General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[T200]

And for those of us who carefully examined games and game features and game play of a number of space based games to decide which one to play, and specifically ruled out EVE for that very "feature" then get EVE game play forced on us whether we like it or not? Surely the people who didn't do the required research and purchased a game that doesn't play the way they want should either accept that fact, or go and play a game that does play the way they want.

again though, what does a shared universe do that couldn't be done by a non-shared universe?

I mean with a non-shared universe there's at least a hint of being able to make 3rd party adjustments, or add content to areas denizens of a particular server might want.. (granted I'm not sure how easily cobra engine is to being modded, but if Frostbite managed to be cracked there's a way).

 

[Rebel Yell]

NOPE, for the umpteenth repetition. It's not just about the quantity of time, but its quality. This doesn't seem to enter the skulls of those who keep harping on it. Well, it won't change a thing, we continue to choose with whom to play or not. You seem to enjoy wasting your time here. (Did I say already that the same fruitless discussion exists in other games? In one I know it was the pvpers' side the developer decided to cut back after it got out of hand. There you are.)

I don't need anyone to judge how I use my time... neither I don't care about what happens in other games.

This is Elite Dangerous.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Why can't PvPers just play with each other and leave the people that don't want to play with them alone? "But muh BGS an PP!!!!" is a false song and everyone knows it. PP and BGS conflicts are won by the side that best uses the manhours that group has available to fill the correct buckets to achieve their goals. If you don't have the manhours available or the strategy to win BGS/PP conflicts in solo/pg, you most likely will not suddenly start to win just because the opposition from your time zone and on your platform show up in open.

First: if you play this game, you are a target... NPCs or players don't make a difference. Ofc you can make an easier outcome when it's NPCs because they are dumb and their ships are weak.

Second: to my records, a BGS war conducted by grind takes a lot of time (as well as frustration to fight invisible enemies) vs. a straight confrontation where the weaker side is being wiped out or surrenders because isn't strong enough to fight.

 

[Rebel Yell]

I'll say this though: Open in Elite is just a version of Solo with people that might be inconvenient.

Open is fun.

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

I don't need anyone to judge how I use my time... neither I don't care about what happens in other games.

This is Elite Dangerous.

This is about the most hypocritical statement I saw in this thread. You were stipulating it's just a little bit of time and nothing else for others, which it isn't. So you are judging what others make of it. And yes this is Elite Dangerous we chose out of all other games, as pointed out so many times already. It is your ilk constantly unhappy with a feature you want removed, not the rest of the playerbase. Nobody cares how you use your time but the desired result will not come. Unless the developer gets tired of dealing with the incessant quibble, which is what happened in the case mentioned and it turned the other way.

 

[Misty_Dark]

First: if you play this game, you are a target... NPCs or players don't make a difference. Ofc you can make an easier outcome when it's NPCs because they are dumb and their ships are weak.

Second: to my records, a BGS war conducted by grind takes a lot of time (as well as frustration to fight invisible enemies) vs. a straight confrontation where the weaker side is being wiped out or surrenders because isn't strong enough to fight.

but you are already fightin an invisible war. unless you play three accounts on PC, XBox and Playstation, and you also need to play more or less 24 hours, otherwise you will be fighting an invisible war. And that is before we even get to the p2p netcode and its limitations...

Then we have often is it beneficial to gain BGS influence to kill clean ships? because you make it sound like if you just can shoot the oppositionand do it more than the opposition shoot at you, you will automatically win at BGS, which far, far from the truth. BGS is NOT based on who has the biggest badest combat fleet...

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

First: if you play this game, you are a target... NPCs or players don't make a difference. Ofc you can make an easier outcome when it's NPCs because they are dumb and their ships are weak.

Yes, it does make a difference and it's not about the level of difficulty. Whether you accept that or not.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I miss them .

Some players miss them. Some don't.

 

[Robert Maynard]

First: if you play this game, you are a target... NPCs or players don't make a difference. Ofc you can make an easier outcome when it's NPCs because they are dumb and their ships are weak.

There's a fundamental difference between players and NPCs. One is provided for our entertainment by the game, one can choose not to offer content to any other player. Sandro commented on the difference here:

Hello Commander Ozram!

I think you are perhaps conflating two separate issues: the amount of challenge present in each game mode, and player versus player interactions. I think these are so fundamentally different that comparisons might not be particularly useful.

The challenge of playing in solo being too low (without taking sides) is a valid argument to make, although it might better be phrased as "the opportunities for challenge are too low in Elite Dangerous". It's actually something we are interested in looking at.

However, cranking up difficulty will not make Open more enticing. Conflict between actual people, even within a game, is a very different matter to taking on NPC ships. It has many psychological and social elements that would otherwise not be present. Incidentally, increasing the difficulty of NPC engagements would also make Open harder rather than fairer, so there's also that.

Perhaps the bottom line is the different modes are there to enable Commanders to play how they want to. We don't want everyone to play in Open because we want some sort of Armageddon PvP scenario. We just think that playing with other people, both cooperatively and adversarial, can be more fun, which is why we advocate Open play.

So in the context of a karma system, people playing in Private Group or Solo mode are not relevant. Why should folk in Open be interested in what goes on there? This is about making player versus player interactions more equitable in Open, getting more folk in there, surely?

---

Second: to my records, a BGS war conducted by grind takes a lot of time (as well as frustration to fight invisible enemies) vs. a straight confrontation where the weaker side is being wiped out or surrenders because isn't strong enough to fight.

Those who engage in BGS conflict in Solo and Private Groups also face invisible enemies - enemies who may, or may not, be on the same platform, playing at the same time of day, etc.. It's the nature of the shared galaxy - and doesn't require PvP.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

but you are already fightin an invisible war. unless you play three accounts on PC, XBox and Playstation, and you also need to play more or less 24 hours, otherwise you will be fighting an invisible war. And that is before we even get to the p2p netcode and its limitations...

There's a real difference between an individual and a team of hundreds (e.g. organised powerplay) here. For one, it's impractical, for the other it's routine - all platforms and timezones are populated enough that a comparable conflict plays out on each. Even if not, it only has to play out this way on PC (the most significant platform by far) for it to matter.

Then we have often is it beneficial to gain BGS influence to kill clean ships? because you make it sound like if you just can shoot the oppositionand do it more than the opposition shoot at you, you will automatically win at BGS, which far, far from the truth. BGS is NOT based on who has the biggest badest combat fleet...

In a war, if CZs are dangerous due to players, then fighting the war becomes harder. It was hypothetical point anyway I think, but I'll point it out.

 

[Elliot Coleman]

Y'all know beating the horse won't resuscitate it, right?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Y'all know beating the horse won't resuscitate it, right?

This particular horse has been beaten for well over eight years.

 

[Elliot Coleman]

This particular horse has been beaten for well over eight years.

I'm well aware...I've been here for half that time.

Open-only is a concept I would support if it were viable. Unfortunately, without MAJOR changes to the way ED functions, it's nothing more than a pipedream.

I feel FDev should just go ahead and put this to rest once and for all. There are a great many other, more beneficial suggestions that should be championed.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Open-only is a concept I would support if it were viable. Unfortunately, without MAJOR changes to the way ED functions, it's nothing more than a pipedream.

Even after major changes to the way the game functions it would remain a contentious topic.

I feel FDev should just go ahead and put this to rest once and for all. There are a great many other, more beneficial suggestions that should be championed.

I get the impression that Frontier adopt the "never say never" approach on this topic - as to make a definitive statement one way or the other would be unpopular with a significant subset of the player-base (which subset would depend on which way the definitive statement went). Unless, of course, they consider the fact that the game was pitched, designed, developed and launched with three game modes sharing a single galaxy as definitive. Then there was the restatement of what the BGS is and who it is for in late 2018, i.e. all players on all platforms and in all game modes. Even if Frontier made a definitive statement, there would be those who would complain about the outcome and expect / demand that it be changed.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Yes, it does make a difference and it's not about the level of difficulty. Whether you accept that or not.

This is about the most hypocritical statement I saw in this thread. You were stipulating it's just a little bit of time and nothing else for others, which it isn't. So you are judging what others make of it. And yes this is Elite Dangerous we chose out of all other games, as pointed out so many times already. It is your ilk constantly unhappy with a feature you want removed, not the rest of the playerbase. Nobody cares how you use your time but the desired result will not come. Unless the developer gets tired of dealing with the incessant quibble, which is what happened in the case mentioned and it turned the other way.

Wasn't you saying I'm wasting my time in the forum? I know it's like don Quixote and the windmills, so call me don Quixote.

but you are already fightin an invisible war. unless you play three accounts on PC, XBox and Playstation, and you also need to play more or less 24 hours, otherwise you will be fighting an invisible war. And that is before we even get to the p2p netcode and its limitations...

Then we have often is it beneficial to gain BGS influence to kill clean ships? because you make it sound like if you just can shoot the oppositionand do it more than the opposition shoot at you, you will automatically win at BGS, which far, far from the truth. BGS is NOT based on who has the biggest badest combat fleet...

The first part of the issue (instancing, etc.) is purely technical and there are way outs to get around it (I reckon it may be harder for small single-platform squadrons).

Regarding BGS clashes, yes you're right it not based, but can introduce some nice scenarios along the usual "grind-type" BGS (i.e. doing positive/negative BGS activities to support/undermine the factions involved). I have attended dozens of BGS wars between player factions since the game started... so I came to the point these can be classified is just two "main types" as follows (powerplay linked BGS is included):

(A) Boundary/contested system war: i.e. 2+ PMFs battle to take control of a system within their respective areas of interest (sub-type: system is expasion target, so PMF presence in system is not required).

(B) Distant attack/defence war: for a given reason (or even for none, but with a defined objective) a squadron (not necessarily having it's own PMF) goes at war against another one having a PMF (sub-type: both squadrons/PMFs play attacker/defender role in case both have a PMF).

The (A) type requires players to fight for a system, so their effort will be focused on that = blockading / engaging enemy ships in system whilst doing BGS pos/neg at the same time can have a meaningful impact of the outcome. Other systems may eventually be involved (as diversion, additional targets, etc) as it is a battle for the territory.

The (B) type requires attacker to move forces against targeted enemy systems, most of the times is the home system if there's no powerplay involved (if the goal of the attacker is to wipe out the enemy the attack may spread to other systems). Since the attacker is not backing its PMF will lever the others in system (6 vs 1) to weaken the attacked PMF = again blockading / engaging enemy ships whilst doing BGS pos/neg stuff will have a meaningful impact on the outcome.

Of course BGS wars may result in a pure PvP confrontation (but it's not common and usually ends up with a diplomatic outcome) or may be resolved with a PvP fight (this happens sometimes to put an end to hostilities and declare winner/loser).

Yes, it does make a difference and it's not about the level of difficulty. Whether you accept that or not.

Pixels are pixels, or are hollow pixels different?

 

[varonica]

I feel FDev should just go ahead and put this to rest once and for all. There are a great many other, more beneficial suggestions that should be championed.

You actually think if FDEV said there would never be Open Only all these "we demand Open Only" threads would all go away and new ones would stop appearing? I laugh at your naivete!

 

[Achtung-Goomba]

You actually think if FDEV said there would never be Open Only all these "we demand Open Only" threads would all go away and new ones would stop appearing? I laugh at your naivete!

Open Only, PvP Paradise and DOOOOM all confirmed in one non-announcement. Nice!

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

Wasn't you saying ...

Pixels are pixels, or are hollow pixels different?

You're doing this on purpose, hopefully?

No. We are discussing minds interacting with other minds. The pixels are only a tool. Our physical bodies can't be harmed this way but mental state resulting from such interactions is very much real. Some people are simply unpleasant to meet, whether irl or in virtual space. Where we have a choice to isolate ourselves from them, we may prefer that.

I know it's like don Quixote and the windmills, so call me don Quixote.

That one had a mental condition for which there was no name at the time. We mostly find the story rather comical, but...

 

[Fenwe]

Pixels are pixels, or are hollow pixels different?

Obviously this isn't true for you either, or else you wouldn't want open only.

You want to be able to destroy the human controlled ships that thwart your game desires. You want your enemies driven before and hear the lamentations blah blah.

That doesn't work for me. FD as is does. We all in our own way contribute to the wars and the BGS.

 

[Chrystoph]

Some players miss them. Some don't.

According to their Twitter, they have alienated themselves to the devs of SC.