Modes Obligatory "Merge solo, open, private groups" thread

[CaptainCaboose]

Morning Cmdr's!

I'm sure this has been posted elsewhere, but I couldn't find it(didn't look because I'm at work) and wanted your thoughts.

With Squadrons coming up, I thought it was time to revisit this idea. The long-short of it is that, if FD could enable PVP flagging, there wouldn't be a need for separated game modes or combat logging.

I've played in all 3 modes, I love playing in open and getting to know other Cmdr's, as well as watching PVP players duke it out, but like most players, I've lost ships to PVP griefers while hauling no cargo and without a bounty, while not participating in powerplay, simply because they wanted to see the explosion or disrupt the current CG.

With voluntary PVP flagging, players would get all the benefits of playing in open with none of the griefing by players. By openly flagging yourself to play PVP, you could still track down other players willing to fight and have at it, and players would still have interdiction and interaction events with NPC's. Simultaneously, I don't think there would be any need for solo, as all players would be incapable of affecting your play(aside from ramming), and private groups will be re-tooled into squadrons in open.

I don't see a downside here, I mean, more players(all players) in open, without the griefing? Seems like a no-brainer. [up]

Additionally, I assume FD hates that we board hop for missions, this would cure that as well(though I'll be the first to raise a pitchfork at the current mission boards and how board-hopping is necessary just to get a non-wing mission at this point).

*Side note: I really think CQC should be moved to an in-game UI, even a dedicated station to visit to participate, instead of being another main-menu option. If I've been mining for 8 hours and want to CQC, it would be awesome to fly over to Jameson and click a button on the dash to enter CQC.

**Side side note: We should be able to watch CQC matches in-game as a spectator. I mean, the camera controls are already in-game, adding a few spectators to a match shouldn't break the netcode, right?

Sound off, let me know why this is a bad set of ideas.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

There's a whole forum for this question.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php/223

The mods will probably move you over there soon.

 

[Nightshade]

The two things that would be lost with this that I can think of are:

1) Ability to move to Solo to dock at a station or base where all the pads are full.
2) Ability to relog in solo mode to farm materials at places like Dav's hope and the crashed Anaconda.

All in all, I would rather have everybody in Open. If people could choose whether or not to participate in PvP then I think it would make things more comfortable for everyone, except perhaps a few dedicated griefers. The world would be slightly more lively, which is something that we really need. I'd be a bit sad to lose out on a few conveniences, but I think the benefits would outweigh the downsides.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Instancing and Network Performance.

I refuse to play in Open because when I start seeing ships skipping across space like stones on a pond, I'm out.
This is pretty common when one person, let's say me, has a nice 220 x 80 Mbps Up/Down connection with 18 ms latency and +/- 1ms jitter crosses paths with some Aussie with a 768 x 512 kbps with 118 ms latency and +/- 50 ms jitter, connecting to some southeast Asian VPN because they think it makes their connection magically faster, since their speed test results are now those of the VPN they connect to, rather than the speed between themselves and the VPN host. The numbers lie, but they believe it.

Then you try to instance with them, and you drop in, and they drop in to a different instance entirely.

Or you're playing from your vacation home in Dubai, and my Juniper router blocks all IP traffic originating from Dubai, but you still try to route packets to me, and I keep refusing them, and your con-conn-connec-connection does something very odd to you, and I don't see a thing, and we never cross paths.

So yeah, idea failed.

 

[DukeIronHand]

Yessir. Not all of us have a 6 foot fiber optic cable off the server. Connection speed is an issue.
Works well for me as is minding my own business in Solo or an uncrowded PG.

 

[Factabulous]

Goodbye little duplicate thread, we hardly knew you...

 

[Noob]

No.

 

[verminstar]

Another one fer the hotel...nope never gonna happen, and I play in open now after two full years in solo...now seriously considering going back to solo cos all I’m seeing are gank attempts, silent players who don’t even wave an o7 and mountains of salt.

In 6 months of playing open I’ve only had one single conversation with another cmdr...and that guy was on my friends list fer years anyway, so no absolutely no way ^

 

[CaptainCaboose]

I haven't had a "full docks" issue in... Months? At least, even at CG hubs, do you still run into this?

Instancing and Network Performance.

I refuse to play in Open because when I start seeing ships skipping across space like stones on a pond, I'm out.
This is pretty common when one person, let's say me, has a nice 220 x 80 Mbps Up/Down connection with 18 ms latency and +/- 1ms jitter crosses paths with some Aussie with a 768 x 512 kbps with 118 ms latency and +/- 50 ms jitter, connecting to some southeast Asian VPN because they think it makes their connection magically faster, since their speed test results are now those of the VPN they connect to, rather than the speed between themselves and the VPN host. The numbers lie, but they believe it.

Then you try to instance with them, and you drop in, and they drop in to a different instance entirely.

Or you're playing from your vacation home in Dubai, and my Juniper router blocks all IP traffic originating from Dubai, but you still try to route packets to me, and I keep refusing them, and your con-conn-connec-connection does something very odd to you, and I don't see a thing, and we never cross paths.

So yeah, idea failed.

I haven't run into this either, with few exceptions, definitely not often enough for it to be gamebreaking, and I'm running box-standard Comcast overpriced .

 

[CaptainCaboose]

Another one fer the hotel...nope never gonna happen, and I play in open now after two full years in solo...now seriously considering going back to solo cos all I’m seeing are gank attempts, silent players who don’t even wave an o7 and mountains of salt.

In 6 months of playing open I’ve only had one single conversation with another cmdr...and that guy was on my friends list fer years anyway, so no absolutely no way ^

I get the boredom from a lack of conversation, and the issues with griefing were addressed in the post. I'll group with you, if that will help ease the frustration, god knows the only missions you can find nowadays require wings anyway...

 

[Qohen Leth]

That was hardly obligatory

Just 10 min ago, I forgot I was in Open, I go to the surface at the Darnielle's Progress surface port, I'm instantly targeted and blasted . Poor explovette didn't survive. But it's fine. Big bad boy only wasted 6 seconds of my time and 13MCr of my 2.5BCr

Yay C&P!

 

[GG7]

NEVER going to happen.

Those who choose not to play in OPEN typically have very valid reasons for it.

Forcing everyone into one single mode would be one of the most effective ways to KILL this game in record time.

Pick your battles more carefully. This one is DOA.

 

[Unhappyhour]

First, get people off my landing pad, then we'll talk.

 

[Dagwit]

Obligatory "No!!!!!" post.

 

[CaptainCaboose]

NEVER going to happen.

Those who choose not to play in OPEN typically have very valid reasons for it.

Forcing everyone into one single mode would be one of the most effective ways to KILL this game in record time.

Pick your battles more carefully. This one is DOA.

Would it really though, with pvp flagging? You really think after all the ups and downs we've gone through already with ELITE, that the ultimate "nail in the coffin" would be bringing players together? Walk me through that. Aside from a chat box and hollow dots on the radar, how would having other players around make life worse in the galaxy? How would it make anything different than solo at that point?

Obligatory "No!!!!!" post.

Use your words and contribute to the discussion, how does the bad outweigh the good in this imaginary situation?

 

[Andovar]

obviously the mods are too busy over on the focused feedback forums dealing with "carriers for solo" shenanigans to see this...

 

[Pville_Piper]

"Obligatory "Merge solo, open, private groups" thread"

And the obligatory "Is it time for another one of these threads" question...

 

[Bryan K]

Obligatory "No!!!!!" post.

Also, obligatory “Move this to the Modes of Elite sub-forum where it belongs!” post.

Sub-forums exist for a reason.

 

[CaptainCaboose]

First, get people off my landing pad, then we'll talk.

Lol, damn beluga in my way. Seriously though, do you still run into full pads at major stations?

"Obligatory "Merge solo, open, private groups" thread"

And the obligatory "Is it time for another one of these threads" question...

Yep

Also, obligatory “Move this to the Modes of Elite sub-forum where it belongs!” post.

Sub-forums exist for a reason.

True, but it's not like general discussion is so full of meaningful conversations right now that it can't spare a single additional thread...

 

[Jockey79]

The Wall of Information;

A quick look at the history of; and tech used to bring you this game (explains why some things are not possible).

[video=youtube_share;EvJPyjmfdz0]https://youtu.be/EvJPyjmfdz0[/video]

Thanks to Roybe for for the link to the video.

From the Kickstarter Page;
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*

Some Dev comments from the Kickstarter;

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1681441
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1705397
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1705551

The part about it being as much a MMO as CoD is already in your Wall of Text, the second KS post. His exact words were "I don't see this as an MMO in the traditional sense, unless you think of Call of Duty as an MMO."




About he not wanting to call it a MMO early on, well, besides that very post hinting at it, and the Kickstart page not using that term even once, I remember hearing it in old video interviews from the KS era. The "I don't see it as an MMO in the traditional sense" line came out quite a few times before fans managed to finally convince DB that Elite Dangerous, as pitched, would qualify as an actual MMO.




There are other interesting things to find in those old interviews. For example, just from the Gary Whitta interview with David Braben and Chris Roberts, you have:
(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)




As reference for the following quote, here is Chris Roberts speaking about the Star Citizen equivalent of this thread (part 3, 5:30):
"And the key is kind of what David alluded to, which I think it's a debate that David has with his community and it's a debate I have with my community because there is definitely this whole sort of PvP and PvE sort of factions that go on and they're all pretty rabid. And so I think, and I think David also believes that you can sort of create a game that can cater to both sets of players and it will be okay. But it certainly is, that is, I would say if I were going to give you a touchpaper to set up a fight with your community that's the one to do it."




The immediate follow up by DB about PvE groups (part 3, 6:01):
"Well, the discussions have come up already. We have this concept of groups where you can join a group which doesn't allow or does allow it on the user choice."




Or this about the kind of game DB would want to play (part 3, 7:09):
"You know, so what I would I want from a game? I want to be able to play a great game without being griefed by teenagers, but having said that I do want there to be a feeling of risk out there."




Also this about what player interaction in ED was supposed to be about (part 3, 2:06):
"And so, I don’t mean necessarily every ship should be a player because then you get into a frame of mind that you can’t kill anything without really upsetting someone. I mean with Elite: Dangerous it’s still…a lot of the ships you encounter won’t be real players but we will call out, of the ships that you meet, who is a real player. We have a way of distinguishing them within the game. They’re actually part of this group of pilots that you’re part of and it will call out, above them say. Essentially what it means is “this is a real player,” but in the game fabric: “so this is a group who a member of the same organization as you.” We…you know, in other words we, we don’t want this game to be all about player vs. player kills, but the point is it encourages a lot of cooperation. And, it will be possible to do player vs. player kills if that’s what people want to do. "

From the forum archives;
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)


Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."

DB on "Griefing" and "Griefers"
(Listen out for the part where FD can move them in to a private group of just each other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M

Rededit Topic on "unusual event for players to come against players" (Twitch Video now removed, YT link for it below)
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangero...ayers_to_come/

( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJzizYUEF9c EGX2014 Video, 30 minutes long)

Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)

Wikipedia;
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.

Oxford English Dictionary (Online);
An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .

The Steam Store page;
https://imgur.com/DuLYHdu

Please note, "Single Player" and "Multiplayer" with "Co-op".
So not just an "MMO"


Frontier website; www.elitedangerous.com/en/gameplay/wings

https://imgur.com/0kmpH03

Dev comments;

Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.




Michael

Thanks for that clarity Michael.




Are you in a position to confirm that group switching between the three game modes will remain as a feature of the game?

We're not planning on changing that.




Michael

FuzzySpider
The mechanics of powerplay, particularly the interface between player and power being an almost direct copy of the community goal model, gives the entire experience an MMO-guild type feel to the gameplay.




Is this MMO-style a new direction for Elite: Dangerous? Or will you be still focussing on the single player immersive experience, even if that single player is playing in a universe filled with other players?




Thank's very much to you and the FDev team for all of your efforts. One or two subjective les of mine aside the game is the one I've been waiting for for years and I'm totally enamoured with it.

We are supporting multiplayer and the solo experience. Community Goals are carrying on too.

E3 2015 Interview (17th June 2015);

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/0...-david-braben/

PowerPlay AMA related links regarding Modes and Powerplay;

Hi Micheal


I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?

None are planned at the moment.


Michael

In the newsletter, it was mentioned that an intersection between a trading power and a military power will result in piracy missions.


Will this make NPC piracy more profitable or will we continue to need to focus on players?

It can be more profitable, and it will apply to both players and NPCs

For fun


That said, it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation.

Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.

The overall thread topic (+ How XB1 fits);

On that last point, Producer Ben Dowie reiterated that Xbox One and PC players won’t be playing head-to-head—although they’ll be playing in the same simulated universe, they’ll never encounter each other in space, likely because Microsoft’s Xbox patch cycle adds complexity to Frontier’s game update procedure. This means that PC players and Xbox players will often wind up on different clients, which means no head-to-head play. To that end, anticipated PC-centric features will likely land on PC first.

And regarding the game design;

I pointed out that there’s frequent contention online about the “right” way to play, be it casual or hard-core, and Braben agreed. “But there shouldn’t be a ‘right’ way,” he said. “You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play. And people have come up with lots of suggestions, some of them very constructive and sensible, and we do listen, and people hopefully have seen that we’ve changed things and adjusted things, but not in a way—we hope!—to upset people. We’re doing it to make the game better!”

To highlight something from that above quote;

“You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play."

Here is a quote from Zac Antonaci for the "game is dying" pro-claimers.
Dated 10th July 2015;

They need to be.


Look at the current posts on the subreddit and the forum. Your core player base is simply stopping playing. You might be selling copies but if your core community is splitting or stopping playing then you have a problem.

Hey Fred,

I wanted to reply to this honestly if I may.


I'm not going to be talking about active player numbers explicitally but I can tell you without question that the game has a very healthy and thriving community who enjoys hours upon hours of Elite. You really don't need to worry on that point.


<snip>


Zac

And a nice, clear, concise comment from Michael Brookes regarding the modes;

Is there planned to be any defense against the possibility that player created minor factions could be destroyed with no possible recourse through Private Groups or Solo play?

From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.

Michael

Dev Update 6th August 2015 (https://community.elitedangerous.com/node/248);

What we are doing is new in many ways, both technically and in terms of how we are realizing our long term ambitions for Elite Dangerous. As we evolve the game we are trying to give the best value we can to both existing and new players, for the long term benefit of everyone. That’s why we’ve worked hard to keep backwards compatibility for the Elite Dangerous: Horizons season, and are continuing to release updates for ‘season one’ players. Everyone will continue to fly in the same galaxy, and be impacted by, participate in and help to drive the same events.

(I added the bold / underline in the quote to highlight the last line)


Reddit AMA from X-Box One launch, in relation to the Back Ground Simulation and Modes;
https://np.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/3nlmdg/its_frontier_developments_developers_of_elite/

DB was asked a question "Is Elite and MMORPG?" in the LiveStream tonight.

Spoiler

[video=youtube_share;RdP1DmRYco8]https://youtu.be/RdP1DmRYco8[/video]

He answered it like this:

19:42
"Well I think the problem is this: Different people mean different things by saying MMOs, you know. I think we're massive (19:53) by most measures, in terms of we have a lot of people playing, all at the same time. We have instancing, but then you know so does every other or every MMO out there. (20:10) The case, you know, you look at the way Warcraft does it. Now the case is (20:15) where do you set the number. So currently it's you know around 32 players in a session plus NPCs and all that sort of thing. (20:23) You know we could go higher if it weren't for the NPCs, we could go higher if people had perfect network connections. You know if we had a LAN we could go way higher. You know this is the point. (20:31) And it's a case of balancing the experience and also how much data you have to exchange. You know it's a quality of the experience that I expect over time we will increase it.

"But are we an MMO? I think we are by all measures."

Ed speaks and then David adds:


"It's not an RPG in a sense that (21:09) you increase your personal stats but a lot of people play it as a role playing game. I think if that's what you want it to be then so it is I suppose. I don't think it really matters. Someone said 'That's a silly question. Such a waste of time.' Well there you go."

Engineers Live Stream;

2 Points raised and asnwered;

Open PvE Mode;
Is ED a PvP game;

[video=youtube;gEtHu3AXw2Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHu3AXw2Q&t=42m30s[/video]


Here is a post from Sandro Sammarco "musing" over a bonus to Open mode for Power Play;

.....
And since I'm in the mood for pulling hand grenades , here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.

My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo. So the playing field is basically uneven as it stands and in this case, maybe change could make things better.

Now, one final Caveat. *As it stands currently*, we have time allotted in season two to work on Powerplay. These suggestions are just a part of that work - there is other stuff as well. However, I can't commit to the Unbreakable Vow, because it's very possible that in the fluid world of development, things might change!

I just wanted to set these ideas free and see how well they settle, so, comments welcome!

Hello Commanders!

A couple of clarifications:

* This change, which remember is nothing more than a suggestion at this point, would have no effect on personal gain. It would affect success values for expansion, fortification and undermining only, not the merits you earned.
* It does not, and is not, meant to be a panacea to make the actual activities of Powerplay better. It's best to think of it as activity agnostic. That's not to say that we don't want to improve the activities (we do!), just that this is not aimed at that.
* The reason this benefit would only apply to Open as opposed to in Private Groups is fairly clear I think: we have no way to control distribution in Private Groups. Folk could start a Private Group where everyone was pledged to a single power. This would effectively then be Solo in terms of dealing with the potential threat of other Commanders.
* I would not want to introduce this into any aspect of the game except Powerplay because Powerplay is the only aspect of the game that explicitly uses the concept of adversarial multiplayer, as opposed to the more vague ways that minor factions operate.

Hope this info helps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uetVzNINdKU;t=26m40s
[video=youtube;uetVzNINdKU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uetVzNINdKU;t=26m40s[/video]

The first one's from Robert Maynard and he's saying "Has the pin been pulled on the hand grenade I posted in a Collusion Piracy thread?". Just for context this was, I was musing out loud about potentially Open Play Powerplay having some benefit to success over and above Private Groups and Solo - I just want to reiterate that was just me musing, we're not going to do that at the moment, there are no plans to do it, but it is still an interesting thought, nothing's ever completely off the table but nothing to announce at the moment.

On PvP vs PvE
We listen to both sides. While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP. A few changes here are more focused on one or the other (torpedoes have no real place in PvE at the moment for starters), but overall I think they promote variety of loadouts in both styles of play, and will make both more fun. On a personal note: I play more or less entirely in PvE, so if anything my bias in favour of that .

Extra note on "Griefing" and posts by Sandro on the topic;

Hello Commanders!

In this instance, blocking the Commander might prove quite useful.

When you block somebody, a couple of things should happen.

Firstly, you will receive no communications from them.

Secondly, during any transition where matchmaking is at work (so basically, hyperspace jumps, entering and exiting super cruise) you are much less likely to be matched with the blocked Commander.

Blocking becomes weaker when it comes up against friends (and next year, player wings), because if a blocked Commander is in the same session as a friend (say, because they haven't blocked the Commander, the blocking effect is
overruled by the friendship matchmaking.

Outside of this case though, blocking should work fine.

Hello Commanders!

A couple of points worth noting:

The block effect is asymmetrical, in that it is much stronger when the blocking player is arriving at a location where the blocked player already is - effectively more of the onus is on the blocker to change their game than the blocked player.

Instancing is a pretty complicated calculation, affected by a significant number of checks, such as instance populations, quality of player connections, friends, wing members, blocked players, blocking players, recent connections (and possibly more - far cleverer folk than me work this out). The weightings for these elements varies as well - wing membership, for example, is an extremely strong weighting towards allowing a match up.

Whilst I'm sure that to some degree matchmaking can be influenced, the complexity and number of elements completely out of the player's control (or even knowledge) are a strong limiting factor.
At the end of the day, ignoring players is a completely personal choice, that *influences* the chance of meeting ignored players, reducing the *potential* for match making with them.

Updated comment regarding Power Play and PvP;

[video=youtube_share;nvMYy0ry9mA]https://youtu.be/nvMYy0ry9mA[/video]


Some well made points made by forum user Sylveria;

The reality here is there are a HUGE number of players that play the game for their own reasons and they may or may not align with yours. For others reading this post, I apologize for the sheer length of it, but I'm really tired of having these same old debates with people and I'm covering a wide range of questions/answers that normally get covered in multi-page thread-noughts in advance. I've wrapped my own thoughts in a spoiler tag to minimize the "wall".




The Technical
Here's a bit of reality. FD created ED with P2P core networking, the BGS is tied into that, and ALL THREE MODES are tied into this as well. "Removing Solo/PG" to throw everyone into Open isn't going to happen because there's no central server system, and as of now, you can "block" using P2P. So to accomplish what you're asking, they would need to completely redo the entire base networking system to prevent people from blocking others on that level. Do you really think they're going to do that for just a (arguably "small") portion of their player base?




The Financial
Let's just posit a small theory, shall we? All of these tired arguments usually allege that there's a "huge" portion of players that wish for this change, and that if it doesn't happen there's going to be some sort of (DOOOOM!!!) "mass exodus" of players who will leave the game, and "FD will be losing potential income", yada yada. Now, bearing in mind all the people who have already bought this game, the amount of money that's been spent so far, and a change to base gameplay functionality (if it were to happen) what do you think the financial repercussions would be? Just affection ONE of any of the three modes would result in a MASS request of refunds... so let's talk actual numbers, shall we?




Mobius PvE was created to help facilitate players who did not want PvP but still wanted to play together online (Co-Op gameplay)
This Private Group has far exceeded the 40,000 player limit and additional "Private Groups" had to be created to facilitate the additional numbers...
Think about that for a minute, then multiply just that number by the base cost of this game, not including any LEP's, Backers, Horizons purchases or additional Store (paintjobs, etc.) content purchased.




Are you getting the picture yet?




Now keeping numbers in mind- let's stick to the financial aspects here. The PvE content included in this game is available to ALL three modes, regardless of PvE or PvP playstyle. If you removed any one of the three modes, that would still be the case, correct? Let's now think about doing the same with PvP content, which is ONLY available to Open mode. How much more money do you think FD spends in addition to what's already existing in the game to ADD more PvP content and accessibility to it? Think of people coding, maintaining the equipment that helps to facilitate networking, logistics, etc.




So, keeping in mind all the aforementioned numbers here's a question:
Do you think it would be more financially viable for them to strip all the PvE content and make it completely PvP, or do the reverse and make it only PvE?




Here's a couple more questions:
How many times have you seen the PvE Community opening threads and spewing posts about removing content from Open and making it exclusively accessible to Solo?
How many times have you seen the PvE Community throwing tantrums and stomping their feet in the Forums or on Reddit about "Leaving the game" if more PvE exclusive content doesn't get added to the game?




Are you getting the "bigger picture" yet?




(Granted, you'll see the occasional post from a PvE player who is "bored" or whatever, but that's to be expected in any game. You'll see those on any forum, because a developer can't make everyone happy, all the time.)




PvP Players
If you want Open to be "better" and want to draw more players into Open, I'd suggest you start banding together, organize some groups and "take out the trash", so it becomes a much cleaner place to enjoy the game. I'd love to see it become what it should have been originally- a huge expansive universe full of life, full of a wide range of players and game play, all doing different things and co-existing together. Pirates, Traders, Explorers, RP-er's, Miners, etc. People enjoying the game they love amongst others, with some being able to cooperatively play in PvP and some being able to cooperatively play in PvE, and some just doing their own thing on their own, without being bothered.




It's not going to be like that when you've got GSP's running around acting like psychopaths and there's (relatively) no consequence for them doing so. You want it to change? Then CHANGE it. You shouldn't need incentive, if your true motivation is "PvP combat", you've got all the incentive (and targets) you need. They're out there waiting for you. And if you keep laying into them, they'll eventually get tired of acting like they have been and quit or change their attitudes and start learning to co-exist.




"Wolf against wolf", not "wolf against sheep".




P.S. for those who care to read it (included in Spoiler tag to reduce the wall of text)

Spoiler

I only speak for myself- and have only done so. No one made me the "voice of Solo/PG's or PvE" here.




I really didn't want to start a "crusade" of PvE vs PvP or any of that. At first, I tried to reason with them... and that didn't work. They won't listen to reason. So now we have to defend our game-play styles because all they're doing with the negativity is driving away new customers because a few people didn't get what they wanted. And because they've got just as much of a right as "customers" to come into the forums and voice their opinions, there's no recourse but to continue to keep laying down reality. I/we don't get "paid" or "compensated" in ANY way, form or fashion for doing this, either. (neither does Jockey79, or any of the other more vocal players of the PvE community) I/we do it because I love the game and don't want to see it destroyed because of a minority few.




I see some in the PvP community spreading falsities, throwing tantrums, and trying their absolute damndest to get FD to change core functionality that affects ALL modes that would affect all players (PvE included) in order to facilitate their "Free For All Killfest" COD-in-space style gameplay. When throwing tantrums didn't work they started to spread toxicity into Reddit, the Official forums, Discord, and anywhere else they feel they'd garner support and be "heard".




Essentially the whole argument is "Remove Solo/PG's and give us our fish for our barrel or we'll burn down the game!!"




(That's it folks, that's the WHOLE strategy)




If you really want to see this game succeed, you should be very concerned. Make your own opinions known, because THEY certainly are.