META DISCUSSION half contributions from solo players

[stormyuk]

It's here: see under "Network". This is for "all platforms". It clearly states that being placed in the same instance as a player you have blocked is an "edge case" which has been fixed.

Patch Notes - September Update - Downtime and Patch Notes

Greetings Commanders, The Elite Dangerous servers will be offline for all platforms on 18 September at 8:00 AM (UTC) for approximately 9 hours as we apply the September Update. There is a chance that this could run over, so we really appreciate your patience. Update: Due to our internal...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Thanks, in my experience it wasn't an edge case and as I said last week a guy could keep joining my multicrew session even though I had them blocked. So my guess is on PlayStation blocking only blocks chat.

 

[David Findley]

encouraging players to strategize and plan by rewarding aggressive open CG makes the game smarter and better, dramatic. Allowing haulers and unshielded cutters to enter the Harma system in solo, without repercussion, rewards stupidity and complacency. If a cutter reaches top 10 in a competitive CG by outfitting max cargo meandering into a hot starport without any fear of losing his ship, then the CG is broken and unfair to players with any dignity. ... or players 'bounty hunting' in solo for vast rewards, whereas when I do it in open I have the constant fear of losing my ship, either in the zone or in SC. I've paid maybe ~120 million in rebuy costs participating in the last two CGs, I would appreciate it if rewards weren't so terribly skewed away from me to compound the effect.

 

[David Findley]

...it is virtually cheating.

 

[gorankar]

Open is not cheating if everyone can do it and it falls inside the limits of the TOS. It is a choice. Some people want to get a bonus for playing in the mode they choose to play in, and/or wanting to disadvantage everyone that plays in a different mode, even though that mode is available to them as well. It defies reason really.

The constant demands that Fdev provide gankers with more victims, and lets be honest, that is exactly what this is, gets a bit silly at times.

 

[CMDR D Noize]

If I am at a station with 20 other players all I am going to see is stuttering and framerates in the teens or lower

I’ve recently started playing in Open a lot as I was starting to get quite bored floating around by myself and this is the biggest problem I’ve been having with it so far.

Whenever there’s more than 4-5 other players in the same instance the frame rate drops so badly that I may as well be playing in slow-motion.

This was made even more annoying the other night when some friendly guys in a HazRes sent me a Wing invite, shortly followed by a Squadron invite, so we wouldn’t steal each other’s kills.
It was brilliant at first, fighting alongside other players is loads of fun and we had a really good time.
But as more of this newfound Squadron jumped into the game my frame rate got worse and worse to the point where it was almost unplayable.

I can run my Xbox, my laptop with all the 3rd party sites and even have YouTube vids playing at the same time with virtually no connection issues...but as soon as a few other CMDRs appear it all goes to hell

 

[Brrokk]

encouraging players to strategize and plan by rewarding aggressive open CG makes the game smarter and better, dramatic. Allowing haulers and unshielded cutters to enter the Harma system in solo, without repercussion, rewards stupidity and complacency. If a cutter reaches top 10 in a competitive CG by outfitting max cargo meandering into a hot starport without any fear of losing his ship, then the CG is broken and unfair to players with any dignity. ... or players 'bounty hunting' in solo for vast rewards, whereas when I do it in open I have the constant fear of losing my ship, either in the zone or in SC. I've paid maybe ~120 million in rebuy costs participating in the last two CGs, I would appreciate it if rewards weren't so terribly skewed away from me to compound the effect.

You see, some of us don't think attempts to gank us are "dramatic". Personally I'm more likely to use words like "tedious", "immersion breaking" and, yes, "stupid". It's just not gameplay that I choose to take part in. If others like it I hope they have a good time.

However, it doesn't really matter because someone above said that there were "0 gankers" at the CG anyway. (Which means there's no extra danger in Open and no need for extra rewards).

 

[CMDR Serra]

You know what? I read though this thread and totally had my mind changed...

Nah. Not really. But please do carry on without me.

 

[Robert Maynard]

encouraging players to strategize and plan by rewarding aggressive open CG makes the game smarter and better, dramatic.

For whom?

As no game feature (apart from CQC), in the game we all bought, requires PvP, there's no requirement for any player to enjoy or even tolerate PvP in their game.

...it is virtually cheating.

If the game was focused on PvP, I'd agree. It isn't, so I don't. PvP is an optional extra in the game for those who want to engage in it - no-one else needs to bother with it or be bothered by those who want to engage in it.

 

[David Findley]

he constant demands that Fdev provide gankers with more victims, and lets be honest, that is exactly what this is, gets a bit silly at times.

ha.. ..I noticed when there are multiple gankers, they're often preoccupied with each-other, could make it easy for something pathetic to sneak through. Also there is the option to force yourself out of SC with a double-tap, if you see someone coming in behind you. I imagine most don't carry wakeshift scanners. ...And anyways maybe you shouldn't be going into a system you know is hot if you can't get out. ...It adds layers of complexity beyond the rampant seal-clubbing we imagine as the result.

Anyways, next time there is a trade CG, I am carrying torpedos and FSD disruptors with a wakeshift-scanner and I am going to punish as many people as possible -_-;; Then they will be wary of trading in a hot zone. ... And maybe i won't look so stupid in my t-10 outfitted for a measly 156 cargo space or whatever.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Anyways, next time there is a trade CG, I am carrying torpedos and FSD disruptors with a wakeshift-scanner and I am going to punish as many people as possible -_-;; Then they will be wary of trading in a hot zone.

.... in Open, maybe. Thankfully there's no requirement to play along with any other player's blockade role-play.

 

[David Findley]

they shouldn't call it 'community' then, if they don't want to play with other people. Maybe that's the root of my problem. I misunderstand the word 'community' as implying that people play together in a RP environment. To create a better, more complex game than what it available in solo. Perhaps change the word 'community' to 'galactic', and drop the sense of competition if it isn't fair across game modes -- then I would have no grounds to complain.

I feel like I am talking to people who defend hacking because they don't want to play the same, fair game when they encounter others. Literally the same principle: cheating. Cheating is an 'unfair advantage', looking at google for a second. So i am pretty sure my complaints are valid.

But whatever. If you're not going to take your blinders off, and resort to hurtful comments, instead of discussing in a civil and logical manner, I am gone. ...This is why we shouldn't have a democracy, by the way. In this case, it is literally not just condoning, but encouraging what is de facto cheating.

 

[stormyuk]

.... in Open, maybe. Thankfully there's no requirement to play along with any other player's blockade role-play.

The biggest problem I've always had with Open is the network experience and I use it regularly even for CGs.

Solo or PG is pretty much universally a smoother, lag free experience on PlayStation. I can imagine people not wanting Open for this alone. Maybe FDev networking and PSN don't get on but it does appear to have gotten worse for me. (My connection for reference is 200/35Mbps with FTTH and pretty low latency)

In Open busy locations turn into a lag fest of opposing network connections seemingly fighting each other and it doesn't seem to matter how good your own network connection is. It often becomes a slide show even with only a few commanders around.

 

[Brrokk]

The biggest problem I've always had with Open is the network experience and I use it regularly even for CGs.

Solo or PG is pretty much universally a smoother, lag free experience on PlayStation. I can imagine people not wanting Open for this alone. Maybe FDev networking and PSN don't get on but it does appear to have gotten worse for me. (My connection for reference is 200/20Mbps with FTTH and pretty low latency)

In Open busy locations turn into a lag fest of opposing network connections seemingly fighting each other and it doesn't seem to matter how good your own network connection is. It often becomes a slide show even with only a few commanders around.

This. Last time I went to a CG in Open I immediately saw two hollow squares. One went triangle and started looping around in obvious fashion; the other was bouncing and rubber-banding all over the place. I just couldn't be bothered; logged out and relogged to Mobius where I meet fewer people, but you can talk to them and they have better internet connections.

 

[St0rmFury]

I am gone. ...

And don't come back.

 

[Robert Maynard]

they shouldn't call it 'community' then, if they don't want to play with other people. Maybe that's the root of my problem. I misunderstand the word 'community' as implying that people play together in a RP environment. To create a better, more complex game than what it available in solo. Perhaps change the word 'community' to 'galactic', and drop the sense of competition if it isn't fair across game modes -- then I would have no grounds to complain.

Frontier are clear that all players form the community, regardless of which game mode they play in - there is no requirement to play among other players to affect the game (and console players without premium platform access cannot play in the multi-player game modes).

Players are free to RP whatever they want (subject to compliance with Frontier's rules, of course) - just as players are free to choose which players they play among.

That players choose to participate in CGs in a game mode where they may be attacked by other players is their choice, and their choice alone.

I feel like I am talking to people who defend hacking because they don't want to play the same, fair game when they encounter others.

Conflating a lack of desire to engage in PvP with hacking is quite the conflation. Hacking is a different matter entirely - it is against Frontier's rules. Playing in ones preferred game mode is not against the rules.

Literally the same principle: cheating. Cheating is an 'unfair advantage', looking at google for a second. So i am pretty sure my complaints are valid.

The game was pitched on the shared galaxy that every player experiences and affects and the three game modes that share it - which means that PvP has always been an optional extra whereas affecting the game is something that all players do. That some players can't accept that other players don't need to play with them to affect the game is not the fault of other players.

But whatever. If you're not going to take your blinders off, and resort to hurtful comments, instead of discussing in a civil and logical manner, I am gone. ...This is why we shouldn't have a democracy, by the way. In this case, it is literally not just condoning, but encouraging what is de facto cheating.

Not sure if anyone is wearing blinders - some players just don't enjoy PvP and bought a game where they don't need to engage in it.

We don't have a democracy, in terms of game development - Frontier make the decisions regarding the game.

 

[gorankar]

ha.. ..I noticed when there are multiple gankers, they're often preoccupied with each-other, could make it easy for something pathetic to sneak through. Also there is the option to force yourself out of SC with a double-tap, if you see someone coming in behind you. I imagine most don't carry wakeshift scanners. ...And anyways maybe you shouldn't be going into a system you know is hot if you can't get out. ...It adds layers of complexity beyond the rampant seal-clubbing we imagine as the result.

Anyways, next time there is a trade CG, I am carrying torpedos and FSD disruptors with a wakeshift-scanner and I am going to punish as many people as possible -_-;; Then they will be wary of trading in a hot zone. ... And maybe i won't look so stupid in my t-10 outfitted for a measly 156 cargo space or whatever.

They will just be in solo/pg, or block you and forget about you. If you want other people to play the way you want them too, start a pg and make the rules. It's what PvE players are told to do, and have in fact done.

 

[Bigmaec]

I can compete in a CG in open good enough. I won't reach Top10 because I have a life but Top10% in a trade Cutter with a prismo is no problem at all.
Don't need fully maxxed trade builds in solo for that.

 

[Darrack]

Sorry but this is the worst idea since the Euro Super League.

I play the game to have fun and relax, hence i play solo to avoid muppets, role-playing or not, if i wanted to do PvP i would go elsewhere.
I'm mainly in the black but if its an interesting CG i will plod back and join in and i work hard, normally top 10%.
Give me a disadvantage and i wouldn't bother, as i am sure many in solo wouldn't either which dramatically reduces the amount of folks doing the CG and as a result the time and possible rewards available to all.

Ive been in many games where the PvP community have tried to drag PvEers into their world for their own gain, nah no thanks.

Be Safe

 

[Screemonster]

In the wider game, no. In Powerplay there is a case for some sort of weighting though.

What gets me is that all these weighting suggestions are flat amounts, which... I don't think is sensible. In an empty system, mode makes no difference. In a busy system, or an actively blockaded system, it could make a big difference.

Personally, if I was going to do anything at all, I'd tag contributions as "open" or "non-open", and apply weighting proportionally. As in, if all the traffic that does anything in the system takes place in private/solo and nobody was there in open anyway, who cares? No weighting needed. Even then, not all actions are mode-relevant.

 

[Achtung-Goomba]

Personally, if I was going to do anything at all, I'd tag contributions as "open" or "non-open", and apply weighting proportionally. As in, if all the traffic that does anything in the system takes place in private/solo and nobody was there in open anyway, who cares? No weighting needed. Even then, not all actions are mode-relevant.

And thus an oft-presented simple idea starts to get more and more complicated, leading me to believe that the compromise provided by the modes as-is may well be the best and worst of all worlds; everyone is equally unhappy!