General Remove private Lobby and single Player
- Thread starter Black White
- Start date
Thanks for the link - I see what you suggested! And the main point is that the skill level of NPCs substituting open players in solo mode should be appropriate so that:This reminds me of my post here
Powerplay - How is Powerplay not open only yet?
It is end game content if you want to do it well and not burn out. You need good ships (with at least some engineering), decent skills (against other players), know PP mechanics, know BGS mechanics. You can level your argument at anything- Thargoids can be shot at from day 1, but you'll never do...forums.frontier.co.uk
The common thread is that where player activity is high, this is reflected across modes by NPCs. Basically what it's saying is that if players are chasing hard after some objective, it's probably strategically important (certainly in powerplay). It's therefore logical that NPCs would also swell their numbers and tenacity (or indeed vulnerability) in those areas, just as players would in open.
Just as the BGS and powerplay source cumulative player activity over a day/week to drive political developments, this sources player activity to decide how hard NPCs fight (or in your suggestion, mirror player-like tasks).
(And I'm just going to sidestep the parallel discussion by people who have no time to fly in open but have plenty of time to do whatever is going on here).
- give a feel of real resistance of opposing superpower (not just increasing a number of low level NPC ships in the system)
- prepare "solo" players to oppose skilled "open" players, helping to gradually develop skills required to play in open (such as e.g. avoiding interdiction and high wake)
May I ask - is there a difference between time wasted by other players (open) or by NPCs (solo)? Would it be better or not if those 2 threats are equivalent each other?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Of course - yes there is.
Frontier choose not to set the challenge of normally encountered NPCs to be the same as skilled players in G5 Murderboats - as they take the whole player-base into account, not just those who have the inclination to pursue PvP combat or meta-engineering - half of players are at or below median combat skill.... Noting that more recently added challenging content is opt-in.
Thanks for answering! Maybe that was the mistake FDev made while back introducing the cap for NPC skill level, while not doing it for PvP.
Not sure, but if you mean FPS content as opt-in, shouldn't powerplay/BGS activity be also considered as kind of opt-in content?
So as soon as player started to contribute to superpower/faction influence it should feel some response for this decision. Does it sound fair?
I see, but would it make difference for you if you were "ganked" by NPC? I guess everyone would expect some compensation from system authorities being killed in the system declared as high security according to their loss. Probably the situation with loosing exploration data is simply underdeveloped - recently I tried to come up with the solution to resolve it.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I don't consider BGS to be opt-in content - as we all affect it regardless of what we do (intentionally or not). Powerplay, while opt-in, is also content that every player bought as part of the base game. Frontier chose to make PvP entirely optional and not required when participating in any game feature (except CQC, of course) - so the challenge posed by skilled players in optimal ship builds is also optional.
Players can influence faction influence through trade / missions / exploration data perfectly legally - why would they see any response to their actions? Players engaged in murder in a system should reasonably face consequences from local security services or even superpower ATR. Similarly those engaged in bounty hunting might be targeted by those factions which their targets belong to. The level of increased challenge would need to be appropriate though.
The speed with which Frontier reverted bugged AI in 2.1 suggests that most players didn't enjoy the experience of being ganked by NPCs - and, as two of the three in-game (now three out of five) Elite ranks can be achieved without firing a shot in combat, the game is reasonably expected to cater to those who don't choose to fly about in combat ships.
Last edited:
I agree, for legal support (like donating credits, transport some of types of commodities, restoring power etc) there might be no response at all. But there are also illegal support missions and also actions which may be considered harmful to the opposing faction (or superpower). Completing these now probably leads to reputation loss, but it would be great to see more immediate response.
Like after completing a set of missions raising influence for your faction by X, the opposing faction would hire skilled pilot to prevent these actions. It could be there is already such game mechanic exists in the game for NPC, but it is so hard to notice any effects that makes it effectively non-existing.
So the way I see it - new mission pops up for the opposing faction/superpower and players in open (and other solo instances) can complete them to counteract the activity. Important is that the difficulty level for those missions should be based on the real opponent skills/loadout.
There should be consequences.
Interesting if any of the CM are reading any of these repeating discussions. What would happen if we summon e.g. @sallymorganmoore
I think there are consequences! The unique design of ED means that you only have to play with people you want to. There are some who really get wound up by the fact that others can exclude them from their game, and this is the source of most of the forum salt. The salt volume actually shows that the design is working.There should be consequences.
Interesting if any of the CM are reading any of these repeating discussions. What would happen if we summon e.g. @sallymorganmoore
If you doubt this, just compare the numbers of "Prevent ganking" threads and "Make people play in Open" threads.
I would guess that the one who would write "Prevent ganking" post hardly even knows about this forum (at least from my experience). And I feel that "Make people play in Open" hardly ever created by gankers. I might be wrong though...
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Quite often "prevent ganking" threads are made by those who choose poorly when selecting a game mode that suits their desired gameplay. The "Open only" threads (or, in this case a "remove private groups and solo" thread) are made by those who seek to remove choice and / or game features from players who have, and may from time to time exercise, the ability to choose not to play with them.
Over in ESO they have a Mayhem event a couple times a year, which is all about PVP and offers some pretty nice rewards if you partake in it. The PVEers all flock to the PVP zones to earn their rewards, die repeatedly to PVPers and then go blow up the forums on how the one or 2 PVP events a year should offer a PVE only option to earn those rewards. It is quite comical really. But yes, the only way to get PVEers into PVP, is to offer them a reward worth getting if they go there, but even then they are gonna gripe about it.
In Elite, I don't see anything but downside to playing in open, so I haven't. I could be wrong, but it seems to me to simply be a place (not so) full of gankers, hoping some unsuspecting player will show up for them to kill(grief). Say I just put out 20-30 million creds to buy the cargo to complete that mission and get the 50 million reward... for what reason other than insanity would I not play in solo mode? Same goes for a really long passenger mission, I just spent hours ferrying those NPC's across the galaxy, why risk losing that just before pulling in to port? The list goes on across numerous types of gameplay, none of which are fun in open, unless losing stuff and playing backwards happens to be your thing.
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
I wonder if OP feels his time interacting with the forums has been wasted? Mind you he did do the equivalent of flying a shieldless T9 in open at a CG here
.
Interestingly, this was part of the game in 1.0. By 1.1 they'd taken out NPCs just generally appearing in uninhabited systems, up until about 2.1 you could still meet them in inhabited ones (where they stopped attacking people without cargo) and then finally removed entirely in 2.2 (where they stopped counting limpets as cargo).
Prior to 2.2 (and especially pre-2.1) there was a reasonable amount of people volunteering as exploration escorts. After 2.2 that mostly faded away. As with many things, probably the right decision for Frontier to make when considering the average (lone) player, but the wrong decision when considering player community.
Powerplay, yes, certainly.
BGS, not in and of itself. Everything you do in an inhabited system will affect the BGS, that's the point - you can't opt-out. That said, most BGS activities do attract combat opposition: most mission types can attract assassins (with a bonus for hanging around long enough for them to show up and then killing them), as does carrying any sort of cargo. And that opposition does scale - in so far as the game can reasonably do so - to your outfitting and skill levels. I get Elite Anacondas, a beginner gets a Novice Eagle. Do too much actively against a faction and they will send dedicated assassins against you. And, of course, things like wing assassination missions can't be done without fighting engineered NPCs.
On the other hand, it's unreasonable to expect NPCs to ever be as tough as a player ship can be - it's just not going to be fun to spend your entire ammunition reserve plus some synthesis to take out one mission enemy ... or for your assassination target to high-wake every time it gets down to 30% shields and be surrounded by wingmen with healing beams anyway. The purpose of NPC opposition is - largely - to be challenging but defeatable.
Re: NPCs being very hard opponents to be "equivalent to players" (maybe not top PvPers) - these can be reserved for people who opt in (e.g. powerplayers doing 2nd job levels of merits). Casual players just carry on as usual.
Deleted member 110222
D
...
Yep, you are very right. MYM = Big moaning about PvP being "forced" on people. (It's not forced)
And yep. You illustrate the point perfectly. Open does not offer anything for anyone so averse to PvP that they outright refuse to do it.
If that description matches your playstyle, stay in PG/Solo. Nothing wrong with this, it is what FD intended from the start.
Well aware of ESO's MYM, it's my main MMORPG.
Yep, you are very right. MYM = Big moaning about PvP being "forced" on people. (It's not forced)
And yep. You illustrate the point perfectly. Open does not offer anything for anyone so averse to PvP that they outright refuse to do it.
If that description matches your playstyle, stay in PG/Solo. Nothing wrong with this, it is what FD intended from the start.
I don't think she'd come in here without a wing of ATR on overwatchWhat would happen if we summon e.g. @sallymorganmoore
Actually, I am a rather avid PVPer in ESO, where it isn't forced on you and you know exactly what you are getting into when you enter Cyrodiil, kind of like Solo vs Open here. It also is a completely viable style of play there, offers great rewards both item wise and monetarily, and is pretty much the only thing I do in ESO anymore. That said, it took me some years to get into it, after I had done pretty much everything else there was (I cared) to do in that game, and I get rewarded for it, beyond putting another notch on my wing.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
A lack of willingness to be a few moments "content" for a player who wishes to engage in PvP is often conflated with "fear" - which is somewhat amusing given that we all play a video game with an immortal space pixie as an avatar and an unlimited supply of free ships in the comfort and safety of our preferred gaming environment.
Given complaints on the forum, the chances of meeting players who aren't fun to play with are definitely non-zero in Open. It does not take many such encounters to dissuade some players from choosing to play among other players.
I have no doubt that, for some players, PvP is a great deal of fun - for some other players it's a tediously predictable (in terms of outcome) waste of limited game time.
There is no "death" - just lost time, i.e. time it took to accrue what was lost. If being attacked by players isn't "fun", for the targets, why should any player be expected (or forced) to play among those who may wish to attack them?
Last edited: