General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[Ettanin]

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.

Because alt cmdrs are not (anymore) free on PC
Also, HWIDs can be falsified, thus it's not enforcable on PC either.

 

[Lord Rak]

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.

This is ridiculous. Nothing needs to be changed. Everyone is happy, only very small groups of people is unhappy how things work and they want to make changes for everyone.

 

[ethelred]

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.

Forcing the closure of modes isn't a sensible suggestion. I think that's self evident and would be willing to be £5 that it wouldn't happen.

Adding an optional PvP meta - rather than the random, unstructured way it's implemented now (with the exception of perhaps CGs etc) surely "adds" to the game, rather than detracts?

I hate mining and thargoid combat, but I don't begrudge the option that they are part of the game.

It is a false equivalence to see an optional PvP (in game, noting CQC as ever) meta in a similar way?

 

[ethelred]

This is ridiculous. Nothing needs to be changed. Everyone is happy, only very small groups of people is unhappy how things work and they want to make changes for everyone.

Thanks for the reply - it clarifies your position that PP doesn't need to change.

Edit:- as we disagree fundamentally (as I think continual development, especially of stagnant gameplay is a Good Thing) it's better than trading irrelevant details!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Adding an optional PvP meta - rather than the random, unstructured way it's implemented now (with the exception of perhaps CGs etc) surely "adds" to the game, rather than detracts?

If it's the "meta" then it means that it is more effective than PvE - which detracts from the game of those who don't choose to engage in PvP in a game where other players, and therefore PvP, are optional extras.

I hate mining and thargoid combat, but I don't begrudge the option that they are part of the game.

They are available to all players, regardless of game mode.

It is a false equivalence to see an optional PvP (in game, noting CQC as ever) meta in a similar way?

That's where we disagree, I think. We all bought a game where PvP is not a requirement of any game feature (except CQC, of course), i.e. there's no requirement whatsoever for a player who buys the game to even tolerate PvP to be able to play it, and some players want to gate one or more elements of the game behind PvP.

Frontier could choose to develop a completely new DLC aimed solely at PvP, and, while there may be complaints about the focus of development time from those who don't enjoy PvP, there'd be no grounds for complaint that access to existing pan-modal game content would have been changed. If the new DLC affected players who didn't participate in it there would, I expect, be complaints.

 

[Lord Rak]

Thanks for the reply - it clarifies your position that PP doesn't need to change.

Edit:- as we disagree fundamentally (as I think continual development, especially of stagnant gameplay is a Good Thing) it's better than trading irrelevant details!

I will say one more thing. You can't do nothing about PP to change the fact that your faction will take a hit sometimes no matter what you do, why ?? because of grinding. people will find something of interest in a settlement and they will take it a apart repeatedly with out even realizing they effecting PP and/or BGS by doing so and to add to that, players in Solo are not the grinders, they like to play the game as intended because they have no need to grind, they have no one to compete with but themself. PvP players are biggest grinder because they need to upgrade/engineer their ships and suits and weapons fast so they can be better then everyone else. PvPer, look in the mirror because you are creating this mess in the first place.

 

[Lord Rak]

There is a way to maybe improve PP. There is a lot of players that are members of PP factions but they don't even take part in PP. They don't know or maybe just don't care that by doing stuff around bubble while being a PP member effects the whole picture. I think a very good idea would be to put expiration date on PP faction membership. Once every month lets say, you will need to go to your PP factions capital or controlled system and renew your membership. How about that ?

edit: right now PP faction will chase you around if you quit and I think that is little bit stupid. PP faction provides protection for members in their territories, you loose membership, you loose protection.

 

[ethelred]

Thanks @Robert Maynard

In all these discussions its important to find the last point on which we agree.

Gated content to open (most obviously PvP for powerplay) seems to be the sticking point, notwithstanding that FD have done it for one off things (competition for a new gfx card and arguably the Salomé event).

Multicrew is interesting to fit into this - clearly gated to Open/PG but not affecting a greater meta (other than the BGS), so I guess that gets a "pass"?

I don't buy that because of grind @Lord Rak (IMHO) gameplay shouldn't be improved. If anything then new gameplay should be incorporated to give a more even playing field - like what happens/ed when credit gold mines where nerfed.

 

[ethelred]

There is a way to maybe improve PP. There is a lot of players that are members of PP factions but they don't even take part in PP. They don't know or maybe just don't care that by doing stuff around bubble while being a PP member effects the whole picture. I think a very good idea would be to put expiration date on PP faction membership. Once every month lets say, you will need to go to your PP factions capital or controlled system and renew your membership. How about that ?

Sorry for the multiple tags today!

I think a better starting point is what Powerplay is for - or what it adds.

Game design should then flow from that, and finally with the game design modes should be considered.

E.g. at the moment PP seems to be a way to shop for modules - at least that's how it appears. Should that be the case?

 

[Lord Rak]

Sorry for the multiple tags today!

I think a better starting point is what Powerplay is for - or what it adds.

Game design should then flow from that, and finally with the game design modes should be considered.

E.g. at the moment PP seems to be a way to shop for modules - at least that's how it appears. Should that be the case?

Modding PP is bad idea. PP is working good, all factions play by the same rules. I'm sorry I will get back to you with more in a little while. I have few mission on Kuma Crew territory and since I'm going there I may as well wipe out few of their settlements (cry babies) btw...I'm in Open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Thanks @Robert Maynard

No problem at all.

In all these discussions its important to find the last point on which we agree.

Quite.

Gated content to open (most obviously PvP for powerplay) seems to be the sticking point, notwithstanding that FD have done it for one off things (competition for a new gfx card and arguably the Salomé event).

The "Race to Elite" was the same, very soon after launch - however neither it nor the NVidia GPU treasure hunt affected the game.

The Salomé event was player run, not run by Frontier - so doesn't count in this context. It was also so short that it was missed by the vast majority of players.

Multicrew is interesting to fit into this - clearly gated to Open/PG but not affecting a greater meta (other than the BGS), so I guess that gets a "pass"?

Wings, Multi-Crew and Teams are gated to the multi-player game modes, not to a single game mode.

 

[Sunleader]

Forcing the closure of modes isn't a sensible suggestion. I think that's self evident and would be willing to be £5 that it wouldn't happen.

Adding an optional PvP meta - rather than the random, unstructured way it's implemented now (with the exception of perhaps CGs etc) surely "adds" to the game, rather than detracts?

I hate mining and thargoid combat, but I don't begrudge the option that they are part of the game.

It is a false equivalence to see an optional PvP (in game, noting CQC as ever) meta in a similar way?

The Question is how you want to do that without Forcing Players.

The Fact is that Frontier has hidden several things behind certain things.

Taking Powerplay for example.
I have 0 Intention to Participate in Powerplay.
I could not care less if it went to Open Only.

What I would care however. Is the Fact that certain things cant be obtained without Participating in Powerplay.
So unless I want to entirely forfeit these things. I am Forced to Participate in Powerplay.
Hence I will Automaticly Oppose Powerplay being made Open Only.


As such the Answer from my side is Simple.
I do not Begrudge you or you having the Options to PvP and Fight other Powers etc etc.
What I do however Begrudge is having my Options taken Away.


If Powerplay. Was a Pure PvP thing that is 100% about Fighting other Players.
And thus gives no Special Rewards that cant be Obtained in different ways using PvE on a Private Server.

I would not care about it being moved to Open.
After all. Why should an PvP Event be in Private ?


But it is not.
PowerPlay is simply another Game Campaign. It has PvP Options. But it is not Focused on PvP.



TLDR.
I dont mind Powerplay being taken away from Private if in exchange. All Powerplay Rewards and Options are Transferred to an PvE Campaign. And Powerplay itself will become purely an PvP thing with no further Bearing on the World that is also Inhabited by PvE Players.

 

[ethelred]

The Question is how you want to do that without Forcing Players.

The Fact is that Frontier has hidden several things behind certain things.

Taking Powerplay for example.
I have 0 Intention to Participate in Powerplay.
I could not care less if it went to Open Only.

What I would care however. Is the Fact that certain things cant be obtained without Participating in Powerplay.
So unless I want to entirely forfeit these things. I am Forced to Participate in Powerplay.
Hence I will Automaticly Oppose Powerplay being made Open Only.


As such the Answer from my side is Simple.
I do not Begrudge you or you having the Options to PvP and Fight other Powers etc etc.
What I do however Begrudge is having my Options taken Away.


If Powerplay. Was a Pure PvP thing that is 100% about Fighting other Players.
And thus gives no Special Rewards that cant be Obtained in different ways using PvE on a Private Server.

I would not care about it being moved to Open.
After all. Why should an PvP Event be in Private ?


But it is not.
PowerPlay is simply another Game Campaign. It has PvP Options. But it is not Focused on PvP.



TLDR.
I dont mind Powerplay being taken away from Private if in exchange. All Powerplay Rewards and Options are Transferred to an PvE Campaign. And Powerplay itself will become purely an PvP thing with no further Bearing on the World that is also Inhabited by PvE Players.

Yep, complete agreement.

I'm very much an anti Imperial player, and I've really resisted getting prismatics for that reason - though they would massively help all my builds.

 

[Achtung-Goomba]

@Sunleader and @ethelred I also concur, I’ve no interest in Powerplay and I’m loathe to dip in casually as a ‘module shopper’. PP having a dedicated Open gameloop I can support, they could just retcon the modules to the tech brokers and you’d break any disruptive casual shopping pledge/defect/pledge for next toy loop.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

+1 I've done the grind for PP weapons twice, (Cytoscramblers & Pacifiers) and frankly I'd prefer dealing with a tech broker.

 

[Rebel Yell]

I've read a lot of posts made by players who approached PP for the modules and talk about preference of this or that, the question I have is: did you have ever been part of an open-only organized powerplay group?

Dont take it as a criticism, as I am not judging, but just weighting what has been said as feedback.

Correct me if I am wrong, but at the end of the day it looks like most of these posts are coming from who never looked for that kind of challenge.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Looked at 'em early on and decided to steer clear.
I appreciate that they are trying to carry out a strategy so I made apoint of not crossing threshold.

 

[Elliot Coleman]

I've read a lot of posts made by players who approached PP for the modules and talk about preference of this or that, the question I have is: did you have ever been part of an open-only organized powerplay group?

Dont take it as a criticism, as I am not judging, but just weighting what has been said as feedback.

Correct me if I am wrong, but at the end of the day it looks like most of these posts are coming from who never looked for that kind of challenge.

It wasn't open-only (at least not to my knowledge), but it was organized. I went module shopping for packhounds and decided to work with the powerplay group to further their goals.

I mainly hauled merits. Coordinating with others to achieve an overall goal was fun, even if the gameplay loop was dull and monotonous. But I gained a real appreciation for the frustration these groups face from randoms module shopping and working against them without a clue.

I'd like to unlock prismatic, but I doubt I'll ever go through another 4 weeks of that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I've read a lot of posts made by players who approached PP for the modules and talk about preference of this or that, the question I have is: did you have ever been part of an open-only organized powerplay group?

Dont take it as a criticism, as I am not judging, but just weighting what has been said as feedback.

Correct me if I am wrong, but at the end of the day it looks like most of these posts are coming from who never looked for that kind of challenge.

What relevance does whether, or not, a player has engaged in a game feature that does not require PvP with other players in one of the two multi-player game modes - in a game where other players are optional? That the answer would be used by some to "weight" feedback, i.e. to dismiss that which comes from "the wrong group", is telling.

The challenge posed by other players is optional for those who can play in the multi-player modes, in this game, by design.

Prismatics and Pack-Hounds are quite useful though.

 

[VR Davemartin88]

As the title says: Remove private Lobby and single Player. Why? Because right now people are having influences on the galaxy and you can't stop them from having it. Best examples are Community events and Powerplay. My power was expanding into a system and I sat there for over an hour and couldn't find one player, yet the undermining bar goes higher and higher because people are hiding in single Player or private Lobby. This shouldn't be the case, if enemys are undermining a system, we should be able to fight back the undermining (maybe even add Powerplay missions?). Same goes for Community events.

The upside of this would be, that people are getting more encourage and/or forced to interact more with the community, play together and/or thinks twice before they engaging into enemy Powerplay territory or Communty events, having influence while they can't hide in private Lobby or single Player anymore. It would help to make the overall game expierence more realistic; forcing people to equip theier ships more realistic and not going on full cargo racks only. Plus games are much more fun with peoples and achieving things together. No one likes to play or fly alone all day.

The only downside of it, it would give griefers and gankers a bigger play field and newer players an even harder time to get used to the game. But as I always say to developer: The focus should not be on players, who are playing a game for two weeks, leave and never coming back. We simply should not focus on those players for obvious reasons. For griefer/gankers there should be counter measures, for example, that the FSD-Interdictor does not work in systems, where Ingenieurs are placed and/or the security forces are increased (maybe by a lot).

If you want PvP, go play CQC-Arena then!
I do. I've unlocked all achievements and my current rank is "Champion".

But I want to explore and do cargo missions!
You can do this in Open.

But I don't want to get griefed or ganked!
The chances that you find players in this big *** galaxy is super low, as long as you avoid hotspots like Community events, Powerplay systems, etc.. I play in Open for most of the time. Tip: If you find someone out there, send him a wing invite. Is he accepting it, everything is fine. If not and he flys straight to you, you should be becareful. Here is a link to some more tips: LINK. One time I randomly found someone at the Guardian site and I send him an invite. It ended up, that he joined my wing, we did the Guardians together and he gave me some tips about how to get the Guardian blueprints. Remember: Not everyone is your enemy.

You are a griefer/ganker and only want to kill weaker players!
I don't like them either and I am not one of them. I bought this game last year so I don't have the biggest or strongest ships yet. I am all for fair PvP play and realistic piracy, when there is a reason for it.

I have no friends to play with!
Use the ingame chat, ask people you randomly find, join a squadron, (on Xbox) open a multiplayer-post, just generally interact more with the community. They don't need to stay to be your friends, sometimes all it takes is just to play with some peoples together, who have the same goal as you.

Maybe there should be crossplay between different platforms (Xbox, PC, etc.) for population boost, if this isn't the case yet.

I hope this get some attention. This game is designed to be an open multiplayer game and it should treated as such one.
Feel free to add more ideas to make Open play more enjoyable for everyone.

Edit: Man, so many people are upset about getting pulled out of theier comfort zone. If these modes really exist since release (playing since 2020), maybe it's really to late to change this, I don't know. But what definitely should be changed, is the fact that people, who play in private or solo should not have influence on such things as Powerplay, Community events, etc., this should only be doable in Open. As someone mentioned, you fight most of the time against "invisible" players (not including timezones), which you all have to admit, is just simply lame and bad game design.

Edit 2: Man, so many people who are afraid of that they could meet a griefer in over 400 billion star systems, smh. How high are the chances, especially while exploring more of the empty areas of the galaxy? People act like it's the end of the world, when they die and lose cargo or exploration data.

this post is a perfect example for the thinking that keeps me in solo or a private group. No interest in PVP, I like to play alone most of the time. Telling me how silly I am to play the game as it was designed and how I want to play is beyond nonsense. The good news is there was nothing new presented so won’t go anywhere.