General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[Robert Maynard]

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

The "we" in this context refers to a subset of the player-base - who don't seem to bothered that another subset of the player-base would be adversely affected by such changes.

While the status quo doesn't meet with the play-style preference of the proponents of change, they bought the same game as every other player, on the same terms.

It'll be interesting to see what changes Frontier are prepared to make.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

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

I'm just saying what happens to me when I'm hauling and that I treat as part of the gamut. The only time I've been miffed about it was when someone rammed me to death and I got sent to the detention centre while he just flew away! Who the hell's in charge here?? Feel free to campaign for proper ramming attribution and punishment.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

The "we" in this context refers to a subset of the player-base - who don't seem to bothered that another subset of the player-base would be adversely affected by such changes.

While the status quo doesn't meet with the play-style preference of the proponents of change, they bought the same game as every other player, on the same terms.

It'll be interesting to see what changes Frontier are prepared to make.

Subset (of the current and potential) makes it sound small - I'd say core merit earners of 5 of the powers run in open under broadly the same terms, the others are mixed or I don't know (although 3 of them I think have small player bases). Those who quit in disgust or can't be bothered with the feature for these specific reasons are also many.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Subset (of the current and potential) makes it sound small

Maybe, maybe not - only Frontier have indisputable numbers.

I'd say core merit earners of 5 of the powers run in open under broadly the same terms, the others are mixed or I don't know.

So it's not even unanimously agreed among those who Powerplay?

Those who quit in disgust or can't be bothered with the feature for these specific reasons are also many.

It's not Frontier's fault that those players bought a game that does not contain features that are designed to meet their play-style needs, nor the fault of those who bought the game and who don't enjoy PvP - yet there seems to be an expectation that those PvP players must be catered to at the expense of the rest of the player-base.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

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.

Strong enough to fight, you would need to deplete enemy's resources for that. Say commander with 1 billion credit balance has pretty many rebuys....

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Maybe, maybe not - only Frontier have indisputable numbers.

So it's not even unanimously agreed among those who Powerplay?

It's not Frontier's fault that those players bought a game that does not contain features that are designed to meet their play-style needs, nor the fault of those who bought the game and who don't enjoy PvP - yet there seems to be an expectation that those PvP players must be catered to at the expense of the rest of the player-base.

TBH mate, don't think that PvP'ers demanding all the attention, everyone else be damned, is just here.

My time in ESO was an eye-opener. Same story. PvP'ers demanding everything be catered to them. In fact, it screwed up some sets in PvE for the sake of PvP balance.

Looked further. It's the same everywhere. PvP'ers demanding everything be about them, as they are "better". (AKA they think they are brave for playing against other people in a video game)

This eye-opener is largely why I have shifted my views away from my old Open-only ones.

I realise now that was just stupid. Game is for everyone and if people want a pure-PvP game, they bought the wrong game.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

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.

Chain interdiction should be made nearly impossible.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

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.

There is one organisation. Bank of Zaonce that issues insurance policies. Say when you got to rebuy screen and now insurance company wants YOU to pay THEIR costs. So you would need to pay out every credit your actions had cost to them. Something how real life insurance companies work. Say you burn someones house. That house was insured, so for victim it costs what ever his/her copay was, but insurance company pays most. Now you get caught sometime later. And YES the company wants its money back. From YOU. And yes, they will go for all of your assets.

So okay you are leet ganker, and you had little accident, smashed your ship with trip to high G world. Now you are on rebuy screen..."Oh its you mr Ganker, we have wanted to have little discussion with you for a long time...lets see your tab runs for about 10 billion credits.....we take your nice FDL, with all modules and all stuff in your bank account...have a nice day and here is your PF Sidewinder....

 

[Brrokk]

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.

Yes. Someone gave a succinct example of this in a similar thread (I can't remember who it was or whether it was even this thread):-

To persuade traders to play in Open, being interdicted and escaping has to be better than never being interdicted.

OK, to some it is; they enjoy the excitement.

For people who don't want the excitement I don't know how this could be arranged. Maybe make interdicting a clean ship a crime - if you make it to the station to report it, the would-be attacker has to pay you large compensation. It would be a rather weird game mechanic probably offering exploits though, so I think it's better to just accept that the game is as it is now.

 

[ethelred]

Good example is the Community Goal events, if there is a CG requiring cargo hauling it is IMPOSSIBLE to do it in Open. There is at least 4-5 gangers at all time in that system just waiting for cargo ships to jump in, even with fleet carrier it is extremely hard because you must be lucky to park your carrier close enough to destination station, even then you must have a lot of luck to make it

This is rubbish.

Last CG I completed in Open only in a T7 and T9, finished top 25% and was robbed once and ganked (destruction with no comms) once.

Impossible for you perhaps.

 

[Fenwe]

"Grow a pair"

Open only...
You know its right

LOL!

First of all, that is sexist. There are women PvP'ers as well as men.

Second of all, some people lead lives or have lead the type of lives where virtually killing another human being is meaningless and is definitely not the way we define our manhood.

 

[Fenwe]

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.

It's why gankers lurk in places like Deciat, to say a special 'hello' to brand new players.

 

[Misty_Dark]

TBH mate, don't think that PvP'ers demanding all the attention, everyone else be damned, is just here.

My time in ESO was an eye-opener. Same story. PvP'ers demanding everything be catered to them. In fact, it screwed up some sets in PvE for the sake of PvP balance.

Looked further. It's the same everywhere. PvP'ers demanding everything be about them, as they are "better". (AKA they think they are brave for playing against other people in a video game)

This eye-opener is largely why I have shifted my views away from my old Open-only ones.

I realise now that was just stupid. Game is for everyone and if people want a pure-PvP game, they bought the wrong game.

I also remembered about that stuff in ESO, how they gated PvE stuff behind PvP, so players who did not want to have anything todo with PvP was forced to engage in PvP, and that there was a small subset of players who where preying on these players, with specific burst builds to ambush them and quickly kill them, and oh boy where these gankers super sore looser when they got ganked.. I know, becuase I ganked the gankers n ESO, you know that yiou are doing something right against gankers when they start to complain to your guild leaders about how terrible player I was, and how I ruined their fun! Yup, the gankers, complained that I was ruining their fun...

And yes, I see the same arguments for PvP in this game and in many other games, where PvP is more of an option.

I have enjoyed following the development of New World, that started out with being this hardcore MMO with mandatory PvP, to be more and more about PvE, and reducing PvP to be more and more of an option to the players! They have added group content for PvE, and now they added PvE instanced PvE dungeons! So that tells me that the vocal group that wants PvP for everyone, are rather small, why else would a game that was focused on PvP change focus to be more and more about PvE with each version? Because the feedback from the players tells a different story.

And we can also make the same conclusion from Elite, by statement from FDev, the most popular game mode is Open! but the majority of players in Open have NOT engaged in PvP!

 

[CJoke]

I always play single player because I don't want any kind of PvP or CoOp missions. I don't want to die and I don't want to kill others. In openlobbys (anygame) there are always people who have fun in ruining other peoples game experience and I don't want to deal with it.
My ships never have weapons, I don't fight at all... 500m/s is enough to outburst any npc-pirate.
So removing single player would be a gamebreaker for me. Openlobby only works for me in games like forza horizon 4 where other players are always ghosted - nocollision etc.

 

[CMDR Correa]

And we can also make the same conclusion from Elite, by statement from FDev, the most popular game mode is Open! but the majority of players in Open have NOT engaged in PvP!

The problem with Open and PvP in general is that by playing it you're actually giving permission for any person to disrupt your gameplay at any moment, wheter you like it or not, wheter you have the disposition to interact with other person or not.
While it might be cool to CoOp, it's not cool to be ganked. While I understand that Open mode has it's good side (namely wing up and stack obscene amounts of credits with your mates), I don't have mates to play this game with, and I don't want to keep worrying myself with "meta" everytime I want to try something different.
So you see, Solo or at most Private, allows people like me to play the game the way they want, without a care. That's why I think making all the game Open is bad, I certainly wouldn't keep playing it too much.

 

[Misty_Dark]

The problem with Open and PvP in general is that by playing it you're actually giving permission for any person to disrupt your gameplay at any moment, wheter you like it or not, wheter you have the disposition to interact with other person or not.
While it might be cool to CoOp, it's not cool to be ganked. While I understand that Open mode has it's good side (namely wing up and stack obscene amounts of credits with your mates), I don't have mates to play this game with, and I don't want to keep worrying myself with "meta" everytime I want to try something different.
So you see, Solo or at most Private, allows people like me to play the game the way they want, without a care. That's why I think making all the game Open is bad, I certainly wouldn't keep playing it too much.

So great of you just replying to something you take out of context... and not grasping what I said...

Then rant a bit more and ends up with this gem

That's why I think making all the game Open is bad, I certainly wouldn't keep playing it too much.

I do not care one single bit what game mode you play in. I do not care if you like pew-pew on other players or not, or if you fancy exploring for months, or hunting pirates, or just flying around doing nothing.

And that you even for second seems to suggest that I am for Open Only is just disgusting.

 

[Rebel Yell]

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.

Start killing all players you see in system then I guess "doing those missions" is gonna be hard.

 

[Rebel Yell]

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.

Wrong, with enough players covering TZs and platforms (apart from unluncky instancing) a blockade may be quite effective (of course against only those who fly in open without having anyone blocked to break instancing).

It may require "camping" in system for many hours, waiting for enemies to jump in... but yes, it's possible to do it.

 

[Rebel Yell]

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.

Carriers have made the task a bit harder, but the goal is to stop the runner (ramming at the mail slot, volley of torps, etc) at any cost... even if it's costing the attacker to lose the ship under station fire (= collateral damage).

 

[Rebel Yell]

And we can also make the same conclusion from Elite, by statement from FDev, the most popular game mode is Open! but the majority of players in Open have NOT engaged in PvP!

Because open is not that you are engaged 24/7 by other players... of course flying to popular spots or Deciat, Shinrarta etc. may be risky because of the presence of PvPers in the area who are there for shooting everyone coming in, but definitively it is not the standard case for the rest of the galaxy (and this is why all the ones who are against open-only for certain activities are wrong).