Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 11:35:16 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  Gaming  |  Topic: Elite: Dangerous 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 70 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Elite: Dangerous  (Read 662355 times)
Pennilenko
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3472


Reply #420 on: August 06, 2014, 06:16:35 AM

If they bother with trying to make concessions for the wolves I won't ever even bother with online.  I will go from trying to pvp occasionally to forgetting it exists.

"See?  All of you are unique.  And special.  Like fucking snowflakes."  -- Signe
Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11124

a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country


WWW
Reply #421 on: August 06, 2014, 06:28:27 AM

By calling all players interested in open world PvP wolves and/or sheep you are erasing all the players like me. That doesn't offend me, but makes you wrong.

Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15157


Reply #422 on: August 06, 2014, 07:04:27 AM

The official forums are just so much facepalm. It's like those people never read a single interview or watched a single video. They all want some insanely grindtastic piece of shit. Don't they realize that it isn't intending to be some competition open world thing where their personal progress will even matter to other people? It blows my mind how people just gloss over what has been said by the developers in favor of their own personal idea of what it should be.

Ever other thread is pvp interested people whining about trading making too much money and that it should be nerfed when there isn't even a fraction of the combat content in that Frontier said they had plans for. Sometimes I really hate other gamers.

There's a set of gamers who game a lot, usually with a very narrow band of games, who really are like experimental animals who've learned to press several buttons in sequence in order to get a tasty bit of cheese. Having learned it, they want everything in the world to be another buttons-in-sequence treat-dispenser. They don't even know they're lab rats who've been completely conditioned.
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15157


Reply #423 on: August 06, 2014, 07:19:33 AM

On PvP, the immensity and openness of Elite strikes me as one of its defining attributes, one of the things that made it legendary.

So if you think about it against the backdrop of science-fiction stories about equally immense universes, what is it fuels actual conflict in those stories? In a vaguely hard-SF though w/FTL and pew-pew laser ships setting, in theory, ships could just completely bypass each other. Star Trek nonsense aside, you can't blockade a three-dimensional space that's several light years along each axis, not with a trillion ships.  The only reason people every have to crowd into the same volume and potentially pew-pew each other in a setting like that is if there is a destination (planet, space station) that everyone's trying to get to or if there's a valuable, finite resource located at a discrete point in space. Or if they decide they want to fight (which is a bit like real-life military conflicts on a terrestrial surface: at least some of them happen because two militaries decide to meet and fight).

Deciding to meet and fight is easy to model in any game: it's a PvP toggle or arena or what have you. It's the other two that are hard. I do think EVE has at least a design structure that offers some useful lessons in this respect: the problems with EVE are really in the gameplay on one hand and in the culture of the players on the other. If you make the places everyone has to go too full of risk, you have Dread Lord Days all over again, and you're also losing some of the captivating sense of immersive realism. No actual space station/trading fort/outpost etc. would just extend its security five feet beyond its walls and then let everyone get assaulted by pirates, because no one would ever come to the space station. If you have a trading city or outpost, you generally have a security cordon that extends out so far that by the time you're beyond its protection, the number of places you could be is so vast that no bandit can predict reliably where to wait to ambush every caravan or trader. If you make the resources people need too full of risk because they're too scarce and therefore too easy for bandits to just camp on, same thing.

There's a sweet spot where player antagonists add to the feeling of uncertainty in a big universe. If you know on any given voyage or any given adventure that there is a 1:1 probability of being attacked by players, then the game is just "Bully Simulator 3.0" and it doesn't even remotely capture the feeling of what it would be like to be a trader in a vast universe. If you know that there's never any risk at all, I think you're losing a bit of the spice that gaming can offer...
DraconianOne
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2905


Reply #424 on: August 06, 2014, 07:47:54 AM

By calling all players interested in open world PvP wolves and/or sheep you are erasing all the players like me. That doesn't offend me, but makes you wrong.

*cough*

I understand you people don't see the issue, mostly because you don't give one or two fucks about PvP.

Who's this "you people" kemosabe?

 why so serious?

You're right though, I don't see the issue but that's because the people who are vehemently pro PVP and anti-switching haven't offered any good arguments against it. Even you Falc - you say EVE got a lot of things about PvP right but not what. Can you educate the likes of me who only dabbled in EVE a bit several years ago and got bored as to what's missing in Elite? 

(For the record, I will no doubt dabble in Open and I'm not shy about PvP no matter how terrible I am at it but I tend to prefer solo or co-op.)

A point can be MOOT. MUTE is more along the lines of what you should be. - WayAbvPar
Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11124

a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country


WWW
Reply #425 on: August 06, 2014, 08:12:41 AM

What I liked about EVE is that there are/were greater rewards to go mining and hunting into 0.0 zones. Risk vs. reward, as stated so many times. The way it is now in Elite (subject to changes since it's beta, of course) there's not a single reason at the moment to be on the shared-online server, regardless if you prefer PvP or PvE, because it's just too dangerous for everybody and doesn't offer anything else more than the offline one except for unexpected griefing deaths.

Personally, I'd love to have the dilemma about a specific mission or dangerous trade route considering I might be approached by other players because it's a low security system, as opposed to just having to deal with scripted enemies which, after a while, I know exactly how to beat or how to run away from.

And this even more so considering Elite is factionless and has nifty communication tools. Meaning, as DayZ taught us, there's room for more than just "Enemy player ---> kill". There's a lot of stories that can be told by players interacting with each other without artificial limitations on how they are supposed to behave. And while DayZ has NO rules at all, things could be enforced a bit more here through similar means to those used by EVE.

So again, I am not a wolf and I don't particularly love to be griefed, but when it comes to sandboxes and open worlds, I love that the world feels alive and open to lots of unexpected player interactions. That comes with dangers too. But if the system is geared in a way that pushes "legal" players to go play offline, and "chaotic evil" players to stay online, there is no wiggle rooms for those who enjoy a less black-and-white experience. I think they should just find better ways to blend the two gamestyles, WITHOUT taking away the right to just play offline/solo. And to that goal, they could just put some incentives to stay in the online-shared universe. That would be enough for me, even if it ended up not working.

Count Nerfedalot
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1041


Reply #426 on: August 06, 2014, 08:33:27 AM

And I will not pay a dime for yet another game that cripples my opportunities if I refuse to subject myself to the depradations of wolves. I want exactly what Braben seems to be offering. A game where I can play the whole thing in    a pve/coop environment with no chance of getting ganked by somebody who gets a hard-on from the "thrill" of ruining someone else's day. I do NOT bemoan the fact that he may also give those who want unrestricted pvp a place to do that. If he can pull off both in one, more power to him!  But when a pvper whines that it's no fun for them that I can play the whole game, go anywhere, do anything, without ever being subject to their bullying, well, tough shit and good riddance.

Yes, I know I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
DraconianOne
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2905


Reply #427 on: August 06, 2014, 09:52:00 AM

So again, I am not a wolf and I don't particularly love to be griefed, but when it comes to sandboxes and open worlds, I love that the world feels alive and open to lots of unexpected player interactions. That comes with dangers too. But if the system is geared in a way that pushes "legal" players to go play offline, and "chaotic evil" players to stay online, there is no wiggle rooms for those who enjoy a less black-and-white experience. I think they should just find better ways to blend the two gamestyles, WITHOUT taking away the right to just play offline/solo. And to that goal, they could just put some incentives to stay in the online-shared universe. That would be enough for me, even if it ended up not working.

Good reply and I totally understand what you're saying.

I'll be honest though and say I still don't think there's much of an issue though, especially as the devs have already stated two things: 1: they fully support player choice in the game, including psychopathic behaviour. 2: they may provide some incentive to players who stay in Open *all* the time but it's likely to be things like bragging rights like mentions on the newscasts. (Source)  It's a small thing but it doesn't provide any sort of in-game advantage and let's face it, penalizing some players because they prefer a particular style of play (solo, co-op) is hardly fair.  Some people are going to want to play Elite solo - not through fear of being griefed in MP but just because they're single player types who have never played an MMO or TF2 or any MP game.

On the other hand, rather than incentive, I think deterring the hardcore PvPers is also something to consider. I don't mean punishments per se (although it will be interesting to see how the player bounty system pans out) but I mean little things like filling in the empty squares and not showing CMDR before a player name. If all the blobs on your scanner look the same then it just makes it a little harder for those that are out to specifically target players while making life a little more exciting for everybody else. (Okay, you can probably tell that the Viper belonging to **Dum8led0r3** is likely to be a player but you know).  And if the crime and bounty systems do work as advertised and the AI enforcement is up to the job then that'll make a difference - it's just not in game yet.

I don't know. I just feel that it's all a bit of a storm in a tea-cup at the moment based on the fact that stories out of Premium Beta suggested it was a Griefa's Paradise and the fact that half the systems (game systems as well as solar systems!) aren't in place yet.

A point can be MOOT. MUTE is more along the lines of what you should be. - WayAbvPar
WayAbvPar
Moderator
Posts: 19268


Reply #428 on: August 06, 2014, 10:30:09 AM

Doesn't PvE get dull after you learn the basics? I can't play non-PvP games any more. Especially in something like Elite- it is perfect for both styles. I WANT to have that element of danger when I am running a trade mission or whatever. If I know exactly what will happen and how to handle it every time, why would I ever play?

When speaking of the MMOG industry, the glass may be half full, but it's full of urine. HaemishM

Always wear clean underwear because you never know when a Tory Government is going to fuck you.- Ironwood

Libertarians make fun of everyone because they can't see beyond the event horizons of their own assholes Surlyboi
Montague
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1297


Reply #429 on: August 06, 2014, 12:23:28 PM

Doesn't PvE get dull after you learn the basics? I can't play non-PvP games any more. Especially in something like Elite- it is perfect for both styles. I WANT to have that element of danger when I am running a trade mission or whatever. If I know exactly what will happen and how to handle it every time, why would I ever play?

Speaking purely for myself, when I play games like this it isn't so much for the challenge as for the escapism. Being ganked by a circle-strafing, jump-shooting catass shouting "KEKEKEKE NOOOB!!!1" puts a bit of damper on it. Also being married with a 1 year old kind of precludes being able to devote 100% attention to any game. Being able to fight and have a possibility of winning while being yelled at by my wife while holding my daughter is required for me to play at this point. That and fuck other people.  DRILLING AND MANLINESS

When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross - Sinclair Lewis.

I can tell more than 1 fucktard at a time to stfu, have no fears. - WayAbvPar

We all have the God-given right to go to hell our own way.  Don't fuck with God's plan. - MahrinSkel
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #430 on: August 06, 2014, 12:37:14 PM

I've not seen anyone actually trying to make PVP happen in a way that doesn't try to force non-PVPers to be vitims

Forum vocal PVP'ers don't want non-PVP'ers to have the choice. Wolves need sheep.

Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #431 on: August 06, 2014, 01:10:04 PM

It's Elite though.  It demands PvP.  And the original game even had the setup that would make for easy PvP.  Every planet had a danger rating.  You went there, you got challenged by the shit AI.  Just make dangerous Star Systems PvP and give them WORTHWHILE trade routes as well and it would be a heaving hive of consensual fun.

I'm really not seeing the problem conceptually, but hey ho.

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Count Nerfedalot
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1041


Reply #432 on: August 06, 2014, 03:45:16 PM

But that's just Eve then. If you want good stuff you MUST risk PvP.  Not interested. And while the original Elite might have had structures that could easily be adapted to PvP, it obviously didn't DEMAND PvP, being single player and all! There is NOTHING that prevents them from implementing both the danger ratings like original Elite AND the Open/Shared/Solo switch as announced, except epeen wankery that wants to force the PvP on everyone whether they want it or not. I DO NOT WANT PvP.  I DO want access to the whole universe of the game I'm paying for.  I'd be happy enough with it as a single-player game, coop with friends and family makes it doubleplusgood. Having to put up with PvP buggery shits MY whole experience up. How does my enjoying the whole game without that shit up the PvPer's experience? Jealousy because I get to do it without taking the risks he did? QQ

Yes, I know I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #433 on: August 06, 2014, 04:02:04 PM

I did not say that.  Like, any of that.

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11124

a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country


WWW
Reply #434 on: August 06, 2014, 04:17:15 PM

The same way I never said that they should take away the ability for people to go offline and play by themselves.

To me, it made perfect sense that they allowed everyone to play solo if they wanted, or to play grouped with friends in a co-op persistent galaxy if they preferred it this way.

Not reading other people's argumented posts and hatcheting everything down to the easy and ignorant dichotomy of wolves and sheep seems to be in style in this thread.

Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #435 on: August 06, 2014, 04:40:59 PM

I think it's probably mostly out of fear that they're going to listen to the wolf sub-group of dudes over on their forums rather than anything specifically being said here.

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
tmp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4257

POW! Right in the Kisser!


Reply #436 on: August 06, 2014, 05:27:39 PM

The way it is now in Elite (subject to changes since it's beta, of course) there's not a single reason at the moment to be on the shared-online server, regardless if you prefer PvP or PvE, because it's just too dangerous for everybody and doesn't offer anything else more than the offline one except for unexpected griefing deaths.
Doesn't being on the shared-online server offer something which you don't get in the offline one, that being the actual PVP which would supposedly be quite important for these who prefer said PVP?

(that this PVP translates to "unexpected griefing deaths" is pretty much par for the course where PVP is involved)
Count Nerfedalot
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1041


Reply #437 on: August 06, 2014, 06:56:50 PM

Oh come on Ironwood.  You said Elite "demands PvP". I said it doesn't demand it while admitting that it does support it. You're objecting to my pointing out your hyperbole even while conceding the core of your point?

You also said "make dangerous star systems PvP and give them WORTHWHILE trade routes".  And I am saying sure! As long as EQUALLY WORTHWHILE trade routes for the same resources with dangerous NPC opponents are equally available to non-PvPers. Or, in the game they are talking, skip the effort of making dual content and use the same star systems with the same trade routes and let people choose their PvP/PvE preference.  If that is somehow what you meant when you excluded everything but the PvP parts, then you have my sincere apologies and free admittance that I overreacted.  But that is not what you said, and probably not what you meant is it?  If implementing the FULL game with access for PvEers to ALL the toys and the same game experience as the PvPers just without the PvP is really what you meant, then cool, we are in full agreement and none of that stuff about "epeen wankery that wants to force the PvP on everyone" by denying me "access to the whole universe of the game I'm paying for" applies to you, and why the hell didn't you say so?

Because that's really one of my main points. PvPers (Many?, Most? a Few?) just cannot seem to stand the thought of a game where all the good stuff can be gotten equally through both PvP and non PvP play.  Not all, because Falconeer at least partly supports both, although then he gets all squirrely about it when it's revealed that he might have to share the same world with the PvEers.  I do think it is fair to say that in general, PvE folks, when not backed into a zero-sum binary exclusive choice of one or the other are usually enthusiastically in favor of letting the PvPers and PvEers play with the same toys without interfering with each other, but very very rarely if ever do PvPers come out in support of that. If you are the rare exception to that rule, I'll gladly offer an apology and grovel at your figurative feet in pennance for offending you by lumping you in with the rest in exchange for you explicitly saying so, because you certainly haven't that I've seen.


Yes, I know I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #438 on: August 06, 2014, 07:04:57 PM

I think it's probably mostly out of fear that they're going to listen to the wolf sub-group of dudes over on their forums rather than anything specifically being said here.

This. The wankers on the forum screaming that people shouldn't be able to take advantage of the single-player experience to boost themselves without danger is basically wolves screaming foul because the sheep don't want to get picked apart.

Pennilenko
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3472


Reply #439 on: August 06, 2014, 07:07:48 PM

I am not picking on Falc, I get your type of play style and I am not lumping you in with the assholes on the official forums. The way things are right now, I have will have the ability to use my limited playtime to grind up some credits for ships and stuff. With this in mind I plan on having a collection of ships for pvp when I want to go looking for it. These people on the official forums want to take that away. They want fat haulers to pop. They have zero interest in me logging on to have some fun with them in combat ships with equal capabilities. The part that really digs into me about what they want is that they can do the same damn thing as me to pay for their pvp habit. Nothing is stopping them from owning several trading ships all over the galaxy and trading in solo so that they can afford to pvp to their hearts content. The issue at hand is literally that they aren't looking for fair fights.

"See?  All of you are unique.  And special.  Like fucking snowflakes."  -- Signe
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15157


Reply #440 on: August 06, 2014, 07:38:28 PM

I think that's right. The wolves are thinking PvP in terms of "merchants that we can kill who will have to hire other killers to protect them and we know that's not going to happen." Here and elsewhere that's really what they're demanding: slow, vulnerable ships that have to go to extraction or transit points where they can be jumped.

What you really need is for anyone who's not a wolf to have a whole host of defensive and evasive capabilities and for there to be some huge disincentive for multiple wolf ships to work together. It has to be just as risky intrinsically, in design terms, to jump someone as it is to be jumped, no matter what. Every encounter has to be somewhat symmetrical. If you build in, permit or incentivize strong asymmetrical PvP and make it even remotely mandatory, that's the end for a game--nobody but assholes want to play it, and the assholes even don't want to, since what they're aiming for is a game that compels non-assholes to be their victims.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #441 on: August 06, 2014, 08:10:29 PM

The issue at hand is literally that they aren't looking for fair fights.

This is the majority of the problem with VOCAL PVP players on forums. They don't give a shit about fair fights, they want prey. They are annoyed that the prey won't appear because the prey are all out there making "easy" money by trading without the threat that they'll get spaced by some crotch cricket with a joystick. If the traders lack any sort of defensive capabilities that can equal the pirates, they are the very definition of sheep.

The PVPers will have to do the easy money thing to level up to the point where they can wolf it around, and they will anyway because it's the optimal path to success. And PVPers are all about finding the optimal path to success with little to no risk, so that they can then dominate. It's the nature of PVP.

Bear in mind, I say this as someone who LOVES PVP. LOVE IT. When it's fair. Guys bitching that traders can just go offline and not be assaulted while making money are PVPers who want a steady supply of people to dominate. If those traders could fight back, probably at least half of them would bitch and whine that traders weren't easy pickings.

apocrypha
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6711

Planes? Shit, I'm terrified to get in my car now!


Reply #442 on: August 06, 2014, 10:46:03 PM

The issue at hand is literally that they aren't looking for fair fights.

This is the majority of the problem with VOCAL PVP players on forums. They don't give a shit about fair fights, they want prey.

This is exactly it.

The current system means that everyone except the small group of people who want unfair fights with prey that can't escape them are catered to. And I love it. For once these arseholes, who's enjoyment comes solely at the expense of other people's enjoyment, are being ignored and marginalised. If FD make the mistake of listening to them it'll kill the game.

"Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1915.
Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11124

a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country


WWW
Reply #443 on: August 07, 2014, 12:09:49 AM

The way it is now in Elite (subject to changes since it's beta, of course) there's not a single reason at the moment to be on the shared-online server, regardless if you prefer PvP or PvE, because it's just too dangerous for everybody and doesn't offer anything else more than the offline one except for unexpected griefing deaths.
Doesn't being on the shared-online server offer something which you don't get in the offline one, that being the actual PVP which would supposedly be quite important for these who prefer said PVP?

(that this PVP translates to "unexpected griefing deaths" is pretty much par for the course where PVP is involved)

Yes, it should. But what I've been trying to say about the qualities of a factionless open world sandbox is not simply that those who love PvP get to kill each other. Hell, there's arena games for that, where you effectively become a PvPer the moment you log in (World of Tanks, Warthunder, MechWarrior, even DOTA and LoL) so it's a complete waste if an online open world becomes inhabited only by griefers (where the problem is not that they want to kill you, it's that they are shitty people to play with). A healthy open world sandboxy game with PvP is inhabited by all sorts of players, including those you can band with to overcome said griefers. As I explained in another detailed post, they should in my opinion try to blend together both populations, if possible, having systems in place to make things harder for griefers at least in some areas while at the same time interesting and rewarding for non-griefers. Because, as I said in another detailed post, it's not just "shooting ships controlled by players" (wolves) or "being shot at by ships controlled by players" (sheep). To me it is about creating an online universe where there are more degrees of player interaction than just "clean" or "KOS". And yes, even EVE achieved that since it's one of the only MMOs where diplomacy (which is player interaction in its highest form) played a major role. Now, Elite won't can't and shouldn't mimick EVE, but it could look at some of working elements of that 11 years old game and try to refine them. And while I perfectly understand that this is not an easy task, I was worried that they aren't even trying anymore convinced that the offline/online switch is absolutely enough. While that will certainly allow players who hate the human element of (deadly) surprise to get their game going offline without any hassle, I wonder if that won't simply leave the online world in the hands of griefers while -in my opinion- they could have tried more things in order to invite (not force) and retain different kind of players in the shared galaxy. Hell, considering how big it will be, they will have enough problems not to make it look empty anyway. Wouldn't it be in the interest of everybody to try and have people inhabit the shared galaxy?

While it's great that they are giving every player the tools to pick their style and flavour (offline, co-op, open), I have a feeling that every player that chooses to pack his/her stuff and bring it offline marks a little miss for the game which claims to be an MMO. So, without taking those tools away, I think they should put more energy in trying to make sure that as many people as possible will want to play in the open online universe. And I think they could achieve that by guaranteeing PvErs a certain degree of security as long as they keep away from low security areas. That would not make those areas inaccessible to PvEers, it would just make them potentially dangerous. It could be worth to try and visit them from time to time, it could be not, but at least everyone would be playing in the same server and more people would meet and make the galaxy feel alive, and more players wth different play styles would be around creating the potential for lots of unique events especially in a game with voice comms.

With all that said, it's beta and so many systems and mechanics are missing. So yes, there's a chance I am creating a fuss over nothing. I just got weirded out by recent discovery that people can just switch off and go into solo-mode (yes, at first it felt like cheating, but now I am getting over it), which is not a problem to me because I'd have lost sheep to kill, it is a problem because I'd have lost people who make my Multiplayer Online game actually Massive. That's why I keep saying that there's more than wolves and sheep. Apparently, reading this thread both me and Haemish are exactly that kind of player in between. And yet he keeps screaming against wolves. While the griefers are vocal, there's a lot of PvP players trying to say the stuff I am trying to say too, except they get jumped and accused of being "wolves" as soon as they mention the word PvP. Griefers are vocal, but non-griefers tend to be hyper-defensive even on message boards, which hurt all sorts of discussions.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 12:15:14 AM by Falconeer »

Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #444 on: August 07, 2014, 02:09:42 AM

Oh come on Ironwood.  You said Elite "demands PvP". I said it doesn't demand it while admitting that it does support it. You're objecting to my pointing out your hyperbole even while conceding the core of your point?

You also said "make dangerous star systems PvP and give them WORTHWHILE trade routes".  And I am saying sure! As long as EQUALLY WORTHWHILE trade routes for the same resources with dangerous NPC opponents are equally available to non-PvPers. Or, in the game they are talking, skip the effort of making dual content and use the same star systems with the same trade routes and let people choose their PvP/PvE preference.  If that is somehow what you meant when you excluded everything but the PvP parts, then you have my sincere apologies and free admittance that I overreacted.  But that is not what you said, and probably not what you meant is it?  If implementing the FULL game with access for PvEers to ALL the toys and the same game experience as the PvPers just without the PvP is really what you meant, then cool, we are in full agreement and none of that stuff about "epeen wankery that wants to force the PvP on everyone" by denying me "access to the whole universe of the game I'm paying for" applies to you, and why the hell didn't you say so?

Because that's really one of my main points. PvPers (Many?, Most? a Few?) just cannot seem to stand the thought of a game where all the good stuff can be gotten equally through both PvP and non PvP play.  Not all, because Falconeer at least partly supports both, although then he gets all squirrely about it when it's revealed that he might have to share the same world with the PvEers.  I do think it is fair to say that in general, PvE folks, when not backed into a zero-sum binary exclusive choice of one or the other are usually enthusiastically in favor of letting the PvPers and PvEers play with the same toys without interfering with each other, but very very rarely if ever do PvPers come out in support of that. If you are the rare exception to that rule, I'll gladly offer an apology and grovel at your figurative feet in pennance for offending you by lumping you in with the rest in exchange for you explicitly saying so, because you certainly haven't that I've seen.



Thank you for proving that you were fighting the strawmen in your head.  It was interesting to hear the thought process.

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15157


Reply #445 on: August 07, 2014, 04:36:11 AM

Falc, I just think it's because most of us have played MMOs and other multiplayer games for decades and we know that the ardent defenders of PvP tend to be what we're calling wolves here, and I think folks have accurately characterized wolves as people who mostly want a design that creates opportunities for asymmetrical combat--a chance to surprise & ambush unprepared players who have little to no chance to succeed in fighting back. Generally what that means is a design that has two pathways for optimization, that rewards min-maxing, so that a player who is doing PvE content has put all their resources into that style of play and a "wolf" on the other hand is optimize to kill other players.

We know that this is not just how we think, but what tends to happen when developers try to please or appease this faction of players. They put in a toggle or a location where PvP can happen. No one goes there but the PvPers. The PvPers complain that it's a ghetto, so the developers try to do something to incentivize being in the PvP location or flipping the toggle. The more powerful the incentive is in relation to PvE playstyle, the more the PvE players resent it: all the developer has done is force players to be targets for the amusement of other players.

To make it fun in a seamless open world, I think you have to do something in design terms that makes it essentially costless to have powerful defensive and evasive systems. E.g., if you make strong defensive and evasive systems available only to someone who is min-maxing in that direction (at the cost of something else that PvE players need or want), nobody will invest in that direction and so everyone will be exposed to a PvP maximizer. Or in general you need to try to get rid of designs that reward specialization and maximization so that no one is a "sheep" and no one is a "wolf". But if you do that, you make all ships the same essentially and all players the same, and that's boring too. But in any event, a developer who wants open world PvP to provide a bit of "spice", a bit of uncertainty, but not to be the dominant point of gameplay, has got to think very, very carefully about it. Most of the common design architectures that make it possible end up making it an unpleasant experience for many players.
Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #446 on: August 07, 2014, 05:38:06 AM


We know that this is not just how we think, but what tends to happen when developers try to please or appease this faction of players. They put in a toggle or a location where PvP can happen. No one goes there but the PvPers. The PvPers complain that it's a ghetto, so the developers try to do something to incentivize being in the PvP location or flipping the toggle. The more powerful the incentive is in relation to PvE playstyle, the more the PvE players resent it: all the developer has done is force players to be targets for the amusement of other players.


I was with you all the way up to the second bit;  in this case, you're not really complaining about PvP, you're complaining about Bad Developers. 

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11124

a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country


WWW
Reply #447 on: August 07, 2014, 05:54:26 AM

I wonder though: how many games can you think of over the past 15 years where the developers listened to wolves and made a normally functional MMORPG into a butchery where sheep-players get slayed over and over until they stop playing?

Honestly, I understand why people hate that kind of gameplay, but I think it doesn't really exist anymore and it's more just a straw argument and a bad memory resulting from some old Corp Por trauma from who knows what kind of old game where they happened to roll on a PvP server, and it stuck with them forever as if the industry had been producing open world full loot permadeath wolf paradise PvP games for the past decade.

Dammit, as someone who loves open world PvP, what I know is that I've been missing that scary experience since pre-Trammel Ultima Online and that was 1998. Since then, every single game has been NOT LISTENING to the loud vocal PvP mass and has been instead listening to the less vocal but more remunerative PvE population. Understandable, I get it.

But still, for all I can remember, all the wolves vs sheep things so many people complain about haven't happened at all for a LONG time, and games that had similar mechanics have been slowly changed to support and assist the non-griefers more than the griefers.

So, what exactly is anyone so scared about? Has the loud vocal wolf PvP community ever changed any Dev decision in their favour since.. ever? Haven't every game since Ultima Online (included) tried to tone down the unfair PvP mechanics to make things less mean and retain all sorts of players?

I feel that -to use an easily recognizable term- the sheep have won their battle a long long time ago and pretty much all MMOs outside of South Korea have been written for them, not the wolves. Even the epitome of evil, EVE has systems in place to ensure that the sheep can go around safely. And the same is going to be for Elite Dangerous, that's for sure.

So, why all this fear for asimmetrical, unfair PvP that kind of never happens in any game since the end of previous century?

Honestly, you know what I really call unfair asimetrical PvP bullshit that I'll never understand and accept? Stealth mechanics, backstabbing rogue bullshit. Stunlock, crowd control, and everything that allows someone to one-shot you from nowhere unless you happened to choose the right combination of class and items many weeks prior. That's crap, and that is omnipresent, you can find something like it in every MMORPG since ever. But games where you can gank everything in sight without fear of repercussions? Or games that had a solid PvE experience but then the Devs listened to the wolves and changed them into carebear meatgrinders? I can't think of a single one. Can you?



Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #448 on: August 07, 2014, 07:03:39 AM

The problem isn't that the die-hard PvPers exist, it's that they exist out of proportion to the population because they'll flock to a game that is both good and allows for easy pickings.  It rapidly becomes lopsided as more and more people who don't want to be bothered go elsewhere.

You're already seeing it in action with the single-player switch.

I'm not sure it's possible to prevent it without some strong measures to make the number of conflict incidents either low or not very punishing to the PvE-oriented victims.

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
DraconianOne
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2905


Reply #449 on: August 07, 2014, 07:08:35 AM

If FDEV have their way and implement all they say they're going to, then Elite could be an interesting open world experience. Listening to the Twitch stream they did last night, they talked about the fact that at the moment there aren't really many consequences for player behaviour - more than in PB but still not much.  They used, as an example, reputation - that if you habitually pirate in Federation space then your rep will drop so low that you'll be denied docking in Federation space.  It doesn't matter to them whether you're pirating players in Open or NPCs in Solo, the consequences will be the same. If that means that players wanted by the Federation are also hounded by NPC (and player) bounty hunters or have more Police hassling them then that'll make their life more difficult in those systems and, consequently, safer for more legit players (as in traders, explorers etc).

It doesn't stop pirate players from attempting to pirate in safe Democratic systems (was that what they were called in Elite) but it should be trickier for them to do so.  Conversely, they're likely to have free reign in Anarchy systems and can be the hunter rather than the hunted.  However, it is likely that players focused on trading and who don't do combat so much will avoid those areas - and may well do so even in the Solo mode despite no risk of PvP.

So essentially...

It's Elite though.  It demands PvP.  And the original game even had the setup that would make for easy PvP.  Every planet had a danger rating.  You went there, you got challenged by the shit AI.  Just make dangerous Star Systems PvP and give them WORTHWHILE trade routes as well and it would be a heaving hive of consensual fun.

I'm really not seeing the problem conceptually, but hey ho.

Ironwood's right - except I don't think there's any need to make dangerous star systems PvP or make specific non PvP areas. Keep it all open. And I think the worthwhile trade routes will also exist because the concept of lucrative contraband and smuggling is also well established in the Elite universe with Narcotics, Slaves, Firearms and so on.  Iirc correctly they were always more available in Anarchy systems than elsewhere - anywhere the pirates are and the lawgivers aren't, whether they're NPC or players.  Also (and again it's been a while so I might be wrong) I'm sure the regions in Frontier between Federation and Imperial Space were definitely a bit dicey but if you wanted to trade up to an Imperial Courier, only available in Imperial Space, then you had to pass through those areas and accept the risks of doing so. Or take the long route around which would take longer and cost you more in fuel. It's likely to be similar again from noticing that Fed and Imp space are nowhere near each other.

The problem at the moment is the game is still in Beta and the reputation system and bounty system aren't yet in place. The policing system is bare bones at the moment and I think it may be a little bugged (I need to check again - the other night I tried shooting up a Viper patrolling outside Azeban and it didn't even turn hostile to me) but if the devs implement what they say they will then the any player in the game is welcome to sit outside a station shooting at people but in a "safe" system, I would expect it to be a challenge for them and not for them to be able to do it with impunity like they could in PBeta. 

I get Falc's concerns too - that the Open mode will seem a little empty. Only time will tell on this but I suspect that there will be enough players to make it worthwhile given the popularity of both EVE and DayZ etc. Personally I don't mind the fact that it all seems empty at the moment - I spent several hours pissing around in Open last night and saw 2, maybe 3 players? Suits me fine - gives me the feeling that space is big and vast and we're alone in it.

Quote from: Douglas Adams
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.


A point can be MOOT. MUTE is more along the lines of what you should be. - WayAbvPar
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6921

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #450 on: August 07, 2014, 08:32:58 AM

I'm late to the PvP discussion but I find it pretty great that I can decide if I want to engage in online mode or not. If it was PvP and online only I probably wouldn't have bothered to buy it. That's because PvP in my opinion is a nifty concept in theory but almost never works out in actual games and it's great that I can opt out in ED.

The problem with PvP in games is that the risk lies solely with the gamers that don't constantly engage in PvP and don't want to live the ganker lifestyle and the social structures that those games evolve reflect that fact. To put it another way, players that aren't gankers have to constantly worry about gankers while the opposite isn't necessarily true. Gankers don't need to worry about the normal players. So you either get games where the player base evolves into pseudo-nations that invest in actual infrastructure and services to protect 'borders' and 'citizens', like in eve or you get games where all 'normal' players have been driven away over time and all that is left is gankers killing each other with the game devolving into some sort of proto-anarchy. This also leads to players who don't want to constantly worry about getting killed getting relegated to only play inside 'safe zone' ghettos.

In real life an outlaw who gets caught or a gang that finally faces the angry mob brandishing torches and pitchforks will get killed or at least end up in prison -that's actual risk vs. reward. In PvP games those people just have to wait for respawn and can go on to harass the next guy. So if you play as an explorer or a trader or any role that doesn't focus primarily on PvP you might just have lost weeks or months of progress and you also have to structure your entire gaming existence around protection against and avoidance of PvPers. For the PvPer himself it's usually just a minor inconvenience to wait for the respawn and get going again.

How often have you experienced the determined PvPer who - even when he gets killed - just comes around a few minutes later to harass you again until you finally cave and log out for the night? That's basically a staple of every MMO that has PvP. Eve evolved into a game where people formed what are essentially nations to protect each other against those kind of player. Even so you are still going to have a pretty miserable time when you are not part of a corporation.

For the 'if you venture out into the unknown there will be a risk but you might reap rewards' argument to actually work there needs to be a way that living the pirate lifestyle also involves an actual risk to lose what can be weeks or months of progression at least. Otherwise it will always be faster and easier to just gank players and you'll drive away the people that don't find that attractive
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15157


Reply #451 on: August 07, 2014, 08:43:16 AM

The reason people who've gamed a long time get nervous is that they know in a multiplayer game with persistent servers and a live management team, the relationship between Bad Developers and Jackhole Players is a dynamic one. Developers who start as Good Developers sometimes flip towards Badness because they listen to Jackholes lobbying them incessantly. Or they underhit their targets for box sales or subs and so they start to panic a bit and grab at whatever ideas they're hearing. Or devs who understand a game when they're testing it with a small number of really intense players don't understand why features and mechanics worked well then and don't work well when a bunch of casual players show up, or when a big group of Goons come in determined to subvert the design, etc.

I agree that in many ways none of us have seen anything but the standard PvP toggle/special PvP arena approaches for a very long time, which is why we're both interested and worried when we think that something other than that awkward and unsatisfying approach might be in the wind.

One other model besides EVE that seems a bit apropros is Dark Souls 2. It lacks that sense of persistent presence of hundreds of other players directly in your world, but I've never found being invaded to be deeply bothersome, for all sorts of reasons. First, because I usually stand a chance against the invader; second, because you don't usually get invaded again and again and again by the same guy; because there are ways to prevent invasions; because there's lots of coop play and lots of ways to opt in or opt out of various kinds of PvP.  It doesn't work as a model for Elite directly, but there are some lessons to be learned.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #452 on: August 07, 2014, 08:59:31 AM

Apparently, reading this thread both me and Haemish are exactly that kind of player in between. And yet he keeps screaming against wolves.

Would it help if I just called them a slavering mongoloid horde of sociopathic crotch crickets nibbling at the delicate nether regions of online communities?

EDIT:
I wonder though: how many games can you think of over the past 15 years where the developers listened to wolves and made a normally functional MMORPG into a butchery where sheep-players get slayed over and over until they stop playing?

Shadowbane. That place wasn't just ruined by SB.exe and various bugs, it also catered to the shittiest, most sociopathic cunts and as a result, only cunts played it for very long. And it wasn't sheep players, it was entire guilds that stopped playing because they got tired of having their tree burned to the ground at the time when they were least able to defend it.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 09:02:54 AM by HaemishM »

Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11124

a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country


WWW
Reply #453 on: August 07, 2014, 09:49:09 AM

Isn't that the other way around Haem? Shadowbane started like that, and despite what the wolves wanted, they introduced scheduled sieges after a while. That's my point: Devs never listen to wolves, they always (and rightfully) always change their games to try and retain the non-griefers. It's never the other way around. Worrying about anarchic gameplay that kils your enjoyement is so XX century. Since the invention of "ruleset servers" I really don't understand what's the big fear about wolves anymore.

Honestly, I was expecting someone to come up with the only game that hasn't budged one bit to non-griefers yet, which is DayZ. And yet, with all its brutal senseless violence, that game has produced some of the most interesting and original player interactions since the invention of online worlds. Granted, it's not an MMO, so we should leave it out of this conversation, but that's the only product I can think of that hasn't moved one bit away (yet) from its ruthless origin despite the constant requests for PvE only servers, safehouses and all that kind of stuff.

apocrypha
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6711

Planes? Shit, I'm terrified to get in my car now!


Reply #454 on: August 07, 2014, 09:51:12 AM

This is a great discussion, several orders of magnitude more interesting & useful & articulate than anything on the E:D forums. It's a crying shame that official forums for any game get reduced to festering cesspits of gibbering idiots calling each other names.

I do think that most people are somewhere in-between the two caricatures of wolf & sheep. I'm far happier avoiding PVP most of the time but occasionally I'm happy to have a go and I recognise the value it has in creating tension & atmosphere. What I'm not prepared to put up with is the risk of being ganked at any time. EVE (keep coming back to this example, I know) had safe areas, sure, and character security ratings, but that didn't stop suicide gankers and alt-recycling. The determined griefers will always find a way to game the system.

Wherever you were in EVE you could not relax - it was always necessary to maintain a high state of alert to prevent being caught out by scams, tricks, mistakes, etc. That's great when you're in the mood for that, but these days, in my late 40s, I'm rarely in that mood and just want to play a game and have a laugh and enjoy myself with friends.

I do have high hopes for all of the crime & punishment systems that FD have talked about and I think that the majority of the discussion here is kind of moot until we see how it develops out of beta. However, on the official forums at the moment the battle that's being waged is over unfettered transfer between the solo/group/open options. The determined PVPers are focussing on that and my fear is that FD will slip up and cede that, separating the playstyles somehow.

I also think that the spectre of PVP griefing that most people fear would become far less scary if there were ways to reduce the risk of the loss of, for instance, a fully-loaded cargo vessel being as catastrophic as it currently can be. Again, time will tell.

"Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1915.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 70 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  Gaming  |  Topic: Elite: Dangerous  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC