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

[Lobey]

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?


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

You'll note I say "appear" - I can't be definitive, an awful lot in ED has "grown" more than been "designed" but it certainly seems like this is likely to be the case.
That aside, my main bugbear here - as you may have guessed, is this seeming arbitrary making up "new" rules on the fly and the seeming difference in how different groups are being treated - that folk are shooting each other is of no intrest to me in this case.
At best it smacks of indecision and poor planning - at worst as I hint at with my EvE reference it smacks of collusion.

 

[Zieman]

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

Umm, they're not going to restore anyone ganked in open ('open' as in the game mode).
Fleetcomm / Mobius private group ganks may be a different matter, if those who get ganked contact the support (not all do) - decided on case by case basis. TBH, private group 'infiltrations' probably will be relatively low numbered.

 

[Red Anders]

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.

So just to be clear, you're saying that FDev decided to increase the original size limit on private groups because they don't intend private groups to be used for large groups of players?

With respect, I think you're having difficulty in differentiating between what FDev want and what you want and there's only ever going to be one winner of that.

 

[Han Zulu]

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.

So why did they make it to allow 20,000 people and not just 20 or 100 people?

 

[Brrokk]

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.

I don't know why they don't provide better tools, but I remember that FD specially increased the group size limit from 5000? to 20000 to enable Mobius to keep growing. Why would they do that if Mobius wasn't a use of PG they intended?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

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.

20,000 players being one of many groups enjoying a feature means this feature must be removed from the game or severely limited.

Great critical thinking old chap!

 

[Sundae]

So just to be clear, you're saying that FDev decided to increase the original size limit on private groups because they don't intend private groups to be used for large groups of players?

With respect, I think you're having difficulty in differentiating between what FDev want and what you want and there's only ever going to be one winner of that.

im having no difficulty. it does appear to me that FD have tried to make small concessions here and there to try and mitigate the fact that griefers have already won.

 

[Sundae]

20,000 players being one of many groups enjoying a feature means this feature must be removed from the game or severely limited.

Great critical thinking old chap!

or rather: an exploit that needs fixing

 

[Bartizan]

I equate PGs and Solo to using cheat codes on a single player game. What exactly is fun about being in safe mode?

Enough coddling.

Frontier likes implimenting things and "see what happens"....well, time to end this silliness and disolve PGs and Solo, push everyone onto the same playing field and "see what happens".

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

Well, I do know, but not just because I was watching videos ... . Also, not having them all show up at a beacon in a Low Sec system would have been better than what ended up happening.

Touche.

some effort could be made, which would be better than no effort at all

Not convinced of this on the escort side. The only effort that would be effective is from the paper airplane pilots, not theoretical escorts. They'd have to make an effort to either not be paper thin sitting ducks, or hit that sweet sweet solo button.

I know I'm new here but it seem pretty clear this will never happen, as it appears to have always been the case. Meh.

 

[Zieman]

it does appear to me that FD have tried to make small concessions here and there to try and mitigate the fact that griefers have already won

Quoted for truth.

 

[Bigmaec]

or rather: an exploit that needs fixing

Uh, now PG is an exploit. Wow, so much salt here

 

[Brrokk]

Umm, they're not going to restore anyone ganked in open ('open' as in the game mode).
Fleetcomm / Mobius private group ganks may be a different matter, if those who get ganked contact the support (not all do) - decided on case by case basis. TBH, private group 'infiltrations' probably will be relatively low numbered.

I think that's also something they haven't said, and probably intend to cover case-by-case. IMO stalking explorers to Beagle Point with the deliberate intention of wiping out months of their game is griefing and thus a violation of ToS. As such I hope FD repair the damage and punish perpetrators irrespective of what mode they do it in.

At the launch system I agree that PG should be respected but Open is at your own risk, but after a few months of travel I don't think that distinction will still be important. It's my hope that FD will see it the same way, recognising the reputational damage to their game if they let griefing continue.

 

[Han Zulu]

im having no difficulty. it does appear to me that FD have tried to make small concessions here and there to try and mitigate the fact that griefers have already won.

They started with 5000 limit, right? That's not a concession but a decision based on their early intentions. If you're right that they only intended them for a handful of people, then they should have made them designed for a handful of players. They didn't. Their actions speak louder than any assumed intentions.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

or rather: an exploit that needs fixing

Oh dear. If we have to start with explaining what words mean, we're in bad shape to begin with.

I'll pretend you didn't say 'exploit'. Want another go?

 

[Roybe]

Citation where FD stated this?

Private conversations with some of the devs.

Seriously, if the use of private groups were something that the devs did not want, they could have set size limits to them, or, at the very least, not worked with Mobius to stabilize the limit at 20K...and help them open 3 or 4 more groups to handle the influx of PVE players.

On the other hand, I would certainly welcome them to close down Mobius...and limit the Private groups to 8-16 players (the natural number of people that can be instanced together). Leaving the rest of the system intact.

 

[House0fDerp]

or rather: an exploit that needs fixing

A designed feature is an exploit now?

 

[SpaceScania]

They propably underestimated the malice of parts of the playerbase.

Yes I believe so. Look, trolls are always going to exist and will try to ruin the fun for others (consensual PvP'ers are most certainly NOT trolls. Folks joining PvE PG's under false pretensese or UA bombing memorial stations of dying persons are trolls and are malicious and we should never cater to them). Frontier have sometimes done a poor job making trolling harder in this game. They can and should do better.

Removing UA bombing was an example where Frontier finally realized that the game mechanic was too rife for abuse and was a net negative for the game. Not allowing PG's whose whole intent to have PvE only to manage that effectively is again just opening the game to abuse.

If Frontier could muster up some courage here and act most CMDR's will be much happier, and I am betting most consenusal PvP open players won't care if Mobius has a PvE only in-game flag.

 

[Roybe]

They started with 5000 limit, right? That's not a concession but a decision based on their early intentions. If you're right that they only intended them for a handful of people, then they should have made them designed for a handful of players. They didn't. Their actions speak louder than any assumed intentions.

IIRC there was no stated limit...that's why the devs had to set the limit at 20k...because Mobius' group was causing or having issues.

 

[Red Anders]

im having no difficulty. it does appear to me that FD have tried to make small concessions here and there to try and mitigate the fact that griefers have already won.

This has always been the funny thing with griefers*; if you look at a situation where players choose to play in a private group griefers think they won because they hounded players out of open, whilst players in the group think they won because they don't have to bother playing with griefers.

Strictly speaking everybody should be happy there but somehow it doesn't seem to work out that way.

*By which I do not mean 'players who enjoy pvp'.