Powerplay in Solo

[Robert Maynard]

That's in the case of the current incarnation of the feature. If OP's measure was enacted, which is the substance of this thread, the roles would be reversed, or partly so. And whether or not to reverse the roles comes down to which players you want to detriment, again.

In which case it's a hypothetical situation.

Frontier know that all players bought a game where PvP is optional. They don't know how the playerbase as a whole would react to PvP-gating / adding a mode bonus to an existing pan-modal game feature over six years after launch. One group of players bought a game which does not suit their gameplay preferences whereas other players bought one that does - to change the game into something that no-one bought to suit a subset of the playerbase might be too much of a change, given that all players can currently engage in the feature in question.

The problem comes in cases where the best strategies are made very difficult and prone to failure because one group of open players are not willing to give up enjoyable gameplay (including for their remaining opponents who engage), while many of their opponents are willing to for the sake of success. Sacrifice is an acceptable cost to succeed, but when you are sacrificing the viablility of the feature you're engaged in...

Which remains their choice. They can't force others to play with them - although some of them want Frontier to change the game to bribe or force players to play with them if they want to affect the game feature.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

well if it must be perfect then we would have not got any game.

But failing to take into considerations BASIC game design of how the game works, and that includes what the 3 game mode are all about, does often lead to making pretty bad suggestions.

So if you or anyone else want o PUSH THEIR AGENDA on other players, using FLAWED logic, then of course you better be prepared to have a "perfect" solution to justify that.
Because consider the opposite, that those other players would be able to force their preferred gameplay onto you? removing part of the game that you enjoy the most, how would you like that?

Luckily, none of us are in a position to force our preferred playstyle onto other players, as we have several options to opt out of other players preferred playstyle, like choosing the preferred game mode, block players etc. You are of course free to invite other players to participate in your preferred gameplay, but they have no obligation to accept or respond to such invites, that is their choice.
As everyone have their right to try to enjoy this game as best as they can, and none is forced to be the enjoyment of others.


And of course you had to play the "risk" card, that risk is highly subjective to individual players, and dependant on individual player skill and activity

While I think flawed logic the forte of opponents to the OP more than the other way around (my opinion you'll say, but I have to defend what I think is defensible), you're right about needing to take into account the philosophy and ethos of the game's design, and the interests of the broad player base. Because that's what FDev will (or should) be considering.

Regarding forcing gameplay, the fact that solo/PG are more efficient for powerplay "whatever way you cut it" (see within the thread for citation), already incentivises use of those modes, just as an open bonus would for open play (or, equalise the incentive).

I do think too that open players are responsible to some extent for the "state of open", but the spectrum of players means that no individual or group can likely change that fundamentally.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

In which case it's a hypothetical situation.

All posts in a suggestion forum entail such a hypothesis.

FDev have a risky choice to make, then. But, probably not that risky. I'll not stop playing over the status quo, many others probably would not if such changes as OP's were implemented.

Regardless, threads like these are source material for FDev to understand the motivations of the player base. I do hope they read them/I do wish they read them.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I can't help thinking this could all be resolved satisfactorily in half an hour down the pub.

Unless a griefer comes along and smashes a pint glass over both of their heads.

I suppose they could rent a pub out to make a private group for the discussion though.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

All posts in a suggestion forum entail such a hypothesis.

FDev have a risky choice to make, then. But, probably not that risky. I'll not stop playing over the status quo, many others probably would not if such changes as OP's were implemented.

Regardless, threads like these are source material for FDev to understand the motivations of the player base. I do hope they read them/I do wish they read them.

I agree most wouldn't quit (but some would, or at least they would make "i'm quitting" threads).

But there is the negative press fallout to consider and negative review bombing that could happen. Engineers v1 left ED with a load of negative reviews for months on Steam and there have been other occasions when the negative reviews have come in hard and fast.

Now, personally, i consider Steam reviews about as useful as a chocolate fireguard as a guide to how good a game actually is, but a lot of negative reviews will still make me pause and look more closely than i would at a game which was overwhelmingly positive.

And because the game was sold as being mode neutral, there is always the chance someone might try and challenge FD in court for such a change demanding a refund based on it. While the T&Cs might grant FD the ability to do whatever they want, at least to some extent, there might be laws that would put someone give such a claim a leg to stand on. Even if they are on solid ground legally, lawsuits are not good press and make a company look shady.

Of course, we don't know what impact it would truly have unless FD tried it.

My position on this has been the same for a while now. If FD were to make PP open only, then I think FD should remove all presence of PP from PG/solo, including NPCs, rankings, bonuses and maluses. It should have no impact or influence on the game in PG/solo.

In which case, PG/solo would become my favourite modes, because i hate having PP NPCs taking up half the spawn slots at nav beacons and in RES. They are useless to non-PP players and reduce the number of pirates that spawn.

 

[Rubbernuke]

WIP really, but this is fleshing out a seed of an idea:

This is a Powerplay proposal that uses existing POI mechanics and mission style templates to provide graded Powerplay NPC opposition (which is currently lacking). It hopefully demonstrates a better PvE Powerplay game without being overtly radical and working with current mechanics. Also outlined are changes to make attack easier, and defence costlier (to make the feature more dynamic).

General

Modes stay unchanged- access is the same.

All Powerplay perks that reward in cash are quadrupled in value- so bounties and data are x4 and not x2. BGS effects stay the same. Weekly wages are quadrupled- so rank 5 = 200 million per cycle. Successful mission delivery (see Fortification and preparation) pays cash based on difficulty. Also, position 1/2/3/ bonuses are changed to a % based on standing position as outlined here:

Powerplay bonuses- scale according to position on Galactic Standing

FD said Powerplay love is coming*, but to give people a reason to pledge should Powers bonuses scale to where they are on the Galactic Standing leaderboard? This idea is not about the bonuses themselves (for now) but a way to make powers more evenly desirable. All powers have passive, rank and...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Powerplay C+P is changed so that you are attacked on sight from non allied Power NPCs.

All voting rights are the same as now across modes.

Vote strength is based on Rank ( starting at Rank 3) each week: so, Rank 3 = 1 vote Rank 4 = 2 votes Rank 5 = 3 votes. This hopefully rewards pledges who really wish to get involved and ensures alt accounts don't have easy access to voting.

Powerplay modules: Are duplicated in human tech brokers to allow unlocking via a power as well as via other means. Outlined here> https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...owerplay-modules-now-too.565101/#post-8947974

Sandros suggestion of 'Vote to Withdraw' / anti 5C voting / Ethos override / Profitability modifier applied to votes and preparation successes is used (see here)

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal.426940/

Consolidation bonus and Undermining

Voting to consolidate increases the required undermining value as now- but it also reduces the amount of CC each system generates. This means its harder to undermine directly, but the defender has to pay a CC deficit and / or fortify extra systems to make up the CC shortfall by generating CC. With each position the cost per system of CC increases.

Undermining is uncapped. Highest % wins once both totals are past 100%. Below 100% normal rules apply.

Combat expansions

Use the new CZ style (i.e. you can win a CZ and it ends) but rank and file has non bullet sponge ships (since this is for farming really). This makes CZs less vulnerable to AFK (away from keyboard) turretboats that can generate hundreds of thousands of merits in PG currently.

Combat expansions are now conducted by missions analogous to massacre missions and assassination missions.

Powerplay Massacre missions act as normal (kill x get y) but reward with merits and cash. These are fought in Powrplay themed CZs like currently.

Powerplay assassination missions are analogous to 'kill general' missions and always involve high end NPCs. Each NPC here is worth x 4 in value (40 rather than 10) with the target worth 150.

Combat expansion missions are offered in the same way as Fortification missions (see below).

Wing merits act as normal (i.e. x 4).

Fortification and preparation + Hauling expansions

All preparations and expansions are weighted to potential income- so a negative CC system is weighted to be very hard to prep or expand (i.e. it takes exponentially more effort), while good systems are much easier (encouraging 'good' moves). This also makes 5C (who intentionally prepare or expand bad systems) more difficult.

All fortification is inbound. All preparation is outbound.

Prep materials can be collected from any control system and are free (via misisons (see below)).

You collect fort materials via missions (see below) as normal from control systems and are free.

This proposal uses the hidden trader POI mechanic. You must scan the nav point (so you drop into a potentially dangerous spot and exposed to NPCs -see later) to find your contact to transfer your cargo (which you do by proximity). Each location is different based on RNG (within reason), so it means more variation against bots, allows for more danger (you don't have the protection of a stations guns or no fire zone for NPCs / players). This also gets around pad blocking since...there are no pads. This fits the 'shadow war' premise of Powerplay in that you are fighting a clandestine war. Your contact will be defended by your own power, but any rival PP NPC can drop in to attack- these rival NPCs will depend on the difficulty of your 'run' (see next).

Fortification missions:

Rather than a straight allocation of fort merits and an A to B flight between stations (like now), you have a set of small missions that has a difficulty rating and set opposition for that run.

This solves the issue in solo Powerplay of facing no NPC oppostion- in effect you scale the challenge to the reward and the fortification cargo.

These missions would be 'take x fortification materials to our contact in the capital y' and the harder they are, the more merits you are awarded for that run. So, a basic run might move 50 fort merits and have no opposition, whereas an Elite run may involve strong NPCs chasing you but be for 500. This allows players to choose the level they want to engage at.

Note: you can stack merit delivery missions, but the enemies stack as well (just as with missions today)- and since self defined allocations (i.e. click + to load more) no longer exists, its the only way to fill your ship.

Note: each board of missions is fixed- so you will only be offered a set amount at a time (which you can stack or not) but the choice does not refresh until the mission(s) you take are complete. Hauling missions are not subject to any BGS- its a straight choice of escalating difficulty roughly based on Elite Ranks.

Preparation missions are the same, but the difficulty is scaled to the potential CC of the system. So if you wish to prepare a poor CC system the only possible missions are high difficulty coupled with low preparation merit amounts, but good CC systems are the reverse, with lower difficulty and higher amounts.

Hauling expansion missions: powers that expand by hauling use similar mission mechanics as to the above (i.e. they choose defined missions). More rewarding missions brings more opposition.

Powerplay NPC difficulty: basic missions have NPCs that are like the ones currently in game (unengineered. low power). Each tier above adds the corresponding engineering- so it would be:

Basic - no engineering - low cargo value
L2 - G1
L3 - G2
L4 - G3
L5 - G4
Max - G5 - highest cargo value

Thus, opposition is scaled to effort.

PvP

In Open Powerplay, rival pledges of similar rank instanced with are highlighted as objectives to kill. Depending on where they are killed, they count as a substantial boost to fortification (if killed in your territory), undermining (if in a rivals territory), and respective boost if in a preparation or expansion site.

 

[Misty_Dark]

While I think flawed logic the forte of opponents to the OP more than the other way around (my opinion you'll say, but I have to defend what I think is defensible), you're right about needing to take into account the philosophy and ethos of the game's design, and the interests of the broad player base. Because that's what FDev will (or should) be considering.

Regarding forcing gameplay, the fact that solo/PG are more efficient for powerplay "whatever way you cut it" (see within the thread for citation), already incentivises use of those modes, just as an open bonus would for open play (or, equalise the incentive).

I do think too that open players are responsible to some extent for the "state of open", but the spectrum of players means that no individual or group can likely change that fundamentally.

I do agree with your assessment about the current state of Open and why several people avoid playing in Open. As it is often much easier create a negative reputation than to rebuild its reputation.

that open bonus bone, there now so many ways to negate most if not all those risks open posses, and with "new" things like Fleet Carriers, you can reduce this risk even more. so I do not see how this would be any better than what we have today. And this will eventually turn into a yet another nerf blocking in open. as people are going to use all their options to their best advantage, and if that involves them actively blocking the troublesome opposition, they will do that, just to get that juicy bonus, if that bonus is big enough to justify it.

 

[Bashy81]

In which case, PG/solo would become my favourite modes, because i hate having PP NPCs taking up half the spawn slots at nav beacons and in RES. They are useless to non-PP players and reduce the number of pirates that spawn.

This IMO should apply in all modes and would be a simple & major improvement to gameplay in Powerplay as well as a benefit to non-PP. Interdicting PP NPCs for merits is actually pretty fun, but hopelessly inefficient compared to forcing spawns at the nav beacon. That is what I term a tolerated relogging exploit, and tolerated generally because it goes some way to balancing the horrid imbalance between defence and attack, (the consequence of which is rampant 5C) as highlighted by Rubbernuke above. Buff undermining merits per ship, but remove the spawn-farming exploit and it would be a bonus for everyone. It would also balance combat expansions so everyone has to fight in CZs on a level playingfield instead of opposing with an advantage by using offbeaconing.

And because the game was sold as being mode neutral, there is always the chance someone might try and challenge FD in court for such a change demanding a refund based on it. While the T&Cs might grant FD the ability to do whatever they want, at least to some extent, there might be laws that would put someone give such a claim a leg to stand on. Even if they are on solid ground legally, lawsuits are not good press and make a company look shady.

its an utterly legless, toothless, contemptible legal claim in any jurisdiction. because..
1) Powerplay is only influenced by players who opt-in & pledge. No Powers are affected directly by unaligned players going about their business, all of whom could have sued fdev into the ground on the inception of powerplay, and ever since, if this legal argument had any standing, whatsoever. they havent, it hasnt, end of. but for good measure..
2) The marketing slogan hasnt changed since before Powerplay was introduced, or since. ergo, Powerplay isnt part of the stated BGS in the marketing, but an additional feature, just as is CQC for that matter, neither of which needs be affected by all players in all modes.
3) Frontier can change any and all features as it provides a game, subject..potentially.. to continual development. sorry honkers, your exploration style has been removed. to develop the game as frontier sees fit. How did the legal action go for that one, iirc, it never got anywhere as it had zero foundation.

does that little list ease your worries for frontier's legal security? pretty sure theyll be fine, lol

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

That is what I term a tolerated relogging exploit,

One does not relog, one returns to supercruise and drops back on the nav to reset the instance!

 

[Agony_Aunt]

its an utterly legless, toothless, contemptible legal claim in any jurisdiction. because..
1) Powerplay is only influenced by players who opt-in & pledge. No Powers are affected directly by unaligned players going about their business, all of whom could have sued fdev into the ground on the inception of powerplay, and ever since, if this legal argument had any standing, whatsoever. they havent, it hasnt, end of. but for good measure..
2) The marketing slogan hasnt changed since before Powerplay was introduced, or since. ergo, Powerplay isnt part of the stated BGS in the marketing, but an additional feature, just as is CQC for that matter, neither of which needs be affected by all players in all modes.
3) Frontier can change any and all features as it provides a game, subject..potentially.. to continual development. sorry honkers, your exploration style has been removed. to develop the game as frontier sees fit. How did the legal action go for that one, iirc, it never got anywhere as it had zero foundation.

does that little list ease your worries for frontier's legal security? pretty sure theyll be fine, lol

Perhaps if you read my post again, especially since i'm not a lawyer and presume you also are not, i wasn't trying to make a statement on whether legally they would be fine or not, but a lawsuit, valid or not, would generate negative press for FD.

People would look at it and say "Wow, look at those devs. Changing what the game is after people have already bought it! They promised people one thing, then didn't hold true to it".

I mean, that's why i stopped playing Fortnite: Save the World. Slowly, bit by bit, the devs changed StW to be more like Battle Royale. I don't think they understood that people played StW because it wasn't like BR and that if people wanted to play BR they would play BR. But BR was a thousand times more popular, so it made sense surely to make StW more like BR!

Now, the situations are not comparable, but its worth thinking about the optics of things and how they might affect people's opinion of the game and devs. Both those who are playing and those who are not.

I'm sure FD's management and shareholders think about these things.

I'm also not saying that FD shouldn't consider making changes to the game that might upset a demographic or perhaps give rise to negative press. Sometimes it has to be done for the good of the game and you will always upset some people with any change.

 

[CMDR DragonHorn]

Personally, I don't see any reason to argue on this topic. Rubbernukes suggestions (particularly Sandros), laid out nearly perfect groundwork to build this mode around. It ticks almost every box and addresses almost every issue raised though out the years for player that isn't even interested in PP to actually be engaged. I'd kill to play that kind of PP, either though I'm pledged atm, but see no reason to participate. Who didn't, just do yourself a favor and read these suggestions carefully.

It's only a matter of FD to pick this up, discuss internally, share their vision with possible changes and remarks in blogs, gather some feedback and go do it... or not. Until then, I don't know what else can be said about PP, other than walking in circles and repeating same ideas over and over.

 

[Morbad]

Virtually all the arguments about PP apply to the BGS as a whole.

 

[Bashy81]

Perhaps if you read my post again, especially since i'm not a lawyer and presume you also are not, i wasn't trying to make a statement on whether legally they would be fine or not, but a lawsuit, valid or not, would generate negative press for FD.

People would look at it and say "Wow, look at those devs. Changing what the game is after people have already bought it! They promised people one thing, then didn't hold true to it".

I mean, that's why i stopped playing Fortnite: Save the World. Slowly, bit by bit, the devs changed StW to be more like Battle Royale. I don't think they understood that people played StW because it wasn't like BR and that if people wanted to play BR they would play BR. But BR was a thousand times more popular, so it made sense surely to make StW more like BR!

Now, the situations are not comparable, but its worth thinking about the optics of things and how they might affect people's opinion of the game and devs. Both those who are playing and those who are not.

I'm sure FD's management and shareholders think about these things.

I'm also not saying that FD shouldn't consider making changes to the game that might upset a demographic or perhaps give rise to negative press. Sometimes it has to be done for the good of the game and you will always upset some people with any change.

When a legal case is so derisory no lawyer would ever take it on, there are no optics to worry about. I thought the point was obvious. its not enough to threaten legal action, you actually need something substantial that survives at least a first-glance, and it doesnt.

No legs, no teeth, no body of any legal justification whatsoever. So no optics to worry about!

As for the slippery slope, thats up to the devs. They can give PP and Open mode somewhere to be & something to do that isnt just 'the idiots choice' because otherwise its always safer & more efficient everywhere to do anything in Solo/PG. A lot of people want something more than just banal pewpew out of Open. The slippery slopers want to deny them that out of a fear it will spread and disenfranchise them from the game they love. Well we are disenfranchised, completely. We are asking for a corner of the bus to be segregated in.. Its not a lot to ask & Its not an attempted coup! jeezsh.

One does not relog, one returns to supercruise and drops back on the nav to reset the instance!

yeah I am familiar with the process, rofl. @50k merits & more week after week was my lot when Utopia had weaponised expansion troubles for a while.
I was trying to make it comprehensible. offbeaconing works by relogging too, & tbf i usually call it a reinstancing exploit (with a small 'e' because although it looks, smells, feels like an exploit, fdev says its ok so thats alright then)
People generally (and lord knows we're not debating with people who have any stake in the argument: they dont do powerplay.) are familiar with relogging to force respawns, but reinstancing isnt so comprehensible to many.

 

[JosiahD]

Powerplay should be an Open only activity. Influencing Powerplay by fortifying systems or even opposing systems in solo is something that shouldn't be possible, no one can stop you! Powerplay is meant to be a struggle between factions/powers working against one another. Groups of players targeting specific systems with other groups intervening. That seems like the ideal vision, not a bunch of invisible pilots carrying pamphlets to various stations and calling it a day.

What really sucks, in my opinion, is having a group of people in open that are actively trying to push a specific system a certain way, but are unable to do so since there can be dozens of players in Solo, their own little universe, stopping players in open.

I can understand wanting to play in solo, but Powerplay itself shouldn't be influenceable in Solo, is all I am trying to say. I know this has been brought up before, but is there any specific reason why it is?

Edit: I was also thinking, if this idea of mine of Powerplay in Solo is REALLY that desired, perhaps we can keep Powerplay in Solo and simply halve the merits and influence that players actions have in solo? That way they can still have an effect, however to be as efficient as possible, you would need to enter into Open!

Sorry, but no. I disagree completely. You oppose other Powerplay actions by carrying out Powerplay actions yourself, and matchmaking filter (ie mode) is irrelevant in that - it's indirect PvP if you will. If you think you can effectively oppose other players through combative PvP in Open you need to understand the that timezone differences, P2P matchmaking nuances, block lists, luck, their ability to avoid your interdictions, matchmaking favouring your friends list etc etc means you can never guarantee encountering the very players you're wanting to interdict to begin with. It won't work as well as you think it might.

Not to mention the number of players participating in Powerplay to begin with will drop when you lose the players who are just not interested in combat-based PvP right out of the gate - yet you'd choose to exclude them from participating because they don't meet your particular standard of who should play Powerplay. And if you think Powerplay lacks attention now, just wait until there's even fewer people participating. Stop worrying about how others play the game, would be my suggestion.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

When a legal case is so derisory no lawyer would ever take it on, there are no optics to worry about. I thought the point was obvious. its not enough to threaten legal action, you actually need something substantial that survives at least a first-glance, and it doesnt.

No legs, no teeth, no body of any legal justification whatsoever. So no optics to worry about!

Ah, so you are a lawyer!

 

[Bashy81]

Virtually all the arguments about PP apply to the BGS as a whole.

Except, most crucially, that the BGS provides a sense of effect on the gameworld for all players, Powerplay does not. By changing mode functionality for Powerplay, youre not depriving new players and those who have never got beyond that point, from a sense of being a part of a living breathing galaxy thing.

Personally, I don't see any reason to argue on this topic. Rubbernukes suggestions (particularly Sandros), laid out nearly perfect groundwork to build this mode around. It ticks almost every box and addresses almost every issue raised though out the years for player that isn't even interested in PP to actually be engaged. I'd kill to play that kind of PP, either though I'm pledged atm, but see no reason to participate. Who didn't, just do yourself a favor and read these suggestions carefully.

It's only a matter of FD to pick this up, discuss internally, share their vision with possible changes and remarks in blogs, gather some feedback and go do it... or not. Until then, I don't know what else can be said about PP, other than walking in circles and repeating same ideas over and over.

Ideas evolve, and the impression is gained that people dont care any more when they stop talking about something.
For example, Powerplay needs more easy understanding through the ingame tools. Galmap can provide that, if bubbles & map info provide an intuitive picture of what objectives are, and how precarious a situation is. They would do that much better, if bubbles acted like supply lines, reducing fortification requirements to systems that can trace a continuous friendly territory back to the HQ. it would provide strategic choke points as well. strategic objectives could be seen, by visible systems (like rares-systems or something new) that give a key economic boost to Powers. That gives incentive to expand like a spider, but a defensive desire to be like a sphere. this conflict of risk versus reward creates the strategic balancing act that makes for a much more interesting & easily understood strategic battle that doesnt take spreadsheets & singular leaderships on-high to make sense out of.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

When I willingly pick a mission with a certain difficulty, I expect it to reward as such. If I pick a mode for a feature that has considerable risks attached to it why not the same? Despite what you want Open exists and in Powerplay is significantly more demanding as its placing the most capable ships together. The 'gain' is rewarding that complex play in comparison to facing underpowered NPCs. If facing NPCs is your thing, great, just don't think its the same because its not.



Ironic considering solo is a way to bypass any form of disruption during play.

Can I ask you for an estimate of just how many times another player has prevented you from achieving you power play objectives?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Can I ask you for an estimate of just how many times another player has prevented you from achieving you power play objectives?

Quite a lot actually. From the ones I can remember I've had people chase me away from PMFs (forcing me to rethink what I'm doing at the time), had to help other pledges when they were attacked to drive off others, had to be very mindful of being seen when undermining a few times + also the same doing BGS work (as not to raise suspicion), had a few near misses when fortifying with rival pledges being about (luckily I was using a fast ship). I also had fun playing cat and mouse with undermining squads.

This does not include the rather tense times when I would be doing engineering in places held by other powers. I fondly remember doing lasers at Broo and almost filling my flightsuit as a giant Cutter like shadow flew over me as I sat there in my rather smaller ship.

 

[Bashy81]

Ah, so you are a lawyer!

Nope, I just have a spare braincell for the matter and arent blinded by prejudice. Its as I said the first time, give it another read..

its an utterly legless, toothless, contemptible legal claim in any jurisdiction. because..
1) Powerplay is only influenced by players who opt-in & pledge. No Powers are affected directly by unaligned players going about their business, all of whom could have sued fdev into the ground on the inception of powerplay, and ever since, if this legal argument had any standing, whatsoever. they havent, it hasnt, end of. but for good measure..
2) The marketing slogan hasnt changed since before Powerplay was introduced, or since. ergo, Powerplay isnt part of the stated BGS in the marketing, but an additional feature, just as is CQC for that matter, neither of which needs be affected by all players in all modes.
3) Frontier can change any and all features as it provides a game, subject..potentially.. to continual development. sorry honkers, your exploration style has been removed. to develop the game as frontier sees fit. How did the legal action go for that one, iirc, it never got anywhere as it had zero foundation.

does that little list ease your worries for frontier's legal security? pretty sure theyll be fine, lol

 

[Robert Maynard]

The most equitable way to deal with the issue that some have with players in Solo and Private Groups affecting "their" game is to split the galaxy - and add an Open-only galaxy for those who can't accept players not engaging them in PvP to affect game features.