General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[Agony_Aunt]

Never say never, go figure what's going to happen if they found something interesting in what I've said so far...


Bounties, crimes and security ships may be or may not be part of the equation (i.e. if system is anarchy, Delaine space for rank 5 pledged to the Archon or even folks flying with "crimes off" as most of the CMDRs in combat ships do), as I've said before when there's a BGS war between player factions, whatever eventually happens in open does count.

In an anarchy system (which are few and far between) things are a little different, but as far as i'm aware, killing of ships still lowers the security of the leading faction, even if they are anarchy.

Anyway, what would be the point of a head to head conflict even in anarchy space? It doesn't resolve anything BGS wise.

In a BGS war its all about doing those missions for max INF or other INF affecting activities.

 

[Brrokk]

In an anarchy system (which are few and far between) things are a little different, but as far as i'm aware, killing of ships still lowers the security of the leading faction, even if they are anarchy.

Anyway, what would be the point of a head to head conflict even in anarchy space? It doesn't resolve anything BGS wise.

In a BGS war its all about doing those missions for max INF or other INF affecting activities.

That's right. In a BGS conflict, as soon as you launch from the station in a combat ship with tiny cargo space and short jump range, you start losing.

As for blockading a solar system, I don't have direct experience of whether it's possible or not in ED, but in any reasonable SF game it should be impossible.

 

[varonica]

That's right. In a BGS conflict, as soon as you launch from the station in a combat ship with tiny cargo space and short jump range, you start losing.

As for blockading a solar system, I don't have direct experience of whether it's possible or not in ED, but in any reasonable SF game it should be impossible.

Artificial choke points in games are common because of this issue, in a space game unless you force players into one location artificially they aren't going to gather into large combat situations.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Artificial choke points in games are common because of this issue, in a space game unless you force players into one location artificially they aren't going to gather into large combat situations.

Space is big, and we literally have the entire galaxy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is bull, with respect. Blockades do work if the sides agree not to block each other (or if FDev were to neutralise block between PP opponents), and the blockader gains system supremacy.

They only work because players agree to out of game rules to make them possible, e.g. only play in Open, no block....

Quite like PvE Private Groups in that respect, where members also agree to out of game rules to make them possible.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

They only work because players agree to out of game rules to make them possible, e.g. only play in Open, no block....

This. Seriously, expecting everyone to abide by honour rules is ridiculous.

 

[Misty_Dark]

That's right. In a BGS conflict, as soon as you launch from the station in a combat ship with tiny cargo space and short jump range, you start losing.

As for blockading a solar system, I don't have direct experience of whether it's possible or not in ED, but in any reasonable SF game it should be impossible.

So you want to blockade a system with 2 stations... so where do you place yourself? the logical place should probably be flying back and forth between the main star and the station, this way, you will encounter all ships that take the "fastest" route to the station

Now, if you are the ship entering the system, you can now figure this one out, and avoid this obvious bad route to the station, so instead you can now leg it out in the black, and do a big curvy loop to the destination, and now for the attack to catch up with you, they have will have a hard time, as then have to get behind you, to interdict you... so you loose a little time, and that is just about it.

So this leaves the attacker to actually have to blockade near the station to block you, and now you only need to service some 10km gauntlet to the station.. and it should be obvious, that the blockade runners, are going to have report crimes on, so that the station and local authority ships will come to the aide to defend the blockade runner.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

So you want to blockade a system with 2 stations... so where do you place yourself? the logical place should probably be flying back and forth between the main star and the station, this way, you will encounter all ships that take the "fastest" route to the station

Now, if you are the ship entering the system, you can now figure this one out, and avoid this obvious bad route to the station, so instead you can now leg it out in the black, and do a big curvy loop to the destination, and now for the attack to catch up with you, they have will have a hard time, as then have to get behind you, to interdict you... so you loose a little time, and that is just about it.

So this leaves the attacker to actually have to blockade near the station to block you, and now you only need to service some 10km gauntlet to the station.. and it should be obvious, that the blockade runners, are going to have report crimes on, so that the station and local authority ships will come to the aide to defend the blockade runner.

Also this.

And no, nobody gets to demand other players have report crimes off.

It's a legitimate game mechanic.

 

[enonymous]

...still better than nothing really, we all know it's tough. Credits to spend, that's it

It's really not. That's why I'm in solo.

I want to run missions. Cmdr Richard wants to fight me. He wants me in his game. I'm content for him. He values me.

He's worthless to me. He's worse than nothing; that's the entire issue. Having the interaction is always worse than not having it. This topic always revolves around would-be targets making the objectively correct decision to avoid the worthless game mechanics.

The interaction isn't designed to create competition. It's only designed to create victims. I'm the one risking a rebuy. I'm risking missions. I'm risking cargo. I'm risking data. I'm risking combat/bounty vouchers. More importantly; I'm risking the time it took to collect that stuff. I'm being forced to waste time on this worthless interaction. 100% of the burden of consequence is on my shoulders. Every possible outcome is worse than not having the interaction; by design.

People will opt into things that are fun or engaging or at least interesting. FDev has failed to make the "run away" gameplay any of these things. It's just more time in the slow, boring travel mechanics. People will opt into things that are rewarding. How many people were in Borann? How many actually enjoyed mining? How many people actually enjoy driving circles around davs hope? FDev hasn't made it rewarding. You're punished for being in position to give others content and there's nothing you can do about it. Time is the only currency that matters. The design is built to allow criminals to steal it from others.

"Nothing" is currently the correct choice because the design of the interaction is broken. It wouldn't be difficult to fix.

Step 1. Design an interaction that isn't stupid. Create competition instead of victims and trolls.

Step 2. Reward victory.

Step 3. Punish failure too harshly to exploit for the reward.

 

[Lord Rak]

Never say never, go figure what's going to happen if they found something interesting in what I've said so far...

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

"Nothing" is currently the correct choice because the design of the interaction is broken. It wouldn't be difficult to fix.

Step 1. Design an interaction that isn't stupid. Create competition instead of victims and trolls.

Step 2. Reward victory.

Step 3. Punish failure too harshly to exploit for the reward.

I don't think it's fair to call it broken. It is working as intended. Disagreeing with that doesn't invalidate it, it only means someone didn't end up in the game they wanted. There are plenty to choose from.

I believe there would be a radical change in culture if pirates weren't actually rewarded while the victims get nothing out of it. Imagine if attackers had to pay for all the damages from rebuy to lost assets, plus a fine which increases every time, maybe three strikes and it's detention. Anyone who likes the risk and to fight for fun can choose to leave report crimes off, and none of this happens. This should establish certain habits very quickly, first and foremost to seek agreement. For the risk takers it may become a matter of pride even more than it is now. It's the cynical aspect of this part of the game which makes so many stay the hell out of it.

 

[Chrystoph]

Imagine if attackers had to pay for all the damages from rebuy to lost assets, plus a fine which increases every time, maybe three strikes and it's detention. Anyone who likes the risk and to fight for fun can choose to leave report crimes off, and none of this happens.

This implies a god level organization exists to enforce it, something that is capable of mandating those rules across the entirety of existence and, more compelling compliance.

Yes, I understand that it would be a game mechanic, but it is a game mechanic with quantifiable consequences, which means it Should be justifiable within the Lore of the game.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Alright, let's say that hypothetically, blockades work. (They don't because of FD's design intentions)

Even then, it has been seven years

Why are people unable to get that the modes are not up for debate.

No amount of screaming is going to remove them, or change what can be done in them.

Frontier's silence is the polite way of telling you to give up, as your opinions are not important to them on this.

Oh I don't agree with removing the modes as per OP. Just pointing out things based on actual experience rather than your theorising, admittedly involving caveats. Sorry for any exasperated frustration in my post!

As for devs listening, Zac's recent overt statement that they are thinking about things including open-only PP is not what I'd call silence. In practice I hope it will at least mean that they are open to rebalancing PP -- currently closed modes are easy mode, which doesn't suit the competitive nature of the feature and drives some groups to solo/PG for competitive rather than gameplay/enjoyment reasons.

Edit: also, remember, FDev are like ents, 7 years is just how long it takes their devs to agree something is worth talking about.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

View attachment 257512

Mr T would undoubtedly fly in open with an empty block list. Sets a great example. Oh wait, yeah he wouldn't fly, guess he'd just walk around and ride SRVs, but the point stands.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

So you want to blockade a system with 2 stations... so where do you place yourself? the logical place should probably be flying back and forth between the main star and the station, this way, you will encounter all ships that take the "fastest" route to the station

Now, if you are the ship entering the system, you can now figure this one out, and avoid this obvious bad route to the station, so instead you can now leg it out in the black, and do a big curvy loop to the destination, and now for the attack to catch up with you, they have will have a hard time, as then have to get behind you, to interdict you... so you loose a little time, and that is just about it.

So this leaves the attacker to actually have to blockade near the station to block you, and now you only need to service some 10km gauntlet to the station.. and it should be obvious, that the blockade runners, are going to have report crimes on, so that the station and local authority ships will come to the aide to defend the blockade runner.

More theorising? You blockade at the star, everyone passes through there, unless they're losing efficiency by using carriers. Interdict as they aim for wherever they head - their back will always be to the star where you are waiting, or follow and interdict when they slow down at the station. If you have a spare wing, they go to the station you expect haulers to go to in this special 2-large-pad-orbital station case (what if there's only one large pad planetary?). G5 shield tank can destroy a hauler while tanking some damage from the station (and losing a ship is an acceptable risk, it's just credits), but with long range weapons also can avoid some of that damage. Or better, ram them all the way to the pad and the station does nothing the whole while. You could ask some actual PvPers what their actual thought process is, but they all rolled their eyes so hard the rest of them followed and rolled out of the forums. It's more of the usual "it's theoretically impossible!", "weeell... it just happened to me", "yes! Impossible!" that I've grown used to.

 

[Chrystoph]

As for devs listening, Zac's recent overt statement that they are thinking about things including open-only PP is not what I'd call silence. In practice I hope it will at least mean that they are open to rebalancing PP -- currently closed modes are easy mode, which doesn't suit the competitive nature of the feature and drives some groups to solo/PG for competitive rather than gameplay/enjoyment reasons.

The flip side of this is that, by removing "easy mode", you are making even more discouragement of anyone but the "professionals" playing.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

They only work because players agree to out of game rules to make them possible, e.g. only play in Open, no block....

Quite like PvE Private Groups in that respect, where members also agree to out of game rules to make them possible.

Yep you've outlined the problem we want FDev to solve.

 

[Chrystoph]

Or better, ram them all the way to the pad and the station does nothing the whole while.

So, you want to force people into your environment to stop "exploiting" , then you are going to use exploits to prevent the consequences of your actions?

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

The flip side of this is that, by removing "easy mode", you are making even more discouragement of anyone but the "professionals" playing.

So easy - just ramp up the challenge based on merits earned. First 1000 merits are fine in any mode (module shoppers hello), rest in open. Or use diminishing returns. Or have tougher NPCs for high merit holders. Etc. Etc. The people exploiting the imbalance are the max-min-ers speedrunning merits in G5 god ships to earn 10s of 1000s of merits every week, those are the ones who should be compelled to deal with a little realistic resistance. I'm sure FDev have the same sorts of concerns, don't worry.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Oh I don't agree with removing the modes as per OP. Just pointing out things based on actual experience rather than your theorising, admittedly involving caveats. Sorry for any exasperated frustration in my post!

As for devs listening, Zac's recent overt statement that they are thinking about things including open-only PP is not what I'd call silence. In practice I hope it will at least mean that they are open to rebalancing PP -- currently closed modes are easy mode, which doesn't suit the competitive nature of the feature and drives some groups to solo/PG for competitive rather than gameplay/enjoyment reasons.

Edit: also, remember, FDev are like ents, 7 years is just how long it takes their devs to agree something is worth talking about.

Until changes actually happen, do not assume anything will.

Words are cheap, after all.

That's online gaming 101.