You have that already from the current design.
Why play online?
- Thread starter tomkrist
- Start date
You have that already from the current design.
If you plan on doing this, be sure that you get a whole lot of money on top of your "best ship with best weapons"
You will lose a lot of those expensive ships when you get involved in PvP the first weeks.
What if he doesnt want to be involved, or not given a chance. Ahhh now i understand you mean GRIEFING.
double post.
Now you dont get it really do you!
I may not call you silly dumb or stupid because then I will not be allowed to post on this forum.
But in my opinion , you are so close as 0,000000001 % to me doing that, but I am explicitly not not calling you stupid, an idiot or silly.
You are probably just another nice player to enter the Elite universe
Do have a nice day.
Cheers Cmdr's
I think it would help both your positions if you addressed my point instead of simply delivering thinly-veiled insults.
I know it gets a lot of heat but let's look at Eve for a moment, if a player doesn't want to get involved in non-consensual PVP they simply stay in high-sec space. For people who don't know what high-sec is it's the civilized parts of the Eve universe where npc "police" can show up with overwhelming force to stop or get revenge on attacks.
With a similar setup in Elite we can allow pro-PvP players and anti-PvP players to share the same world without allowing players to drop into solo to avoid problems in anarchic space.
Take, for example, the protection racket that sprung up around freeport. There were dozens of posts on that thread that simply said "So go into solo, trade at freeport, go into open? LOL."
Let's, for a moment, ignore the problems revolving around the lack of defense turrets around freeport, which is a problem with FREEPORT NOT a problem with solo vs open. Is it right that emergent gameplay, piracy, protection rackets, etc, can be completely bypassed with a menu toggle?
If there's a problem with pirates in an area then that should factor into a player's choice to operate within that zone, NOT the player's choice to toggle into solo within that zone. If you want to trade with players, do smuggling jobs for the pirate because you get better prices in federation space where he has a massive bounty, and otherwise play online without worrying about having a player-created challenge then you should be able to do those things in civilized space in open play. If you don't want to get shot for no reason then instead of toggling into solo whenever you approach freeport you just don't go there without expecting trouble.
I think it would help both your positions if you addressed my point instead of simply delivering thinly-veiled insults.
I know it gets a lot of heat but let's look at Eve for a moment, if a player doesn't want to get involved in non-consensual PVP they simply stay in high-sec space. For people who don't know what high-sec is it's the civilized parts of the Eve universe where npc "police" can show up with overwhelming force to stop or get revenge on attacks.
With a similar setup in Elite we can allow pro-PvP players and anti-PvP players to share the same world without allowing players to drop into solo to avoid problems in anarchic space.
That's all well and good, but any profit is likely to be in the less regulated areas, since third-party trading tools are going to make anywhere else an endless grindfest, scrimping meagre amounts of credits per run.
Did you even play EVE? High Sec is full of non-consensual PVP.
Now you have the gist of Risk vs. Reward as opposed to risk mitigation through toggling to solo mode.
Yes, high sec has suicide ganking, since any hostile act, even firing on another players' cargo canister, is met with the swift death of the aggressor. If players' ships aren't salvageable after a suicide ganking in Elite and cargo is destroyed if the ship is destroyed in civilized space then swift lethal retribution and bounties will control suicide ganks in civilized Federation, Empire, and Alliance space.
Last edited:
Ahh the lovely term "sandbox" that always leaves a sour taste in your mouth due to griefing, exploiting, and cheating.
The so called PVP are up in arms as there power to grief, destroy has been taken away from them.
Long live solo and group modes.
The so called PVP are up in arms as there power to grief, destroy has been taken away from them.
Long live solo and group modes.
Typical statement from someone who rarely ever plays online games: competition is a pretty huge part of what constitutes a "game", and even more so for most "video games", but it doesn't necessarily, and actually rarely, leads to hatred between players. Because, you know, it's a game? Even kids realize that it's not because you lose to someone that this person hates you, and are perfectly fine competing against others without holding any grudge, so we can surely agree to this among adults.
So yes it is perfectly possible for players to form a cohesive, friendly and unified community despite shooting each other in the face. The problem certainly isn't on the side of those that enjoy competitive play, for they are a lot more used to it, but the other way around: how can people enjoy each other's company when some take the game way too seriously, acting like sore losers and whining everytime they lose to someone, thinking that to be friendly to each other, we need to be friendly in game? When you play soccer with friends, do you just sit there, refusing to play, in fear of losing your friends just because you dared compete against them? Or are you maybe all playing on the same side against virtual opponents?
As for being "hunted", well that's quite an exageration of something that'll surely be incredibly rare: let's remind ourselves about the existence of bounties, fines, security ships, sandbox aspects and 400 billion stars, which will actually make criminal activities quite challenging and force players to resort to many tricks to keep up with this lifestyle, but also about the existence of cooperation in the all group too. Players will surely be hunted by NPCs way more often anyway, just like criminal players will have to deal with quite a lot of NPCs themselves.
Because what is the difference between PvE and PvP? Well, aside from "griefing" which is one of the most exagerated things ever in the context of online games, and which is dealt with in ED in a way more efficient manner that any other game I've played, we could also mention that players can provide much deeper interactions, not only from a competitive standpoint, but from a cooperative one too. ED has nothing in common with the usual MMO that puts a large difference between PvE and PvP: the two are incredibly close, and if you're good at one of those, being good at the other isn't exactly hard. Actually, the way players will differentiate from NPCs based on the ships, equipment and weapons they use, but it's a bit early to know how much they'll differ, and even more so to oppose it when we don't even know.
If you see more differences than that, I'd love to hear about them, but I'm afraid that people who aim to play ED as a PvE game were just fooled into thinking this game was a traditional game with a PvE/PvP differentiation: it's not. The EVE Online comparison we see quite often around here is indeed flawed: ED merges PvE and PvP much more than EVE Online does, and has an approach more similar to an arena shooter or a flight sim than a MMO. Otherwise, you're welcome to tell me how many online games you know that offer PvE and PvP and where NPCs access the same variety of weapons and equipments as players do.
And while we're there, please tell me what more do you need to consider PvP, if it's even possible. And please tell me you're aware that exiling yourself from the biggest chunk of the community contributes to its poverty, and that you're okay with that. Please tell me you're aware that your behaviors hurts the community much more than player competition does. Please tell me that just because you wish to avoid some players whose behavior you think is mean and unfair, you are ready to hurt the community as a whole by ignoring those players.
It's actually funny how you consider that I insult people by calling them out because they refuse to play with others:
But somehow you are perfectly fine with ignoring people who can certainly be aggressive ingame, but are actually nice people, just so that you can be nice to each other ingame, but effectively be aggressive to others and ignore them?Right, trying to insult the people you want to attract into the all-group sounds like a great plan.
"I don't want to play with you" is the most offensive thing you can say to someone online. I'd rather be shot ingame than ignored by part of the community, because there is nothing more insulting than being ignored.
Before you tell me I insult people, maybe you could double check the meaning of your own words. And don't turn the problem around saying others are responsible for it, you're the one wishing to ignore them when all they do is play the game and actually wish to play with you, and you're the one that needs to change and learn to play with others, and possibly learn to lose. Just because for once an online game allows you to avoid others doesn't suddenly make others the problem.
Same comment as above, both for the "the all group is a PvP group!" part, and the "I don't want to play with you!".
I'd still love to know and get the occasion to play with you both, because that's what games are for. We should all be able to leave our quarrels aside and just play a game together. Millions of people play online, that shouldn't be too hard.
I understand Risk vs Reward. However, if those the contrasts are not softened a bit, there is a real danger that new players will be turned off, and either steer clear of open online play, or even go and play a different title. I'm fairly sure the developers would prefer that neither of those two possibilities becomes commonplace.
I'm almost certain the current model will turn off a larger amount of players (the ones who enjoy online games).
You told this over and over again...and i'm sure everyone knows YOUR point of view and how you think the game will fail because of it. Thats your view and you are fully entitled to express it.
Repeating it over and over again will not change anybodies point of view.
As much as i like a good fight, i don't think the games success relies on it.
It's major strenght is to have options, especially the option to switch game modes.
Thats MY view... and it's worth as much as yours
Call of EVE fans, perhaps?
You told this over and over again...and i'm sure everyone knows YOUR point of view and how you think the game will fail because of it. Thats your view and you are fully entitled to express it.
Repeating it over and over again will not change anybodies point of view.
As much as i like a good fight, i don't think the games success relies on it.
It's major strenght is to have options, especially the option to switch game modes.
Thats MY view... and it's worth as much as yours
Yes I'm repeating myself over and over. And will keep doing it as long as the other side keeps arguing with the same arguments over and over.
And because I will never ever understand why they are doing it the way they are.
And repeating it over and over again is, IMO, worth a try to get somewhere.
That's my view....and I never said others views are worth less ��
"we" can't understand you...and you can't understand "us".
sometimes this is just the way it is...
we all will have to see what the time will bring.
but i'm quite confident that it will be as planned, sorry
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.
If anyone doesn't share their vision... well... this is free. Can't be that hard, right?
Hmm, let's see, four years on Lineage 2 (pvp), two years on Aion (pvp), six years on EVE Online (two of them in 0.0), two years on PlanetSide 2 (man, I got 27753 kills, I'm a mass murderer).
And that's just MMOs.
Sure, competition is a huge part of what makes a game... it's just that this does include competition against yourself, like basically every singleplayer game ever. Competition doesn't necessarily imply other hostile players.
Stomp down a kid's sandcastle and explain them it's perfectly fine since the laws of the sandpit allow it, see how understanding the kid gets.
It sure is, except in games that have a death penalty that can basically set you back to day 1, say what you will, unified and friendly communities never appear on those.
See, this is what you don't get at all. The "competitive" side of the playerbase doesn't care about the tools they own, as long as they got basic stuff and stuff to shoot at, they're happy.
Now for, let's say, the "anti-competitive" side, the basic game mechanics and the basic tools are nothing but a seed. To them the game only really starts when they got a bunch of stuff that they can play with. Now what happens when you go pillage them? Well you basically just broke their game and the tools necessary for their enjoyment! And then you still got the nerves to say "hey, stop whining you sore loser, you just lost to someone, it's just a game". But they didn't just lose to someone, they lost what they had and they lost their game too.
Now you're probably going to go "blablabla NPCs do that too etc", but when they lose to a NPC at least the only thing they actually lose to is themselves. No conscious decision like "well well, I'm going to ruin your stuff today, because that's what I like doing" is involved here.
Does someone break your legs when you lose at soccer? If not that's just a false parallel.
Did some already in Eranin, was fun and expected.
Ok now, what's the difference between that, and people who stop playing completely because they don't enjoy the game?
Are you going to go "oh man, you're ruining the game by not playing, don't you see we're entitled to your spare time?" ? Or those like myself that will live alone on the frontier, because deep space exploration is what we enjoy, are we hurting the community by potentially not seeing anyone for several month?
See, your notion of community doesn't hold, because it relies on the idea of forcing people to play the way you want, and if they don't and decide to leave in a way or another they're hurting the community. You can't seem to be able consider it's a defensive move because they've been hurt by said community first.
You're not entitled to anyone's time, and Frontier is designing the game so that meaningful content doesn't need to be provided by players themselves.
Everyone's spare time is limited, why should they be forced to play (and waste their time) with players they can't stand? Sounds like something one would need to be paid for.
Last edited:
You're really going down that road?
Well I guess you managed to shut me up because this is becoming utterly stupid.
Cheers,
Fair enough.
Did you back the Alpha and get involved in the Design Discussion Forum stuff? If not, then it's probably a bit too late to lobby for such significant changes in the nature of the game. If so, then your POV didn't seem to be the prevailing opinion at the time (or it wasn't one that the developers wanted to support), as different decisions were arrived at. That's not stupidity, it's reality.
If the game doesn't suit your purposes, DIY. I'm serious. Coding ain't so hard. I'm sure there's a sizeable community of like-minded nerds who would be glad to pick up some tools and help out. Then you/they could make the exact game that you/they really want to play. What's stupid about that? Seems like a practical solution, to me.
Coming as someone new to the elite dangerous game, though not new to space games in general and definitely not new to MMOs/etc, I only bought it so I could play solo primarily. I view the play online as a way to either play with someone I already know or go challenge my abilities in combat at times. I can't reasonably figure out why I'd use it for anything else.
I don't really view the online play as an all the time activity realistically. When I'm flying around with cargo, that cargo tends to dwarf the entire ship's value. Why risk that when an aggressor is risking very little in comparison? Even if I win the fight against a combat prepared vessel, the net gain is probably trivial compared to risking a full cargo hold of progenitor cells or similar expensive cargo. So why do that? No, the online gameplay from where I sit is solely for when I have more credits than a first world country's GDP and am inclined to lose some of them via insurance replacements but never for playing the trading side. Maybe the exploration side of the game as you still are only really risking same as the attacker.
Cost to benefit over time analysis says fly with the most profitable returning cargo if you are going to do the trading side. Risk analysis says never risk losing more than you stand to gain. One of the mottos of this game series appears to be 'Don't fly what you aren't willing/can afford to lose'. With those factors in mind the wisest course of action is to build bank in solo, go online when the desire to interact with others hits and you can afford to lose everything.
Thankfully the game is fun solo. I could see a large percentage who never go online and have a great deal of fun.
I don't really view the online play as an all the time activity realistically. When I'm flying around with cargo, that cargo tends to dwarf the entire ship's value. Why risk that when an aggressor is risking very little in comparison? Even if I win the fight against a combat prepared vessel, the net gain is probably trivial compared to risking a full cargo hold of progenitor cells or similar expensive cargo. So why do that? No, the online gameplay from where I sit is solely for when I have more credits than a first world country's GDP and am inclined to lose some of them via insurance replacements but never for playing the trading side. Maybe the exploration side of the game as you still are only really risking same as the attacker.
Cost to benefit over time analysis says fly with the most profitable returning cargo if you are going to do the trading side. Risk analysis says never risk losing more than you stand to gain. One of the mottos of this game series appears to be 'Don't fly what you aren't willing/can afford to lose'. With those factors in mind the wisest course of action is to build bank in solo, go online when the desire to interact with others hits and you can afford to lose everything.
Thankfully the game is fun solo. I could see a large percentage who never go online and have a great deal of fun.