I hope DW2 gets ganked all the way to Beagle Point.

[Myou]

Only because we're talking about a demographic that refuses to learn how to properly equip and fly their ships. That, and since when is it impossible for organizers to "organize" a protection detail?

Yes let me take a FDL with 15 years jumprange, using feedback cascade rails and APA's, pumped full with SCB and shield bosters and heavy armoring, module reinforcement etc. Screw the SRV, scanners or really anything that is useful for exploration so you can not be completly helpless against a ganker.

You're not gonna fight back against a ganker in anything but a pvp build and you wouldnt want to take one to exploration would you? What do you expect DW2 to do, evacuate the instance as soon gankers show up (cause noone would have the power to do anything to make them go away) or use pvp ships instead of exploration ships?




Going further, whats exactly the issue with fdev enabling people to stay in the expedition? To my knowlege they're not undoing the loss of data and stuff, but move someone back because where the DW2 is going, there wont be any respawn point anywhere near a few thousands of lightyears. Smells like, "stop having fun" and/or "i want my cake and eat it too". The precedent isnt fdev enforcing private group rules but supporting a huge player event, which is yknow... supported and endorsed by fdev? If you want anything fdev moving people back to your group for you, maybe you should organize something of the same scope instead of whining that you want free while conviently ignoring DW2 did not get it for free.
Go above and beyond if you want your cake or dont even try! Exceptions for the exceptional and all that, you know?

 

[Bigmaec]

The biggest issue is that the use of private groups has been corrupted beyond the devs original concept for the play mode. The intention was to provide a means for a few players to play together in a cooperative way, with the assumption that those utilizing this mode were 1. inviting their friends and people they knew/trusted and 2. were relatively small groups. Private groups were never intended to be a special mode with special rules run by a single dictator with thousands and thousands of members--this is not in the spirit of the private group mode. It was never intended to be a corruption of gameplay and an exploit for those that want all the benefits of open play with none of the risk.

Citation where FD stated this?

 

[Sundae]

Are you saying forcing everyone (not just the clueless) into open would have prevented this?

It would have prevented this (the whining) because we would have less entitled players.

 

[Sundae]

Citation where FD stated this?

Private conversations with some of the devs.

 

[Lobey]

Are you saying forcing everyone (not just the clueless) into open would have prevented this?

I can't answer for Sundae - but they are right on the private groups usage - this does not appear to be as FDev envisaged nor intended and they are now reacting as we go - it's not consistant and it pleases no-one.
FDev need to decide what they want to do - communicate that policy - then enforce that policy equally.
And right now whatever "that" might be, isn't the most relevant point - that they appear to not have a coherent strategy is where I believe the problem to be.

 

[Han Zulu]

The biggest issue is that the use of private groups has been corrupted beyond the devs original concept for the play mode. The intention was to provide a means for a few players to play together in a cooperative way, with the assumption that those utilizing this mode were 1. inviting their friends and people they knew/trusted and 2. were relatively small groups. Private groups were never intended to be a special mode with special rules run by a single dictator with thousands and thousands of members--this is not in the spirit of the private group mode. It was never intended to be a corruption of gameplay and an exploit for those that want all the benefits of open play with none of the risk.

How do you know this was FDev's intentions? Do you have some insight, sources, backup materials to support this claim?

 

[bigity]

Yes let me take a FDL with 15 years jumprange, using feedback cascade rails and APA's, pumped full with SCB and shield bosters and heavy armoring, module reinforcement etc. Screw the SRV, scanners or really anything that is useful for exploration so you can not be completly helpless against a ganker.

You're not gonna fight back against a ganker in anything but a pvp build and you wouldnt want to take one to exploration would you? What do you expect DW2 to do, evacuate the instance as soon gankers show up (cause noone would have the power to do anything to make them go away) or use pvp ships instead of exploration ships?




Going further, whats exactly the issue with fdev enabling people to stay in the expedition? To my knowlege they're not undoing the loss of data and stuff, but move someone back because where the DW2 is going, there wont be any respawn point anywhere near a few thousands of lightyears. Smells like, "stop having fun" and/or "i want my cake and eat it too". The precedent isnt fdev enforcing private group rules but supporting a huge player event, which is yknow... supported and endorsed by fdev? If you want anything fdev moving people back to your group for you, maybe you should organize something of the same scope instead of whining that you want free while conviently ignoring DW2 did not get it for free.
Go above and beyond if you want your cake or dont even try! Exceptions for the exceptional and all that, you know?

1) Outfitting a ship to survive until you can high wake does not negate the ability to explore. Since this has been spelled out many many times before I am going to assume you are just being willfully ignorant.

2) Why should people in a group get special treatment from legitimate in-game consequences from in-game actions, regardless of what event they are conducting in game or who at FDev likes it?

 

[Bigmaec]

Private conversations with some of the devs.

Seems legit.

 

[ShadowWolf Kell]

Oh look! Another Open vs PG vs Solo thread! Just here for the sodium free popcorn. You can keep the salt.

 

[SpaceScania]

The biggest issue is that the use of private groups has been corrupted beyond the devs original concept for the play mode. The intention was to provide a means for a few players to play together in a cooperative way, with the assumption that those utilizing this mode were 1. inviting their friends and people they knew/trusted and 2. were relatively small groups. Private groups were never intended to be a special mode with special rules run by a single dictator with thousands and thousands of members--this is not in the spirit of the private group mode. It was never intended to be a corruption of gameplay and an exploit for those that want all the benefits of open play with none of the risk.

Private group membership should have been hardcapped at a handful of players from the beginning, which would have prevented this whole problem in the first place.

This is insane. Let's be clear here. Some players love PvP and should be able to play in a PvP environment. That's great and yeah consensual PvP will always be part of Elite Dangerous and nobody would argue against that.

However...

Some players do not enjoy PvP at all. They should have the option in playing with other human beings in a PvE environment. Yeah, private groups kind of accomplish this but not really (Trolls just lie to get in, and yes lying to get into a PvE PG is not consensual PvP it is trolling and is malicious).

Nobody is ever ever ever going to agree on this issue. PvP players will not understand why other players don't like PvP and PvE players do not see why PvP is enjoyable. The two positions cannot be reconciled. It's okay, the game is big enough for both groups. The sensible option is to give players the choice. Do I play in a PvP or a PvE environment? Frontier should enforce in-game PvP restrictions in the PvE environment like so many other online games do.

Frontier could save themselves so much wasted time and energy if they just accepted this reality.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The biggest issue is that the use of private groups has been corrupted beyond the devs original concept for the play mode. The intention was to provide a means for a few players to play together in a cooperative way, with the assumption that those utilizing this mode were 1. inviting their friends and people they knew/trusted and 2. were relatively small groups. Private groups were never intended to be a special mode with special rules run by a single dictator with thousands and thousands of members--this is not in the spirit of the private group mode. It was never intended to be a corruption of gameplay and an exploit for those that want all the benefits of open play with none of the risk.

Private group membership should have been hardcapped at a handful of players from the beginning, which would have prevented this whole problem in the first place.

There you have it Frontier. If you ever needed confirmation private groups as they are, are a valuable addition to Elite Dangerous, here it is.

 

[Han Zulu]

I can't answer for Sundae - but they are right on the private groups usage - this does not appear to be as FDev envisaged nor intended and they are now reacting as we go - it's not consistant and it pleases no-one.

Since I wasn't part of the early years of ED, I'm just curious for what document, discussion, or such from FDev that says that they didn't envisage or intended the PG to be what they are today. I'm here to be educated. Have any links?

FDev need to decide what they want to do - communicate that policy - then enforce that policy equally.
And right now whatever "that" might be, isn't the most relevant point - they appear to not have a coherent strategy is where I believe the problem to be.

That's true. It's a big mess without any clear guidelines or policies.

 

[bigity]

Oh look! Another Open vs PG vs Solo thread! Just here for the popcorn. You can keep the salt, I'm sodium free!

That's not popcorn, it's a date.

 

[Lobey]

1) Outfitting a ship to survive until you can high wake does not negate the ability to explore. Since this has been spelled out many many times before I am going to assume you are just being willfully ignorant.

2) Why should people in a group get special treatment, regardless of what even they are conducting in game or who at FDev likes it?

THIS - point 2
I don't care if folk are getting ganked or given free cakes - we need the same rules applied to all - or at least be told when and why those rules don't apply to all.
This is beginning to remind me of when GM's in EvE gave there pals ship blueprints etc.
Why should DW2 get special treatment ?

 

[Chaparral]

The biggest issue is that the use of private groups has been corrupted beyond the devs original concept for the play mode. The intention was to provide a means for a few players to play together in a cooperative way, with the assumption that those utilizing this mode were 1. inviting their friends and people they knew/trusted and 2. were relatively small groups. Private groups were never intended to be a special mode with special rules run by a single dictator with thousands and thousands of members--this is not in the spirit of the private group mode. It was never intended to be a corruption of gameplay and an exploit for those that want all the benefits of open play with none of the risk.

Private group membership should have been hardcapped at a handful of players from the beginning, which would have prevented this whole problem in the first place.

And here is the crux of it.

A PG is NOT a PVE Mode/server by design - but that has changed.

Anyone telling you otherwise is selling something.

Here we have a 10k PG with the special consideration that PVP kills are erased. If there wasn't a more overt defacto PVE server, I don't know what would be.

I mentioned earlier that a possible mechanic in a PVE OPEN mode would simply erase rebuy costs, keep data, cargo and missions intact, and respawn the target of a PVP kill in the most recent system visited. This would alleviate the need for messy "no pvp weapon damage" or no "ramming damage" mechanics that would be difficult to code.

Hopefully restoring hundreds of ganked targets on DW2 will encourage FDEV to reflect on no OPEN PVE mode.

 

[Han Zulu]

Private conversations with some of the devs.

Oh. Ok.

Well, that's hard to confirm. But I'll take your word for it.

 

[ShadowWolf Kell]

That's not popcorn, it's a date.

That identifies as popcorn. This is 2019 afterall.

 

[Sundae]

the fact that some of you can look at 20,000 person private groups and think, "hmm yeah, that seems like intended gameplay" is something special.

why would FD create a mode that is supposed to be filled with 20,000 people and then provide no tools for managing the mode or its members? hmm yes this seems like their intended implementation. lol cmon. let's use our critical thinking caps here, cmdrs. you don't even need dev confirmation to understand this.

 

[bigity]

That identifies as popcorn. This is 2019 afterall.

Still dates.

Well, technically bad dates.

EDIT: Actually that may be a different scene with dates


EDIT: You know what, wrong movie completely. That is Temple of Doom

 

[Bigmaec]

the fact that some of you can look at 20,000 person private groups and think, "hmm yeah, that seems like intended gameplay" is something special.

why would FD create a mode that is supposed to be filled with 20,000 people and then provide no tools for managing the mode or its members? hmm yes this seems like their intended implementation. lol cmon. let's use our critical thinking caps here, cmdrs. you don't even need dev confirmation to understand this.

They propably underestimated the malice of parts of the playerbase.