Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

[Driver]

I'm reposting this for anyone who may have missed it:

From the Kickstarter;
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*

From the forum archives;
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)

Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JYRyhxYhI&list=PL7glm5rbPHKyBblUEjmm2PFkwJ4ykuz6s&index=18

DB on "Griefing" and "Griefers"
(Listen out for the part where FD can move them in to a private group of just each other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M

Rededit Topic on "unusual event for players to come against players" (With Twitch Video)
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDanger...will_be_an_unusual_event_for_players_to_come/

Direct Twitch Link; (Note DB use "Occasonial" and "unusual" regarding players interacting)
http://www.twitch.tv/egx/b/571962295?t=69m00s

Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)

A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.



If I missed anything, let me know.

Does anyone still think that it is going to change? After all of the developer time put into it?

If you do, you'd probably be better off going to the EVE forums and asking for cockpits and a solo mode.

 

[aeshec]

I'm reposting this for anyone who may have missed it:




Does anyone still think that it is going to change? After all of the developer time put into it?

If you do, you'd probably be better off going to the EVE forums and asking for cockpits and a solo mode.

Exactly, I can't imagine anyone thinking at this point that they could gain any ground attempting to force PvP interaction.

The idea that FD put forth and executed, is an amazingly effective way of addressing a common problem in online gaming (how to get rid of annoying people).

FD effectively gave us all a flyswatter and said "have at it". We still get to play together (even in Open if we want). But we are assured by the game constructs to only have to ever deal with someone once if they are a bad player (someone trying to get you to quit the game by force).

There's no reason any PvP player should want to force attack someone who doesn't wish to engage in PvP. True PvP proponents/advocates desire to attack traders who are exited about being attacked as well as other PvP aggressors. If a trader plays in a private group to gain credits and then switches at a later point to open with a massive PvP ship, the PvP proponent should welcome this with a giant smile on their face because it effectively gives them a more difficult target, which is what true PvP advocates wish.

So you see, this actually helps both communities.

 

[Rivka]

I like the way it's currently set up. People who don't wish to engage in PvP can head off to solo/group, and leave Open. It's what Solo/Group is made for, an alternative to playing in Open. You join Open, you're consenting to getting PvPed. May happen, may not, but hey, that's Open play.

People trot out the "First to Elite" competition like it's forcing them to engage in PvP. There's nothing stopping a person from gathering up a few sponsors, setting up a PvE group, and having their own "First to Elite, PvE" competition. Go do it, it'd be fun.


I'd honestly much rather have 1 trader type in Open who understands and embraces the whole "open PvP" concept, over 100 people who want to change Open into "Solo, just with other people".

 

[Numinosum]

Why is it whenever PvP gets mentioned in this thread it is so often taken to mean forced PvP?

What I'm wanting and many others I judge that have posted suggestions for restricting the way Open and other modes interconnect, is to create a game mode where mechanics exist that give a PvP playing style a place in the game.

Someone mentioned that the reason we're not interested in just playing in PvP Groups is because we want to just kill noobs and grief and force people to play how we want. I don't think it is this - its that none of the current game modes gives us an arena where we can only play with players that are wanting PvP AND has the necessary game mechanics that provide the incentives that drive PvP play - risk, reward, jeopardy, danger.

For PvP to be really exciting there has to be big rewards and risks which comes from big goals and aims. Currently the big goals and aims in ED (for those of us that want to play this way) seem to be about promoting your faction. As a Solo commander it's going to be extremely difficult to make a big enough impact to really tip the balance - so this probably isn't something Solo players are that bothered about. But it's exactly these sort of goals that require the influence of multiple players, that give a PvP player in Open mode the risks and rewards to play for. However because Open mode currently 'leaks' (it can be influenced by commanders that WE CAN'T INFLUENCE) - it isn't possible for groups of players to interact with other groups of players (whether co-operatively or competitively) that gives greater progress towards these big goals/aims than if the same players simply grinded missions in Solo or Group play. There's no advantage in the Open mode of the game to being a great PvP pilot - competing or co-operating with groups of pilots - with the current big goals and aims as they are provided.

One caveat - I haven't checked out and don't really know about combat zones yet - maybe this is what I'm looking for?

 

[W0OCQCK]

Yea I do actually, have a pretty good idea of the temperature of the 'internet spaceship gaming community' . I've helped run a 500 man alliance in EVE-O for the last 5 years, and have spoken at great length about ED with many other members of that community. they are very excited about ED as E-O is essentially done to death. Most are chomping at the bit for a new game to come along that gives us a similar experience.

Sadly, the industry has done nothing but let us down year over year (black prophecy, STO, both flopped for similar design reasons -- no meaninful player interaction that gives people reason to keep playing longer than 3 months)

You have an interesting statement there. Just a little retrospect. I played EvE since the very beginning. When I left Eve, never intending to return I might add, I left Not one, not two, but three fully equipped "Titans", Two Super Carriers, and about 4 or 500 Billion in various assets. I was quite literally sick of it. All there, still on the books.

I love this game, I love the (3) options. This is the most important thing I like about the game. The ability to turn players like you off. Please continue to enlighten us. But full well know we totally disagree and I played Eve a lot.

 

[Uueerdo]

You have an interesting statement there. Just a little retrospect. I played EvE since the very beginning. When I left Eve, never intending to return I might add, I left Not one, not two, but three fully equipped "Titans", Two Super Carriers, and about 4 or 500 Billion in various assets. I was quite literally sick of it. All there, still on the books.

I love this game, I love the (3) options. This is the most important thing I like about the game. The ability to turn players like you off. Please continue to enlighten us. But full well know we totally disagree and I played Eve a lot.

Yes, that experience probably gives Traven rather good insight into what Eve players are looking for; but I think it is very apparent if you look around this forum that many players are specifically here because it is not Eve. It seems many like to point out Eve's longevity and relative success, but they overlook that in it's lifetime Eve has probably lost an order of magnitude more players that it has ever peaked at (counting every player that subbed for even a month as one they "had").

 

[Cowboy Bats]

(c) use cheats, automation software, hacks, mods, or any other unauthorized software designed to modify or defeat the purpose or experience of the Game;
...

The method you mentioned, I believe, falls in the category highlighted in red from the EULA & Terms of Use. I wouldn't risk a ban just to get a unfair advantage against others.

Nope, I use my iPad to control my router. Nothing in the eula can proscribe what I do with my hardware. If I want to toggle upnp all day long or punt connections that I don't recognize or want, that's entirely my business. Even Xbox with the most locked down anti-modding, don't screw with the hardware, don't use unauthorized software policies in the industry, understands that their control ends at the Xbox itself.

This is very basic stuff: My router, my internet, my decision. When a player connects to me (in any game), it's a privilege that I can revoke at any time for any reason. Period. Call it a shortcoming or a boon for p2p, but it is what it is.

 

[aeshec]

Yes, that experience probably gives Traven rather good insight into what Eve players are looking for; but I think it is very apparent if you look around this forum that many players are specifically here because it is not Eve. It seems many like to point out Eve's longevity and relative success, but they overlook that in it's lifetime Eve has probably lost an order of magnitude more players that it has ever peaked at (counting every player that subbed for even a month as one they "had").

Yeah I always find it odd that when I'm playing Eve, you pretty much have to divide the current online playerbase by an average of 2 or 3 because the vast majority have alts they are using at the same time. This is what pretty much ruined any immersion, etc for me as far as Eve goes. I didn't want to be running multiple characters and dealing with people that were running multiple characters. I'm so glad that with ED it actually takes skill to fly and multi-boxing won't make as much sense (unless you're doing trade runs I suppose but even then...kinda lame). I ran three separate accounts concurrently when I played Eve last and I'm just sick of it.

 

[W0OCQCK]

Yeah I always find it odd that when I'm playing Eve, you pretty much have to divide the current online playerbase by an average of 2 or 3 because the vast majority have alts they are using at the same time. This is what pretty much ruined any immersion, etc for me as far as Eve goes. I didn't want to be running multiple characters and dealing with people that were running multiple characters. I'm so glad that with ED it actually takes skill to fly and multi-boxing won't make as much sense (unless you're doing trade runs I suppose but even then...kinda lame). I ran three separate accounts concurrently when I played Eve last and I'm just sick of it.

I would suspect it is much much worse than that, I figure that EvE has a bout 40,000 real people playing there game. When you consider all the multi boxing that goes on. Yes I had about 15 accounts. No, I really do hate it, never going back to it.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

All these artificial barriers and making the game a PVE garden, and putting up obstacles because 'we don't want it to be a PVP game' is fine -- the players who want PVP will simple leave. You will be left with a boringm, empty world where all there is to do is trade and hunt rats & it will fade into obscurity within a year.

Yes please! However, I doubt it will fade in a year.

 

[Commander Silex]

For PvP to be really exciting there has to be big rewards and risks which comes from big goals and aims. Currently the big goals and aims in ED (for those of us that want to play this way) seem to be about promoting your faction. As a Solo commander it's going to be extremely difficult to make a big enough impact to really tip the balance - so this probably isn't something Solo players are that bothered about. But it's exactly these sort of goals that require the influence of multiple players, that give a PvP player in Open mode the risks and rewards to play for. However because Open mode currently 'leaks' (it can be influenced by commanders that WE CAN'T INFLUENCE) - it isn't possible for groups of players to interact with other groups of players (whether co-operatively or competitively) that gives greater progress towards these big goals/aims than if the same players simply grinded missions in Solo or Group play. There's no advantage in the Open mode of the game to being a great PvP pilot - competing or co-operating with groups of pilots - with the current big goals and aims as they are provided.

I think in a galaxy the size of which we're talking of it would only take a concerted effort by another similarly sized and organized group to undermine the work another group is doing. Barring pure coincidence we're not likely to be tripping over each others toes at every step of the way. People who really are competitive enough to organise to take over a system someone else is after, will probably be aware others are operating there and also be competitive in nature. There's an outside chance they might decide to private group, but competitive players generally prefer to compete in a more personal fashion.

You'd probably get more satisfaction out of the various conflicts that go in, in any case a concerted effort by a large group could probably have a fairly big effect on civil wars, and you tend to find a fair few players in combat zones. In the end it is still early days, and sadly the game wasn't launched with a fair few important group functions. I can't see that aspect of the game measuring up to any meaningful standard until they are. Wings will hopefully be the first big step.

 

[Unfluffydave]

Yea I do actually, have a pretty good idea of the temperature of the 'internet spaceship gaming community' . I've helped run a 500 man alliance in EVE-O for the last 5 years, and have spoken at great length about ED with many other members of that community. they are very excited about ED as E-O is essentially done to death. Most are chomping at the bit for a new game to come along that gives us a similar experience.

Sadly, the industry has done nothing but let us down year over year (black prophecy, STO, both flopped for similar design reasons -- no meaninful player interaction that gives people reason to keep playing longer than 3 months)

Black Prophecy has closed yes, STO though is still going strong and there is plenty of player interaction to be had especially around the Borg invasions. As for EVE, I would still be playing my 10 year old character if there was a way of playing the game PVE and not have to deal with the expletives that have taken over the game in the last couple of years. Now they are adding "features" every couple of months, it might be a coincidence (Gibbs rule#39 applies ) but this all started when ED announced its release date. EVE was no longer the only option for Sci-Fi sandbox.

 

[Commander Silex]

You haven't been paying attention then. I remember several posted videos where DB said so. Then there's this quote from a live chat he participated in on The Register in June of last year...

As a counterpoint, 'Discourage PvP and encourage player co-operation' does not mean - 'Make PvP such a deadend option that anyone doing it will soon be forced to stop.'. You can verify this easily as further to the statements you posted by David Braben, there are also many many statements by the lead designer. These statements make it absolutely clear that in game violent player interaction involving playing bad guys are absolutely legitimate and will be supported, whilst maintaining the possibility for players to effortlessly change their game mode to avoid unwanted pvp entanglements. Whilst the hardline PvPers do have to acknowledge and accept that PvP won't be the be all and end all of Open, and there is simply not going to be any forced PvP ruleset anytime in the foreseeable future, the hardline PvE crowd also need to acknowledge and accept that Open will include PvP and if they're there it might not be preceded by a 'please can I?', nor should it.

The developers are going to pitch for the maximum balance of fun for all involved without either making PvP actions so punitive on the average Pirate (or even murderer) that they have to stop or wipe their save, nor so crushing on the trader that losing to a pirate is going to drive them in droves from Open. There's most likely a ton of balancing and tweaking required before that is going to work smoothly, but personally, having read the developer statements on these numerous issues I'm pretty much sold on what they're pitching for.

 

[Bigcheese]

I have seen no indications at all that the game is suffering. The reviews are good, the forums are hopping, and if you actually log into Open mode and play the game you'll see there are a ton of human players operating in the core systems, they're everywhere. The only suffering being done is by the small subset of people that just can't stand the idea that there are people out there having fun in Solo and there is nothing they can do to ruin that fun.

I worry fear based ignorance like this led to bad feedback. I mean this guy not only doesn't get it, he's putting effort into remaining ignorant.

It's sad so much potential is being wasted in Elite. Never seen a community with a victim complex like the one on this forum. Seriously, it's bizarre. No wonder the game seems designed for people who can't handle adversity...

Too late now, such a shame. Could have been something special but they caved into people's fears.

 

[aeshec]

I worry fear based ignorance like this led to bad feedback. I mean this guy not only doesn't get it, he's putting effort into remaining ignorant.

It's sad so much potential is being wasted in Elite. Never seen a community with a victim complex like the one on this forum. Seriously, it's bizarre. No wonder the game seems designed for people who can't handle adversity...

Too late now, such a shame. Could have been something special but they caved into people's fears.

Try to keep your posts nice please. Also, you can't deny there are those who would love nothing more than to force open on solo/group players in order to "ruin that fun" for them. This isn't the first game where that problem has existed. Perhaps you should try to focus your hostilities at the players who are ruining the "true" PvP mentality.

 

[Rivka]

Nope, I use my iPad to control my router. Nothing in the eula can proscribe what I do with my hardware. If I want to toggle upnp all day long or punt connections that I don't recognize or want, that's entirely my business. Even Xbox with the most locked down anti-modding, don't screw with the hardware, don't use unauthorized software policies in the industry, understands that their control ends at the Xbox itself.

This is very basic stuff: My router, my internet, my decision. When a player connects to me (in any game), it's a privilege that I can revoke at any time for any reason. Period. Call it a shortcoming or a boon for p2p, but it is what it is.

This may be true, but it's also a two way street. There's not much stopping Frontier from saying, for example: "We reserve the right to revoke software license and server access to any individual who shows a pattern of interrupting the datastream to and from our licensed software, regardless of how this interruption is done.

It may be your network infrastructure, but it's their server systems running the game. Since access to Frontier's system is a prerequisite to making the game work, you pretty much have to play by their rules. If they say "stop cutting the connection", well...


As for your Xbox analogy, you might want to look up a little dohickey called "lag switches". Hardware device, sits between the console and router. Both MS and Sony, if they catch you using one, will promptly ban your accounts. In fact, Sony has been building active countermeasures into their hardware as of late, just to ensure datastream integrity.

 

[Rivka]

As a counterpoint, 'Discourage PvP and encourage player co-operation' does not mean - 'Make PvP such a deadend option that anyone doing it will soon be forced to stop.'. You can verify this easily as further to the statements you posted by David Braben, there are also many many statements by the lead designer. These statements make it absolutely clear that in game violent player interaction involving playing bad guys are absolutely legitimate and will be supported, whilst maintaining the possibility for players to effortlessly change their game mode to avoid unwanted pvp entanglements. Whilst the hardline PvPers do have to acknowledge and accept that PvP won't be the be all and end all of Open, and there is simply not going to be any forced PvP ruleset anytime in the foreseeable future, the hardline PvE crowd also need to acknowledge and accept that Open will include PvP and if they're there it might not be preceded by a 'please can I?', nor should it.

The developers are going to pitch for the maximum balance of fun for all involved without either making PvP actions so punitive on the average Pirate (or even murderer) that they have to stop or wipe their save, nor so crushing on the trader that losing to a pirate is going to drive them in droves from Open. There's most likely a ton of balancing and tweaking required before that is going to work smoothly, but personally, having read the developer statements on these numerous issues I'm pretty much sold on what they're pitching for.

It's not about PvP in and of itself, in the end. There are two types of players in a game world like this, broadly speaking. There are those who reject other players being able to influence their game, and those who support it.

Lets say, for example, a group rolled into Elite, big enough and organized enough to impact the commodity market. If this hypothetical group were to exist, the "reject interaction" crowd would be screaming at Frontier to change things. Same for basically any other activity, where other players can impact gameplay.

PvP gets picked on in Elite, because it's the most direct, obvious, and simple way for one person to interfere with another person's game. The funny part is, it's ALSO the easiest to avoid, simply by switching to solo. In my above example, an organized group messing with the commodities market would impact anyone who used said market, solo, group, or open. The only thing that makes it more palatable is the abstraction of the sim between the actual player's efforts.

Now, if Frontier wanted to be "evil", they could set up a way for people to opt-out of direct player vs. player interaction, but still allow those players to be able to interfere with one another's gameplay. Simple way to do it would be to just take away any signifiers between NPC and PC. Shove everyone in the same world. If, for example, an "opt-out" person gets interdicted, then rather than a PC, a high-powered NPC pulls the attack. For the interdicting player, they get an NPC controlled opponent. You would never hear the end of complaints, if the devs could pull off that sort of coding wizardry.

In the end, Frontier has come down broadly on the "other players can interfere with your game, in Open" side of the fence. What they should be doing, is making that interaction fun and enjoyable for those who choose to participate. The ones who reject player interaction, you'll never be able to "force" them into it. It's best to just leave them alone, off in their own Solo land, and make sure they can't impact things for the people who DO choose to interact.

 

[aeshec]

It's not about PvP in and of itself, in the end. There are two types of players in a game world like this, broadly speaking. There are those who reject other players being able to influence their game, and those who support it.

Lets say, for example, a group rolled into Elite, big enough and organized enough to impact the commodity market. If this hypothetical group were to exist, the "reject interaction" crowd would be screaming at Frontier to change things. Same for basically any other activity, where other players can impact gameplay.

PvP gets picked on in Elite, because it's the most direct, obvious, and simple way for one person to interfere with another person's game. The funny part is, it's ALSO the easiest to avoid, simply by switching to solo. In my above example, an organized group messing with the commodities market would impact anyone who used said market, solo, group, or open. The only thing that makes it more palatable is the abstraction of the sim between the actual player's efforts.

Now, if Frontier wanted to be "evil", they could set up a way for people to opt-out of direct player vs. player interaction, but still allow those players to be able to interfere with one another's gameplay. Simple way to do it would be to just take away any signifiers between NPC and PC. Shove everyone in the same world. If, for example, an "opt-out" person gets interdicted, then rather than a PC, a high-powered NPC pulls the attack. For the interdicting player, they get an NPC controlled opponent. You would never hear the end of complaints, if the devs could pull off that sort of coding wizardry.

In the end, Frontier has come down broadly on the "other players can interfere with your game, in Open" side of the fence. What they should be doing, is making that interaction fun and enjoyable for those who choose to participate. The ones who reject player interaction, you'll never be able to "force" them into it. It's best to just leave them alone, off in their own Solo land, and make sure they can't impact things for the people who DO choose to interact.

I think you've lost a very important distinction between players "who reject other players being able to influence their game" and players who prefer to have other players influence their game in a cooperative sense. I think that there are a great number of people who play in Mobius in order to have the cooperative influence and they love that people in open are also influencing their systems. Those same people might not want someone to influence their game in a negative way (you have to read that as what they deem as negative). Please at least know that there are many people that love player influence with the exception of PK'ing.

 

[Commander Silex]

It's not about PvP in and of itself, in the end. There are two types of players in a game world like this, broadly speaking. There are those who reject other players being able to influence their game, and those who support it.

Lets say, for example, a group rolled into Elite, big enough and organized enough to impact the commodity market. If this hypothetical group were to exist, the "reject interaction" crowd would be screaming at Frontier to change things. Same for basically any other activity, where other players can impact gameplay.

PvP gets picked on in Elite, because it's the most direct, obvious, and simple way for one person to interfere with another person's game. The funny part is, it's ALSO the easiest to avoid, simply by switching to solo. In my above example, an organized group messing with the commodities market would impact anyone who used said market, solo, group, or open. The only thing that makes it more palatable is the abstraction of the sim between the actual player's efforts.

Now, if Frontier wanted to be "evil", they could set up a way for people to opt-out of direct player vs. player interaction, but still allow those players to be able to interfere with one another's gameplay. Simple way to do it would be to just take away any signifiers between NPC and PC. Shove everyone in the same world. If, for example, an "opt-out" person gets interdicted, then rather than a PC, a high-powered NPC pulls the attack. For the interdicting player, they get an NPC controlled opponent. You would never hear the end of complaints, if the devs could pull off that sort of coding wizardry.

In the end, Frontier has come down broadly on the "other players can interfere with your game, in Open" side of the fence. What they should be doing, is making that interaction fun and enjoyable for those who choose to participate. The ones who reject player interaction, you'll never be able to "force" them into it. It's best to just leave them alone, off in their own Solo land, and make sure they can't impact things for the people who DO choose to interact.

Couldn't agree more.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I think you've lost a very important distinction between players "who reject other players being able to influence their game" and players who prefer to have other players influence their game in a cooperative sense. I think that there are a great number of people who play in Mobius in order to have the cooperative influence and they love that people in open are also influencing their systems. Those same people might not want someone to influence their game in a negative way (you have to read that as what they deem as negative). Please at least know that there are many people that love player influence with the exception of PK'ing.

That's a fair point, but it also cuts both ways. A lot of players who enjoy unexpected PvP also enjoy non violent player interaction as much if not more.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

This may be true, but it's also a two way street. There's not much stopping Frontier from saying, for example: "We reserve the right to revoke software license and server access to any individual who shows a pattern of interrupting the datastream to and from our licensed software, regardless of how this interruption is done.

It may be your network infrastructure, but it's their server systems running the game. Since access to Frontier's system is a prerequisite to making the game work, you pretty much have to play by their rules. If they say "stop cutting the connection", well...


As for your Xbox analogy, you might want to look up a little dohickey called "lag switches". Hardware device, sits between the console and router. Both MS and Sony, if they catch you using one, will promptly ban your accounts. In fact, Sony has been building active countermeasures into their hardware as of late, just to ensure datastream integrity.

I'm familiar with how lag switches work, and also how MS and Sony catch them. If you're not the host, you can lag switch all day long, and they have no means to detect it. It's when you host the game, that the lag switch then effects every other player, and it's clear as a bell looking at it. As host, it would be better to just kick a player you don't like via the router. There is no way to tell why that p2p connection ended. Well there are, but none of them would be cost effective. It would be cheaper to just abandon p2p on those platforms than to implement low level sniffing, which wouldn't even be legal in some countries.

Let's be honest here. P2P exists because it's cheap. Games like Battlefield get around this by shifting the cost of the servers to individuals who rent them. When a publisher implements p2p, it's giving up a great deal of control in return for lower operating expenses. If you want control, there is the blizzard model: Bliz funds and operates the servers for WoW, D3, and Starcraft (Hearthstone is p2p with validation) out of profits, which allows them to always be the 800 pound gorilla, and implement countermeasures such as persistence when exiting a game in combat.