For information and discussion about Oolite.
https://bb.oolite.space/
I have to presume that is correct, as I'm only a mere mortal.Originally Posted by DDF Rules
There is no embargo or NDA (Non-disclosure Agreement) on the topics discussed in this forum. We’re happy for you to talk about developments and conclusions made within the Design Decision Forum with people outside of it.
Seems like this is an acceptance of the inevitable. No NDA will work, word will get out, etc., etc. Better to accept that and live with it.El Viejo wrote:This was posted on their open forum:I have to presume that is correct, as I'm only a mere mortal.Originally Posted by DDF Rules
There is no embargo or NDA (Non-disclosure Agreement) on the topics discussed in this forum. We’re happy for you to talk about developments and conclusions made within the Design Decision Forum with people outside of it.
<chortles> I ain't too surprised... overall, I'm glad to be well outside the whole process.AnnuverScotinExile wrote:Herding cats comes to mind.
Yes, that is correct. It was also mentioned briefly in the kickstarter comments I think, that there would be no NDA.El Viejo wrote:This was posted on their open forum:I have to presume that is correct, as I'm only a mere mortal.Originally Posted by DDF Rules
There is no embargo or NDA (Non-disclosure Agreement) on the topics discussed in this forum. We’re happy for you to talk about developments and conclusions made within the Design Decision Forum with people outside of it.
Ashley Barley wrote:DDF Rules and Format
To keep the conversation in this forum as objective as possible we have devised the following rules and format, which should help us take the best advantage of all of your feedback and suggestions. Please make sure to read this all thoroughly before posting.
Format
Discussion in the DDF will be structured to concentrate on a single aspect of Elite: Dangerous each week, giving everyone time to read our existing design proposal for a specific element, consider and discuss possible alternatives, and then eventually vote on the final decision. With this philosophy in mind, here is how conversation will be structured:
Monday: ‘Topic of discussion’ and existing design proposal is posted by a member of the Frontier Team. Also detailing technical limitations and ‘edge cases’
Monday-Thursday: Open discussion takes place, allowing forum members to deconstruct the existing proposal and put forward their own proposals, to garner support and feedback.
Friday-Sunday: A poll will be created that includes all popular proposals, as well as the Frontier team’s initial/revised proposal. Forum members will then have until Monday to vote on their preferred option before the process is reset with a new topic.
Rules
For general behaviour, the standard forum rules are still applicable in the Design Decision Forum. Basically, be respectful of other posters and make sure not to post anything that could be construed as offensive in any way.
The ability to create polls has been removed in the DDF. Any poll created will be exclusively relating to design decisions and be officially set up by a member of the Frontier team. This is to avoid confusion as to where votes will actually be impactful.
Stay strictly on the topic of Elite: Dangerous. Any ‘off-topic’ threads will be deleted or moved.
Be respectful of other people’s ideas and opinions. If you disagree with someone then please back up your view with sound reasons.
There is no embargo or NDA (Non-disclosure Agreement) on the topics discussed in this forum. We’re happy for you to talk about developments and conclusions made within the Design Decision Forum with people outside of it.
Providing other people access to your account, to allow them to post/view in the Design Decision Forum, is strictly prohibited. Any member caught doing so will have their access to the DDF revoked.
This seems misguided to me, too. I don't see the rationale behind the idea, beyond making it easier for other players to hunt down any human wrongdoer. If they're wanting a way to avoid/punish griefers, they should have a system whereby members of a group can "vote out" anyone who annoys too many people. But it's probable that there will be groups whose members want to be able to duel with each other, and don't want their members "punished" by the game in this way. Maybe I've misunderstood the "groups" idea though: maybe there will only be a limited number of groups set by FD, instead of an open-ended number created by players.cim wrote:For anyone who wants to actively avoid the "all" group - and clearly many people will for all sorts of reasons - this seems to rule out the less honest career paths where killing another player in "self-defence" might still be "criminal". I think I can see what they're trying to do here, but the approach doesn't seem at all right.JazHaz wrote:If your death was reported as a criminal act, the perpetrator(s) gain a criminal status, bounty and temporary forced inclusion into the “all” player group
("All" is, thinking about it, an odd name for that group. It definitely won't contain all players from what I've understood so far... "Default", perhaps?)
I certainly understand the rationale behind this. First and foremost I think it's an anti grieving measure. One scenario I haven't seen discussed in the DDF is if players go into the all group, do a spot of pirating, and then retreat into their group as a way of protecting themselves from bounty hunters and work off their bounty. From that point of view, I think this one, in one form of the other, will be implemented. You could of course have limitations on how often you can change groups, but I like that option less.Disembodied wrote:This seems misguided to me, too. I don't see the rationale behind the idea, beyond making it easier for other players to hunt down any human wrongdoer. If they're wanting a way to avoid/punish griefers, they should have a system whereby members of a group can "vote out" anyone who annoys too many people. But it's probable that there will be groups whose members want to be able to duel with each other, and don't want their members "punished" by the game in this way. Maybe I've misunderstood the "groups" idea though: maybe there will only be a limited number of groups set by FD, instead of an open-ended number created by players.cim wrote:For anyone who wants to actively avoid the "all" group - and clearly many people will for all sorts of reasons - this seems to rule out the less honest career paths where killing another player in "self-defence" might still be "criminal". I think I can see what they're trying to do here, but the approach doesn't seem at all right.JazHaz wrote:If your death was reported as a criminal act, the perpetrator(s) gain a criminal status, bounty and temporary forced inclusion into the “all” player group
("All" is, thinking about it, an odd name for that group. It definitely won't contain all players from what I've understood so far... "Default", perhaps?)
Hmm ... I would say that that is one of the risks of playing in the "all" group: you're much more likely to get grief. But I take your point. Perhaps, though, it would be possible to prevent criminal players from leaving the group where they committed their crime, until they're Clean again? Unless of course they get booted out by the other members of the group.Gimi wrote:I certainly understand the rationale behind this. First and foremost I think it's an anti grieving measure. One scenario I haven't seen discussed in the DDF is if players go into the all group, do a spot of pirating, and then retreat into their group as a way of protecting themselves from bounty hunters and work off their bounty. From that point of view, I think this one, in one form of the other, will be implemented. You could of course have limitations on how often you can change groups, but I like that option less.
I think that's a real possibility. It's good that FD are starting out with the aim of squashing, or at least corralling, griefers, but the insistence on multiplayer (and mass-multiplayer, at that) as the default is, I think, potentially a misread of their market. They've got a big, BIG "legacy" demographic: people like most of us, in other words, who played Elite and Frontier and want more of it, and who (perhaps) are less likely to want the multiplayer option.El Viejo wrote:I begin to wonder if FD might be surprised by how many people go for SP mode. I realise the game is being built for MP, and that SP mode is really a side-issue... but I see a lot of hard-core MMO gamers just itching to sew the game up to their own satisfaction, which fills me with dismay.
From what I have read so far, I think Frontier is trying to balance between old timers like ourselves, and attracting new players into what could be a unique multi-player game. I do think that they initially were quite surprised by the opposition to multi-player, but they have always said that there would be two versions of Elite IV, so they have probably had some idea of the situation.Disembodied wrote:I think that's a real possibility. It's good that FD are starting out with the aim of squashing, or at least corralling, griefers, but the insistence on multiplayer (and mass-multiplayer, at that) as the default is, I think, potentially a misread of their market. They've got a big, BIG "legacy" demographic: people like most of us, in other words, who played Elite and Frontier and want more of it, and who (perhaps) are less likely to want the multiplayer option.El Viejo wrote:I begin to wonder if FD might be surprised by how many people go for SP mode. I realise the game is being built for MP, and that SP mode is really a side-issue... but I see a lot of hard-core MMO gamers just itching to sew the game up to their own satisfaction, which fills me with dismay.
There's another issue, too: this is a space game. Space is big. One of its defining features is how far away you can be from everything, and everybody, else. That is part of its appeal, surely?
I know the rationale is there for a living, dynamic universe, with players actively involved ... but speaking personally, I'm happy enough to be plugged into that inside a group of one ...
Fortunately, casual gamers (in a non-subscription environment) is where the money is, I think. In fact, the lack of a subscription model seems to me to lean the game more in that direction.Gimi wrote:my impression is that the differences of opinion is more of a casual games versus hard core gamer thing. It seems to me that those that foresee themselves playing E:D for hours every day are the ones who want permanent deaths, MMO features and so on, while the casual gamers like myself are looking for single player or cooperative multi-player with heavy penalties for piracy. But I guess no two players are alike. Being a casual gamer myself, my concern is being able to leave the game for one or two weeks and then being able to pick things up and still recognise the game I'm playing.
My apologies, I missed that. The open forums are too busy for me to keep up with every topic, sadly.El Viejo wrote:This was posted on their open forum:I have to presume that is correct, as I'm only a mere mortal.Originally Posted by DDF Rules
There is no embargo or NDA (Non-disclosure Agreement) on the topics discussed in this forum. We’re happy for you to talk about developments and conclusions made within the Design Decision Forum with people outside of it.