For PP the NPCs should absolutely be harder, regardless of mode.
Easy-peasy: you're pledged - PP enemies will harass you, you're not pledged - no PP enemies (aka as it is now).
General Remove private Lobby and single Player
- Thread starter Black White
- Start date
Easy-peasy: you're pledged - PP enemies will harass you, you're not pledged - no PP enemies (aka as it is now).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
As mentioned earlier, Powerplay NPCs used to harass pledged players all the time - that was changed after player feedback early on.
.... and I have no issue with Powerplay NPCs being made more challenging - the question is how much and in what situations.
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
Game is one way, some see better way (great song by Quo), suggestions exist.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - and we don't all want the same changes even if we bought the same game (which contains particular features that some can't accept).
More equitable to split the game in two rather than actively exclude players from existing pan-modal base-game content by PvP-gating it to Open only, in my opinion of course.
I think really, you want to split the game, and try to present that option as the equitable, not just one possibly equitable way (and given AgonyAunt's post, one that doesn't sound so equitable after all).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Some want players not to be able to play at all in any game mode other than Open, e.g. the OP.
Some want players who have the temerity to not play among others to be penalised for doing so (in a game where other players are an optional extra and where all players affecting the unique connected galaxy continues to be a selling point in the advertising as it was in the game design when published).
I'd rather see the game split than players lose the ability to equally[1] affect game features from all three game modes. Michael Brookes was characteristically terse in his response to the question as to whether the game would ever be split, i.e. he said simply "No.". He was equally clear when he said that Frontier consider all three game modes to be equal and valid choices. If it were proposed that the second were no longer to be the case then why should the first be considered to be sacrosanct?
[1]: each player action affects the game the same regardless of game mode, noting that each player's choice of whether or not to to play among other players may mean that they are impeded in completing actions by the other players they chose to play among.
Last edited:
I would love to see the game spilt into two complete galaxies, one Open-only and one for PvE play with the three modes, for the single reason that it would end this tedious debate forever.
Given AgonyAunt's post I think we know how it would turn out. To put it mildly, the PvP enthusiasts still wouldn't have what they want. At least they'd no longer be able to blame anyone else though.
However, all this would involve FD having the extra costs of running two galaxies and losing some (mostly PvP) players, so I don't expect it to happen. Especially as we already have the simple, elegant and innovative solution which satisfies most players.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It wouldn't end the debate, in my opinion - there would be those in the Open only galaxy who would bemoan the fact that players didn't need to play with them to enjoy the game, much as happens at the moment.
Yes, but they'd be in "a galaxy far, far away".
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Conjoined by the forums....Yes, but they'd be in "a galaxy far, far away".
Uh, yes, I suppose so. At least I wouldn't have to join in anymore though as my play would be unaffected.
I'll opt in to letting Cmdr Richard shoot at me when the design of the interaction isn't stupid. I will not let him steal my time for the sake of letting him steal my time. It doesn't matter if it's powerplay, the BGS or whatever. I'll opt in when the interaction is designed in a way that winning is better than not having the interaction.
I'm a a python built to run missions because I want to spend my time running missions. Cmdr Richard is in a ship built to fight players. He wants me to use time to fight him. The game gives him the ability to just take time from me. Fine. I hate it but whatever. I can build my ship so he can't kill me; I damn sure can't kill him. The only way I can get a reward for the time spent is to kill him and that's not going to be possible unless he's just the worst player in the game. My role is supposed to be "run away". Everyone acknowledges that fact. I lose a rebuy if I fail. I probably have 20 missions. I'll lose some of them. I probably have cargo. I lose it. I may have data. I probably have some bounties. I lose them. More importantly; I lose the time used to collect those resources. I'm also being prevented from doing what I enjoy. I'm forced to use time on this worthless interaction. I have a lot on the line. Success means I just lost the time wasted on this worthless interaction and am now further from my goal. Now I just have more of the slow, boring travel. That's my reward for success. It's bad if I win and worse if I lose. There is no "draw". I'm forced into some level of loss the moment I'm forced into this interaction. Time is not a free resource. It's the only currency that matters.
Cmdr Richard is using his time to do what he wants. Success is a pretty explosion. Failure is "awww shucks, I'll get 'em next time" and a soft massage of the wrist in the form of a bounty.
"...but NPCs attack people". NPCs are balanced so anyone can just opt out of the combat. They're also balanced so just about anyone can opt to spend the time, kill the NPC and get value for the time spent. Kill the NPC and you get money, mats and rep. The NPC isn't one shotting anyone but the weakest ships. Stall for the cops and the NPC isn't going to run away immediately. NPCs have value. Cmdr Richard is a step under worthless.
Winning an interaction I'm forced into must be better than not having the interaction.
This isn't hard. The design of the interaction is broken. It's not built in a way to create competition. It just creates trolls and victims; I refuse to play either role. "I will shoot at you and you spend your time running away. You win if you survive. You'll be happy to spend your time on this worthless interaction because it could have been even worse. Who cares that you wanted to spend you time doing something interesting or engaging or entertaining? I'm having fun!"
Give Cmdr Richard more incentive to kill me. He should get more than a pretty explosion. I'm willing to risk literally everything. You're already taking time from me; that's the worst possible punishment. Player's now drop a black box upon destruction. Put whatever you want in it. Literally anything. I don't mind. All mats, money, bounty/combat vouchers, data and deeds to all ships and modules. Kill me and take my stuff. Fine. I can get most of that stuff back while doing stuff I enjoy. Raw mats are a problem. If I were in his shoes, I'd prefer some different reward. Make it make sense. I'm not trying to stop him from ganking people.
Make it more difficult for me to escape. Balance it. Two equal pilots; 50/50 chance of death vs survival. That helps bounty hunters. Again; I'm not trying to make anything 'safer'. I'm trying to make it 'not stupid'. Question: If I can build a trade ship that can usually escape from a PvP ship; how are bounty hunters supposed to get player bounties? Fix it.
Add a logical path to victory for the non-criminal. You can't ask my trade ship to kill a PvP ship. I scan Cmdr Richard, escape and turn in data within a time limit. He has a chance to chase after me to finish the job. I lose the data if I log out. I get a reward worth the time wasted on him and whatever you decide I should risk. It needs to be significant. He's taking time away from me. He forced me into his game and I won. "Your reward is getting to do what you would do if I didn't attack you; but now with more slow, boring travel." That's nonsense. Winning the interaction must be better than not having the interaction. I'm not opting in to letting someone make my game worse because it makes them happy.
That's easy to exploit for the reward. Cmdr Richard should have a penalty too harsh to exploit. Sorry; there is no other option. The winner gets a reward; the loser is penalized. Failure must hurt. You can have different rewards/penalties for the normal game and for powerplay. We can't have a game where someone can take value (time) from another player; and the 'victim' is the only one with consequence. Of course people are going to opt out of such garbage design! His failure should hurt as much as mine and I'm willing to risk literally everything. Whatever you want. I think it should be time based.
I'm willing to opt in. I'm up for the challenge. I'm willing to risk literally everything and fail. Design a logical game. Cmdr Richard attacks me. I'm already losing time. I'm already at a state of loss. He's forced me into a position where I have to escape or I have an even worse penalty. I scan him. I've forced him into a position where he has to kill me or he will have a harsh penalty. I now have a chance to get something of value for the time spent. I turn in the data and get a fantastic reward that is far better than anything I could have received without him. He's no longer worthless. He's an opportunity.
A bounty hunter scans Cmdr Richard. They've forced him into a position where he's going to have a harsh penalty if he doesn't kill them. Escape is not an option. Cmdr Richard wants that attention. He's constantly begging for it. He's willing to ask the devs to force people to give him attention. He doesn't mind forcing people into unwanted gameplay. He's not going to mind if it happens to him.
Mouse vs Cat. Cat vs Dog. Build mechanics for all of them. There's a reason that the cats are the only ones that are asking to force people into open. The existing mechanics are 10000% in their favor.
I'm a a python built to run missions because I want to spend my time running missions. Cmdr Richard is in a ship built to fight players. He wants me to use time to fight him. The game gives him the ability to just take time from me. Fine. I hate it but whatever. I can build my ship so he can't kill me; I damn sure can't kill him. The only way I can get a reward for the time spent is to kill him and that's not going to be possible unless he's just the worst player in the game. My role is supposed to be "run away". Everyone acknowledges that fact. I lose a rebuy if I fail. I probably have 20 missions. I'll lose some of them. I probably have cargo. I lose it. I may have data. I probably have some bounties. I lose them. More importantly; I lose the time used to collect those resources. I'm also being prevented from doing what I enjoy. I'm forced to use time on this worthless interaction. I have a lot on the line. Success means I just lost the time wasted on this worthless interaction and am now further from my goal. Now I just have more of the slow, boring travel. That's my reward for success. It's bad if I win and worse if I lose. There is no "draw". I'm forced into some level of loss the moment I'm forced into this interaction. Time is not a free resource. It's the only currency that matters.
Cmdr Richard is using his time to do what he wants. Success is a pretty explosion. Failure is "awww shucks, I'll get 'em next time" and a soft massage of the wrist in the form of a bounty.
"...but NPCs attack people". NPCs are balanced so anyone can just opt out of the combat. They're also balanced so just about anyone can opt to spend the time, kill the NPC and get value for the time spent. Kill the NPC and you get money, mats and rep. The NPC isn't one shotting anyone but the weakest ships. Stall for the cops and the NPC isn't going to run away immediately. NPCs have value. Cmdr Richard is a step under worthless.
Winning an interaction I'm forced into must be better than not having the interaction.
This isn't hard. The design of the interaction is broken. It's not built in a way to create competition. It just creates trolls and victims; I refuse to play either role. "I will shoot at you and you spend your time running away. You win if you survive. You'll be happy to spend your time on this worthless interaction because it could have been even worse. Who cares that you wanted to spend you time doing something interesting or engaging or entertaining? I'm having fun!"
Give Cmdr Richard more incentive to kill me. He should get more than a pretty explosion. I'm willing to risk literally everything. You're already taking time from me; that's the worst possible punishment. Player's now drop a black box upon destruction. Put whatever you want in it. Literally anything. I don't mind. All mats, money, bounty/combat vouchers, data and deeds to all ships and modules. Kill me and take my stuff. Fine. I can get most of that stuff back while doing stuff I enjoy. Raw mats are a problem. If I were in his shoes, I'd prefer some different reward. Make it make sense. I'm not trying to stop him from ganking people.
Make it more difficult for me to escape. Balance it. Two equal pilots; 50/50 chance of death vs survival. That helps bounty hunters. Again; I'm not trying to make anything 'safer'. I'm trying to make it 'not stupid'. Question: If I can build a trade ship that can usually escape from a PvP ship; how are bounty hunters supposed to get player bounties? Fix it.
Add a logical path to victory for the non-criminal. You can't ask my trade ship to kill a PvP ship. I scan Cmdr Richard, escape and turn in data within a time limit. He has a chance to chase after me to finish the job. I lose the data if I log out. I get a reward worth the time wasted on him and whatever you decide I should risk. It needs to be significant. He's taking time away from me. He forced me into his game and I won. "Your reward is getting to do what you would do if I didn't attack you; but now with more slow, boring travel." That's nonsense. Winning the interaction must be better than not having the interaction. I'm not opting in to letting someone make my game worse because it makes them happy.
That's easy to exploit for the reward. Cmdr Richard should have a penalty too harsh to exploit. Sorry; there is no other option. The winner gets a reward; the loser is penalized. Failure must hurt. You can have different rewards/penalties for the normal game and for powerplay. We can't have a game where someone can take value (time) from another player; and the 'victim' is the only one with consequence. Of course people are going to opt out of such garbage design! His failure should hurt as much as mine and I'm willing to risk literally everything. Whatever you want. I think it should be time based.
I'm willing to opt in. I'm up for the challenge. I'm willing to risk literally everything and fail. Design a logical game. Cmdr Richard attacks me. I'm already losing time. I'm already at a state of loss. He's forced me into a position where I have to escape or I have an even worse penalty. I scan him. I've forced him into a position where he has to kill me or he will have a harsh penalty. I now have a chance to get something of value for the time spent. I turn in the data and get a fantastic reward that is far better than anything I could have received without him. He's no longer worthless. He's an opportunity.
A bounty hunter scans Cmdr Richard. They've forced him into a position where he's going to have a harsh penalty if he doesn't kill them. Escape is not an option. Cmdr Richard wants that attention. He's constantly begging for it. He's willing to ask the devs to force people to give him attention. He doesn't mind forcing people into unwanted gameplay. He's not going to mind if it happens to him.
Mouse vs Cat. Cat vs Dog. Build mechanics for all of them. There's a reason that the cats are the only ones that are asking to force people into open. The existing mechanics are 10000% in their favor.
That's a key point there.
I'm not reading through the thread, I'm just posting this in response to OP:
If you want to kill the game, remove Solo and Private.
This game is already niche and already suffering, but go ahead and put the final nail in the coffin.
If you want to kill the game, remove Solo and Private.
This game is already niche and already suffering, but go ahead and put the final nail in the coffin.
Indeed. One way that might make the game better for a majority would be to disable PvP.
Its a suggestion at least
I think this is my point - the aim of suggesting this sort of split is to tidy away a segment of players that you disagree with into a naughty corner. The subtext is that that parallel world withers and dies, and those players exit the game altogether. Other people who were happy with open as it was are just collateral damage in the plan I suppose. Seem kind of sinister?Yes, but they'd be in "a galaxy far, far away".
I have been flying between Vaka and Deciat to Farseers place all week and have yet to see another Cmdr such is the state of the player base since Odyssey.
There has never been a safer time to try Open.
There has never been a safer time to try Open.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not at all - the aim is to give those seeking an Open only version of the game exactly that - an Open only version of the game - without taking any game features away from other players. What they would not get is the removal of content from those players content to play in the existing tri-modal shared galaxy, nor those players who remain there.I think this is my point - the aim of suggesting this sort of split is to tidy away a segment of players that you disagree with into a naughty corner. The subtext is that that parallel world withers and dies, and those players exit the game altogether. Other people who were happy with open as it was are just collateral damage in the plan I suppose. Seem kind of sinister?
Noting that there are those who seek to "tidy away a segment of players that <they> disagree with" by retrospectively actively excluding them from affecting existing pan-modal game features from Solo and Private Groups (or force them to play among those who would like to shoot at them if they want to continue to affect said game features) ....
Last edited:
Nice writeup, there's some good ideas in there. But despite all of that, my personal statement is way shorter: this kind of person, only looking for explosions, bores me. Yes, it's years since i last time was intentionally in open and also some month that i was there by accident. By my experience at any time was the same: the number of people i meet in Open or in Mobius is not that different, Open only has a small advantage. (See: instancing system. ) But the number of enjoyable interactions is much higher im Mobius. Even if people often just send a o7 or a hello, that's above and beyond my experience in Open, where my general experience is that people only talk when being docked. When not docked, their only means of communication seems to be the fire button.
That's so one-dimensional that even the NPCs with their very limited set of predefined text messages shine next to them. And why should sacrifice any of me time for people who bore me even more than a dumb NPC?
But you can't cleanly split the game since CGs, events etc would rely on each half having a unique narrative.
Its much better to have aspects of features have better PvP in them- in this case Powerplay, since its opt in already and separate enough as not to need a whole different BGS / CG / story.