Why play online?

For example, I would hazard a guess that the commanders used by such idiots would usually have a lot less play time than a real player.

In some online games it is standard that players of similar ranks are visible to each other so that you cannot get a newbie attacked by a veteran and vice-versa.

Perhaps the matching algorithms used for islands/instances/whatever might take some of this into account?
 
wouldn't you agree that if this behaviour could be prevented by mechanics (either by making it hard to do, limiting the incentive or increasing the disincentive - in-game). This would be a better option before going down the space-court route?

People who can only have fun by stealing it from someone else should not be encouraged. The system I suggested might not be perfect, but it's better than no system at all. If you have a real idea about how to disincentivise psychopathy, I'm sure the world is all ears. What do you suggest?
 
In some online games it is standard that players of similar ranks are visible to each other so that you cannot get a newbie attacked by a veteran and vice-versa.

Perhaps the matching algorithms used for islands/instances/whatever might take some of this into account?

It seems a lot more complicated to implement than the more draconian suggestion. Also, I would suggest that the punishment route is a lot more in keeping with the cold, uncompromising nature of Ironman mode.
 
It seems a lot more complicated to implement than the more draconian suggestion. Also, I would suggest that the punishment route is a lot more in keeping with the cold, uncompromising nature of Ironman mode.

Not complicated at all, just depends on the measure. Something like 'hours played' is already tracked, Elite rankings such as Mostly Harmless could be used. Just examples but these are possible for use mathematically.

Compare instead the appeals process you want. Now the complainant will either need to be constantly recording their game or FD will need to have built in some kind of recording mechanism that will allow the to reconstruct the 'scene of the alleged incident'.

We have gone a bit off topic here, but this part was talking about accidental vs deliberate ramming with the aim of taking our an Ironman player. I really don't think FD want to staff the space equivalent of traffic court.
 
People who can only have fun by stealing it from someone else should not be encouraged. The system I suggested might not be perfect, but it's better than no system at all. If you have a real idea about how to disincentivise psychopathy, I'm sure the world is all ears. What do you suggest?

I think you missed my point mate. I acknowledged that some level of moderator/banning is always ultimately going to be necessary/inevitable.

The point I made was that if in-game mechanics could be used, surely that (in general) is preferable to more moderation by FD.

I didn't claim to have all the answers, merely stated a method of approach to problems such as these.

I even pointed out in a previous post that free sideys are always going to be hard to balance (as the risk the "griefer" is taking is minimal).

Maybe in this specific example, moderation and banning is the only viable answer. I just don't think it should be the first option explored, rather the last.
 
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.
I'm baffled to be honest. How do you do it? Do you specifically hate every person you play against? How many grudges are you holding by now?

It's certainly possible to be nice with each other and compete at the same time, millions of people seem to be doing it, even with permanent death, but that might be because people usually hold themselves responsible for their defeat because they weren't good enough, rather than claim others are responsible and that you did nothing wrong- worse enough, act like they "ruin your fun" as if defeat wasn't an integral part of a game. That sounds yet again like the definition of a sore loser, who'll complain endlessly just because he doesn't like to lose, because he wants to be in control, because what he wants isn't a game but a toy.

Video games aren't serious business.

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.
You're acting like going after players is going to be easy and just require a starter ship with starter equipment.

Once the criminal status of a player is made clear, he'll be hunted because of his bounty, shot on sight by every single NPC faction, have a huge amount of fines to pay, have such terrible standings that he can't access the best ships and weapons anymore, become essentially kicked out of every place he goes to... it's going to be quite a challenge to keep up with such activities. Don't think criminals will do with just their starting ships, they'll obviously want big ships, big guns and big cargo space, to better adapt to their long outtings in space because they can hardly dock anywhere and face fierce opposition, just like a trader, an explorer, or a passenger carrier will comparatively get ships better adapted to their activities and invest in superior shielding and escort ships to ward off attacks from cheap criminals in sidewinders with starter lasers.

You're seriously downplaying the elements put forward to make not only player attacks, but quite simply any attack against a ship whether it's a player or NPC, heavy with consequences, and when someone kills them, they'll lose just as much as a trader, an explorer, or any other player. And please don't take the beta as an example of it.

As for losing your stuff, how is this a problem? Whether it's a player or a NPC, the result is the same. So the difference really is "I don't want to lose to players!":
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.
That's being a sore loser, that is refusing to lose to others, and acting like they are responsible for your failure, thinking they're actually mean people and possibly real life psychopaths who want you to lose your stuff, when they rarely ever care themselves to begin with, and if they were to lose everything, it would only be an additional challenge for them, because it's only a game. Myself, I'd love it if I was forced to return to a Sidewinder and 100 credits, rather than keep on amassing wealth and eventually be able to have anything I need, making the game completely boring.

And please, don't come with completely stupid comparisons with breaking people's legs in soccer. Killing each other is part of the game, but it doesn't mean it should lead to actual feelings, especially of hatred. It's surprising to see how you're being so sentimental and thinking others hate you, when they actually don't, and you end up being the only one hating others for wrong reasons. Your problems are pretty much straight out of your imagination.

Did some already in Eranin, was fun and expected.
And you now hate everyone that shot you.

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.
Your idea of a community is everyone doing stuff in his corner, and doing what they want, which just can't work with online gaming, unless you're the one that decides what everyone else does. If people don't like this idea of a game, then maybe it's just not meant for them? I myself don't play plenty types of games, and I'm not complaining about anything nor saying those genres are wrong and should be changed, I just accept that, not every game aims to please everyone. I don't claim anyone else is responsible. That's how online games are, we play together, and we don't bother thinking about pointless things like whether others are "entitled to our spare time" (as if NPCs were).

And I can't stress this enough: the game isn't finished. We haven't even seen half of the features and content of the game, and a large chunk of the future community of the game doesn't have beta access, don't tell me you already feel hurt, and that this wound will never go away, that would be the stupidiest thing ever. And it doesn't change a thing about the former argument: no one wants the all group to be a PvP group, and if we all join it and play together, it'll become the best place, and you really have very few reasons to wish to avoid PvP.
 
Your idea of a community is everyone doing stuff in his corner, and doing what they want, which just can't work with online gaming, unless you're the one that decides what everyone else does. If people don't like this idea of a game, then maybe it's just not meant for them?

Funny, looks like it's working to me, I just joined a private group and I love it.
I'm glad you don't have any decision on what I do in ED. I like solo online, I like my group, for me it's working just fine. Now I've decided to do something else, leave this thread and never look back. Please carry on though, don't let my leaving stop you. Best of luck too you Frosty.
 
I think you missed my point mate. I acknowledged that some level of moderator/banning is always ultimately going to be necessary/inevitable.

The point I made was that if in-game mechanics could be used, surely that (in general) is preferable to more moderation by FD.

I didn't claim to have all the answers, merely stated a method of approach to problems such as these.

I even pointed out in a previous post that free sideys are always going to be hard to balance (as the risk the "griefer" is taking is minimal).

Maybe in this specific example, moderation and banning is the only viable answer. I just don't think it should be the first option explored, rather the last.

I imagine the development team agree. Moderation is a human resource cost, and banning costs in terms of audience. If I'd thought up any solution that didn't involve suspensions/bans, I would have posted it.

I shall repeat: what would be the alternative?

If you have even one answer (never mind all of them, one will do at this point), I'm sure they would be happy to implement it - if it's practical, and technically achievable without requiring too much in the way of storage space and CPU resources from either the client or the server.
 
I shall repeat: what would be the alternative?

I'm sure others will have more imagination than me on this. But anyway, I think the question is in relation to people getting perma-killed in ironman by someone ramming them in a boosting sidey? If so (and I actually already stated this) if it doesn't insta-blow-you-up its not that big an issue as you will have time to use escape pod etc... If not, that would be change no.1 that I would suggest.

On from that, boosting in stations could be disabled I guess. I don't favour the nanny approach but could work.

I imagine the development team agree.

Do you agree? (By the way, you don't have the know the answer to all the problems to agree with the approach)
 
If people don't like this idea of a game, then maybe it's just not meant for them? I myself don't play plenty types of games, and I'm not complaining about anything nor saying those genres are wrong and should be changed, I just accept that, not every game aims to please everyone. .


I am lost.... I must admit whilst reading a lot of this thread i have scan read much and skipped some, so apologies if I am wrong and I am taking this out of context.......

however.....

Surely it is you here who is not liking the idea of THIS game and you ARE complaining that it should be changed?.

ie groups online, solo online and all online are already implemented and will be swappable & is an advertised feature of the core game. As I understand it you are one of the ones who is not happy about this.

solo offline is not here yet but it IS coming.....
 
I am lost.... I must admit whilst reading a lot of this thread i have scan read much and skipped some, so apologies if I am wrong and I am taking this out of context.......

however.....

Surely it is you here who is not liking the idea of THIS game and you ARE complaining that it should be changed?

ie groups online, solo online and all online are already implemented and will be swappable & is an advertised feature of the core game. As I understand it you are one of the ones who is not happy about this.

QFT and emphasis added.
 
As for losing your stuff, how is this a problem? Whether it's a player or a NPC, the result is the same. So the difference really is "I don't want to lose to players!":
That's being a sore loser, that is refusing to lose to others, and acting like they are responsible for your failure, thinking they're actually mean people and possibly real life psychopaths who want you to lose your stuff...
Myself, I'd love it if I was forced to return to a Sidewinder and 100 credits, rather than keep on amassing wealth and eventually be able to have anything I need, making the game completely boring.

This is the part that resonates with me. Players who drop into solo for anarchy zones or who only play with their private group are either afraid if losing anything to a player or specifically acknowledging that the NPCs are trivial opponents. They can't accept minor setbacks or challenge and they refuse to join the online community in this game.

The idea that challenges in open play can be circumvented by soloing may cause the online community for Elite to wither over time.

As I've said before, a swap timer or simply seperate saves would be the best solution.

It would prevent open from being almost exclusively populated by rich, established players who can afford to lose everything and poor starting players who haven't become jaded yet. The in game justice system would be pointless when a player can make his riches in solo and swap into open play to cause ruckus. Does a thousand cr fine matter to a player who made millions doing whatever he wanted in solo with only NPCs to challenge him?
 
This is the part that resonates with me. Players who drop into solo for anarchy zones or who only play with their private group are either afraid if losing anything to a player or specifically acknowledging that the NPCs are trivial opponents. They can't accept minor setbacks or challenge and they refuse to join the online community in this game.

Nonesense. I will do it to enjoy the danger and opportunity of the Anarchy system with it's Deadwood feel, but to avoid any idiots camping the space station in the hope of getting player kills for no sane reason what so ever.

I have loved the Elite setting since 1984, when I was 10 y old. A CoD / EVE gang camping a space station just because they can, and blowing up ships for lols has _nothing_ to do with the setting, and everything to do with bored dominance / PK players treating Elite as a shoot'em up.

What exactly would I gain from feeding the stupidity of the station campers? Absolutely nothing.

Now, if Frontier manage to make it so that kind of thing doesn't happen, or is really super rare... then sure, I'll be coming to the anarchy systems in Open play... and with my transponder off.
 
Last edited:
Nonesense. I will do it to enjoy the danger and opportunity of the Anarchy system with it's Deadwood feel, but to avoid any idiots camping the space station in the hope of getting player kills for no sane reason what so ever.

I have loved the Elite setting since 1984, when I was 10 y old. A CoD / EVE gang camping a space station just because they can, and blowing up ships for lols has _nothing_ to do with the setting, and everything to do with bored dominance / PK players treating Elite as a shoot'em up.

What exactly would I gain from feeding the stupidity of the station campers? Absolutely nothing.

Now, if Frontier manage to make it so that kind of thing doesn't happen, or is really suoer rare... then sure, I'll be coming to the anarchy systems in Open play... and with my transponder off.

Yes , yes and YES !
Agree completely
nice post
I would rep if I could

Cheers Cmdr's
 
Nonesense. I will do it to enjoy the danger and opportunity of the Anarchy system with it's Deadwood feel, but to avoid any idiots camping the space station in the hope of getting player kills for no sane reason what so ever.

I have loved the Elite setting since 1984, when I was 10 y old. A CoD / EVE gang camping a space station just because they can, and blowing up ships for lols has _nothing_ to do with the setting, and everything to do with bored dominance / PK players treating Elite as a shoot'em up.

What exactly would I gain from feeding the stupidity of the station campers? Absolutely nothing.

Now, if Frontier manage to make it so that kind of thing doesn't happen, or is really super rare... then sure, I'll be coming to the anarchy systems in Open play... and with my transponder off.

As I've said before that's a problem with Freeport that exists in Beta and will be addressed.

Your statement is the root problem I'm worried about. If problems with the game can be avoided by temporarily going into solo play then they might not get fixed as fast or at all. If instead the saves are seperate then when someone finds a station exploit or a similar situation arises the "solution" won't be to just drop into solo but to pressure the developers to fix the problem.

If, on the other hand the so-called issue to be avoided is true emergent gameplay like my space cop scenario then players shouldn't be able to circumvent the gameplay of another to avoid minor loss.

Finally, as I've said before, a solo/open toggle would allow players to make millions in relative safety before going online with nothing significant to lose, and what's worse than a player with nothing to lose?

Edit: There exist missions on the station boards to kill random civilians, apparently 'having no problem boiling randoms' is part of the setting. Not just what you derisively call the "CoD/Eve crowd"
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Finally, as I've said before, a solo/open toggle would allow players to make millions in relative safety before going online with nothing significant to lose, and what's worse than a player with nothing to lose?

A griefer?

.... but more seriously, the availability of the ability to switch between the three online game modes has been discussed many times. The positions are clear. Any decision to change the game is for Frontier to make - from other topics (3rd person view, Newtonian flight model) they have not given in to pressure.
 
Edit: There exist missions on the station boards to kill random civilians, apparently 'having no problem boiling randoms' is part of the setting. Not just what you derisively call the "CoD/Eve crowd"

If somebody has a mission to kill civilian craft, and my Elite Federation CMDR ass qualifies, then it's legit. Legit in-world terrorism, which will probably net huge bounties, but still legit.

It also has nothing what so ever in common with idiots camping freeport and blowing up players for fun. Nothing.

If you still can't see how the in-world mission and reasons make all the difference, I can't help you.
 
A griefer?

.... but more seriously, the availability of the ability to switch between the three online game modes has been discussed many times. The positions are clear. Any decision to change the game is for Frontier to make - from other topics (3rd person view, Newtonian flight model) they have not given in to pressure.

I can't see either of those other topics having such a strong negative impact on gameplay than the ability and perception that Solo is for moneymaking and open is for playing around with that money. It's as simple as seperate saves between the two.

If, as someone suggested, Ironman gameplay is open only then that's what I will play almost exclusively, with a separate character for testing out game mechanics.
 
You will never know about the people playing solo. They will not "toggle" on the spot when you scan them. Most of the ships you scan will be NPCs anyway.

And yes, there is a vast gulf between disconnecting in combat and choosing to play solo. One is super frustrating for the other player(s) involved, one is zero impact on them as they will never even know the player was passing by in a parallel instance.

That's not accurate. People in solo online(!) mode share the same universe, faction events and economy as people in the open online group. Therefore, they can influence players in open online mode w/o facing the same challenges (NPC are by far not as skilled and witted as human players). E.g., Freeport is a popular spot for PvP. A cargo hauling player who switches to solo online mode can go there undisturbed from other players and influence the local economy or later even faction events.
This loophole breaks consistency in terms of having similar challenges and obstacles in online mode (or please name one example of an NPC AI which is as powerful and witted as skilled human players).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom