General Remove private Lobby and single Player
- Thread starter Black White
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Some people seem to be quite OK with that outcome, not all, of course - hence the opposition to proposals which would dictate to others how to play the game to suit the play-style preference of those making the proposals.
Some players can't accept that all players are offered choice in this game and seek to remove that choice.
The problem with adding PvP as a main mechanic to PP is the potential for people to exploit it. I think RN has had some ideas in the direction of how to reduce/stop exploiting, but players can be creative.
And with second accounts so cheap, not hard to play against yourself or collude with friend to help tank a power if PvP is an important feature.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Frontier learned long ago that a not insignificant number of players would rather collude to achieve uncontested outcomes more quickly and easily than actually contesting them.
Can you let us know some examples?
To clarify your position in terms of PP overhaul are having a specific PvP element - PvP gating to quote - rather than anything else?
You mention before NPC effectiveness in PP only terms - what is your view on that?
Have anyone ever saw a Solo player complaining about or wanting any kind of changes to Solo play ???? NO
Leave the Solo mode alone. Which part of Solo players don't want to be part of Open in ANY WAY you people don't understand ??
I will come to your home and I will start knocking down walls without asking you because I like Open space, would you like that ?
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The scan > fine > bounty > collect flipping great wodges of credits exploit very early on followed by "collusion piracy" in Powerplay.
I don't agree with proposals that would stop players affecting the pan-modal game features equally in all game modes.
Powerplay NPCs could benefit from being made appropriately more challenging within Powerplay.
Ok, @Robert Maynard , PP is scrapped completely.
New payable DLC is available - for arguements sake is the cross mode PP proposal suggested by RN.
Acceptable or acceptable with provisos, or unacceptable?
Assume:-
1. "New PP" does not affect BGS which remains unchanged
2. Previous PP modules are now available from engineers.
TIA
New payable DLC is available - for arguements sake is the cross mode PP proposal suggested by RN.
Acceptable or acceptable with provisos, or unacceptable?
Assume:-
1. "New PP" does not affect BGS which remains unchanged
2. Previous PP modules are now available from engineers.
TIA
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The statement that "PP is scrapped completely" is immediately contradicted by the apparent recycling of Powerplay into a paid DLC.
That's functionally equivalent to restricting access to an existing game feature and / or reducing / removing the effect of players in Solo and Private Groups on an existing game feature - with the "benefit" of making those players who choose to buy it pay for it again.
Last edited:
restricting ? I want full refund because I paid for that feature in the first place and now I don't want to play this game anymore. pay for it again ? I want that amount of money back from what I paid for the game.
I take your points.
PP as currently it is currently implemented is quite different in both scope and gameplay to what RN suggests, so rather it is a re-imagining of PP rather than it being directly re-introduced.
Or do you think RNs suggestions are not enough of a change to PP?
Secondarily to this, (and probably should have asked this first), does the current PP need to change at all? If so, what would you like to see, if anything?
That's mainly to @Robert Maynard but feel free to chip in @Lord Rak or anyone else.
PP as currently it is currently implemented is quite different in both scope and gameplay to what RN suggests, so rather it is a re-imagining of PP rather than it being directly re-introduced.
Or do you think RNs suggestions are not enough of a change to PP?
Secondarily to this, (and probably should have asked this first), does the current PP need to change at all? If so, what would you like to see, if anything?
That's mainly to @Robert Maynard but feel free to chip in @Lord Rak or anyone else.
I got a different idea for PowerPlay which would work pan-modal and at the same time rise the difficulty for non-open modes:
Pledged CMDRs can deed a ship to a power, making it controlled by NPCs while offline, with a specific set of tasks (undermine, defend, transport, ...)
It then is added to the pool of NPCs available to spawn.
The CMDR will still be liable for rebuy costs (if the vessel gets destroyed in another CMDR's instance), but no more than once per hour, and can deed up to 24 rebuys in advance.
As a bonus, the CMDR earns a passive merit income. The amount appropiate is to be determined by the devs.
If it works well, this could be expanded for BGS factions.
Pledged CMDRs can deed a ship to a power, making it controlled by NPCs while offline, with a specific set of tasks (undermine, defend, transport, ...)
It then is added to the pool of NPCs available to spawn.
The CMDR will still be liable for rebuy costs (if the vessel gets destroyed in another CMDR's instance), but no more than once per hour, and can deed up to 24 rebuys in advance.
As a bonus, the CMDR earns a passive merit income. The amount appropiate is to be determined by the devs.
If it works well, this could be expanded for BGS factions.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Players make complaints about perceived botting already - such a proposal would introduce a form of offline botting which affluent players could make use of to multiply their effect on the game....
It would be a legitimate functionality accessible by everyone and a way for Frontier to drain credit banks and undo the past economic mistakes.
Those ships would still be seen as NPCs, not as CMDRs.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Frontier have previously stated that this is not an "executive control" game - and facilitating "offline play" would do just that.
But it would solve the Gordian Knot between pan-modal compatibility and the perceived issue of unfair opposition evasion.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I expect it would exacerbate it rather than solve it - as altCMDRs are cheap (free on consoles) and credit transfer between players is trivial.
Oh dont worry. I am aware.
But there is ab bit of String Attached to me making that Statement.
Because:
The Players which Suggest Changes to Force others into Playing on their Field. Will Generally not really care about how Happy or Motivated other Players are.
They make that Suggestion for their own Simple an Selfish Reasoning.
This reasoning can be several things.
They want to Kill others and need more Victims. Especially Victims that dont Fight back.
They want to have more other Players around simply because they like MMO Feeling and want to meet other Commanders everywhere on Regular Basis.
They want more Immersion and thus dont like it that others in the Physically same Position are not actually there for them.
They want to Prevent others from affecting Powerplay or the World in General.
They want to Pirate Real Players. Not just NPCs. And thus want that other Players are Forced to do Trading and Money Earning in Open.
etc etc.
But the thing is. All of these Reason have in common. That the ones wanting the Change do not care at all. Wether or not the other Players will Quit the Game instead.
These People could be 5% of the Playerbase. And the others could be 95% of the Playerbase. And of these 95% of Players not wanting to Play in Open 90% could Quit.
And Yet the 5% would still want the Change. Because it still means they can Force the Remaining 5% into their Field and thus their Selfish Desire is Improved.
Who does care however. Is the Company behind the Game which makes Money from it.
And so. Anyone who wants to Propose a Change. Should always Consider if that Change will make Players Quit.
Because if that Change makes Players Quit. Then the only Chance they have to Convince Frontiert of actually making the Change. Is if that Change Provides a Valuable enough Return to take that Loss.
For example. More New Players buying the Game instead.
So wether or not. They are OK with this. Is entirely Irrelevant.
I dont care. Frontier doesnt care. Not even their Compatriots which want the same Change would care if they are OK with it or not.
Effectively Nobody except they themselves Cares.
So it has no Bearing on my Statement which provides a Simple and Direct Argument against this Change. Which is that it will cause the Game to lose Players.
Then restrict the npc count to one per console SN
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Why consoles only? I expect that some players will have accrued quite a number of altCMDRs in sales of the PC version of the game and the game was free on the Epic store recently, one copy per Epic account.