General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[T200]

Ooh... How long has Skyrim been a multiplayer game... you know, with servers and player accounts and the like?

idk, idc either though,
the multiplayer in this game is literally pointless, that's what the thread is about.

the carebears hate being ganked, you need a carrier to do any real effective trading, all combat is instanced so there's no real large scale actions possible (and large scale actions would annoy the carebears let's not kid ourselves, could you imagine if a squadron tried to enforce a blockade? hah), there's no real economy, just temporary price fluctuations that necessitate hopping to different systems looking for the right price to sell..

I mean this isn't even Wow or LOTR online, those things had far deeper mechanics or lore that made a PVE in multiplayer somewhat more interesting, though those were also smaller and more densely packed worlds.

as far as multiplayer, there's space engineers, Minecraft, Red Orchestra, etc. bunch of games that have multiplayer with mods, heck UT2k4 and HL2 both spawned a massive number of multiplayer games that were originally mods.

 

[Taifu]

idk, idc either though,
the multiplayer in this game is literally pointless, that's what the thread is about.

Other than the "playing with others" bit I assume.

the carebears hate being ganked, you need a carrier to do any real effective trading, all combat is instanced so there's no real large scale actions possible, so it's a literal "who cares?"...

Off the top of my head, at a guess, one very interested party is probably FDev.

as far as multiplayer, there's space engineers, minecraft, etc. bunch of games that have multiplayer with mods, heck UT2k4 and HL2 both spawned a massive number of multiplayer games.

So plenty of other options for people to investigate, and absolutely no need for FDev to compromise their vision (whatever that is) of what their game should be.

 

[T200]

Other than the "playing with others" bit I assume.

Off the top of my head, at a guess, one very interested party is probably FDev.

So plenty of other options for people to investigate, and absolutely no need for FDev to compromise their vision (whatever that is) of what their game should be.

"playing with others" did I not say private servers would be a thing? you could still play with others, just I wouldn't be forced to abide any changes you made to you and your others world, nor would you be forced to abide by my changes,

The objections were to people "playing with others" in ways they don't like, (primarily because PVPers are playing a different game from the PVE'ers..)
and frontier wouldn't be compromising their Vision, mods are unofficial and therefore do not compromise the "Vanilla", or the "Official" version of the game rather complement it.

 

[Taifu]

The objections were to people "playing with others" in ways they don't like,

The objections, are to the possibility of having no other option but to play the game, that they have been playing for years now, in a way that they do not want to.

 

[marinetownmick]

idk, idc either though,
the multiplayer in this game is literally pointless, that's what the thread is about.

the carebears hate being ganked, you need a carrier to do any real effective trading, all combat is instanced so there's no real large scale actions possible (and large scale actions would annoy the carebears let's not kid ourselves, could you imagine if a squadron tried to enforce a blockade? hah), there's no real economy, just temporary price fluctuations that necessitate hopping to different systems looking for the right price to sell..

I mean this isn't even Wow or LOTR online, those things had far deeper mechanics or lore that made a PVE in multiplayer somewhat more interesting, though those were also smaller and more densely packed worlds.

as far as multiplayer, there's space engineers, Minecraft, Red Orchestra, etc. bunch of games that have multiplayer with mods, heck UT2k4 and HL2 both spawned a massive number of multiplayer games that were originally mods.

 

[marinetownmick]

Mmmmmhhh I see you mention “carebears” twice to try and illustrate your point. I guess you mean people who want to play the game the way they have always played it.

 

[T200]

Mmmmmhhh I see you mention “carebears” twice to try and illustrate your point. I guess you mean people who want to play the game the way they have always played it.

so are people who like ganking not playing the game as they've always liked playing it?

 

[marinetownmick]

so are people who like ganking not playing the game as they've always liked playing it?

Yeah, as the game has had open, solo and private since its inception “gankers” have been playing the game how they have always played it, and good on them, I’m not saying and have never said remove open.

I just dislike people trying to force other people to play the game they want by asking for solo and private to be removed.
Just let people play the game how they want to.

 

[varonica]

so are people who like ganking not playing the game as they've always liked playing it?

By definition gankers are players who try and force other players into their way of playing by destroying them over and over until they either go to Solo/PG or leave the game, thus forcing their gameplay on others. The so called "carebears" are players who simply want to play the game the way they do, and here's the important distinction, without forcing others to also play that way! You can see the clear distinction right? One is a description of behaviour, one is an insult to players to try and enforce a point of view.

 

[T200]

By definition gankers are players who try and force other players into their way of playing by destroying them over and over until they either go to Solo/PG or leave the game, thus forcing their gameplay on others. The so called "carebears" are players who simply want to play the game the way they do, and here's the important distinction, without forcing others to also play that way! You can see the clear distinction right? One is a description of behaviour, one is an insult to players to try and enforce a point of view.

you don't get to say "I'm not it" if part of being in the playground includes you potentially being it (or being grabbed by everyone else and pushed down the slide as they shout "sacrifice! sacrifice! sacrifice!")

 

[Robert Maynard]

you don't get to say "I'm not it" if part of being in the playground includes you potentially being it (or being grabbed by everyone else and pushed down the slide as they shout "sacrifice! sacrifice! sacrifice!")

Which playground?

 

[varonica]

you don't get to say "I'm not it" if part of being in the playground includes you potentially being it (or being grabbed by everyone else and pushed down the slide as they shout "sacrifice! sacrifice! sacrifice!")

You mean the playground you are trying to force everybody to play in when that's not the playground they want to be in. Sort of like forcing all the sandcastle makers into the dodgeball court then saying, "well if you don't want to play dodgeball you shouldn't be in the dodgeball court!

 

[DemiserofD]

All this discussion is irrelevant anyway. You can't force players to instance together with an instancing structure built around p2p connections, and you legally can't change the structure to a server based model after selling the game, because that would require subscription fees on something players have already purchased.

I honestly don't get why people bother with this argument when one side's opinion, no matter how well argued, is always going to be technologically impossible.

 

[marinetownmick]

you don't get to say "I'm not it" if part of being in the playground includes you potentially being it (or being grabbed by everyone else and pushed down the slide as they shout "sacrifice! sacrifice! sacrifice!")

What if I’m in the playground but I’m not playing “it”? I’m playing football for example! Your saying if I’m in the same playground as you I’ve got to do what you want

 

[Ettanin]

All this discussion is irrelevant anyway. You can't force players to instance together with an instancing structure built around p2p connections, and you legally can't change the structure to a server based model after selling the game, because that would require subscription fees on something players have already purchased.

I honestly don't get why people bother with this argument when one side's opinion, no matter how well argued, is always going to be technologically impossible.

A client-server model does not necessitate subscription fees. See Guild Wars 1 and 2.
Elite Dangerous is already backed by a large data warehouse. There's no other way to implement the Background Simulation and exploration entries in such a scale. If costs were the problem, the game would have already been subscription based now.

While the change from peer-to-peer to client-server would only be a minimal change in this infrastructure, it would have a large negative impact (high latency) on the playability for players in more remote regions.

Still, I disagree with the removal of Solo and Private Groups. As the game is forced PvP in Open and it doesn't have restricted safe(ish) areas the same as in Eve (besides the starter microbubble), it would become a merciless gankfest and successively cull players.

 

[DemiserofD]

See Guild Wars 1 and 2.

Guild Wars actually absolutely does have subscription fees. They're just disguised behind the Cash Shop, offering everything from XP boosts to extra inventory spaces.

I trust I don't need to explain why Elite shouldn't be made pay to win.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You mean the playground you are trying to force everybody to play in when that's not the playground they want to be in. Sort of like forcing all the sandcastle makers into the dodgeball court then saying, "well if you don't want to play dodgeball you shouldn't be in the dodgeball court!

Some players don't accept that we don't all have to play in the same play-ground to affect gameplay.

Suggestions of "private servers", especially when the game in such private servers would be able to be modded (meaning that they could not affect the shared galaxy 'cos cheating) are often a precursor to other suggestions, e.g. "and after the private servers have been implemented 'we' don't need Solo and Private Groups".

 

[Ettanin]

Guild Wars actually absolutely does have subscription fees. They're just disguised behind the Cash Shop, offering everything from XP boosts to extra inventory spaces.

I trust I don't need to explain why Elite shouldn't be made pay to win.

In that case, the sub costs of ED are hidden behind the (former) cost of Horizons, the cost of Odyssey and the sale of skins.

ED doesn’t need to become pay to win to use client-server. It is already pay-to-skin.

If the sale of skins wasn't profitable enough, ED would have become pay to win already.

 

[r3per]

//
Problem with Open play is there are too many whiners who make silly posts about removing Private Group and Single Player modes.

 

[DemiserofD]

In that case, the sub costs of ED are hidden behind the (former) cost of Horizons, the cost of Odyssey and the sale of skins.

ED doesn’t need to become pay to win to use client-server. It is already pay-to-skin.

There's a MASSIVE difference between selling skins(which both do), and selling gameplay-altering consumables(which only GW2 does). I really didn't think I needed to explain this. The most massive difference is the fact that consumables must be re-purchased an indefinite number of times - in other words, a subscription. Someone who buys those things has a perpetual advantage over someone who does not.

As for expansion packs; lol. That's not how that works, my friend. At least, not unless you want the cost of them to increase substantially to pay for server costs in addition to the development costs. At which point, it becomes...wait for it...subscription fees!

One way or another, the cost ALWAYS comes due. It's bizarre that you're trying to argue that they should somehow magically be free, in complete defiance of every known fact of economics.