General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[Misty_Dark]

I never understood why explo data are lost (ok they may be stored in the ship computer) but for the sake of the game... how many times datas have been lost for some kind of accident (i.e. hi-G planets, etc) vs. being shot down by another player? It looks like it's been introduced to avoid self-destruct at Beagle Point as a quick fast track for the bubble.

And the solution to self destruct at Beagle Point could simply be to have a "black box" recovery mission, you have to return to where you lost your ship and pick up your data box. so making a mistake far away, it takes more time to get back to recover your "black box"... getting ganked when coming back from a long exploration trip, short trip to pick up your "black box"...


But now if we got this kind of recovery, we would have upset angry players, that now would demand that they should be able to recover your black box, because they found you and destroyed you and this is their "right", totally forgetting about that once again, players would only keep doing this in solo and private group again... and we are back at this exact same discussion loop about forcing player into open, just because some players believe that it is their godly or something right to shot at everyone else...

 

[Screemonster]

And the solution to self destruct at Beagle Point could simply be to have a "black box" recovery mission, you have to return to where you lost your ship and pick up your data box. so making a mistake far away, it takes more time to get back to recover your "black box"... getting ganked when coming back from a long exploration trip, short trip to pick up your "black box"...


But now if we got this kind of recovery, we would have upset angry players, that now would demand that they should be able to recover your black box, because they found you and destroyed you and this is their "right", totally forgetting about that once again, players would only keep doing this in solo and private group again... and we are back at this exact same discussion loop about forcing player into open, just because some players believe that it is their godly or something right to shot at everyone else...

honestly though

who cares if someone self destructs and saves themselves a trip back, versus visiting one of the DSSA carriers or explorers anchorage or one of the deep space asteroid bases to cash in before they take the cylon express home

 

[Misty_Dark]

Got to see the fight over Trepin last cycle. Orgnaized Federal players gathering hundreds of thousands of merits while undermining in Open. Only one sighting of a Torval hauler in Open: that player immediately combat logged when interdicted. The Open underminers would scatter to separate systems when enemy PvPers arrived, thus taking a performance hit. Torval haulers didn't need to worry about that, and could fly shieldless if they wanted. There was one report of a Federal player in open who combat logged, but we never heard the commander's name, so can't investigate. (Not every Federal-aligned player is part of the organized Federal groups/discord channels.)

Edit: Applied correction suggested by Bulbulunufus. Apologies & thanks!

So here we have a good example of, two groups playing the same game, with the same rules... One side appears to adapt much faster to what the other side is doing, and thus won this time.

So what stopped the other side from adopting the same tactic?


So now we get to the it is unfair part of complaints, that creates these kind of threads... we play in open and thus every one else must play in open so that we can see and counter them...Now this have several flaws in the logic, as they refuses to acknowledge several things.
* We have 3 platforms and ONE shared galaxy. What if 90% of one side was on XBox and their oppositon was 90% on Playstation. Tell me how would they ever meet to have a meaningful open combat?

* Time zones, what if one side was mainly playing from Asia, and the side was mainly playing from North America? Once again, when would the two sides meet play time overlap?

* Network shenanigans, restricting or otherwise cripple your network connection to make instancing hard to new impossible is a thing.

* Blocking list, you can go ahead and block whoever you want, because it is your decision if you want to play the other player or not.. the other player cannot force you to play with them.

* Playing in Solo and Private group... and on consoles there is a monthly fee for playing online with others. I am not on consoles, but I have heard that these fees might be going away, but there was cost before...




So there are plenty of available GAME OPTIONS for players to mostly nullify all of the it must be done in Open arguments.
So instead of simply coming with excuses like, they can fly shieldless ships in solo and thus move more cargo, and having the solution to be, must be done in open, to make it "fair", make it more dangerous etc. but it is not about making it more dangerous, if you play on one platform and I play on another, you cannot make it more dangerous for me! and instead of actually trying to make it more dangerous for me, regardless of when I play, on what platform or in what game mode, and that would be to have the game mimics what the players are doing. Lets take the above example with Xbox vs Playstation players...

One team is running alot of cargo from A to B, using mostly shieldless ships, this should trigger the game, to show ALOT of NPC ships doing the same on all platforms and in all modes, so the other now get plenty of NPC targets to shot at, and since they are shieldless, they are easy prey for whoever that finds them. The game is triggered that ships are getting destroyed left, right and center, and thus spawns NPC doing the same on all platforms, and in all game modes.
This now makes it pretty much more dangerous to keep flying in a shieldless ship, so now the other side have to adapt, and have some to run escort, destroying the attacking ships, but they also would have to change to a more defended ships for hauling, add shields etc, to make them survive the attack and having their friends having time to come and protect them. The game once again is triggered that this is happening, and changes are made to what ships is spawned and what they are doing...




Another scenario, player waits in Open for other players to visit a popular engineer, kills other players, this spawns ships doing the same to other players... so now players ahve to be more careful, and this will lead to other players hearing about the problem with the system, and they scramble to fly there, and destroy the rouge ships. Now the ganker start to find themselves hunted, and they cannot use the block list to avoid other players hunting them, since these are NPC ships coming after them, keeping them on their toes to avoid the NPC while trying to find other players to gank... making their effort much harder now...



This would for the most part satisfy all the arguments about they play it safe in solo have no risk etc, etc, but one thing it will not satisfy, is that real reason why most of these threads are started... I want to pew-pew at other players. and Powerplay, BGS and whatnot is just an excuse to justify this, so that you are not simply labelled a ganker.


And this have a big potential to make the galaxy more alive and dynamic, and show where lots of player activity is happening, like in BGS, if you happily flying around in your system and all of sudden there is an influx of pirates shooting everything, then that probably means that your system is under attack by another player group... trying to lower you factions influence by making it less secure. and now preferred game mode, platform, time you play, network issues, blocking list, etc, does not matter. what players do, can be reacted on by other players to create a counter reaction, and everyone is invited to the party...


This is ofcourse qutie a simplification of the real challenges with creating a system like this, but this is not what the majority of the "Open Only" crowd is wanting... despite all their arguments, about danger etc, but this would create ACTUAL danger in all game modes for other players, based on what players did...

 

[Misty_Dark]

honestly though

who cares if someone self destructs and saves themselves a trip back, versus visiting one of the DSSA carriers or explorers anchorage or one of the deep space asteroid bases to cash in before they take the cylon express home

I wouldn't really, I was more after the you lost your ship trying to land on a planet or something, where you lost your ship and atleast got the option to go back and claim back your data, giving you the option to decide if it is worth it or not? and this could be a function usable by all players, not only explorers. Remember when combat/war bonds was lost if you did not cash them in and you lost your ship? now they are saved when you dock at a station... that change was made before fleet carriers and deep space stations was a thing. so explorers could not really benefit from this change when out exploring... but if we got the option to go back and pick up our data box, then we would not need to have the "save point" when we dock..

 

[Robert Maynard]

honestly though

who cares if someone self destructs and saves themselves a trip back, versus visiting one of the DSSA carriers or explorers anchorage or one of the deep space asteroid bases to cash in before they take the cylon express home

Selling exploration data on Carriers is BGS inert. Selling it in docks controlled by Factions affects the BGS.

 

[CMDR Correa]

As the title says: Remove private Lobby and single Player. Why? Because right now people are having influences on the galaxy and you can't stop them from having it. Best examples are Community events and Powerplay. My power was expanding into a system and I sat there for over an hour and couldn't find one player, yet the undermining bar goes higher and higher because people are hiding in single Player or private Lobby. This shouldn't be the case, if enemys are undermining a system, we should be able to fight back the undermining (maybe even add Powerplay missions?). Same goes for Community events.

The upside of this would be, that people are getting more encourage and/or forced to interact more with the community, play together and/or thinks twice before they engaging into enemy Powerplay territory or Communty events, having influence while they can't hide in private Lobby or single Player anymore. It would help to make the overall game expierence more realistic; forcing people to equip theier ships more realistic and not going on full cargo racks only. Plus games are much more fun with peoples and achieving things together. No one likes to play or fly alone all day.

The only downside of it, it would give griefers and gankers a bigger play field and newer players an even harder time to get used to the game. But as I always say to developer: The focus should not be on players, who are playing a game for two weeks, leave and never coming back. We simply should not focus on those players for obvious reasons. For griefer/gankers there should be counter measures, for example, that the FSD-Interdictor does not work in systems, where Ingenieurs are placed and/or the security forces are increased (maybe by a lot).

If you want PvP, go play CQC-Arena then!
I do. I've unlocked all achievements and my current rank is "Champion".

But I want to explore and do cargo missions!
You can do this in Open.

But I don't want to get griefed or ganked!
The chances that you find players in this big *** galaxy is super low, as long as you avoid hotspots like Community events, Powerplay systems, etc.. I play in Open for most of the time. Tip: If you find someone out there, send him a wing invite. Is he accepting it, everything is fine. If not and he flys straight to you, you should be becareful. Here is a link to some more tips: LINK. One time I randomly found someone at the Guardian site and I send him an invite. It ended up, that he joined my wing, we did the Guardians together and he gave me some tips about how to get the Guardian blueprints. Remember: Not everyone is your enemy.

You are a griefer/ganker and only want to kill weaker players!
I don't like them either and I am not one of them. I bought this game last year so I don't have the biggest or strongest ships yet. I am all for fair PvP play and realistic piracy, when there is a reason for it.

I have no friends to play with!
Use the ingame chat, ask people you randomly find, join a squadron, (on Xbox) open a multiplayer-post, just generally interact more with the community. They don't need to stay to be your friends, sometimes all it takes is just to play with some peoples together, who have the same goal as you.

Maybe there should be crossplay between different platforms (Xbox, PC, etc.) for population boost, if this isn't the case yet.

I hope this get some attention. This game is designed to be an open multiplayer game and it should treated as such one.
Feel free to add more ideas to make Open play more enjoyable for everyone.

Edit: Man, so many people are upset about getting pulled out of theier comfort zone. If these modes really exist since release (playing since 2020), maybe it's really to late to change this, I don't know. But what definitely should be changed, is the fact that people, who play in private or solo should not have influence on such things as Powerplay, Community events, etc., this should only be doable in Open. As someone mentioned, you fight most of the time against "invisible" players (not including timezones), which you all have to admit, is just simply lame and bad game design.

Edit 2: Man, so many people who are afraid of that they could meet a griefer in over 400 billion star systems, smh. How high are the chances, especially while exploring more of the empty areas of the galaxy? People act like it's the end of the world, when they die and lose cargo or exploration data.

Lol remove those and two thirds of the player base will follow suit including me.

 

[Screemonster]

Selling exploration data on Carriers is BGS inert. Selling it in docks controlled by Factions affects the BGS.

And diminishing returns mean that unless someone's deliberately paring it out for BGS purposes, selling it a page or so a day per system or some faff like that, exploration data really isn't worth worrying about. Most returning explorers are gonna dump their entire load in the first station they arrive at, which very quickly hits a softcap that's going to be overtaken by passive traffic in any system that's remotely heavily trafficked enough for any would-be patrol ships to stand a chance of meeting anyone hanging around in supercruise - and if we're talking explorers that don't have carriers of their own, that makes Jameson Memorial the usual go-to base, which is also BGS inert.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

I never understood why explo data are lost (ok they may be stored in the ship computer) but for the sake of the game... how many times datas have been lost for some kind of accident (i.e. hi-G planets, etc) vs. being shot down by another player? It looks like it's been introduced to avoid self-destruct at Beagle Point as a quick fast track for the bubble.

Well hi-G planets do eat some, likewise white dwarfs. But both of those are easily manageable risks. And don't involve gimping your ship.

For hi-G planets, it is either don't land there, or learn to fly carefully, for white dwarfs better exclude them from map settings.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And diminishing returns mean that unless someone's deliberately paring it out for BGS purposes, selling it a page or so a day per system or some faff like that, exploration data really isn't worth worrying about. Most returning explorers are gonna dump their entire load in the first station they arrive at, which very quickly hits a softcap that's going to be overtaken by passive traffic in any system that's remotely heavily trafficked enough for any would-be patrol ships to stand a chance of meeting anyone hanging around in supercruise - and if we're talking explorers that don't have carriers of their own, that makes Jameson Memorial the usual go-to base, which is also BGS inert.

Depends on whether the player has any altCMDRs - as the player can play one of those and dripfeed the data over however long it takes while playing the other CMDR.

 

[Screemonster]

Depends on whether the player has any altCMDRs - as the player can play one of those and dripfeed the data over however long it takes while playing the other CMDR.

If all they're doing is parking in a station dumping a page of data every day before hopping to another account, I don't see any means by which any PVPer could hope to prevent them.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If all they're doing is parking in a station dumping a page of data every day before hopping to another account, I don't see any means by which any PVPer could hope to prevent them.

It's not just PvPers that might be put out by a fast return travel method - noting that the player employing such a method need not play in Open.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Lol remove those and two thirds of the player base will follow suit including me.

Why?

From a pure statistical point of view the so called infamous gankers/griefers will have much many targets (so diminished risk for everyone to instance with them) and there are also higher probabilities that a bunch of players could wing up and outnumber the griefer/gankers.

From a gameplay perspective, I doubt some one will roam around risking being instagibbed because flying a shieldless T9 (as risk is real and not potential).

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Why?

From a pure statistical point of view the so called infamous gankers/griefers will have much many targets (so diminished risk for everyone to instance with them) and there are also higher probabilities that a bunch of players could wing up and outnumber the griefer/gankers.

From a gameplay perspective, I doubt some one will roam around risking being instagibbed because flying a shieldless T9 (as risk is real and not potential).

It would make tedious gameplay. People would fly around with heavily gimped metaships (gimped on their cargo cap, or jump range...), and for a ganker offer just irritating boost towards them and high jump tactics. For trader and explorer inconvenience added to flying gimped ship there would be additional hassle of getting to sell stuff or data on alternate port of call or trying better luck on instancing. Plus long blocklists.
With current ship stats I for example fly pretty much ungankable ship, as long as I do not try to fight it out. Interdicting me in my Cutter would be just waste of time. For a ganker, and for me. (Plus it would lead to being added to blocklist.)

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why?

From a pure statistical point of view the so called infamous gankers/griefers will have much many targets (so diminished risk for everyone to instance with them) and there are also higher probabilities that a bunch of players could wing up and outnumber the griefer/gankers.

From a gameplay perspective, I doubt some one will roam around risking being instagibbed because flying a shieldless T9 (as risk is real and not potential).

Other players aren't provided as "content" for the gankers, in this game - each player needs to choose to play among those who may wish to shoot at them, and, according to Sandro, a significant number choose not to.

That some of those who like to shoot at other players seem to want / expect those who don't like being shot at by other players to play among them may be quite telling....

 

[Rebel Yell]

It would make tedious gameplay. People would fly around with heavily gimped metaships (gimped on their cargo cap, or jump range...), and for a ganker offer just irritating boost towards them and high jump tactics. For trader and explorer inconvenience added to flying gimped ship there would be additional hassle of getting to sell stuff or data on alternate port of call or trying better luck on instancing. Plus long blocklists.
With current ship stats I for example fly pretty much ungankable ship, as long as I do not try to fight it out. Interdicting me in my Cutter would be just waste of time. For a ganker, and for me. (Plus it would lead to being added to blocklist.)

Yep, tedious but not "unmanageable" to the point "a lot of players" will stop playing because of that.

Other players aren't provided as "content" for the gankers, in this game - each player needs to choose to play among those who may wish to shoot at them, and, according to Sandro, a significant number choose not to.

That some of those who like to shoot at other players seem to want / expect those who don't like being shot at by other players to play among them may be quite telling....

Choices are driven by a simple ratio of return/time played, so it's an opportunistic choice (it's a game so the morale/ethics whatever is not a pixel goes down to the flush...), just using a trader example:

In solo/PG the dumb IA and harmless NPCs make best return/time ratio flying a shieldless T9.

In open mode, since thre are also ganker/griefer killboats, best return/time will require flying something different (as cost of rebuy, additional time etc. will weight on the ratio).

It is a quite straightforward valuation.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yep, tedious but not "unmanageable" to the point "a lot of players" will stop playing because of that.

Depends on whether every player who is not "fun" to play in the same instance as could still be blocked....

Choices are driven by a simple ratio of return/time played, so it's an opportunistic choice (it's a game so the morale/ethics whatever is not a pixel goes down to the flush...), just using a trader example:

In solo/PG the dumb IA and harmless NPCs make best return/time ratio flying a shieldless T9.

In open mode, since thre are also ganker/griefer killboats, best return/time will require flying something different (as cost of rebuy, additional time etc. will weight on the ratio).

It is a quite straightforward valuation.

Some assume that all players who play in Solo / Private Groups do so to be more efficient - like most assumptions it is prone to being incorrect. A simpler reason is that other players are an optional extra in the game we all bought meaning that PvP is an optional extra - and there will be those who bought the game to play without other players (or with selected other players) using the choice that the game offers, i.e. not presenting themselves as targets for others to engage in PvP.

Some players who prefer PvP seem to feel compelled to play in Solo and / or Private Groups to be more efficient in competitive aspects of the game - and complain about it. That's one consequence of playing a game where PvP is optional and where all players affect the shared galaxy.

 

[CMDR Correa]

Why?

From a pure statistical point of view the so called infamous gankers/griefers will have much many targets (so diminished risk for everyone to instance with them) and there are also higher probabilities that a bunch of players could wing up and outnumber the griefer/gankers.

From a gameplay perspective, I doubt some one will roam around risking being instagibbed because flying a shieldless T9 (as risk is real and not potential).

It would make tedious gameplay. People would fly around with heavily gimped metaships (gimped on their cargo cap, or jump range...), and for a ganker offer just irritating boost towards them and high jump tactics. For trader and explorer inconvenience added to flying gimped ship there would be additional hassle of getting to sell stuff or data on alternate port of call or trying better luck on instancing. Plus long blocklists.
With current ship stats I for example fly pretty much ungankable ship, as long as I do not try to fight it out. Interdicting me in my Cutter would be just waste of time. For a ganker, and for me. (Plus it would lead to being added to blocklist.)

This is why (though I recognize "two-thirds" was a purposeful exaggeration for impact)^^

I game for a long time and literally every multiplayer game tends towards meta-builds.
Dark Souls for example (I know it does not have anything to do with space shooters but it is the best I could find since it is the most recent multiplayer I've been to), if you play online you have to go with at least a survivability build otherwise you'd risk having your session interrupted by someone far more experienced and with better equipment than you (a.k.a the meta-build) that'll kill you and make you lose all your souls.
While I believe that challenge makes growth, I'm too old for that, and also I simply don't want to interact PvP with other people, collaboration mode I like, PvP not so much. Simple like that.
That's why I like the solo mode in this game, and that's why I played DS offline mode. Many people also have the same view as me. Imagine you're grindind the road to riches in this game and someone comes uninvited and blows your ship up for no reason. Ridiculous I say! In solo mode, at least I can pirate some NPC in an unmodified Courier, or play with dumb T9 mining build just because I want to without having to fear if it'll survive an encounter with other player. Some people love treating games like these like an optimization exercise, many others do not.
Someone said before on this thread that they did somethings in the solo mode just for safety. That just by itself is enough reason why it shouldn't be removed from game.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

So here we have a good example of, two groups playing the same game, with the same rules... One side appears to adapt much faster to what the other side is doing, and thus won this time.

So what stopped the other side from adopting the same tactic?


So now we get to the it is unfair part of complaints, that creates these kind of threads... we play in open and thus every one else must play in open so that we can see and counter them...Now this have several flaws in the logic, as they refuses to acknowledge several things.
* We have 3 platforms and ONE shared galaxy. What if 90% of one side was on XBox and their oppositon was 90% on Playstation. Tell me how would they ever meet to have a meaningful open combat?

* Time zones, what if one side was mainly playing from Asia, and the side was mainly playing from North America? Once again, when would the two sides meet play time overlap?

* Network shenanigans, restricting or otherwise cripple your network connection to make instancing hard to new impossible is a thing.

* Blocking list, you can go ahead and block whoever you want, because it is your decision if you want to play the other player or not.. the other player cannot force you to play with them.

* Playing in Solo and Private group... and on consoles there is a monthly fee for playing online with others. I am not on consoles, but I have heard that these fees might be going away, but there was cost before...




So there are plenty of available GAME OPTIONS for players to mostly nullify all of the it must be done in Open arguments.
So instead of simply coming with excuses like, they can fly shieldless ships in solo and thus move more cargo, and having the solution to be, must be done in open, to make it "fair", make it more dangerous etc. but it is not about making it more dangerous, if you play on one platform and I play on another, you cannot make it more dangerous for me! and instead of actually trying to make it more dangerous for me, regardless of when I play, on what platform or in what game mode, and that would be to have the game mimics what the players are doing. Lets take the above example with Xbox vs Playstation players...

One team is running alot of cargo from A to B, using mostly shieldless ships, this should trigger the game, to show ALOT of NPC ships doing the same on all platforms and in all modes, so the other now get plenty of NPC targets to shot at, and since they are shieldless, they are easy prey for whoever that finds them. The game is triggered that ships are getting destroyed left, right and center, and thus spawns NPC doing the same on all platforms, and in all game modes.
This now makes it pretty much more dangerous to keep flying in a shieldless ship, so now the other side have to adapt, and have some to run escort, destroying the attacking ships, but they also would have to change to a more defended ships for hauling, add shields etc, to make them survive the attack and having their friends having time to come and protect them. The game once again is triggered that this is happening, and changes are made to what ships is spawned and what they are doing...




Another scenario, player waits in Open for other players to visit a popular engineer, kills other players, this spawns ships doing the same to other players... so now players ahve to be more careful, and this will lead to other players hearing about the problem with the system, and they scramble to fly there, and destroy the rouge ships. Now the ganker start to find themselves hunted, and they cannot use the block list to avoid other players hunting them, since these are NPC ships coming after them, keeping them on their toes to avoid the NPC while trying to find other players to gank... making their effort much harder now...



This would for the most part satisfy all the arguments about they play it safe in solo have no risk etc, etc, but one thing it will not satisfy, is that real reason why most of these threads are started... I want to pew-pew at other players. and Powerplay, BGS and whatnot is just an excuse to justify this, so that you are not simply labelled a ganker.


And this have a big potential to make the galaxy more alive and dynamic, and show where lots of player activity is happening, like in BGS, if you happily flying around in your system and all of sudden there is an influx of pirates shooting everything, then that probably means that your system is under attack by another player group... trying to lower you factions influence by making it less secure. and now preferred game mode, platform, time you play, network issues, blocking list, etc, does not matter. what players do, can be reacted on by other players to create a counter reaction, and everyone is invited to the party...


This is ofcourse qutie a simplification of the real challenges with creating a system like this, but this is not what the majority of the "Open Only" crowd is wanting... despite all their arguments, about danger etc, but this would create ACTUAL danger in all game modes for other players, based on what players did...

I might not agree with your critique of that operation, or description of how "leaky" opposition would be with open only on some of these counts, or that there aren't ways to deal with the issues on other counts. But there is nonetheless an issue with the limitations of p2p instancing as a multiplayer solution. For that reason it feels appropriate, or at least potentially easier, to have NPCs plug the gap where instancing fails (whether due to mode choice, blocking, poor instancing or whatever). That's the meat of a suggestion of mine further up the thread (and of some other suggestions too).

My attitude is that everyone should do PP in open, since that makes a game of it, rather than just a repeated sequence of random button presses to win a competition. I feel like I had more fun and got more meaning from losing that op than the opposition haulers can have done winning it. It'd have been more meaningful all round had they been in open too.

If NPCs swapped in for players (or something to that effect), and were effective in that capacity, where instancing fails to bring players together, then mode choice becomes less a tactical consideration (I need closed modes to ensure victory, whether I enjoy it or not), more a personal one (I do/don't like people in my game). I think as a result more CMDRs would be in open for something like powerplay. Or if not then it'd be more believable that it was due to personal preference.

 

[varonica]

My attitude is that everyone should do PP in open, since that makes a game of it, rather than just a repeated sequence of random button presses to win a competition. I feel like I had more fun and got more meaning from losing that op than the opposition haulers can have done winning it. It'd have been more meaningful all round had they been in open too.

More meaningful for you? For most players who don't PvP (the majority of players remember) they either stop playing that aspect of the game altogether, thus reducing your targets anyway so all that was for nothing, or just go and play another game altogether, thus reducing the total number of players playing the game and increasing the "DOOOOOM" threads to an infinite number until that's all we get on the forums!

 

[Manticore]

Other players aren't provided as "content" for the gankers, in this game - each player needs to choose to play among those who may wish to shoot at them, and, according to Sandro, a significant number choose not to.

That some of those who like to shoot at other players seem to want / expect those who don't like being shot at by other players to play among them may be quite telling....

....... and whatever happened to Smiling Dog Crew?