General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[Elliot Coleman]

Aaaaaaaaaannnnddddd we know that the most recent statement from the CMs - was that it is not being considered currently (which probably equates to "Not at Launch") along with current generation console support.

It is easier to 'blame solo' than consider the other options available - or even that console players may be locked to solo play if they don't wish to, or cannot afford to, subscribe to the 'console tax' to play multiplayer games.

Not that I don't agree that cross-platform play would be a great move, that would enable me to play with a few from one of the squadrons I am in, who are only 'chatted to' on discord.

I don't buy the old line of inaccessible multiplayer for consoles for "affordability" reasons. If you can afford a console and the exorbitant prices of literally everything associated with them (games, controllers, etc.), you can afford the "tax". Refusing to participate in that particular scam is another issue entirely.

Shoulda bought a PC instead...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Because your actions in solo affect my actions in open in terms of BGS.

.... and vice versa - all players experiencing and affecting a single shared galaxy is a fundamental aspect of the game design.

Someone in Solo, so we couldn't contact them and ask them to either not run missions there, or to run them for our faction and to blow them up in case they would flip our request off.

PvP is not a required part of BGS activities.

Another thing is that piracy is one of the intended roles players should be able to choose but if people go solo, this game style is limited. I that people who are not interested in PvP couldn't care less, but in a way the game undermines itself by this.

Indeed, piracy is an intended role - nowhere does it say that players have to endure the unwanted attentions of player pirates though.

Another potential benefit of "Open only" would be that Squadrons would become a more useful part of the game as you could always ask someone to escort you. Again, if you're not into PvP you probably don't care about squadrons but still - you bought a game that is primarily developed as multiplayer and I think nobody can say they didn't know it when they bought the game. As such, having a game mode that has a negative impact on the intended features of the game is counter-productive. I wouldn't say a word if there was psychopatical player in every second system that would go for "to the death" combat with any other player as soon you enter the system but given that it is not true and also how easily interaction with other players can be avoided in Open, the Solo mode really feels like it has overall a negative impact on the game as a whole.

Really, I only play in Open and the only PvP fight I had was the one I described in my previous post. The only time I feel like I should be careful is when I travel to some Engineer base. Any other time I see a real player on the radar, it is more like an anomaly than a common day-to-day event.

We all bought a game where we each have a choice of three game modes - no mode is "prime" in that respect as players in all three game modes equally affect the galaxy that we all share. Any player who claims that they didn't know that the every player affects the galaxy and the game can be played alone didn't read the advertising very carefully. That some players bought the game and can't accept that others don't need to play with them is obvious - just as it is obvious from the game's design that other players, and therefore PvP, are optional extras in this game (apart from in CQC, of course).

 

[Rat Catcher]

I don't buy the old line of inaccessible multiplayer for consoles for "affordability" reasons. If you can afford a console and the exorbitant prices of literally everything associated with them (games, controllers, etc.), you can afford the "tax". Refusing to participate in that particular scam is another issue entirely.

Shoulda bought a PC instead...

I could buy a PS5 for less than the cost of my GPU...
The throwaway about "afford a console - can afford to pay the tax" is just that, you and I may be able to throw a few grand on a 'good' PC and update it as and when without thinking about the cost, others may have to purchase things on the 'never-never' as a luxury, then be wary of their finances having done so.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I could buy a PS5 for less than the cost of my GPU...
The throwaway about "afford a console - can afford to pay the tax" is just that, you and I may be able to throw a few grand on a 'good' PC and update it as and when without thinking about the cost, others may have to purchase things on the 'never-never' as a luxury, then be wary of their finances having done so.

Quite.

 

[FX2K]

you bought a game that is primarily developed as multiplayer and I think nobody can say they didn't know it when they bought the game. As such, having a game mode that has a negative impact on the intended features of the game is counter-productive.

I bought the game expecting single player, then the plans changed a bit, but the game was always intended to have single/solo play, albeit with the requirement of a constant connection which does not necessarily equal multiplayer, hence why it was released with it, not bolted on afterwards.
I'm not here to entertain others, selfishly, I'm here to entertain myself.

As for multiplayer, with the network overhead, instancing issues, NPC related issues and human behaviour, I'm glad Solo is a thing and will use it when I feel like using it.
Yes, I play in open a lot of the time, not that it matters too much, I am very likely to never see any of you posting in this thread, at all.. because timezones, instancing, platform, size of space etc. As long as the game uses peer to peer it will never be what some people want it to be, in terms of multiplayer. I don't mind that myself, because if its not peer to peer, then there would be subscriptions.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm not here to entertain others, selfishly, I'm here to entertain myself.

As another who plays for their own enjoyment rather than the enjoyment of others, is that more, or less, selfish than those who want to remove content from players who don't share their optional play-style and would force everyone to play in a particular PvP-enabled game mode if they wanted to continue to affect what is, up to now, content that is shared by all players, in all game modes, on all platforms?

 

[Rebel Yell]

... or possibly on a console in open?

As a PC player (or console player) there is no knowing who is playing on another platform, nor which mode they are in.

Good point, but usually relationships with other PMFs as well as large groups do have multi-platform coverage. So there is a way out (not a solution tho) for that.

 

[FX2K]

As another who plays for their own enjoyment rather than the enjoyment of others, is that more, or less, selfish than those who want to remove content from players who don't share their optional play-style and would force everyone to play in a particular PvP-enabled game mode if they wanted to continue to affect what is, up to now, content that is shared by all players, in all game modes, on all platforms?

Choosing to play in Solo is simply using the options available to us already, not asking for change/removal to existing options to suite our preferences. So less selfish imo.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Good point, but usually relationships with other PMFs as well as large groups do have multi-platform coverage. So there is a way out (not a solution tho) for that.

I only brought it up as the hackneyed "in solo" accusation was made.

I agree that larger player groups probably have all 3 platforms covered, possibly 24/7, in all time zones...

Of course even with all bases covered, the instancing between players could still mean that 'the enemy' are never seen, even if they are playing in open, because they may never be in the same instance.

 

[MarKr The Real One]

.... and vice versa - all players experiencing and affecting a single shared galaxy is a fundamental aspect of the game design.

I wouldn't say it is the same. Yes, what I sell in a station affects the costs for you too but my point was that people collectively try to achieve something and it is being actively undermined by someone they cannot interact with.

PvP is not a required part of BGS activities.

No, it is not but it would be one way to persuade a player who is actively undermining your BGS efforts to stop. This way even if you somehow found them (e.g. here or Discord etc.) and asked them nicely to stop, they can just say "f*ck off, you cannot touch me so I don't give a damn".

Indeed, piracy is an intended role - nowhere does it say that players have to endure the unwanted attentions of player pirates though.

Yes, they don't have to - even in Open they don't have to. I've said it already. I've had ONE negative encounter with a player in Open (and even that one could have been avoided) and since then I have been playing in Open for over a year and I didn't have to endure a single negative attention from player pirates, gankers or any other players with annoying behavior - and I'm not even trying to actively avoid players. When I pick up a mission or travel anywhere in the bubble, I never think "I better not go through that system because players might be there". The encounters are just extremely rare on their own.

We all bought a game where we each have a choice of three game modes - no mode is "prime" in that respect as players in all three game modes equally affect the galaxy that we all share. Any player who claims that they didn't know that the every player affects the galaxy and the game can be played alone didn't read the advertising very carefully. That some players bought the game and can't accept that others don't need to play with them is obvious - just as it is obvious from the game's design that other players, and therefore PvP, are optional extras in this game (apart from in CQC, of course).

Yes, we have a choice but what I'm saying is that the choices are pretty much obsolete because if you don't want to interact with players in Open, you don't have to.

I would even propose a test to you - fly in Solo to some system at the edge of the Bubble. Log off, log back in Open and play for a week your normal routines (missions, trading, mining...you name it) and then tell me how many players you encountered and how many of them tried to attack you. Of course don't try to actively search for players and dangerous situations just to "prove" your point.
If you really get destroyed by a player attack in the one week, I'll shut up about this point for good .

 

[Elliot Coleman]

Let's be real here.

• FDev isn't going to get rid of any game modes
• FDev isn't going to make any improvements to the "features" we already have
• FDev will, over the next couple of years, continue to disappoint with new "gameplay" and more broken grind mechanics
• This entire subsection of the forum is just a place to vent and feel somewhat validated when other forumites throw us a , and FDev couldn't care less what is on offer here, so long as we keep buying bobbleheads and paintjobs

 

[Rebel Yell]

Of course even with all bases covered, the instancing between players could still mean that 'the enemy' are never seen, even if they are playing in open, because they may never be in the same instance.

Yep, instancing is still an issue.... some times on XBOX we can't instance between EU and US players, even if in same squadron and party chat.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I wouldn't say it is the same. Yes, what I sell in a station affects the costs for you too but my point was that people collectively try to achieve something and it is being actively undermined by someone they cannot interact with.

People can collectively try to achieve something in this game from any mode - the shared galaxy makes that so. If someone does not want to interact with other players that is their choice - no player can demand that they make themselves available for "interaction".

No, it is not but it would be one way to persuade a player who is actively undermining your BGS efforts to stop. This way even if you somehow found them (e.g. here or Discord etc.) and asked them nicely to stop, they can just say "you cannot touch me so I don't give a damn[/I]".

Of course they can refuse to stop - as they have as much "right" to affect the game as the players they are opposing. Pan-modal system chat means that, if they are online at the same time on the same platform (which is not a given) they might hear any requests to parley.

Yes, they don't have to - even in Open they don't have to. I've said it already. I've had ONE negative encounter with a player in Open (and even that one could have been avoided) and since then I have been playing in Open for over a year and I didn't have to endure a single negative attention from player pirates, gankers or any other players with annoying behavior - and I'm not even trying to actively avoid players. When I pick up a mission or travel anywhere in the bubble, I never think "I better not go through that system because players might be there". The encounters are just extremely rare on their own.

.... and each player is free to make their own choice, on a session by session basis, as to which game mode to play in.

Yes, we have a choice but what I'm saying is that the choices are pretty much obsolete because if you don't want to interact with players in Open, you don't have to.

I would even propose a test to you - fly in Solo to some system at the edge of the Bubble. Log off, log back in Open and play for a week your normal routines (missions, trading, mining...you name it) and then tell me how many players you encountered and how many of them tried to attack you. Of course don't try to actively search for players and dangerous situations just to "prove" your point.
If you really get destroyed by a player attack in the one week, I'll shut up about this point for good .

Why should players avoid the interesting places in the galaxy (where those who seek other players may choose to hang out) and be exiled to the periphery of the bubble just because they don't enjoy PvP?

I've no interest in wasting my game time on such a test - I've flown often enough in Open and been destroyed often enough by no-chat no-skill-exhibited players in murderboats already - as they say, I already have the t-shirt.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Yep, instancing is still an issue.... some times on XBOX we can't instance between EU and US players, even if in same squadron and party chat.

Just as some encouragement, instancing in Odyssey appears to be much more 'robust' than Horizons - although a bit more testing is in order before I'm convinced.

 

[DemiserofD]

I wouldn't say it is the same. Yes, what I sell in a station affects the costs for you too but my point was that people collectively try to achieve something and it is being actively undermined by someone they cannot interact with.

No, it is not but it would be one way to persuade a player who is actively undermining your BGS efforts to stop. This way even if you somehow found them (e.g. here or Discord etc.) and asked them nicely to stop, they can just say "f*ck off, you cannot touch me so I don't give a damn".

Yes, they don't have to - even in Open they don't have to. I've said it already. I've had ONE negative encounter with a player in Open (and even that one could have been avoided) and since then I have been playing in Open for over a year and I didn't have to endure a single negative attention from player pirates, gankers or any other players with annoying behavior - and I'm not even trying to actively avoid players. When I pick up a mission or travel anywhere in the bubble, I never think "I better not go through that system because players might be there". The encounters are just extremely rare on their own.

Yes, we have a choice but what I'm saying is that the choices are pretty much obsolete because if you don't want to interact with players in Open, you don't have to.

I would even propose a test to you - fly in Solo to some system at the edge of the Bubble. Log off, log back in Open and play for a week your normal routines (missions, trading, mining...you name it) and then tell me how many players you encountered and how many of them tried to attack you. Of course don't try to actively search for players and dangerous situations just to "prove" your point.
If you really get destroyed by a player attack in the one week, I'll shut up about this point for good .

You're completely correct that in most cases, you're completely free from risk in open unless you actively seek it out. That doesn't justify open only, though; if anything, it does the opposite. The problem is that players don't want to engage with other players.

The mechanics of this game actively drive players away from each other, rather than drawing them together. There is pretty much zero benefit to seeking out other players, and fairly significant downsides. Even if you had open only, you'd still be relying on players seeking each other out to engage with each other, and that's just never going to happen for most players being forced to play in open. They'll keep playing the same way they always have, avoiding contact.

And the beautiful thing is, if you fix this problem, if you encourage positive player interaction, you don't even need to do open only. Players will play with each other voluntarily, of their own free will.

 

[ethelred]

Let's be real here.

• FDev isn't going to get rid of any game modes
• FDev isn't going to make any improvements to the "features" we already have
• FDev will, over the next couple of years, continue to disappoint with new "gameplay" and more broken grind mechanics
• This entire subsection of the forum is just a place to vent and feel somewhat validated when other forumites throw us a , and FDev couldn't care less what is on offer here, so long as we keep buying bobbleheads and paintjobs

1. Correct
2. I live in hope
3. I refer the gentleman to my previous answer.
4. Absolutely

 

[MarKr The Real One]

I've no interest in wasting my game time on such a test - I've flown often enough in Open and been destroyed often enough by no-chat no-skill-exhibited players in murderboats already - as they say, I already have the t-shirt.

We have very different experience then and I guess I can understand why you want to stick with Solo.
It just really feels like the only reason for keeping the solo boils down to "what if I encounter a player" and "you cannot force interaction upon me". Which from my perspective is very rare for the reasons that FX2K listed and so the interactions can simply be avoided if one wishes to. It's like holding back something that could have overall positive effect just because some players feel their personal freedom is being violated.

In the end, I don't really care that much if Solo/Private stays or not. It doesn't affect me all THAT much to lead some crusade against it. There are some much more pressing problems have been around for years and those would be nice to have sorted first. I just think that the game would overall benefit from having just one mode, even if the change would step on some toes - in game development you can never make everyone happy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

We have very different experience then and I guess I can understand why you want to stick with Solo.

Oh, I don't play exclusively in Solo - I pick whichever mode is likely to suit my preference for that game session (even Open).

It just really feels like the only reason for keeping the solo boils down to "what if I encounter a player" and "you cannot force interaction upon me". Which from my perspective is very rare for the reasons that FX2K listed and so the interactions can simply be avoided if one wishes to. It's like holding back something that could have overall positive effect just because some players feel their personal freedom is being violated.

It is obvious that some players don't accept that the fact that all players were sold a game with three game modes affecting a single shared galaxy is reason enough to keep it the way it is.

If Frontier had wanted to make PvP a requirement of the game they would have pitched it that way when they sought Kickstarter funding.

About half way through the Kickstarter a fourth game mode, Offline mode, was added to the scope. It was, unfortunately, cancelled a few weeks before the game launched. One of the reasons given by Frontier for the cancellation was that Offline mode would not offer the desired game experience for players, i.e. experiencing and affecting a shared galaxy. That statement served to reduce the likelihood that Solo (and, by inference, Private Groups) would lose the ability to affect the shared galaxy.

In the end, I don't really care that much if Solo/Private stays or not. It doesn't affect me all THAT much to lead some crusade against it. There are some much more pressing problems have been around for years and those would be nice to have sorted first. I just think that the game would overall benefit from having just one mode, even if the change would step on some toes - in game development you can never make everyone happy.

Those who seek change are often quick to disregard the fact that other players would be adversely affected by the proposals - which makes their desires that much easier to disregard.

Arguably, Frontier made their choice on the optionality of PvP and the mode shared galaxy over eight years ago - noting that the decision didn't make everyone happy.

 

[MarKr The Real One]

Oh, I don't play exclusively in Solo - I pick whichever mode is likely to suit my preference for that game session (even Open).

Oh, didn't get that. Sorry, my bad.

It is obvious that some players don't accept that the fact that all players were sold a game with three game modes affecting a single shared galaxy is reason enough to keep it the way it is.

It is also obvious that some players don't accept that the state they bought the game in is doesn't have to be the state the game will stay in forever.

If Frontier had wanted to make PvP a requirement of the game they would have pitched it that way when they sought Kickstarter funding.

I wouldn't use what Frontier had pitched during Kickstarter as an argument here. I think they also pitched that "no single gameplay style will be vastly more profitable than other" and we had mining earning triple (or even more?) the sum of combat for years and they didn't pitch the main gameplay would be repetitive grind which will lead to players rather use relogging than waste hours of their time on something that is a chore rather than fun.

About half way through the Kickstarter a fourth game mode, Offline mode, was added to the scope. It was, unfortunately, cancelled a few weeks before the game launched. One of the reasons given by Frontier for the cancellation was that Offline mode would not offer the desired game experience for players, i.e. experiencing and affecting a shared galaxy. That statement served to reduce the likelihood that Solo (and, by inference, Private Groups) would lose the ability to affect the shared galaxy.

I wasn't around back then but doesn't that only suggest that Frontier wanted all players to share one galaxy, not that keeping Solo/Private modes is necessary?

Those who seek change are often quick to disregard the fact that other players would be adversely affected by the proposals - which makes their desires that much easier to disregard.

Those who oppose change are often quick to disregard the fact that other players often already are adversely affected by the state of the game and therefore also by denying the proposal - which makes their desires that much easier to disregard.

Arguably, Frontier made their choice on the optionality of PvP and the mode shared galaxy over eight years ago - noting that the decision didn't make everyone happy.

True. Just noting that decisions in project such as this one are rarely final and as such can change, even after a long time since the decision had been made.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It is also obvious that some players don't accept that the state they bought the game in is doesn't have to be the state the game will stay in forever.

It has been obvious since some of the first backers realised that players would not need to play with them to play the game and affect the shared galaxy - over eight years ago.

That some players don't seem to accept that all players have an equal right to affect the game is not the fault of those who bought the game for what it is rather than what it is not.

I wouldn't use what Frontier had pitched during Kickstarter as an argument here. I think they also pitched that "no single gameplay style will be vastly more profitable than other" and we had mining earning triple (or even more?) the sum of combat for years and they didn't pitch the main gameplay would be repetitive grind which will lead to players rather use relogging than waste hours of their time on something that is a chore rather than fun.

It's entirely relevant in relation to their position on the mode shared galaxy - a stance that was reiterated comparatively recently.

I wasn't around back then but doesn't that only suggest that Frontier wanted all players to share one galaxy, not that keeping Solo/Private modes is necessary?

Not at all - as the three game modes which share the single galaxy were announced at the same time, i.e. at the start of the Kickstarter. Here's the relevant KS FAQ answer on the topic:

How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?
The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.

The other important aspect for us is that we can seed the galaxy with events, often these events will be triggered by player actions. With a living breathing galaxy players can discover new and interesting things long after they have started playing.

Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).

Those who oppose change are often quick to disregard the fact that other players often already are adversely affected by the state of the game and therefore also by denying the proposal - which makes their desires that much easier to disregard.

Indeed they can be - as there's no need to support proposals from a subset of the player-base that would affect all players, some adversely., given that we all bought the same game on the same terms. Why should the desires of those who seek to change a game that does not suit their needs be prioritised over those of players who accept the game for what it is?

True. Just noting that decisions in project such as this one are rarely final and as such can change, even after a long time since the decision had been made.

Anything can, of course, change - some changes are more likely than others, in my opinion.

For example, one change that was ruled out early was splitting the galaxy - however that would, in my opinion, now be the most equitable solution taking all players into account, i.e. add a new Open only mode with its own galaxy state to affect, leaving the existing tri-modal galaxy unchanged. That would give those seeking to exclude those in Solo and Private Groups from their gameplay somewhere to call their own.