Why play online?

[macdog]

I'm looking for PvP.
I hang around Freeport for weeks now (just for consentual PvP)
I planned to play SP only.
PvP made me switch to MP

cool.

And still i absolutely defend the option to play SP online with the same char you play MP.

I guess the question that some of us are asking is why? I think we can demonstrate how this detracts from the open environment. I don't see how this really adds anything to the solo game.

PvP can be so much fun...with people that feel the same. Slaughtering "n00bs" or "C-Bears" is NOT.

So I guess what you are advocating is the PvE with arena PvP style game. Not saying theres anything wrong with that (not my cup of tea, but then FD arent making the game just for me - or you), just calling it what it really is.

You do slip in and imply what I consider to be a common misconception here. In that people who like open world pvp just want to kill noobies all day long. Whilst you will always find some that do fit into that category, they do not represent all of us, and you will probably find people like myself dislike that style of gameplay as much as anyone. Although in the spirit of openness we may defend the right of people do play that way (within limits - killing noobs is a fairly broad category).

 

[macdog]

The DDF archives gives a good indication of their intent and ethos, one of the main ones being that players have a choice of how they play the game at any given time.

Obviously I need to read some of these threads to get a better context. But based on what you have said here, nothing I have advocated is contrary to that (despite the fact that I am sure some people aren't taking it that way).

 

[Seonid]

But based on what you have said here, nothing I have advocated is contrary to that (despite the fact that I am sure some people aren't taking it that way).

You were specifically suggesting preventing people from switching game modes, which is not the design intent and restricting game mode switching is used as "justification" in a wide variety of arguments, which all come down to a simple fact that some people want to enforce how they play the game on others.

 

[Adept]

I'm looking for PvP.
I hang around Freeport for weeks now (just for consentual PvP)
I planned to play SP only.
PvP made me switch to MP

And still i absolutely defend the option to play SP online with the same char you play MP.

PvP can be so much fun...with people that feel the same.
Slaughtering "n00bs" or "C-Bears" is NOT.

Well said Jorlin. I think this is what is at the heart of what DB and Frontier want to achieve. Not a game of hard core domination, where experience is bought with sweat and tears, but a cool immersive game of a far future with dangerous frontier regions.

Other human players are there, when you want them to be, and how you want them to be. The PvP combat, when it happens is excellent, but it's not forced on anybody.

It's IMO best to think of Elite as a shared single player game. It would be an awesome game even if it was off-line, single player only. Elite II with modern tech, if you will... but it's more than that. All those other players are there as well, effecting the same giant sandbox as you.

The key is, IMO, that their freedom and fun comes first. Nobody gets to impose their play atyle, or any form of dominance on anybody else.

I suspect it will be maddening to those who are used to zero-sum dominance games, but those are the breaks. Elite is promising to be something new, not just Guild Wars / EVE / Planetside 2 or any other older game with a new flavour and new assets.

 

[DancesWithHogs]

And still i absolutely defend the option to play SP online with the same char you play MP.

PvP can be so much fun...with people that feel the same.
Slaughtering "n00bs" or "C-Bears" is NOT.

Having open and solo on the same character save ruins things for new players who want to play against others, the people in open will be outfitted with better ships and equipment, paid for via solo play, than a new player. There will be a huge lack of new players in Open because of that and I feel it detracts from the game.

And on the subject of "c-bears" if a player doesn't want to deal with anarchic play while still playing online then they simply avoid those zones OR use an inexpensive ship to cross anarchic areas and pay to have their mining/hauling/passenger ship transported behind the scenes.

Having 2 saves is a more elegant solution to the various problems inherent in open/solo toggle. You can have the freedom of solo on your solo save and the fun of multiplayer on your open save.

 

[Jorlin]

cool.



I guess the question that some of us are asking is why? I think we can demonstrate how this detracts from the open environment. I don't see how this really adds anything to the solo game.



So I guess what you are advocating is the PvE with arena PvP style game. Not saying theres anything wrong with that (not my cup of tea, but then FD arent making the game just for me - or you), just calling it what it really is.

You do slip in and imply what I consider to be a common misconception here. In that people who like open world pvp just want to kill noobies all day long. Whilst you will always find some that do fit into that category, they do not represent all of us, and you will probably find people like myself dislike that style of gameplay as much as anyone. Although in the spirit of openness we may defend the right of people do play that way (within limits - killing noobs is a fairly broad category).

I don't think i get anything wrong.
And i don't want "arena PvP". Just because i prefer consentual PvP i don't think "arenas" are the way to go.
How does the option of SP hinder your vision of " openness"?
There is no competition to reach a "goal".
There is no contest about "owning" systems.

I just can't see the problem

 

[Tar Stone]

I probably got the same amount of satisfaction tonight from figuring out a player's trade route in a hauler, through careful observation, timing, checking of notes and at least a minute of deep thought, as some players get from PvP.

That was just one glorious little moment, and beta 2 opens up possibilities for some really epic stuff.

That's the main reason I want to play online. It's for the subtle, thoughtful stuff.

 

[macdog]

You were specifically suggesting preventing people from switching game modes, which is not the design intent and restricting game mode switching is used as "justification" in a wide variety of arguments,

Its not black and white but I see your point. Personally I have no problem with switching modes, rather the persistence of the character (and specifically that characters progression, credits, etc..) between said modes. I guess its a subtlety, but its an important one, not that it invalidates what you said, rather it clarifies my position.

which all come down to a simple fact that some people want to enforce how they play the game on others.

To be honest this isn't a helpful or even valid argument. I feel that on a sliding scale I'm near the bottom of this bucket (but no-one posting an opinion can say they are at zero). why?

well, I am not advocating any changes to solo or group modes. I don't plan to use them unless the mechanics stay as they are and I might as well (ab)use them (the ab is in brackets as people have different perspectives on this).

If I say my opinion is x, and you say its y, please don't imply that imposing a playstyle on others is exclusively my domain. It by definition is yours too. Like I said, the only way anyone could say they really aren't doing this is by simply not posting at all.

Just starting reading the archives. The OP here is fascinating, especially this quote!

If we made the choice completely arbitrary, as in you effectively select your difficulty mode then jump in with everyone else, I’d say we’ve just committed design by committee – everyone gets want they want but not what they need.

edit: I know its talking about a slightly different subject (death penalty), just the sentiment seemed relevant to me.

 

[W0OCQCK]

cool. I guess the question that some of us are asking is why? I think we can demonstrate how this detracts from the open environment. I don't see how this really adds anything to the solo game.

Exactly who is asking why? I know you and a few others are. I see nothing wrong with this intended game design, as well as many many others. I'm not making light of your opinion, but is simply one in very many opinions.

So I guess what you are advocating is the PvE with arena PvP style game.

Yes I like this approach. Yes I like all play to be one dangerous place, constantly, I love this play style. Nothing wrong here, "except" it takes away the sucker punch approach. I ends up being PVP'er PVPing other PVP'ers. I see nothing wrong with that in the slightest bit.

You do slip in and imply what I consider to be a common misconception here.

I have no misconception here, I know exactly what I want, it is what I want.

(within limits - killing noobs is a fairly broad category).

Really? I think I can tell what a noob is. Tell me please how you struggle with this fairly broad category. Allow me though to help you here, offer a little direction for you my dear friend. If there not playing in solo play, if there not playing in a beginner group, or a group of like minded players, then there not to be treated like a noob. All play means kill or be killed. See how simple the game design makes this for you, and everyone else.

 

[Adept]

There is no competition to reach a "goal".
There is no contest about "owning" systems.

I just can't see the problem

Again, agreed. Too bad I can't rep you twice in a row.

The real contests are between political systems we choose to support or resist. If you work for the Empire, you can further their reach and dominance, or disrupt their rivals shipping. Another player can support the Federation, or an independent system.

Sometimes you are both in Open, and it can result in a direct clash. That is fine. Sometimes all the opposing players are in different groups, or solo. Their effects still count, as do yours in their play.

The only problem comes from thinking that contests only count if it's PvP with cannons and lasers, and NPCs don't count. Well in Elite NPCs not only count, they run the show.

I honestly don't see the problem here. The only oddity is the pitch about explorers coming to blows on the frontier. For that to be a significant factor, doing a planetary scan would have to drop you into Open play. I doubt they'll do it though, as explorers as a player type aren't in general keen on conflict.

 

[macdog]

I don't think i get anything wrong.
And i don't want "arena PvP". Just because i prefer consentual PvP i don't think "arenas" are the way to go.
How does the option of SP hinder your vision of " openness"?
There is no competition to reach a "goal".
There is no contest about "owning" systems.

I just can't see the problem

I guess I am using the term arena in a fairly loose way.

The current ability to toggle play mode at will inevitably lead to credit grind in SP and arena style pvp in open. I'm sure we will get outliers that will buck the trend, but if this isn't obvious I'm not sure what more I can say.

This in turn will render some of the "emergent"/"sandbox"/"open" elements rare to non-existent (I said some not all). The obvious one is piracy. If there is no incentive to trade in open, the simple fact is hardly anyone will.

I guess I should point out that in my earlier posts in this thread I wasn't specifically suggesting the only only answer is to do something about the toggle. There could be other incentives to prevent the above, just none are obvious now. Which again takes me back to my early posts where I stated I am assuming something will likely change (who knows what).

So in summary, my comments and observations are based on the mechanics discussed (not just the ones related to solo vs open) staying broadly the same. Quite a dumb thing to assume in a beta, but thats why I always said that I assume something will change.

 

[Mobius]

Why should a new player play online?

Give me just ONE good reason.

As i see it, play it solo to you have the best ship in hand filled
with the best weapon. Grab yourself some moonth on the game and
get experience.Then you can go online.


T.K

or you could just join the Dedicated Pve group, you get the online experience without the griefers.

 

[DancesWithHogs]

Sometimes you are both in Open, and it can result in a direct clash. That is fine. Sometimes all the opposing players are in different groups, or solo. Their effects still count, as do yours in their play.

Let's use the current alcohol ban from the Federation as an example. Let's say player group A wants to enforce the ban and group B wants to thwart it. So B drops into Solo, smuggles tons of alcohol all over the place, spikes the Eranin rum sales through the roof. Meanwhile, player group A sits in open play and stops NPC smugglers...

Now the in game story has been dictated by the solo/private players' actions while the open play players have accomplished little to nothing because they couldn't stop the smuggling.

This is an exaggeration to prove a point but 50 pro-Federation players in Open play can have less of an impact on this scenario than 5 solo/private players smuggling booze. Is it fair to dodge gameplay, influence galactic events, and change the course of the story with nothing to directly oppose you?

 

[macdog]

Apologies in advance, I am struggling to follow you thought train here, but will try.

Exactly who is asking why? I know you and a few others are. I see nothing wrong with this intended game design, as well as many many others. I'm not making light of your opinion, but is simply one in very many opinions.

You answered your own question. I am stating an opinion, so are some others (that both agree and disagree with me). I never said or implied it was a majority opinion. Maybe it is, maybe not, I honestly don't know. Not sure what you are asking or calling out here, other than you like things as they are. OK, thats cool, I disagree, I assume that is also cool?

Yes I like this approach. Yes I like all play to be one dangerous place, constantly, I love this play style. Nothing wrong here, "except" it takes away the sucker punch approach. I ends up being PVP'er PVPing other PVP'ers. I see nothing wrong with that in the slightest bit.

If you had quoted my entire line rather than just the first bit it would be clear I said:

So I guess what you are advocating is the PvE with arena PvP style game. Not saying theres anything wrong with that (not my cup of tea, but then FD arent making the game just for me - or you), just calling it what it really is.

So do you have an issue with this not being "my cup of tea"?

I have no misconception here, I know exactly what I want, it is what I want.

Again, not sure what you were replying to here. This was my reply to Jorlin, who I think was implying that people advocating emergent/open gameplay want to kill noobs all day.

Really? I think I can tell what a noob is. Tell me please how you struggle with this fairly broad category. Allow me though to help you here, offer a little direction for you my dear friend. If there not playing in solo play, if there not playing in a beginner group, or a group of like minded players, then there not to be treated like a noob. All play means kill or be killed. See how simple the game design makes this for you, and everyone else.

So you are saying noob is a clear, well defined term that can be applied consistently by all? If so I think you lack some empathy, as in my experience, noob can mean many things to many people. Even degrees of noobiness Here I will try and help you. To some, killing a noob means killing a genuine new starter in a starter ship with next to no credits, etc... To others it means killing someone who is marginally newer to the game or poorer, to others it simply means someone who is not as good at the game.

Does that help?

 

[W0OCQCK]

or you could just join the Dedicated Pve group, you get the online experience without the griefers.

Haaa, see, if you just want to PVE, go here. I did! Mobius thank you for accepting me. I do like to PVP quite a bit, but I love that I can relax in a PVE environment during my down time, among future friends.

 

[Jorlin]

I guess I am using the term arena in a fairly loose way.

The current ability to toggle play mode at will inevitably lead to credit grind in SP and arena style pvp in open. I'm sure we will get outliers that will buck the trend, but if this isn't obvious I'm not sure what more I can say.

This in turn will render some of the "emergent"/"sandbox"/"open" elements rare to non-existent (I said some not all). The obvious one is piracy. If there is no incentive to trade in open, the simple fact is hardly anyone will.

I guess I should point out that in my earlier posts in this thread I wasn't specifically suggesting the only only answer is to do something about the toggle. There could be other incentives to prevent the above, just none are obvious now. Which again takes me back to my early posts where I stated I am assuming something will likely change (who knows what).

So in summary, my comments and observations are based on the mechanics discussed (not just the ones related to solo vs open) staying broadly the same. Quite a dumb thing to assume in a beta, but thats why I always said that I assume something will change.

I'm with you on the part to "toggle at will"
Some timer might be OK by me.
But seperating SP/MP completely is off bounds.

How to manage "private groups"?
A new char for every group you join?

 

[macdog]

or you could just join the Dedicated Pve group, you get the online experience without the griefers.

Not saying there is anything wrong with this, but just would like to point out that you will get an element of the online experience. Sure that will help, but only so much.

Some here who disagree with my preferences even state the fact that lack of "true" online experience is a balance to the ability to switch modes.

for example, if I start from scratch in open. I will cut my teeth in a sidey learning all the nuances of open and my losses will be small. If I start in a private group or solo, the temptation when finally joining open will be to use bigger better ships and the lessons I learn will be costly. Not my argument by the way, but a valid one IMO none the less.

 

[Adept]

Let's use the current alcohol ban from the Federation as an example. Let's say player group A wants to enforce the ban and group B wants to thwart it. So B drops into Solo, smuggles tons of alcohol all over the place, spikes the Eranin rum sales through the roof. Meanwhile, player group A sits in open play and stops NPC smugglers...

Now the in game story has been dictated by the solo/private players' actions while the open play players have accomplished little to nothing because they couldn't stop the smuggling.

This is an exaggeration to prove a point but 50 pro-Federation players in Open play can have less of an impact on this scenario than 5 solo/private players smuggling booze. Is it fair to dodge gameplay, influence galactic events, and change the course of the story with nothing to directly oppose you?

This is simply wrong. Again you discount the NPC ships. Granted, things don't work correctly yet. No NPC ships in the super cruise and such, but eventually they will form the majority of the traffic. Work hard and stop 10 NPC smugglers. A rival player has to smuggle in 10 loads to counter that. You are doing your police work in a combat ship, where as the trader is trying to dodge NPC patrols in a freighter, or using a hybrid ship like the Cobra, and having to do three runs to equal a single type 6 run.

***

The problem just isn't there once the simulation is running properly. Every NPC ship you stop will count, and the oppising player will be working just as hard.

 

[W0OCQCK]

So you are saying noob is a clear, well defined term that can be applied consistently by all?

Yes I am

If so I think you lack some empathy, as in my experience, noob can mean many things to many people. Even degrees of noobiness Here I will try and help you. To some, killing a noob means killing a genuine new starter in a starter ship with next to no credits, etc... To others it means killing someone who is marginally newer to the game or poorer, to others it simply means someone who is not as good at the game.

Well, I just think your doing your best to muddy the water here. I'm not getting drawn into this. I'll resign to let you resolve your own confusions. I offered a perfectly clear example. I understand it doesn't meet your needs. Let's just leave it at that.

Does that help?

Let's just agree to disagree here & move on. I like the game the way it is designed, you don't. fair enough to me.

PS I don't like people that log out to avoid getting killed any more than anyone else.

 

[macdog]

I'm with you on the part to "toggle at will"
Some timer might be OK by me.
But seperating SP/MP completely is off bounds.

Yeah I think there are many options. I was just stating that all the mechanics as they are today will lead to the situations I have already covered in depth. I think its perfectly possible to balance this without even a timer! Let me know if you want me to repost an example of what I think could achieve this.

How to manage "private groups"?
A new char for every group you join?

Good question, and not one I had thought of. Personally, the same char between all private groups is fine IMO but then I would say that as I don't envision playing that mode. My concern has been around non open chars flipping in and out of open.

But seperating SP/MP completely is off bounds.

I think you meant you would not like this. Unless you are David Braben in disguise

any by the way, I dont think i have once said they need to be separated completely, although I would be OK if they did.