Eh, what? There's a ton of griefing in multiplayer sandbox games on open servers (not seldom aided by hacks and exploits). Minecraft, 7 Days to Die and Space Engineers are just a few games where I've seen some pretty nasty griefing (which is also why I nowadays exclusively play those games on private, password-protected servers). Hell, I've been griefed in Elite: Dangerous as well, having my unarmed Hauler getting blown to bits right outside the Aulin station without any warning whatsoever.
Why play online?
- Thread starter tomkrist
- Start date
Define griefing and prove how it applies to your above example.
Try doing this without calling me a griefer btw.
I have been following this thread for a while and thought it would be a good a place as any for my first post.
I must admit when I first read that you can switch between open and solo at the press of a button I was very much surprised.
I am sure their will be many people who will only play in online open but I am equally sure their will also be many who will build up in solo mode only and then look for pvp in open mode, that's not to say it is a bad thing to do, but its not something that sits right with me.
I was a alpha+beta tester for Eve online and played that game for many years so I have seen what lengths people can and will go to to get an advantage in a game.
As I said, I was very surprised to find that you can switch so easily but after thinking about it for a few days I do not think it will 'Break' the game but will more likely break the spirit of it, but then again morals are hard to find in real life nowadays let alone a game.
I must admit when I first read that you can switch between open and solo at the press of a button I was very much surprised.
I am sure their will be many people who will only play in online open but I am equally sure their will also be many who will build up in solo mode only and then look for pvp in open mode, that's not to say it is a bad thing to do, but its not something that sits right with me.
I was a alpha+beta tester for Eve online and played that game for many years so I have seen what lengths people can and will go to to get an advantage in a game.
As I said, I was very surprised to find that you can switch so easily but after thinking about it for a few days I do not think it will 'Break' the game but will more likely break the spirit of it, but then again morals are hard to find in real life nowadays let alone a game.
That whole premise is derived from the assumption that Solo is easier than All which currently is pure conjecture. It also ignores that All with friends has the potential to far easier than Solo.
Nemesis-T-Warlock
Banned
Since the two modes are exactly the same except for the presence of other players, what would you suggest counters the argument that Solo is easier than Open?
I just spent this evening in the federation distress signal. Not once did I lose an outer ring of my shield to a NPC but had extended dogfights including hull damage with PC.
PvP is not the only aspect of the game, but it is the one that marks the difference between Solo and Open since that can be the only thing that affects the progress of other players. If FD strengthen the skills and the danger of the NPC then that will happen in both playing modes.
So please provide anything that can possibly say that a playing space without other human players is harder than one containing them. In order to do that you would have to class humans as providing less danger/risk than NPC.
Don't try to say they will be the same. There is no 'exactly equal' so lets see the case.
Whilst that's been the thrust of my comments, there have been other negatives of this model raised. Mainly by Hogs I believe.
Any discussion at this point will be conjecture for the simple fact that the game is in beta. I don't think that's disputed. Most likely a lot of the discussion therefore is based on:
1. The mechanics as they are today
2. Communication around possible or likely changes from FD
3. How other games work
That doesn't mean to say taking all this into account means any of us will hit even near the target in predicting what might or might not happen. To give specifics on the 3 areas from my perspective:
1. From what I gather today, solo is 100% the same as open except without human player grouping.
2.
a)FD have stated they won't make the AI as good as a human player. Someone else linked to DB saying this in a video and also I have seen it in a DDA thread by a FD designer.
b)Many intrepret the all open vision as described by FD as not a pvp arena style experience.
3. I'm sure there is one, but I personally don't know of a game out there where the PVE/NPC aspects are harder than the PVP aspects. If this isn't true in 100% of cases I would suggest it is in the majority.
The main point of this post is to explain why some of us are discussing this. Of course the whole discussion is invalid to a degree due to my first point re: beta, etc... No-one is forced to take part in this discussion, but unless a moderator says otherwise (and locks the thread) everyone is welcome to.
Also, I feel any discussion on "griefing" is even more fruitless. For some, "griefing" encapsulates pretty much any form of PVP, for others, the definition is much narrower and restricted to stalking a specific player for days on end for example (and most of the playerbase fall somewhere inbetween but not at the same point). This is why I always put the term in "quotes", although I should probably avoid using it at all.
The only way to ever address this is for FD to publish their definition and dem be the rules for ED.
EDIT: sorry Seonid, I missed your last point. Indeed, All with friends (based on how other games work), does have a decent chance of being easier than solo.
Last edited:
One reason for this assumption is that in solo that can happen, and also in open.
But in open you can also get jumped by players too. The expectation of many, to some degree set by FD and another from general gaming experience, is that the humans that jump you will be a bigger threat than the NPCs.
Seonid, in response to the edit in my last point where I acknowledge the chance that "open with friends" may be easier than solo. I forgot all about "private group of friends" which negates any of the balancing hostile players in the open group provide.
Unless that Private group is specifically made up of players that want that potentially hostile environment. The key here is "choice". There is no "right" or "wrong" way to play the game and terms such as "easy" and "hard" are absolutely subjective but often used to try and add legitimate weight to a point of view. The Groups sub-forum already shows the range of things people are after and many are looking for like-minded players which I think is a great thing. As I have said before, I don't care how other people play the game but I do very much care that they have a choice.
I pretty much agree with most (if not all) of this. I think some people assume because I like x, then I must believe a whole bunch of other stuff, or in some cases even suggest I like "griefing" people in-game!
However in itself it isn't at odds with what I have been saying re: the current mechanics re: switching modes with an apparent lack of balancing (which I am sure will come in some form).
You may not have meant it this way, but you appear to suggest that you favour choice, and I don't, or worse want to impost a single mode/style of play. That simply isn't true.
There can't be infinite choices of course so we have to discuss in the context of the limited set available. And I don't think there is anything wrong discussing some of the specific aspects of said choices.
Many have talked about gameplay differences in PVP. I talk about the worst.
PVP can be frustrating. Per human nature we tend to hang out with groups of people we like. When a group changes and people are involved that we don't like then we either go on the offense or leave the group.
I've had bad eggs in Freelancer online where they just love taking out anyone they could find. OK this is part of the game. But I knew that game so when I came back and took them out I got real time death threats. I think of it similar to Road Rage but if more then I am armed.
Take Ham radio for example. One can make worldwide friends and locally talk on specific repeaters where all your friends are there. Then comes in the jerks, drunks, or crazies who disrupt this environment. Given time they often win as we have more things to do in life than deal with people who block transmissions on the repeaters.
This was not always the case. In the CB radio days we had direction finders and could find the bad guys. I won't comment on what we did when we found them. But it didn't work as in Los Angeles there were stalkers listening in and bad things happened. The lesson is that you cannot fix human nature. The bad guys will always be there.
What does work is when an ice storm hits and power is lost for a week have a community of Ham radio operators with emergency resources who can help those who need help such as the elderly without heat in their homes. So we put up with those who disrupt.
It is all human nature. However it is 2014 technology and Frontier could nail the IP address of a bad guy if ever needed. They even have the report a player option with the login. PVP is the same as the great experiences, increases abilities in the game and friendships you will make world wide offsets the negatives. Just keep your powder dry.
PVP can be frustrating. Per human nature we tend to hang out with groups of people we like. When a group changes and people are involved that we don't like then we either go on the offense or leave the group.
I've had bad eggs in Freelancer online where they just love taking out anyone they could find. OK this is part of the game. But I knew that game so when I came back and took them out I got real time death threats. I think of it similar to Road Rage but if more then I am armed.
Take Ham radio for example. One can make worldwide friends and locally talk on specific repeaters where all your friends are there. Then comes in the jerks, drunks, or crazies who disrupt this environment. Given time they often win as we have more things to do in life than deal with people who block transmissions on the repeaters.
This was not always the case. In the CB radio days we had direction finders and could find the bad guys. I won't comment on what we did when we found them. But it didn't work as in Los Angeles there were stalkers listening in and bad things happened. The lesson is that you cannot fix human nature. The bad guys will always be there.
What does work is when an ice storm hits and power is lost for a week have a community of Ham radio operators with emergency resources who can help those who need help such as the elderly without heat in their homes. So we put up with those who disrupt.
It is all human nature. However it is 2014 technology and Frontier could nail the IP address of a bad guy if ever needed. They even have the report a player option with the login. PVP is the same as the great experiences, increases abilities in the game and friendships you will make world wide offsets the negatives. Just keep your powder dry.
Last edited:
I don't think you can "not care" about having NPCs from all factions shoot you on sight, having huge fines to pay, being refused services from stations, having such terrible standings that you can't access faction ships and equipment... it's like you can make a ton of money, but eventually have nothing to spend it on.
Like so many others, you seem to be seriously underestimating all that stuff. Keeping up with the criminal lifestyle is going to a huge challenge, possibly more than any other profession in this game judging by the design alone.
Regardless, the goal is to regulate such behavior, so if it proves to be not enough, they will tweak it until it works.
I did not mean it that way, it was not directed at you (my apologies if you thought that was the case) but at the dozens of threads created on the subject, on a weekly basis, for a very long time. Currently, the game permits free movement within all on-line game modes and that has always been presented as a core decision by FD. Discussion is fine, but stating that a legitimate game mode is "easy" or "an exploit" as others have done is not a discussion.
That doesn't work, least of all when dealing with ISPs that use short-term DHCP or Carrier-grade NAT.
Last edited:
Obviously I am not certain,nobody outside the development team can be truly certain.But,as a betting man I would imagine I would need to put an enormous amount of huckleberry hounds to get even a pittance in return on my guess that this will change.
These are intelligent men and women developing this future game,and I would have thought that they would want it to appeal in every possible way to as many people they can make it appeal to.
Still,it's all speculation until the game is released,but we will see.
Personally,I hope it becomes more popular than EVE,Star Citizen combined.
If there are more white hats than black hats, then you're more likely to get assistance against pirates and assassins in open than be attacked by them.
If the incentives for cooperation and vigilantism are in place properly, then players will cooperate against black hats (both AI and player). As a result, playing in Open can end up being more safe and productive on the average than solo. Sounds like what you want to see, doesn't it. The best hope for that is that Frontier implement serious punishments for attacking other Pilot's Federation members (already planned) and good incentives for coming to the aid of players who are being attacked, and claiming the bounties of those attackers.
The hope for Open is that co-operation is king, and the in-world incentives make random attacks rare.
per-account timeouts, and eventual hellbanning will do wonders though. A persistent problem case will have to keep buying more accounts, and starting from scratch.
This is a joke isnt it?
For me it is elite, multiplayer or not, like it or not, with others present or not...
But, as you are the smart here, I must accept that you are right... all the people that played it in 198x´s and 199x´s were absolutely nuts, because those were games ahead of their time, that were ment to be played in multiplayer, in the far future (that would be today).
But, again, you are right. If people like to play solo, they must be a bunch of idiots, how coulod they enjoy that?!
BTW, if I get to find Space Invaders multiplayer, would you please play it with me?
Again, I would suggest that comparisons of combat difficulty should be made with other air combat games supporting multiplayer, instead of more generic MMO's.
It doesn't matter if the enemy AI is "easier than a human pilot" when a bunch of them are ganged up on a solo pilot. That's why back in the early part of the 20th Century it was recognized that "every man for himself" always lost to an organized wing of enemy pilots. Or in the case of Solo Online mode, a solitary human player vs. more than one NPC.
This game isn't very balanced against 1 vs. many in combat... you must have noticed this, yes?
For example, if you can successfully scoop gold at one of the Anarchy USS's in a Cobra and stick around to defeat the three NPC Cobras armed to the teeth who often show up, then you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. I'm sure players can do this (I'm no ace, yet). But all FD has to do, is add one or two more NPC Cobras, for that scenario vs. a single player to be un-winnable. In Open Online, you just bring a friend or two, take out the Cobras and split the gold.
Online All: Always fly with your mate on your wing, and you'll always be "Two against..." every single threat.
Solo Online: You'll always be "One against..." every single threat.
Last edited: