General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[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).

 

[Fenwe]

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).

The problem though boss is the fact that gankers do hang out in in those 'popular' systems to catch newbies that haven't had a chance to even start engineering.

It's one of many reasons why FDev would be more than a little foolish to do open only. Seal clubbing isn't PvP, nor is feeding puppies to piranhas. Forcing open only would be FDev giving the go ahead to that.

 

[ethelred]

It's like a lovely spectrum of opinion

Open only
PP Open only
Some PP activities have an Open bonus
Optional new activities that are done with NPC or with CMDRs
PvE / PvP flags
No more hollow squares
Everything is fine
Ban Open
Ban Open & PG
Offline solo only

And we all get to talk over each other.

Did I miss anything?

 

[enonymous]

Did I miss anything?

I'll happily give Cmdr Richard the opportunity to shoot at me when they fix the parasitic design of the interaction.

Though I'd also accept an offline solo version that lets me mod out the travel mechanic. That's a DLC I'd actually buy

 

[Manticore]

They mainly moved over to playing Store Citizen. Small play area, choke points, always plenty of easy targets to kill. It must be like a playground for them.

I have to laugh:

It's like a lovely spectrum of opinion

Open only
PP Open only
Some PP activities have an Open bonus
Optional new activities that are done with NPC or with CMDRs
PvE / PvP flags
No more hollow squares
Everything is fine
Ban Open
Ban Open & PG
Offline solo only

And we all get to talk over each other.

Did I miss anything?

No not really. I think that covers the general whinge factor.......

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

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.

I'm purely laying out the numbers as far as I can see them. Are you saying that you've been arguing against OOPP all this time to troll a unanimous community? If it were unanimous there'd be little to argue about. A substantial benefit to a majority vs. a smaller detriment and to a minority would be grounds for a change, as I see it. And please don't now again restate the obvious uncertainties around the numbers, it's tedious.

The conflation of OOPP with bunches of savages running around lopping each others' heads off and cackling all day is odd. OOPP cements PvP's role in the feature, but it's not "the PvPers" asking for it, it's the whole spectrum of participants. I wanted this (or whatever optimal way to maximise engagement in open, or at least balance the modes so that open PP is not penalised) from when I joined in a cobra with 10mil credits and no engineering until now, and I see the broad swath of players of all levels engaging in my group totally happy to play in open. It's about wanting an oppositional, explicitly multiplayer feel to a feature where that seems entirely appropriate (i.e. a multiplayer simulation of some kind of semi-clandestine conflict, which is what PP is).

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

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.

OP fits your description maybe, but as far as OOPP or related suggestions for PP go, it's about having one feature where PvP and co-op combined can have a meaningful role. Or alternatively, if NPCs are deployed to balance the modes, a feature where at least you are not penalised for engaging in those aspects. Even voluntary open-only powerplay as it currently stands offers a large range of activities from week to week that allow you to completely dial in the level of risk that you want. Someone has to do the dangerous stuff, sure, but in a sizeable group, there will always be experienced players who are game to take that on.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

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

Yes, its going to be hard for you to do and while you're trying to kill players, you're not getting any missions done. Meanwhile some will be evading you and getting missions done. You're going to lose any BGS war spending time trying to kill players.

 

[Manticore]

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.

Word.

A misplaced sense of entitlement sucks.