Shadowbans and the BGS

The only way to make Open more relevant in BGS and in Power Play, is to add influential game play that requires interaction with other commanders.

Bingo

Unless there is relevant PvP related impact the open/solo debate will remain meaningless. Open only will not change anything significantly in the absence of a number of other changes including the above.

3 different platforms: cross platform play will need to be developed.
Timezones: Blockade for 16 out of 24 hours? the Aussies will sneak in while you sleep! Cant see any real solution to this.
16 player instance limit: This would need to be expanded significantly (a single instance ? good luck with that)
Friendslist bias for matchmaking: This would have to be changed.
Location bias for matchmaking: Overcoming the instancing and lag issues (plus server loads)
The limited amount of time in SC needed to get anywhere and do anything: No real solution to this one. windows for opportunity are few and far between.

Even with open only, without some other incentive, meaning or funnelling, player interaction will remain rare under the current design.
 
Shadow banning shouldn't remove you from the game it should give you a stock sidey and mean outfitting etc isn't available just refuelling. This would get tedious real fast.

If they cheat again reduce the capabilities of the ship and a shadowbanned player ramming anything doesn't cause the target to get wanted at all.
 
Y'know, all these things about servers... it's not like there's a box somewhere running a server... it's AWS, Amazon Web Services. Elite Dangerous is running on a bunch of virtual machines and clusters as a distributed database. Trying to run 2 differing instances of the game would entail renting a whole lot more server time, which would be pretty expensive.
 
IIRC (live stream ages ago) "Shadowban" means they play on a separate and dedicated "shadowban server" with other shadowbanned people - without any ability to affect the galaxy state whatsoever even on that separate server. I may have misinterpreted what was said on the stream though.

You mean they have the technology to separate the BGS/Powerplay from others?

Jockey79 said this was impossible!
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Removing a player's effect on the (by design) shared galaxy state as a "punishment" is unlikely to become the status quo for players in Solo / Private Groups just because players with a particular optional play-style want it to be....
 
Im saying its likely. (By redesign). To give PVP meaning besides griefing.

There literally is no more choice in the matter. Too much toxicity, and its unfair to everyone on both sides of the fence.

Unless, you like griefing and want it to stay the same. By all means,
5bc.gif
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
For a new layer of PvP specific content, maybe. I doubt that Frontier will remove access from Solo and Private Groups to bought and paid for pan-modal content at this late stage.
 

Yaffle

Volunteer Moderator
This isn't the place for a modes debate, there's a whole forum about it elsewhere. Please stay on topic.
 
For a new layer of PvP specific content, maybe. I doubt that Frontier will remove access from Solo and Private Groups to bought and paid for pan-modal content at this late stage.

Then there is the fact that the majority of players are spending the bulk of their time in Solo and PG. ;)

In the grand scheme of things, the BGS influence by those in OPEN is far less than the BOTS we are discussing in this thread. The sooner the Open Only faction wakes up and wraps their head around that, the sooner the community might be able to unite in a common cause, and FINALLY agressively petition FDEV to bring out the PERMA BAN HAMMER!
 
I doubt frontier does any banning.

They have certainly not taken any of this seriously up till now. (I am referring to the repeat offenders who have been 30 day Shadow banned numerous times, yet still end up with full "normal" access to the BGS afterwards)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom