The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Robert Maynard]

Do you see it as a problem that PvPer will "spam" non-PvPer with interdictions? What is the purpose? Especially if:

• subsequent interdictions are limited by cooldown
• interdiction difficulty may be adjusted fr this case or instance split may be done at the moment of interdiction start (so non-PvP player will compete respective level NPC/ship)

Will it still be problematic from your point of view?

Probably - as wings / groups of players could make use of it.

But that is the only not immersion(lore)-breaking way for cooperative gameplay (imo). Do not accept wing invitations from non-trusted players. Do not add people you scared of to your friend list (if using friend list for non-PvP instancing at all). Problem solved (imo).

We have that already - with Private Groups.

As originally suggested - implement it as setting in Open mode. If one is avoiding any interactions at all - continue playing in Solo/PG - I am not suggesting to remove it. In worst case there is always block function, if someone managed to spam you with interdictions or chatting - just block them.

If you have any particular scenarios in mind which would not work with suggested implementation, please share them.

The way the proposal read it seemed that the existing "right to privacy" offered by Solo and Private Groups would be done away with and players would be visible to other players regardless of which game mode they played in.

 

[GJ51]

Suggestion was made years ago to make hollow scope icons and visibility of CMDR name optional in game so you could fly in Open without advertising PvP desire.

Argument was made that PvP players would snipe while masked, but how hard would it be to delay activation of the interdictor until a players was visible on the scope for 30 secs. after turning hollow icons and CMDR name back on? i,e, solid icons = interdictor deactivated, turn identifiers on and still inactive for 30 secs.

Suggestion went nowhere because the PvP crowd just wants more fodder.

Nothing is going to change no matter how many times we discuss it...

 

[zikolach]

Probably - as wings / groups of players could make use of it.

I think the cooldown could solve it. And even it this case it is nothing more than just NPC pirates activity. Even if you transport precious cargo they would ask you for a couple of tonns to drop.

We have that already - with Private Groups.

Not quite. Even if you managed to find private group you are comfortable with, there is still scarce of life in space with random NPC.

The way the proposal read it seemed that the existing "right to privacy" offered by Solo and Private Groups would be done away with and players would be visible to other players regardless of which game mode they played in.

That was just the alternative explanation of technical implementation. Original proposal would mean that if you play in open even having PvP-trigger off, your activity still visible to other players. You cannot directly interact with them, but if you wish you may look at the activity and decide whether you want to interact sending messages, inviting to wing or adding to friend list.

 

[zikolach]

Suggestion was made years ago to make hollow scope icons and visibility of CMDR name optional in game so you could fly in Open without advertising PvP desire.

Argument was made that PvP players would snipe while masked, but how hard would it be to delay activation of the interdictor until a players was visible on the scope for 30 secs. after turning hollow icons and CMDR name back on? i,e, solid icons = interdictor deactivated, turn identifiers on and still inactive for 30 secs.

Suggestion went nowhere because the PvP crowd just wants more fodder.

Nothing is going to change no matter how many times we discuss it...

As far as I can tell from what you said there is nothing to do with the instancing. That is probably the main reason for that idea didn't find support at the time - the game doesn't end in the supercruise. From my experience dropping on other players low wake or waiting at the station produces quite significant risk as well.

And I totally understand that if even after all years an ideal solution was suggested, there would be very little chance of it to be implemented. But that doesn't mean it should stop us from discussing possible solutions. Who knows maybe someone else would take these ideas and implement another space (or non-space) game we can enjoy.

 

[ebbrell]

I wish pg and solo was removed,
I play in open and have been killed, I've also had some funny moments where someone has interdicted me and regretted it.

Game is best played with others, busy stations are great to see.
Dangerous is in the name let's have it.

And to be honest most cmdrs you see dont attempt to kill you

 

[Robert Maynard]

I wish pg and solo was removed,
I play in open and have been killed, I've also had some funny moments where someone has interdicted me and regretted it.

Buying / backing a game (on the same terms as all other buyers and backers) where three game modes share the single galaxy state maybe wasn't the best plan then.

Game is best played with others, busy stations are great to see.

Indeed - however some of those others make it significantly less fun for the rest of the player-base.

Dangerous is in the name let's have it.

.... and precisely none of the "danger" in the game need be provided by players, as players are, and always have been, an optional extra in this game.

And to be honest most cmdrs you see dont attempt to kill you

While most don't (which is supported by the Inara data), some do - and those who do represent a tedious and predictable waste of game time to some players.

 

[zikolach]

I wish pg and solo was removed,
I play in open and have been killed, I've also had some funny moments where someone has interdicted me and regretted it.

Not all play Elite the same way you do. I play in open as well and at times I may start to feel uncomfortable due to other behavior (not always gankers). There are probably players who take it more seriously than I do and I may only imagine how much stress they could have.

Buying / backing a game (on the same terms as all other buyers and backers) where three game modes share the single galaxy state maybe wasn't the best plan then.

You can try to say this to Mac and probably very soon to Console users I had originally played Elite on Mac, then on Xbox. But I understand what you mean, that's why I do not suggest anymore removing other game modes. I suggest to think of how FDev could attract more Solo players to Open without greatly affecting (in a bad way) existing Open players.

 

[Imo]

this thread beats a dead horse again. playing this game the way you like including the three play modes was one of the promised key features during the kickstarter period so these can not be changed.

 

[Darrack]

I wish pg and solo was removed,
I play in open and have been killed, I've also had some funny moments where someone has interdicted me and regretted it.

Game is best played with others, busy stations are great to see.
Dangerous is in the name let's have it.

And to be honest most cmdrs you see dont attempt to kill you

Yep you can remove PG and Solo if you want, just give us want most would enjoy, Open PVE.

O7

 

[Robert Maynard]

You can try to say this to Mac and probably very soon to Console users I had originally played Elite on Mac, then on Xbox.

.... not forgetting 32-bit Windows users - supporting clients for both versions of Windows ceased some time ago.

The cancellation on the Mac was due to Apple not keeping their OpenGL up to date - in an attempt to force developers to rewrite their games to use Metal. Not really a Frontier issue.

That Odyssey has been cancelled on consoles is very unfortunate but likely due to the XBox One and PS4 not being up to the task. To develop for current gen consoles would start the cycle again, where a potential new DLC further down the line with increased requirements might suffer the same fate on consoles.

But I understand what you mean, that's why I do not suggest anymore removing other game modes.

Proposals / demands for their removal started not long after the Kickstarter, long before the game launched.

I suggest to think of how FDev could attract more Solo players to Open without greatly affecting (in a bad way) existing Open players.

Therein lies the crux of the issue. Some enjoy imposing their freedoms on others in Open and would not want any changes to be introduced that might prevent / reduce their ability to do so - no matter how few of the player-base they represent.

 

[zikolach]

this thread beats a dead horse again. playing this game the way you like including the three play modes was one of the promised key features during the kickstarter period so these can not be changed.

Therein lies the crux of the issue. Some enjoy imposing their freedoms on others in Open and would not want any changes to be introduced that might prevent / reduce their ability to do so - no matter how few of the player-base they represent.

FDev is imo known for breaking promises, so I would not be so confident. On the other end without breaking existing modes one more could be added having more attraction for playerbase and therefore becoming prevalent.

 

[Brrokk]

this thread beats a dead horse again. playing this game the way you like including the three play modes was one of the promised key features during the kickstarter period so these can not be changed.

It's why there's only this one thread and it's shoved into this subforum. A good thing IMO. A bit like the lightning conductor you can't see in a tall building but it's there doing its job.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: You want a strictly PvP space game, go play Eve Online. You knew exactly what this game was when you bought it. Crying rivers about how it isn't what you want now is a waste of not just your time, but everybody's time because it is NEVER going to change.

 

[Robert Maynard]

FDev is imo known for breaking promises, so I would not be so confident.

Which promises, in particular?

Noting that early statements regarding things that they'd like to do in the future aren't promises as such.

On the other end without breaking existing modes one more could be added having more attraction for playerbase and therefore becoming prevalent.

I'd have no problem whatsoever if, for example, Frontier were to implement (in addition to the existing tri-modal shared galaxy) a new Open-only mode with its own separate galaxy state (initially cloned from the existing galaxy, soon to diverge) for players who don't want to share their game with those they can't instance with to play in (that only players in Open-only mode could affect) - that would leave the existing game for those who don't mind sharing their game with those they can't shoot at.

 

[Darrack]

FDev is imo known for breaking promises

Really? which promises?

O7

 

[zikolach]

Which promises, in particular?

Really? which promises?

E.g. Odyssey minimum/recommended system requirements. The content promised to become available after Odyssey release (claiming that Odyssey Alpha is a branch which doesn't contain all the features to be released). Cross-instancing between Odyssey and Horizons.
But you are right, I meant rather wider scope, more like false expectations than promises. Something like availability of Horizons 4.0 to Odyssey (and Horizons) owners to instance together.

I'd have no problem whatsoever if, for example, Frontier were to implement (in addition to the existing tri-modal shared galaxy) a new Open-only mode with its own separate galaxy state (initially cloned from the existing galaxy, soon to diverge) for players who don't want to share their game with those they can't instance with to play in (that only players in Open-only mode could affect) - that would leave the existing game for those who don't mind sharing their game with those they can't shoot at.

Do you have a problem with players in Open affecting Solo/PG galaxy? I didn't bring this topic up because I am not looking for more players to compete playing Elite, but cooperate.

 

[Darrack]

E.g. Odyssey minimum/recommended system requirements

Odyssey Recommended is what? GTX1060? ok im running a 1070 with no issues so

O7

 

[Northpin]

E.g. Odyssey minimum/recommended system requirements. The content promised to become available after Odyssey release (claiming that Odyssey Alpha is a branch which doesn't contain all the features to be released). Cross-instancing between Odyssey and Horizons.
But you are right, I meant rather wider scope, more like false expectations than promises. Something like availability of Horizons 4.0 to Odyssey (and Horizons) owners to instance together.

Those were not exact promises regarding core features of the game, but expectations that the new engine will deliver the expected performace.
which didnt happen

The Horisons / Odyssey instancing looks to me like a badly managed project. Some, late in the phase of the project, realized they cannot let Pegi7 kids to instance with Pegi16 content and/or the ways they were counting to separate the Pegi based content will not be working properly so they'll face legal issues
So, no more instancing

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Odyssey Recommended is what? GTX1060? ok im running a 1070 with no issues so

O7

I was running it with my GTX 960 with no issues. Ran ultra in space, but had to run just high on planets and cut the AA down to 8x though. Other than that, no issues. I run it maxed with 2.0 supersampling with my new RTX 3060 Ti.

 

[zikolach]

Odyssey Recommended is what? GTX1060? ok im running a 1070 with no issues so

I ran it on rtx2080ti and unhappy with the result. Not only performance-wise, but also visually. But I happy for you not having issues from the release! It seems FDev were aiming at you as a target auditory, not me. But this discussion is off-topic for the California thread, isn't it? There is a better thread to discuss this.