General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[Rubbernuke]

The place to start would be to change the activities required from mainly being hauling from A to B, which is hardly a challenging activity in itself. If you're not opposed its not challenge at all. If you are opposed then either its incredibly one sided if you're not kitted for being attacked or its a cakewalk if you are.

Make the activities themselves challenging, regardless of whether other players are around or not might be a better starting point. Timezones, platforms, size of play area, instancing, all conspire against people getting challenging gameplay from Powerplay, even in some sort of open only utopia.

Powerplay missions for merits might be one solution.

I thought along the same lines with these:

This one is a 'middle ground' between something new and what we have: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-in-solo.565581/page-9#post-8961161

This one is much newer: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-to-allow-power-collapse.586689/#post-9427332

Timezones, platforms, size of play area, instancing, all conspire against people getting challenging gameplay from Powerplay, even in some sort of open only utopia.

Timezones have never really mattered (otherwise merit bombs would never work ), Sandros ideas focus Powerplay down into a handful of areas (and make transport routes more predictable). The P2P aspect is a drawback, but until you do it you'll never really know. For me basic instancing is fine, the only time it realyl comes unstuck is doing anything MC, or complex (ish) like wing missions. Basic wings have always worked and thats what an Open Powerplay would primarily use.

 

[varonica]

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You're arguing that players would sacrifice efficiency just in case of encountering that 0.1%. But that's absolutely not true, and in fact, that would be a bad investment on their their behalf. The BEST choice for these players is to play completely normally, ignoring the danger completely, and eat the rebuy if anything goes wrong. Ultimately, with a 3x bonus like some have proposed, you'd still be making far more than you could possibly hope for in solo. The best choice would be to just menu log whenever you get interdicted.

To me, the enjoyment of Open comes from the most basic nature of Open; meeting other players in an open environment. The problem is that some of those players aren't very nice. That's why the most important thing to get more players into Open isn't rewards, it's a better crime and punishment system.

Well no, because then they are playing a game they don't want to play, "watch out for the ganker", they simply don't want to play that game!

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You're arguing that players would sacrifice efficiency just in case of encountering that 0.1%.

That's the way that those who offer advice regarding ship builds to survive in Open.

But that's absolutely not true, and in fact, that would be a bad investment on their their behalf.

For whom and in what context?

The BEST choice for these players is to play completely normally, ignoring the danger completely, and eat the rebuy if anything goes wrong.

.... in Solo or Private Group, thus avoiding the ganker mini-game completely.

Ultimately, with a 3x bonus like some have proposed, you'd still be making far more than you could possibly hope for in solo. The best choice would be to just menu log whenever you get interdicted.

A blanket bonus, whether credits or influence, for playing in a mode where one can block every player one meets would be ill-targeted. A risk-based reward system would be preferable, in my opinion, as it would apply in all situations in all three game modes, e.g. the reward for each kill in a CZ for the player in the G5 murderboat would be less than that for the player in the lightly engineered ship making the same kill. Players in stock Sidewinders could profit handsomely from such an approach....

To me, the enjoyment of Open comes from the most basic nature of Open; meeting other players in an open environment. The problem is that some of those players aren't very nice. That's why the most important thing to get more players into Open isn't rewards, it's a better crime and punishment system.

The most basic nature of both of the multi-player game modes is that each player can shoot at anything they intstance with.

A better crime and punishment system is retroactive - it does not stop the target's time being wasted by the attacker(s). Then there's the disparity in time lost, i.e. the time for the attacker to recoup losses (bounties, notoriety, a trip to a penal station) may well be a tiny fraction of the time lost by the target.

 

[Rubbernuke]

A blanket bonus, whether credits or influence, for playing in a mode where one can block every player one meets would be ill-targeted. A risk-based reward system would be preferable, in my opinion, as it would apply in all situations in all three game modes, e.g. the reward for each kill in a CZ for the player in the G5 murderboat would be less than that for the player in the lightly engineered ship making the same kill. Players in stock Sidewinders could profit handsomely from such an approach....

Or...just actually provide a structured escalating NPC threat- but don't stop at the current G3ish most (bar ATR with G5) uses?

Making it so you have to use underpowered ships foes against all the work (in fact most of the gameplay ED has) of unlocking it all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Or...just actually provide a structured escalating NPC threat- but don't stop at the current G3ish most (bar ATR with G5) uses?

.... which would need to take players of all skill levels into account - and half of players are at or below median skill.

Making it so you have to use underpowered ships foes against all the work (in fact most of the gameplay ED has) of unlocking it all.

Yet there are complaints, from some, about the lack of challenge faced when flying an overpowered ship, in a game with no difficulty settings, Each player has the ability to reduce risk to a minimum through engineering their vessel, if they choose to do so.

 

[Rubbernuke]

.... which would need to take players of all skill levels into account - and half of players are at or below median skill.

And, personally speaking FD should not take them into account- why? To actually provide a challenge to aspire to just like Thargoids, just human based and more involved than simple POIs.

Yet there are complaints, from some, about the lack of challenge faced when flying an overpowered ship, in a game with no difficulty settings, Each player has the ability to reduce risk to a minimum through engineering their vessel, if they choose to do so.

There are better ways to scale challenge than to disallow the very things people work hard to unlock- otherwise....whats the point? NPCs use a tiny subset of engineering for example, as well as using a small sub-set of weapons. ATR / Spec Ops ships in a free roaming context would be great if used intelligently because they can actually bite back.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

There's no rational reason to limit access to particular content to Solo or Private Groups (as the vast majority of the galaxy is identical in all three game modes) - nor is there a compelling reason to limit access to content that requires PvP (if such were introduced) to Open only.

I've given you the reason - the character of play in each of the modes is different, and that constrains the design of pan-modal features. One could say that the challenge of that constraint is sufficient that powerplay fails as a design in its current form. The weekly threads like this might be evidence of that - one mode's player constituency broadly suffers some significant disappointment with it. Solo-oriented content could be challenges that would be easy in a group but difficult with only one ship and one perspective. PG content could something that requires co-operation but would fail with opposition. Open might be some kind of territorial struggle with objectives to attack/defend and vulnerable logistical routes, relying on player unpredictability, organisation and in-world persistence to create the gameplay. It could all be part of the same feature, even.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I've given you the reason - the character of play in each of the modes is different, and that constrains the design of features. One could say that the challenge of that constraint is sufficient that powerplay fails as a design in its current form.

That's one opinion, certainly. The possiblity of PvP exists in both multi-player modes - and has not constrained the design of features (as PvP is entirely optional in this game, apart from in CQC) - unless the perceived constraint relates to features that require PvP? CQC is the only game feature that requires PvP. DBOBE was rather clear on that in the Engineers launch stream:

Source: https://youtu.be/gEtHu3AXw2Q?t=2650

The weekly threads like this might be evidence of that - one mode's player constituency broadly suffers some significant disappointment with it.

The weekly threads exist, and have done over the last eight years and more, simply because Frontier chose not to force players to engage in PvP nor limit game features to a single PvP-enabled game mode. The lobbying is obvious - as is the fact that there is opposition to the change proposals. That some players bought a game that does not meet their needs and then expect it to be changed to suit them, with adverse effects on those who don't support the changes, is obvious - just as it is obvious that we all bought the same game on the same terms. Hence my support for splitting the game and adding an Open only mode with its own galaxy rather than changing the existing game for all players to suit a subset of the player-base.

Solo-oriented content could be challenges that would be easy in a group but difficult with only one ship and one perspective. PG content could something that requires co-operation but would fail with opposition. Open might be some kind of territorial struggle with objectives to attack/defend and vulnerable logistical routes, relying on player unpredictability, organisation and in-world persistence to create the gameplay. It could all be part of the same feature, even.

Still no rational reason to restrict particular content to Solo or Private Groups.

.... and territory cannot be defended in that manner when players can appear in Open in a station in a "blockaded" system without encountering a single player....

 

[Robert Maynard]

And, personally speaking FD should not take them into account- why?

It depends on how many players would be actively excluded from engaging in the feature - and Frontier have indicated that features that don't get much player engagement are hard to justify development time for.

To actually provide a challenge to aspire to just like Thargoids, just human based and more involved than simple POIs.

In what way "more involved than simple POIs"? That sounds like a whole new development requirement.

There are better ways to scale challenge than to disallow the very things people work hard to unlock- otherwise....whats the point? NPCs use a tiny subset of engineering for example, as well as using a small sub-set of weapons. ATR / Spec Ops ships in a free roaming context would be great if used intelligently because they can actually bite back.

There may well be better ways - however the few players at the top end of the skill spectrum (who also choose to fly in meta-engineered ships) may not be enough to warrant the development time.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It depends on how many players would be actively excluded from engaging in the feature - and Frontier have indicated that features that don't get much player engagement are hard to justify development time for.

But they are not being excluded, just as anyone is not excluded from taking on a Thargoid. You just have to get better at what you do.

In what way "more involved than simple POIs"? That sounds like a whole new development requirement.

It would- but as I keep saying FD need to do this otherwise Open Powerplay is the other route. All the gameplay I suggest in my links is in the game right now mind. Its not been invented, its just reusing whats already been done in a different way and in different combinations.

There may well be better ways - however the few players at the top end of the skill spectrum (who also choose to fly in meta-engineered ships) may not be enough to warrant the development time.

Like the Thargoids? They are top end NPCs and cost a lot of dev time but here we are.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But they are not being excluded, just as anyone is not excluded from taking on a Thargoid. You just have to get better at what you do.

Skill ceilings are a thing - not everyone will be able to "get better" to the level required if it is set too high. There will always be some who can beat every challenge in a game that does not throw development time at tiny numbers of players.

It would- but as I keep saying FD need to do this otherwise Open Powerplay is the other route. All the gameplay I suggest in my links is in the game right now mind. Its not been invented, its just reusing whats already been done in a different way and in different combinations.

I expect we'll see what Frontier consider that they "need to do" in relation to Powerplay, as ever, in time.

Like the Thargoids? They are top end NPCs and cost a lot of dev time but here we are.

Thargoids have been hoped for since the game was announced - and I expect were always on the development schedule. They represent opt-in higher challenge gameplay for those so inclined. In which case they don't necessarily need to be "duplicated" in human form.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Skill ceilings are a thing - not everyone will be able to "get better" to the level required if it is set too high. There will always be some who can beat every challenge in a game that does not throw development time at tiny numbers of players.

And this is what the game lacks, and should provide as a stepping stone beyond the BGS POI mission system.

I expect we'll see what Frontier consider that they "need to do" in relation to Powerplay, as ever, in time.

What FD need to do and what they actually do are two different things. The only certainty is they will look at 5C.

Thargoids have been hoped for since the game was announced - and I expect were always on the development schedule. They represent opt-in higher challenge gameplay for those so inclined. In which case they don't necessarily need to be "duplicated" in human form.

Powerplay is opt in, against ten other powers.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And this is what the game lacks, and should provide as a stepping stone beyond the BGS POI mission system.

It does lack it - whether it needs it, or not, and whether it would justify the development cost remains to be seen.

What FD need to do and what they actually do are two different things. The only certainty is they will look at 5C.

Indeed - one is a matter of opinion, the other is a matter of fact.

Powerplay is opt in, against ten other powers.

It is - and it is also pan-modal base-game content that does not require the player to play among other players to engage in. That said, as previously mentioned, I'd support appropriate increases to the challenge and outfit of Powerplay NPCs.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I thought along the same lines with these:

This one is a 'middle ground' between something new and what we have: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-in-solo.565581/page-9#post-8961161

This one is much newer: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-to-allow-power-collapse.586689/#post-9427332


Timezones have never really mattered (otherwise merit bombs would never work ), Sandros ideas focus Powerplay down into a handful of areas (and make transport routes more predictable). The P2P aspect is a drawback, but until you do it you'll never really know. For me basic instancing is fine, the only time it realyl comes unstuck is doing anything MC, or complex (ish) like wing missions. Basic wings have always worked and thats what an Open Powerplay would primarily use.

Yup, so regardless of whether open only or not, there is the underlying issue that PP needs to be made more interesting/challenging to be more widely adopted.

I've done a bit of PP, flying back and forth, in open. I saw nobody, it was just mindless A to B and not even profitable.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Powerplay is opt in, against ten other powers.

What really ticks me off about PP, even though it is opt in, it heavily impacts on certain game aspects if you don't play.

2 points specifically come to mind:

Bounty hunting, where PP ships spawn in large numbers, taking up spawn slots, meaning more down time in nav becons/RES waiting for pirates to spawn. Prior to PP you'd get a nice constant flow of pirate ships. Since the advent of PP, half the ships in any given area can be PP ships, slowing down the spawn of pirates.

BGS - powerplayers will sometimes try and flip a system, not because they care about the system, but just because its the wrong government type for them. They don't care about that faction that gets in charge, as long as its of a type they need.

 

[Jmanis]

Personally I think you are wrong, all payers already get plenty of money, and taking the extreme case of an explorer risking losing say a billion credits or the potetnial to get 3b credits why bother? Really I have everything I want already, FC where I can dock and sell my data in complete safety, a fleet of ships, it makes no difference, credits are pretty much valueless in an economy with nothing to spend them on!

i disagree slightly on that. Credits are meaningless not because everyone has billions, but because a select and minority subset of activities spin inordinate amounts of credits. This means balancing the risk vs reward of open is impossible when the outcomes (and risks) revolve around a concept which is meaningless to some styles of play, and punishing for others.

For example, if i took twenty salvage missions, and twenty stacked massacre missions... the former will pay me 20-40m credits and be higher risk due to the fitting requirements for cargo alone. The latter will take a roughly equivalent amount of time, but pay upwards of 500m credits, and is far lower risk in the context of open, as you can roam around in your pure combat boat.

This is why balancing the income of activities remains absolutely critical to having the universe make any semblence of sense.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It does lack it - whether it needs it, or not, and whether it would justify the development cost remains to be seen.

Well so far it has not, has it? Otherwise FD would have released the bobbleheads, decals and other things they had planned.

It is - and it is also pan-modal base-game content that does not require the player to play among other players to engage in. That said, as previously mentioned, I'd support appropriate increases to the challenge and outfit of Powerplay NPCs.

And in this context I was talking PvE- you'd think going up against ten other powers would result in some danger, don't you think? Right now one low CZ is more action than a whole power faces generally. How is that? How is it a faction can have CZs with spec ops, cap ships, nasty NPCs and Powers get......cardboard clown cars?

 

[Robert Maynard]

What really ticks me off about PP, even though it is opt in, it heavily impacts on certain game aspects if you don't play.

2 points specifically come to mind:

Bounty hunting, where PP ships spawn in large numbers, taking up spawn slots, meaning more down time in nav becons/RES waiting for pirates to spawn. Prior to PP you'd get a nice constant flow of pirate ships. Since the advent of PP, half the ships in any given area can be PP ships, slowing down the spawn of pirates.

BGS - powerplayers will sometimes try and flip a system, not because they care about the system, but just because its the wrong government type for them. They don't care about that faction that gets in charge, as long as its of a type they need.

If Powerplay were (hypothetically) to be made Open only then all Powerplay links to the BGS would need to be removed and all references to Powerplay, including Powerplay ships, would need to be completely removed from Solo and Private Groups - as players who could not affect a PvP-gated game feature should not be affected by it in any way.

 

[Nadreck]

I wonder if captains of container ships, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners have to put up with some weirdo on a jetski buzzing up alongside and using a megaphone to shout "HEY, WANNA WING UP?"

Um, no?

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

BGS - powerplayers will sometimes try and flip a system, not because they care about the system, but just because its the wrong government type for them. They don't care about that faction that gets in charge, as long as its of a type they need.

I've never understood why people object to conflicts of interest within the BGS (on both the PP and faction support sides). What's the point of an interactive shared multiplayer universe if every objective exists in a bubble with no other considerations or interests that can impact it? It injects realism when two groups with completely different motivations have an interest in the same location and have choices to show force, enter conflict, conduct diplomacy, etc. That's where the story is. And forms the basis or backdrop of virtually all sci fi film and TV, and which is hard to evoke within a game.