General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[Rubbernuke]

Those who seek to actively exclude players from engaging in existing pan-modal base-game content often seem to be okay with it.

Which is true, but you can't make a competitive feature without making it competitive in ED, and thats going to naturally filter players to begin with. On the other hand, going the way of CGs filters players too (which a pan modal Powerplay apes and fails at, because its an endless repetitive grind) and that has shown time and again how players tire.

So FD can either repeat the same mistakes, or at least try something new. If they want to diversify and broaden EDs appeal you don't do that by limiting is scope.

 

[sallymorganmoore]

Take care Sally, this "discussion" has been ongoing, in many, many different threads, since the game design was published in 2012....

Omg lol...KNEW I should have had the coffee BEFORE I replied :')

 

[Rubbernuke]

So, start a session, use a packer sniffer to find your IP address, DDOS that address forcing you to disconnect, destroy your ship, I win?

Is everyone going to cheat to that degree? I doubt it very much.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Maybe continually being on ones guard isn't "fun" for most players....

And why did they pledge to a power then, in a feature about confrontation? To have a tea party?

That may be - as those disinterested in Powerplay would be reasonably annoyed by disruption to their gameplay caused by the introduction of an unexpected game feature.

And is why when people suggest 'up the NPC numbers' its not going to work. Either NPCs work smarter and PvE is reworked, or players fill the role.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which is true, but you can't make a competitive feature without making it competitive in ED, and thats going to naturally filter players to begin with. On the other hand, going the way of CGs filters players too (which a pan modal Powerplay apes and fails at, because its an endless repetitive grind) and that has shown time and again how players tire.

Competition does not necessarily require itsi-PvP.

So FD can either repeat the same mistakes, or at least try something new. If they want to diversify and broaden EDs appeal you don't do that by limiting is scope.

Retrospectively PvP-gating pan-modal base-game content over six years after release, removing it completely from players on consoles who cannot play in the multi-player game modes (but can engage in all pan-modal game features in Solo), is unlikely to broaden the appeal of the game among a not insignificant subset of the player-base (which might be unwise so soon after the launch of a major paid expansion) - or the entirety of potential players for that matter.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Why should players be penalised at all for choosing not to play among other players in a game where other players are optional and where all players experience and affect a single shared galaxy state, by design?

Because solo and PG have benefits over playing in open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And why did they pledge to a power then, in a feature about confrontation? To have a tea party?

.... because it's part of the game, and games are played for fun. Also, as mentioned below, for the toys.

And is why when people suggest 'up the NPC numbers' its not going to work. Either NPCs work smarter and PvE is reworked, or players fill the role.

NPCs could be spawned at will in instances where pledged players are active - that's up to Frontier. Whether Frontier choose to go down the Open only route is another matter entirely - and one not without potential for backlash, noting the furore that surrounded the cancellation of Offline Mode.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Because solo and PG have benefits over playing in open.

Players can choose to play in any game mode - if their choice of mode impedes their progress then maybe they need to reconsider their mode choice, rather than seeking to punish those who choose not to play with them. It seems to be a "cake and eat it" scenario, i.e. some want to engage in PvP and have everyone who does not engage in PvP penalised for not doing so - in a game sold to all on the basis of a mode shared galaxy where other players are optional.

 

[Guyperson]

And why did they pledge to a power then, in a feature about confrontation? To have a tea party?

For the party favours, of course.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

PvP being entirely optional in all game features (except CQC) has also been a selling point from the beginning, for some players.

Separated divergent galaxies would not satisfy those who want to both play in Open-only mode and also fly among those players less skilled / equipped than themselves and select them as targets at will, no. There would be claims that it would split the player-base - when, in fact, the existence of the three game modes means that the player-base arrived in the game pre-split (with the option to coalesce at any time).

Dead horse of "it's just gankers looking for fodder" again? And you want to tidy their nonexistence into a corner which doesn't affect your universe. Not worth dev time I think.

Split modes isn't split of universe, which I guess you know? Anyway, it's a solution, but it does have a downside that wouldn't be ignored.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Competition does not necessarily require itsi-PvP.

But it does require potent NPCs that attack. Your reply was to me suggesting NPCs be like that remember. A power is a group that wants to be the best, the other powers (NPC or otherwise) will and should be agressivley trying to stop you.

Retrospectively PvP-gating pan-modal base-game content over six years after release, removing it completely from players on consoles who cannot play in the multi-player game modes (but can engage in all pan-modal game features in Solo), is unlikely to broaden the appeal of the game among a not insignificant subset of the player-base - or the entirety of potential players for that matter.

A failed design should not be kept a failed design. FD have made bold and controversial choices in the past and should be brave enough to try things out.

ED has enough PvE and pan modal gameplay- Making one small part of an underused feature more PvP based is not taking away very much if an equal amount of gameplay in return is given to compensate. Having a mini Infinity Battlescape inside ED is going to be more interesting than trying to keep Powerplay as it is, which is Euro Truck Simulator.

 

[Brrokk]

Is everyone going to cheat to that degree? I doubt it very much.

I think that's a bit naive. I find it incredible that anyone would install software letting them cheat by "editing" their ship's stats. Heck, I find it incredible that anyone would be motivated to even write such software. Why bother? Yet I read reports of it. I find it almost unbelievable that anyone would run a "bot" for BGS campaigns. Yet people here who seem knowledgable claim to have evidence that it happens. There are videos telling us how to run multiple accounts for AFK turret-boating.

Given the fact that there are already slight advantages in Open for some, (the opportunity to brag about being an Open-only hero), and given human nature I think it's possible that router-fiddling already happens.

If there were any real advantage to be gained I think you could rely on all the dodgy stuff becoming popular, with easy-to-follow instructions published online.

 

[Rubbernuke]

For the party favours, of course.

And those would go to Tech brokers thankfully.

 

[varonica]

Is everyone going to cheat to that degree? I doubt it very much.

People report other players to the police and players have been killed. The fact is that once you create a situation that is open to cheating then people will cheat, and a plyer group that uses this to cheat will have a major advantage over other player groups. Just to create a situation where players can cheat in a manner that's almost undetectable is bad.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I think that's a bit naive. I find it incredible that anyone would install software letting them cheat by "editing" their ship's stats. Heck, I find it incredible that anyone would be motivated to even write such software. Why bother? Yet I read reports of it. I find it almost unbelievable that anyone would run a "bot" for BGS campaigns. Yet people here who seem knowledgable claim to have evidence that it happens. There are videos telling us how to run multiple accounts for AFK turret-boating.

Given the fact that there are already slight advantages in Open for some, (the opportunity to brag about being an Open-only hero), and given human nature I think it's possible that router-fiddling already happens.

If there were any real advantage to be gained I think you could rely on all the dodgy stuff becoming popular, with east-to-follow instructions published online.

And how widespread is this? The way some people talk is that everyone is cheating and pervasive.

If anything I'd say its people trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[CorvenDallas]

It's been said many times - often by those who want players choose not to engage in PvP, when engaging in game features that don't require PvP in a game that does not require any player to play among other players (apart from CQC, of course), to be punished for not playing with them.

Penalising players in Solo and Private Groups would bear an unfortunate similarity to the punishment of those who actually break Frontier's game rules sufficiently, i.e. being restricted to the shadowban server where players who have transgressed don't have any effect on the galaxy at all....

Why should players be penalised at all for choosing not to play among other players in a game where other players are optional and where all players experience and affect a single shared galaxy state, by design?

The only penalty is in the amount of impact (influence) on a part of the game that should be played WITH OTHER PLAYERS, credits, experience, etc... should be the same.

Im a big Solo/Private player, rarely I play on open, and I understand that my impact in BGS/Powerplay should not be as great as the ones that risk their ships/credits on open.

EDIT: This also should come with something extra to avoid cheat and make PvP on open fair play, I heard that cheating is somewhat easy around (as solo/group player didnt have much experience on that)

 

[Robert Maynard]

Dead horse of "it's just gankers looking for fodder" again? And you want to tidy their nonexistence into a corner which doesn't affect your universe. Not worth dev time I think.

The horse is very much alive - as it is clear that there are those who want to punish those who don't share a preference for their play-style (but can't as players can choose not to play with them).

Splitting the galaxy is one possible solution - actively excluding players from engaging in existing pan-modal base-game content in their preferred game mode by PvP-gating it to Open is another - both are unpalatable to different groups of players.

Split modes isn't split of universe, which I guess you know? Anyway, it's a solution, but it does have a downside that wouldn't be ignored.

All modes share the single galaxy and all of its features - not sure what is meant by "split modes", unless it means "actively excluding players from engaging in existing pan-modal base-game content in their preferred game mode by PvP-gating it to Open"

 

[Robert Maynard]

The only penalty is in the amount of impact (influence) on a part of the game that should be played WITH OTHER PLAYERS, credits, experience, etc... should be the same.

If affecting the game "should be played WITH OTHER PLAYERS" then players in Solo and Private Groups would not be able to affect the game, i.e. Frontier are in control of which players affect the game - as all players affect the game, it suggests that those who insist that players must play among other players to affect the game bought a game that does not support their gaming needs.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Don't worry, there won't be endless repetitions. If making yourself heard once is not enough then there is no use belabouring the point. It is just a test of the responses. If a future business decision or majority choice goes the other way, I'll know it is deemed insignificant if one group withdraws. We'll see.

Do you know the old BDSM joke that goes like this --

Masochist: "Beat me!"
Sadist: "No."

Heh!

I think all these discussions are, really, waiting for FDev to enter the convo, and keeping blades keen until that day . The forum PvP casualties will probably top the inara threat score...

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

The horse is very much alive - as it is clear that there are those who want to punish those who don't share a preference for their play-style (but can't as players can choose not to play with them).

Strafing again

All modes share the single galaxy and all of its features - not sure what is meant by "split modes", unless it means "actively excluding players from engaging in existing pan-modal base-game content in their preferred game mode by PvP-gating it to Open"

Okay, split player base (your words) != split universe, which you seemed to imply.