Marvin wrote:Diana had this idea that maybe we could snag a contract while Ghost was re-spawning. Timing being the key, she tried to get it to work more than once. Sorry 'bout that but we did try to explain (you can ask Starbuck for the Chat log.
I spent 20 minutes trying to locate another player in a sector with me a few days ago before giving up on the session.
It sounds like you nerfed the sector functionality for opposing groups due to high numbers of players interacting.
Large group doing their thing gets irritated when single pilot's presence locks their contract system up. You have to see the nonsense in that...
And the contract algorithm decreases the chances of non-aligned groups interacting with each other as well.
It seems the contract exclusivity as well as the human player identification concepts in this game chop the multiplayer dynamic at the knees for the action-oriented players who would rather drink paint than spend time building and doing contracts when there are seven other people in the server to interact with.
I've been in love with this game since day 1, largely due to the possibilities inherent in the multiplayer system, but the discovery of these little restrictions has me contemplating selling my copy.
Marvin wrote: currently, there is no [PIR]ate tag ... which, if it did exist, would excuse unprovoked attacks against another player. Naturally, anyone flying either a FDN or ALC tag should always expect an attack by the other faction. FDN and ALC are, according to Dave's compendium, hostile to one another. But, since we only have Indy, should (and this has been discussed previously) someone flying the IND tag have the option of initiating an unprovoked attack? And, if he does, is he then fair game for repeated attacks by other players?
Marvin wrote:is he then fair game for repeated attacks by other players?
Vice wrote:they wanted to be able to stop PvE actions and this was one way to facilitate that in a limited scope (required sector alignment out of many thousands and only stopping non-active PvE contracts). It also meant that they were encouraged to interact with each other rather than just the PvE environment.
Vice wrote:To stop PvE contracts means they are nearly forced to engage/interact with each other because other non player-vs-player activities are literally disabled. This was/is one of the goals of the system as requested and designed since it directs players to interact with each other rather than not.
Vice wrote: So far, what you claim seems to be the opposite of what others have asked for and what the actual output result would be and has been.
Vice wrote:Certainly up to you. Unfortunately for the issue at hand, such actions would likely further bolster the system not changing if those who would prefer something different just bail.
Vice wrote: Lastly, just to be clear, you would like me to remove the restriction on PvE contracts ... opposing players will also then be allowed to directly interfere with the PvE objectives and the 'encouragement' to interact with each other beyond that will no longer exist.
Vice wrote:Points well taken, particularly the last one in your last paragraph. Although public online servers have rarely been packed in my games, even during some kind of 'glory days' Conditions like this really were in response to requests from players, most of whom when they play in online public multiplayer, contend with very lean numbers. I'm certainly open to making such a significant change though anyway and if little/no other feedback comes in about it, I'll likely begin the process of doing so.
One potential side effect of making this change that is important to be aware of is that players outside of the faction group will not be included in the contract link. This can have some odd potential side effects, such as not being part of the entity components, waypoint state, or environmental conditions of a contract being established. So they won't see certain things that the other linked in players will see being outside of the contract link (only if they are in the same waypoint location though, which generally/probably won't be too common). It would likely be a challenge for different faction players to join in at a common waypoint anyway since there isn't a contract link under such conditions, but it is still something I'd want you to be aware of. If you and others are willing to accept that kind of requirement, then it will be feasible for me to look into removing the PvE contract restriction for opposing players.
Perhaps one other possibility would be to allow PvE contracts to be accepted when opposing players are in the same sector, but protect the contract zone from interference by them. A kind of restricted zone could be established that is visually boxed off if an opposing player got too close. That would essentially provide the same protection against unlinked players and resulting differing gamestate, but still allow them to be in the sector.
Marvin wrote:Just one point on a tactical note. If you plan to initiate an attack, first save at a spawn point which is outside your chosen combat area. Otherwise ...
Matchbox2022 wrote:... if you want people wanting a different experience and playing the multiplayer, you have to let interaction happen, even if it's interference. That's the point of being able to be singleplayer.
I really think that being able to accept a contract while another opposing faction human is around is a great idea, but instead of boxing it off, they should be included in the contract.
Why? Most notably...so they can deal with another human, fight them, get them to leave, chat etc.
It breeds MORE interference, but if you can do a contract with an enemy around then all the power to you. It should be that way.
Vice wrote: So a new range check will be put into place that will cause a contract to fail if an 'unauthorized' opposing faction ship arrives near the contract zone, but only within very limited conditions.
How is this any different from restricting contracts at the docks?
Let people do what they will and deal with their own game states. I agree. let's not give opposing factions waypoint information to active contracts, but don't punish the contractee because an opposing faction "flew too close." So another ship messed with your meteor intercept or your solar array. Back to the "we're all adults" argument. You seem to want to keep playing daddy to a bunch of toddlers, and that's just not the enironment we have here.
Marvin wrote:Ghost, IM doesn't attack anyone without just cause... ...and kept it up mercilessly.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest