Answers from the devs #2

[Anopheles]

The game has never been intended to force players into PvP - from the outset we have been told that we can play alone, with friends or with other players (i.e. the three game modes) and can switch between modes on a session-by-session basis. This means that any players in Open have chosen to be there - if players choose not to play in Open then that is also their choice.

While PvP piracy may suffer from players choosing not to play the part of relatively defenceless content for player pirates, how would this be improved? Frontier are not, in my opinion, going to force any player to play the game they way they don't want to - that would be contrary to DBOBE's quoted opinion that there is no "right" way to play the game.

Right. I get that and I understand this. I even accept it.

We now need to get fdev to think of a way to help those of us who value our type of gameplay without upsetting those who prefer to play in solo. it does feel like the multiplayer preferrees get jumped on hard when they express a interest in a game change that works for us.

 

[rdslw]

Ultimately PP comes down to trying to out grind others in solo - can't believe anyone at FD thinks this makes for great gameplay

This!678

 

[CMDR Malkov]

Given the sheer size of Open, is it really a surprise that it is largely empty? That was predicted to be the case very early on in the game's development. Even with 600,000+ copies sold, not all will still play the game, not all play at the same time and not all have mutual ping times to be able to be instanced together.

What is the "enormous potential to shine" that you are referring to, it's not obvious from your post?

Yes the galaxy is huge but is that really why open is mostly so quiet? There are many places that should be centres of activity if people were in Open. Powerplay stats give some idea of the activity surrounding a system. Galnet relates stories of offensives and the huge conflicts over systems but you can spend the whole cycle there and sometimes never see a soul. Instancing problems and billions of star systems are not the cause. The cause is that Solo is effectively incentivized and the Open choice is largely meaningless.

The enormous potential I refer to is the possibility to create a vibrant, interactive, evolving, meaningful galaxy populated by a significant number of the 600,000+ purchasers. Instead the message people are hearing is "working as intended".

 

[rdslw]

It's not a dismissive answer.

It's a very clear answer.

It's a very clear answer precisely because they have followed the discussion.

It's also an answer you don't like, but that is beside the point.

I see it different.

FDEV on multiple occasions (like in this thread) didn't enter into detailed discussion. Thats partially because their decision is the one they believe in, while on logical basis is contrary to many other design decisions of theirs (listing just one: pay increase for risk, listing second: player should not be able to harm victims if victim don't want it (*)). Hence, entering into discussion would be quite easy to prove that this specific one (one galaxy sim for all) is a bad decision, hence the only effective approach is to avoid discussion. That's my 0.02 from logic based discussion.

You can add that agreeing to this community request would prove also that whole offline mode havoc (FDEV cancelling offline client) was handled wrongly or untruly, and they do not want to confirm this. There is also money (refunds granted and rejected) involved there.

There is also simple experiment to be made (which would prove if I'm right): the moment the SEPARATE OPEN is started (with separate galaxy sim) we would see 99:1 player counts in SEPARATE OPEN vs CURRENT OPEN. It's that easy: if we agree that we can't influence/harm others, we also don't want them to be able to do it.

That's just my $0.02.

(*) BTW this is one fundamental logic error in current SOLO/OPEN, being that SOLO is being used by players to harm other players (e.g. PP) while it was introduced to avoid it.

 

[ianw]

Yes the galaxy is huge but is that really why open is mostly so quiet? There are many places that should be centres of activity if people were in Open. Powerplay stats give some idea of the activity surrounding a system. Galnet relates stories of offensives and the huge conflicts over systems but you can spend the whole cycle there and sometimes never see a soul. Instancing problems and billions of star systems are not the cause. The cause is that Solo is effectively incentivized and the Open choice is largely meaningless.

The enormous potential I refer to is the possibility to create a vibrant, interactive, evolving, meaningful galaxy populated by a significant number of the 600,000+ purchasers. Instead the message people are hearing is "working as intended".

But think about the odds of seeing another player - even if we all were in open.

Each system is huge - when you are travelling in SC you're not there too long and then you drop out into another instance/bubble. It's easy to be in the same system as someone and not see them.

Then there are all the players off exploring. or trading in remote (or not very remote) areas.

If anything I reckon Powerplay and CGs ended up dispersing people even more in open as it's just increased the number of places people have a reason to go.

Before it was mostly the inner systems rares routes, the old worlds and trading hotspots that anyone could look up on the trading tools.

And I still don't get why people who want to socialise would rather go into solo because they believe they'll get slightly more imaginary space credits.

It's like not going to the pub where your friends are so you won't have to queue to get the beers in - but at least you can drink slightly faster on your own. Either you want to see your friends or you don't..

 

[Tuub t Tute]

I see it different.

FDEV on multiple occasions (like in this thread) didn't enter into detailed discussion. Thats partially because their decision is the one they believe in, while on logical basis is contrary to many other design decisions of theirs (listing just one: pay increase for risk, listing second: player should not be able to harm victims if victim don't want it (*)). Hence, entering into discussion would be quite easy to prove that this specific one (one galaxy sim for all) is a bad decision, hence the only effective approach is to avoid discussion. That's my 0.02 from logic based discussion.

You can add that agreeing to this community request would prove also that whole offline mode havoc (FDEV cancelling offline client) was handled wrongly or untruly, and they do not want to confirm this. There is also money (refunds granted and rejected) involved there.

There is also simple experiment to be made (which would prove if I'm right): the moment the SEPARATE OPEN is started (with separate galaxy sim) we would see 99:1 player counts in SEPARATE OPEN vs CURRENT OPEN. It's that easy: if we agree that we can't influence/harm others, we also don't want them to be able to do it.

That's just my $0.02.

(*) BTW this is one fundamental logic error in current SOLO/OPEN, being that SOLO is being used by players to harm other players (e.g. PP) while it was introduced to avoid it.

I have read this 5 times (font choice notwithstanding) and cannot make head nor tail of what you are trying to say. It reads like a list of logical fallacies and whataboutery.

"Because FDev do not give a response in the level of detail I require, this proves X, Y and Z negative things are true..." Fiddlesticks and Flapdoodle, as Professor Yaffle once said.

 

[Herik]

Open is largely empty save for a handful of spots where those who still live in hope tend to congregate.
People tell me they have NEVER seen another player in Mobius.

To be fair I think it's more than preferences and points of view.
It's an area where ED has enormous potential to shine and the statement by FD seems (to many people) to casually dismiss that potential.

This is true CMDR Malkov, the potential was there to shine; FD should have created an Offline Solo game...

 

[CMDR Malkov]

But think about the odds of seeing another player - even if we all were in open.

Each system is huge - when you are travelling in SC you're not there too long and then you drop out into another instance/bubble. It's easy to be in the same system as someone and not see them.

Then there are all the players off exploring. or trading in remote (or not very remote) areas.

If anything I reckon Powerplay and CGs ended up dispersing people even more in open as it's just increased the number of places people have a reason to go.

Before it was mostly the inner systems rares routes, the old worlds and trading hotspots that anyone could look up on the trading tools.

Oh come on...
Thousands of ships killed in one system as part of a PP offensive and you never see anybody from the other side? Is that really working as intended?

And I still don't get why people who want to socialise would rather go into solo because they believe they'll get slightly more imaginary space credits.

It's like not going to the pub where your friends are so you won't have to queue to get the beers in - but at least you can drink slightly faster on your own. Either you want to see your friends or you don't..

It depends whether "winning" is the main priority. Think of it like a pub quiz where actually being in the pub for the quiz carries a disadvantage. Some people will do the quiz at home and then pop into the pub at last orders to chat about their victory.
Even if you choose to stay in the pub with your friends you will undoubtedly begin to see the whole quiz as a joke and likely stop participating. Or just move to another pub.

 

[Kemo]

Oh come on...
Thousands of ships killed in one system as part of a PP offensive and you never see anybody from the other side? Is that really working as intended?



It depends whether "winning" is the main priority. Think of it like a pub quiz where actually being in the pub for the quiz carries a disadvantage. Some people will do the quiz at home and then pop into the pub at last orders to chat about their victory.
Even if you choose to stay in the pub with your friends you will undoubtedly begin to see the whole quiz as a joke and likely stop participating. Or just move to another pub.

love the pub analogy

 

[ianw]

Oh come on...
Thousands of ships killed in one system as part of a PP offensive and you never see anybody from the other side? Is that really working as intended?

Apparently, yes. Though I get you don't think so.

It depends whether "winning" is the main priority. Think of it like a pub quiz where actually being in the pub for the quiz carries a disadvantage. Some people will do the quiz at home and then pop into the pub at last orders to chat about their victory.
Even if you choose to stay in the pub with your friends you will undoubtedly begin to see the whole quiz as a joke and likely stop participating. Or just move to another pub.

My point is simple - anyone who claims to prefer to play in open because they want to interact with other people should make that their priority. If they'd rather gain some perceived advantage by playing in solo then do that. If you think it's an either or choice then you have to go with what you prefer - no point in getting upset about something that has been re-iterated time and time again sin't going to change - just decide.

Or you can carry on getting getting wound up and moaning about something that's out of your control.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Oh come on...
Thousands of ships killed in one system as part of a PP offensive and you never see anybody from the other side? Is that really working as intended?



It depends whether "winning" is the main priority. Think of it like a pub quiz where actually being in the pub for the quiz carries a disadvantage. Some people will do the quiz at home and then pop into the pub at last orders to chat about their victory.
Even if you choose to stay in the pub with your friends you will undoubtedly begin to see the whole quiz as a joke and likely stop participating. Or just move to another pub.

Although this completely discounts people who play solo because they choose to, exclusively. It implies that anyone playing in solo who is pledged to PP is "circumventing the challenge" of pvp, which is a fallacy. You can't be circumventing something that does not apply to you, if you haven't ever played in open.

Or do you mean that people who play exclusively solo should be barred from PP or you will stomp off to the next pub quiz? I hear the tickets for the Star Citizen Pub Quiz are really nice to look at, but cost a fortune... Oh and they keep postponing the quiz too, but the tickets are lush, much better than the tickets to the ED pub quiz!

 

[kilvenny]

I think adding some mechanics to PP to create flash points between two powers where players compete in some fashion would help. It would encourage PVP types to go to PP and therefore away from other areas of space but would also focus players to points in the galaxy. What happens in the flash point? Maybe a combat zone with npc's for the two powers, with bonuses or penalties depending on results. Maybe the zone is only available for a period of time. Maybe you have to protect an NPC. Maybe it has a limited spawn of npc's. Maybe the merits per kill are increased. Announce these to players within a certain range of the flash point. Make it a key part of powerplay.

 

[Tinman]

I think adding some mechanics to PP to create flash points between two powers where players compete in some fashion would help. It would encourage PVP types to go to PP and therefore away from other areas of space but would also focus players to points in the galaxy. What happens in the flash point? Maybe a combat zone with npc's for the two powers, with bonuses or penalties depending on results. Maybe the zone is only available for a period of time. Maybe you have to protect an NPC. Maybe it has a limited spawn of npc's. Maybe the merits per kill are increased. Announce these to players within a certain range of the flash point. Make it a key part of powerplay.

Yep, time limited "save the capital ship" missions similar to what we had in Alpha would be an obvious way of expanding on and improving PP.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes the galaxy is huge but is that really why open is mostly so quiet? There are many places that should be centres of activity if people were in Open. Powerplay stats give some idea of the activity surrounding a system. Galnet relates stories of offensives and the huge conflicts over systems but you can spend the whole cycle there and sometimes never see a soul. Instancing problems and billions of star systems are not the cause. The cause is that Solo is effectively incentivized and the Open choice is largely meaningless.

The enormous potential I refer to is the possibility to create a vibrant, interactive, evolving, meaningful galaxy populated by a significant number of the 600,000+ purchasers. Instead the message people are hearing is "working as intended".

Each player chooses, on a session-by-session basis which mode to play in. If players choose not to play in Open, for whatever reason, then that's their choice and their choice alone. None of the game modes is incentivised - each player gets the same reward for the same input. The fact that other players may affect a players effectiveness in Open would seem to be the result of players choosing to play in a game mode where they will affect, and be affected by, other players.

If Open play is a sufficiently attractive to the majority of players then the majority of players may choose to play there - it's up to all players to make Open a good place to play to encourage others to play in it - not for Frontier to incentivise it in some way as they are on record as holding the opinion that all modes are valid and equal.

 

[Anopheles]

Each player chooses, on a session-by-session basis which mode to play in. If players choose not to play in Open, for whatever reason, then that's their choice and their choice alone. None of the game modes is incentivised - each player gets the same reward for the same input. The fact that other players may affect a players effectiveness in Open would seem to be the result of players choosing to play in a game mode where they will affect, and be affected by, other players.

If Open play is a sufficiently attractive to the majority of players then the majority of players may choose to play there - it's up to all players to make Open a good place to play to encourage others to play in it - not for Frontier to incentivise it in some way as they are on record as holding the opinion that all modes are valid and equal.

Oh, you were doing so well with your previous answer and now you follow it up with this nonsense. To say that it is for players to make open attractive with fdev doing nothing is such a daft premise that I am, for the first time in my life, speechless.

 

[Ekar]

Q: What are your thoughts about this post https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=167069

I know you weren't addressing me, but the OP nails it, imo.

 

[Carro]

(never mind...;-))

 

[Anopheles]

Also never mind.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Oh, you were doing so well with your previous answer and now you follow it up with this nonsense. To say that it is for players to make open attractive with fdev doing nothing is such a daft premise that I am, for the first time in my life, speechless.

While you may not appreciate my answer, given that Frontier do not seem to be inclined to offer bonuses to play in one out of the three modes (as all modes are valid and equal), what do you suggest instead that will encourage players to choose to play in Open?

 

[Jezzah]

While you may not appreciate my answer, given that Frontier do not seem to be inclined to offer bonuses to play in one out of the three modes (as all modes are valid and equal), what do you suggest instead that will encourage players to choose to play in Open?

Yeah your right really. With the shaky architecture of the MP side of things i wouldn't want to incentivise anymore in open either if I were FD