the amount of players in Open Online at the time? I mean it's possible, even likely. Do you want fewer systems to exist to ensure more prey in your locale?

That doesn't address my original question.

Let's expand the scenario.

There's a mining system in Alliance space that borders Empire space. This Alliance system has a lucrative black market trade in slaves.

Let's throw some numbers out, transporting slaves is a 2,000cr bounty per slave in Alliance space. Although, if you target a dropped slave canister and select "call for pickup" an Alliance Anaconda shows up to rescue them and gives you +AllianceRep and 300cr per canister. Selling them on the black market is, let's say, 2500cr profit per.

I want to raise my AllianceRep, stop this extremely lucrative slave trade, and make some side money so I take my little spaceship, I fit a cargo scanner, and give slavers I scan an ultimatum. "Drop your slaves or be reported to the authorities and destroyed." This is some lovely gameplay, smugglers get to deal with a more intelligent human border patrol, I get to play SpaceCop and the game gets better. However, let's say I get pretty good at it, maybe get some teammates, and a reputation. So now instead of trying to smuggle in past me and my buddies or hiring Empire mercenaries to "run the Sheriff out of town", instead of playing the game, players can instead opt to just toggle into solo and do their slave trading while dealing with idiotic NPC patrols.

How is this okay, but combat logging is such an example of bad sportsmanship that the game must be adjusted to prevent it?

As one of my friends put it when I told him of this discussion, if a player doesn't want to deal with the dangers of going to "pirate island" then they should just not go to pirate island instead of toggling to "Disney's Pirate Island" whenever they want to go there.

 

[Armour]

Okay, how about they implement a special mode that is only for the hardcore PvPer, where you are guaranteed not to run into the kind of person that does that, because they can never come back into your mode if they do?

They could call it something tough sounding like "Ironman Mode"...

 

[macdog]

Okay, how about they implement a special mode that is only for the hardcore PvPer, where you are guaranteed not to run into the kind of person that does that, because they can never come back into your mode if they do?

They could call it something tough sounding like "Ironman Mode"...

Thats interesting. I haven't read too much into this, but my basic understanding was that this was a perma-death option (i.e., you die and literally start the game from scratch). Has there been indications that it will also have other aspects such as open play only?

 

[Armour]

Thats interesting. I haven't read too much into this, but my basic understanding was that this was a perma-death option (i.e., you die and literally start the game from scratch). Has there been indications that it will also have other aspects such as open play only?

Here you go.

 

[macdog]

Here you go.

thanks, its not clear (to me) whether this mode prevents private group and solo play though. I guess it will come out in the wash.

 

[Armour]

thanks, its not clear (to me) whether this mode prevents private group and solo play though. I guess it will come out in the wash.

From my understanding it is a private online group, consisting of all players who choose to play in Ironman mode, and nobody else. Each commander is locked in the Ironman group until they die, whereupon they drop down into open online play with the same level of progress as they had in Ironman.

Dead commanders can't return to the Ironman group. A new commander would have to be created instead.

Basically, any player worth their salt as a pilot will play exclusively in Ironman mode. The other modes can be thought of as training modes for Ironman. Once you're good enough at stuff in the other modes, you will create a new commander and start from scratch in Ironman mode.

 

[StarTux]

From my understanding it is a private online group, consisting of all players who choose to play in Ironman mode, and nobody else. Each commander is locked in the Ironman group until they die, whereupon they drop down into open online play with the same level of progress as they had in Ironman.

Almost, if or when the Ironman (it seriously needs a new name though!) commander dies you'll have the choice to drop to the ordinary group or let it fully die, its not automatic.

Dead commanders can't return to the Ironman group. A new commander would have to be created instead.

Basically, any player worth their salt as a pilot will play exclusively in Ironman mode. The other modes can be thought of as training modes for Ironman. Once you're good enough at stuff in the other modes, you will create a new commander and start from scratch in Ironman mode.

Yes, once a commander is deemed dead in Ironman mode it is dead to that mode forever, even if its an Elite pilot years down the road. Still, considering you then have option to continue on in normal mode if you die I don't see why anyone shouldn't at least try it out.

 

[hawkenfox]

dude , one man's meat is another man's poison.

 

[Vasious]

That doesn't address my original question.

Let's expand the scenario.

There's a mining system in Alliance space that borders Empire space. This Alliance system has a lucrative black market trade in slaves.

Let's throw some numbers out, transporting slaves is a 2,000cr bounty per slave in Alliance space. Although, if you target a dropped slave canister and select "call for pickup" an Alliance Anaconda shows up to rescue them and gives you +AllianceRep and 300cr per canister. Selling them on the black market is, let's say, 2500cr profit per.

I want to raise my AllianceRep, stop this extremely lucrative slave trade, and make some side money so I take my little spaceship, I fit a cargo scanner, and give slavers I scan an ultimatum. "Drop your slaves or be reported to the authorities and destroyed." This is some lovely gameplay, smugglers get to deal with a more intelligent human border patrol, I get to play SpaceCop and the game gets better. However, let's say I get pretty good at it, maybe get some teammates, and a reputation. So now instead of trying to smuggle in past me and my buddies or hiring Empire mercenaries to "run the Sheriff out of town", instead of playing the game, players can instead opt to just toggle into solo and do their slave trading while dealing with idiotic NPC patrols.

How is this okay, but combat logging is such an example of bad sportsmanship that the game must be adjusted to prevent it?

As one of my friends put it when I told him of this discussion, if a player doesn't want to deal with the dangers of going to "pirate island" then they should just not go to pirate island instead of toggling to "Disney's Pirate Island" whenever they want to go there.

Whilst I agree the picture you paint is 1000% more satisfying game play than Solo against the AI, I guess the key difference between switching to Solo vs Combat Logging is;
Solo vs online is a choice made before you suffer a loss or set back
Combat logging is a choice made to avoid a setback you have just suffered.

I see it like, lets say you were playing cards.
You can chose to play for real money or fake money.
That is you choice for Solo or online play

And please note this is just for an example, not a judgement on the value of the play or players in either mode.
There will be people who will chose to play either, just as there will be people who want to avoid you as a player boarder patrol, and those that reveal in trying to out play you.

But combat logging would be like making a bet, losing the hand then then saying, "actually I didn't actually play this bet, give it back."
That is wrong where you play with real money or fake money.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

Here's a fun question.

How is combat-logging to avoid ship destruction such an example of bad sportsmanship that the logout system must be changed but toggling to solo mode to completely avoid player interaction is okay?

Having a ship disappear from right in front of a player in real-time compromises that player's impression of game world integrity.

A tangible object just vanishing is a jarring and alien thing to our psyche. There is a reason that professional illusionists make a living from performing "disappearing acts"... and that it never gets old. Because our brains know it can't happen.

Walking up to someone on the street, pointing out a person, then making that person vanish will freak people out and make the papers.



As for Solo Online / Online All switching... That's entirely different.

Walking up to someone on the street and telling them they WOULD HAVE SEEN A PERSON RIGHT THERE, IF THEY HAD DECIDED TO COME... gets you a slap.

 

[W0OCQCK]

You know I think your all really cute in here. Just because of a few PVE'er that choose not to PVP in "All Play". Let me tell ya, I'm a little ashamed to consider my self a PVP'er, to be compared to most of you sorts.

Let the PVE'ers, the ones that don't want to join into "All Play" do there own thing would ya, is that too much to ask for a little respect for what they choose to do. I actually joined a PVE only group just today. Why? I don't like to PVP all the time, just when I'm ready. Doh'

I have my own personal vision and hopes for all play. When I head over to all play I'm hoping for a lot of people in there that want to do one thing, kill or be killed. I'm looking for the best of the best fights, and that's not going to be with a hauler. I'm either going to be preparing in my group, or in all play trying to shoot down just as many of you fine PVP'er types I can find to engage.

In short, I'm a PVP'er, I want to fight other accomplished PVP'ers.

No Log Out Escapes, Please.

I want the learning/survival curve in all play to be Steep, and unforgiving for everybody choosing to participate. Yes you can be in there and do what ever you choose to do, but it should be a very inhospitable place, IMO.

The first time I ever played this game, about 15 minutes in, in my Sidewinder, I got attacked by a Viper. I didn't even know how super cruse worked or how to engage it, I couldn't run if I wanted too. I fought this guy for 25 minutes, shot his shields down (3) times, but in the end I tried to ram him, he had shields I didn't end of story. It was seriously a whole lot of fun, don't remember who the guy was.

So I'd like to clear a little air here. I have no interest in killing PVE'ers, or beginners. Not my thing, I like hard targets, I'm sure there will be a few, probably not many though.

I also have no issues what so ever with all of you choosing any play style ya may want to play. I love the way David & Frontier have set this choice thing up, I think it's truly brilliant. If you see one of many of his interviews, you will clearly see he has a special place in his heart for gaming Psycho's. Unfortunate reality is they all seem to be drawn to space games. Go figure.:S

PS, Log out escapes are consider poor gamesmanship.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Certainly not, and it is the most unnerving thing I read on those forums: no one wants that, no one benefits from that, it will kill all sense of a unified community....

Indeed, it will - however player bleed due to increasing perceived toxicity in the All Group would have the same effect.

, and avoiding it is precisely what will lead to it.

This bit is very interesting - it seems to suggest that there is no way to avoid the All Group becoming "PvP Paradise".

I don't plan on being a PvP player, and to be honest, I don't think many people will, most will just dwell in-between PvE and PvP without ever reaching an extreme, but I want to play in the all group because I want to play among the biggest and most diverse community, and I want to make this place the most enjoyable one. But we'll have to take part in it to make it happen, it won't happen on its own.

Those who want to take part in the All Group will do so. Those that get tired of it won't. It will the responsibility of all players in the All Group to ensure that it is a "fun" place to play.

If we have this stupid behavior of waiting to see how things unfold from a distance because we're afraid of the bogeyman, with a "somebody do something!" approach, then the all group will become this "PvP Paradise" no one wants, and everyone will just be like "I knew it would happen!". And my greatest fear is that once this game is released, the forums are swarmed by people creating threads asking "where is everyone?"

We'll see how it transpires. The size of the gaming area alone will cause threads asking "where is everyone?" as not all players will start in the same place.

I really can't believe that people seriously consider hiding in single player and PvE groups when this game precisely takes many measures to regulate PvP, with bounties, fines and security ships, when it tackles the problem of griefing with its sandbox approach, when player encounters will be rare enough given the size of the galaxy, and when there is next to no difference between PvE and PvP aside from who pilots the ship.

I see no tackling of griefing like behaviour *yet*. It remains to be seen how effective any mechanisms and measures to regulate PvP are as they have not yet been implemented.

Can you please explain: "when it tackles the problem of griefing with its sandbox approach"?

One difference between PvE and PvP is that some PvP players will, no doubt, almost exclusively select players as targets simply because they are players (you know, those that claim that NPCs are no challenge and the unpredictability of a player opponent is where it's at - regardless of the disparity in ships and equipment) whereas NPCs should attack all other ships without taking into account the nature of the pilot.

This game does everything to please both sides, and avoiding players is like ignoring all of FD's hard work to have us all play and enjoy the game together as we would a MMO.

Indeed it does please both sides, it provides mechanisms to avoid unwanted player interaction - I expect there to be some *very* large private groups. That's making use of Frontier's hard work - they pitched and have included the grouping system as promised.

The reasons to keep on avoiding player confrontation are plain ridiculous, I mean, do you plan on avoiding hostile NPCs too? Otherwise I can't wait to see people complain that NPC criminals are as much of an annoyance as players.

Which reasons are those? Some may wish to avoid other players simply because they can't be bothered with the CoD players' approach to online play.

All this does is reinforce the idea that people who hate PvP are just sore losers and just do not want to lose to another player.

.... or simply that they are sand castle builders and not sand castle kickers (or even those that go about throwing sand in everyone elses' eyes).

If all you want is trucking without any risk, whether from players or NPCs, Elite: Dangerous isn't for you, but I would recommend Euro Truck Simulator 2.

Just pretend you're in a space ship

 

[Robert Maynard]

One obvious example of this: Prices at Freeport go sky-high because traders won't risk trying to get past the pirates who hang out there. The answer? Hire a few escorts to defend you and share the profit with them. Sounds good (from a gameplay POV) to me.

If you mean player escorts then that's great for players who can play to someone else's schedule - not all players can. Yes, players will be able choose to hire a couple of NPC escorts - I believe there is a limit - and it remains to be seen whether these will be effective against a cohesive player pirate band.

And have faith that FD will eliminate the landing bay campers in the final game. So much of the anti-social stuff in beta will change by then, IMO.

I hope so.

 

[Ven Jarvik]

(it seriously needs a new name though!).

IronPERSON

 

[Stoopyface]

You know I think your all really cute in here. Just because of a few PVE'er that choose not to PVP in "All Play". Let me tell ya, I'm a little ashamed to consider my self a PVP'er, to be compared to most of you sorts.

You cannot choose not to pvp in the open group, anyone can attack you at any time with or without cause. There are plenty of reasons for people to attack you and even if they get blasted into atoms soon after it is always possible that a player will attack you or kill you.

The choice of whether or not to pvp comes from whether you choose to go into a mode that allows pvp or not. Open group does and solo mode doesn't. Private groups will have their own rules.

Let the PVE'ers, the ones that don't want to join into "All Play" do there own thing would ya, is that too much to ask for a little respect for what they choose to do. I actually joined a PVE only group just today. Why? I don't like to PVP all the time, just when I'm ready. Doh'

No one has a problem with people in solo mode. If you want to go into solo or a private group where there is no pvp then go for it, it's better (for you and for me) that you do.

There is a group of people that go into the open group and get killed by another player and then complain. This is what I have a problem with. Not only do I think it's unreasonable to complain that you died to another player when you are in a mode full of other players and a game designed for adversarial gameplay, but these people more often than not tend to insult the people that killed them.