General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[Robert Maynard]

But you can't cleanly split the game since CGs, events etc would rely on each half having a unique narrative.

The narrative could be shared - which galaxy was considered to be "canon" in determining game changes resulting from CGs, etc. (or how to take the results of both into account, if desired) would be for Frontier to decide.

Its much better to have aspects of features have better PvP in them- in this case Powerplay, since its opt in already and separate enough as not to need a whole different BGS / CG / story.

When faced with demands that players be actively excluded from existing game features or for complete game modes to be arbitrarily removed, the desire to be accommodating and to find a way to include PvP in existing game features is lacking, for some players at least.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The narrative could be shared - which galaxy was considered to be "canon" in determining game changes resulting from CGs, etc. (or how to take the results of both into account, if desired) would be for Frontier to decide.

Lately though BGS changes have shaped the narrative, so in some areas you can't split it. CGs too would need duplication too.

When faced with demands that players be actively excluded from existing game features or for complete game modes to be arbitrarily removed, the desire to be accommodating and to find a way to include PvP in existing game features is lacking, for some players at least.

In the end it comes down to how much FD want to change- if FD spent time and energy really sorting out the PvE there would be less need for players to become what NPCs should be, at least in some more specialist areas of the game.

 

[zikolach]

I'll opt in when the interaction is designed in a way that winning is better than not having the interaction.

Thank you for the comprehensive expression of your opinion! I totally agree with this particular statement.

"...but NPCs attack people". NPCs are balanced so anyone can just opt out of the combat.

Maybe NPCs balanced too much (giving the ability to opt out unconditionally). There is a mechanic of partial delivery, which has probably never been used since everyone prefers to evade interdiction while not being 101% sure to win battle on submitting.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Lately though BGS changes have shaped the narrative, so in some areas you can't split it. CGs too would need duplication too.

Indeed - changes brought about by all players, regardless of game mode or preference (or lack thereof) for PvP, same with CGs.

If it can't be split, then that suggests that it's unlikely that it'll become Open only - and penalising players for simply playing in modes other than Open would be insulting to those who bought a game with a shared galaxy state (that all players affect equally) and no requirement to play among other players to do so.

In the end it comes down to how much FD want to change- if FD spent time and energy really sorting out the PvE there would be less need for players to become what NPCs should be, at least in some more specialist areas of the game.

It does, as ever, circle back to what Frontier want to do (and don't want to do). In "sorting out PvE" players of all skill levels would still require to be accommodated (as losing most of the time isn't "fun").

 

[Robert Maynard]

Maybe NPCs balanced too much (giving the ability to opt out unconditionally). There is a mechanic of partial delivery, which has probably never been used since everyone prefers to evade interdiction while not being 101% sure to win battle on submitting.

Not all players are even interested in combat, in a game where three from five (previously to be two from three) Elite ranks achieved in-game don't require the player to fire a shot in combat.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indeed - changes brought about by all players, regardless of game mode or preference (or lack thereof) for PvP, same with CGs.

If it can't be split, then that suggests that it's unlikely that it'll become Open only - and penalising players for simply playing in modes other than Open would be insulting to those who bought a game with a shared galaxy state (that all players affect equally) and no requirement to play among other players to do so.

And for the core game modes are great.

It does, as ever, circle back to what Frontier want to do (and don't want to do). In "sorting out PvE" players of all skill levels would still require to be accommodated (as losing most of the time isn't "fun").

The problem then becomes FDs view on Powerplay- right now it has no direction at all and needs some form of definition as to what it is and what it should do.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Not at all - the aim is to give those seeking an Open only version of the game exactly that - an Open only version of the game - without taking any game features away from other players. What they would not get is the removal of content from those players content to play in the existing tri-modal shared galaxy, nor those players who remain there.

Noting that there are those who seek to "tidy away a segment of players that <they> disagree with" by retrospectively actively excluding them from affecting existing pan-modal game features from Solo and Private Groups (or force them to play among those who would like to shoot at them if they want to continue to affect said game features) ....

Okay, existing galaxy stays the same, so something different from what I had thought. Fair enough, though I suspect it would get about as busy as CQC and wither away.

 

[Kyokushin]

Group and solo modes should be removed, its killing this game.

 

[Zieman]

Group and solo modes should be removed, its killing this game.

https://imgur.com/V0l2ZSW

Source: https://i.imgur.com/V0l2ZSW.gif?noredirect

 

[Robert Maynard]

Okay, existing galaxy stays the same, so something different from what I had thought.

Indeed.

Fair enough, though I suspect it would get about as busy as CQC and wither away.

If that was the outcome then it might suggest that there's not as much demand for Open only as some assume there is.

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

... though I suspect it would get about as busy as CQC and wither away.

It was related several posts (or pages already) before that this was the experience of developers who actually did just that. We're spinning in circles and I already also said why that is. Nobody cares though and we know why that is, too.

I admire the stamina of our VM. The struggle against ignorance is quixotic.

 

[varonica]

Group and solo modes should be removed, its killing this game.

There's always a good spot for this!

 

[Brrokk]

Group and solo modes should be removed, its killing this game.

This forum really needs a "LOL" as well as "Like".

 

[zikolach]

Not all players are even interested in combat, in a game where three from five (previously to be two from three) Elite ranks achieved in-game don't require the player to fire a shot in combat.

Despite the fact that trading rank is calculated based on the profit, the process of achieving it is tightly coupled with a risk from pirates as well as any other risks (like being blown by station for loitering above landing pad). The faster one progresses on a way to Elite trading rank the more should be risk. Same way it should be done for Exploration rank, risking to loose exploration data. Unfortunately the implementation for latter turns to be rather bad.
There might be a group of players, who would prefer to avoid any risks at all, which doesn't mean that all the features involving risks should be developed in a way so players can unconditionally opt-in and opt-out.

As it was mentioned above by @enonymous any type of risk in game should provide a possibility for reward. And also ability to reduce the risk using in-game mechanics instead of choosing game mode to play in, which is just dividing player base.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Indeed.

If that was the outcome then it might suggest that there's not as much demand for Open only as some assume there is.

Nope, just that given two universes, you want to be where the party is, not where the fringe is. One universe would always be the "true" one, and it'd be the former. Any new universe, but particularly an open only one, needs many players from the getgo. Those players need to believe that the new universe will be well populated before they bother. It's a critical mass type feedback effect. So your equivalence there is kind of lazy (no offence) and is false. I think it'd need major incentives to kick it off, basically, and I don't have faith it would sustain either. An open play-oriented feature within the shared universe though, is much easier to sell (as would be equivalents that might, equitably, be devised for the other modes).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Despite the fact that trading rank is calculated based on the profit, the process of achieving it is tightly coupled with a risk from pirates as well as any other risks (like being blown by station for loitering above landing pad). The faster one progresses on a way to Elite trading rank the more should be risk. Same way it should be done for Exploration rank, risking to loose exploration data. Unfortunately the implementation for latter turns to be rather bad.
There might be a group of players, who would prefer to avoid any risks at all, which doesn't mean that all the features involving risks should be developed in a way so players can unconditionally opt-in and opt-out.

All of the Elite ranks are achievable, in time, at any skill level - they're more of a "long service award" than an indication of the player's ability.

As it was mentioned above by @enonymous any type of risk in game should provide a possibility for reward. And also ability to reduce the risk using in-game mechanics instead of choosing game mode to play in, which is just dividing player base.

Some players use ship and module engineering to reduce risk to a minimum regardless of which game mode they play in. The player-base arrived in the game pre-split, i.e. the three game modes which share the single galaxy state were announced at the same time at the start of the Kickstarter - which means that there was never a time when players needed to play among other players to engage with game features (competitions for RL prizes notwithstanding).

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Doesn't that highlight the point. If you believe that it would wither away, doesn't that show that most players don't want to engage in PvP?

So why would you force people into a game style to appease a small minority who would allow their version of the game to wither away?

Let me restate that I don't support OP's idea to remove closed modes. For the rest see my last response above.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Nope, just that given two universes, you want to be where the party is, not where the fringe is. One universe would always be the "true" one, and it'd be the former. Any new universe, but particularly an open only one, needs many players from the getgo. Those players need to believe that the new universe will be well populated before they bother. It's a critical mass type feedback effect. So your equivalence there is kind of lazy (no offence) and is false. I think it'd need major incentives to kick it off, basically, and I don't have faith it would sustain either.

The size of the play area needs as many players as it can get - an Open only "galaxy" could be a permit locked cluster of ten thousand systems (newly populated and seeded with Factions, Powers, etc.) that would only be accessible when in Open and still be "too big" for the number of players playing in it, in terms of average player density per system.

Incentives could be offered - as transferring assets between the two divergent galaxies would open up trivial exploitation so would need to be prohibited.

An open play-oriented feature within the shared universe though, is much easier to sell (as would be equivalents that might, equitably, be devised for the other modes).

It wouldn't be an easier sell to those who would be actively excluded from engaging in it (or could not engage in it at all due to not being able to play in the multi-player game modes). For them it'd likely be a waste of development time that could otherwise be better expended on a game feature for all players.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

It was related several posts (or pages already) before that this was the experience of developers who actually did just that. We're spinning in circles and I already also said why that is. Nobody cares though and we know why that is, too.

I admire the stamina of our VM. The struggle against ignorance is quixotic.

Yep, I remember if course, and I'm stating it hoping people see the connection to that.

 

[zikolach]

Let me restate that I don't support OP's idea to remove closed modes. For the rest see my last response above.

Same as me. Being majority of time PvE player, I would simply like to see more commanders in open, for coop activities.