General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[Robert Maynard]

I wouldn't say it is the same. Yes, what I sell in a station affects the costs for you too but my point was that people collectively try to achieve something and it is being actively undermined by someone they cannot interact with.

People can collectively try to achieve something in this game from any mode - the shared galaxy makes that so. If someone does not want to interact with other players that is their choice - no player can demand that they make themselves available for "interaction".

No, it is not but it would be one way to persuade a player who is actively undermining your BGS efforts to stop. This way even if you somehow found them (e.g. here or Discord etc.) and asked them nicely to stop, they can just say "you cannot touch me so I don't give a damn[/I]".

Of course they can refuse to stop - as they have as much "right" to affect the game as the players they are opposing. Pan-modal system chat means that, if they are online at the same time on the same platform (which is not a given) they might hear any requests to parley.

Yes, they don't have to - even in Open they don't have to. I've said it already. I've had ONE negative encounter with a player in Open (and even that one could have been avoided) and since then I have been playing in Open for over a year and I didn't have to endure a single negative attention from player pirates, gankers or any other players with annoying behavior - and I'm not even trying to actively avoid players. When I pick up a mission or travel anywhere in the bubble, I never think "I better not go through that system because players might be there". The encounters are just extremely rare on their own.

.... and each player is free to make their own choice, on a session by session basis, as to which game mode to play in.

Yes, we have a choice but what I'm saying is that the choices are pretty much obsolete because if you don't want to interact with players in Open, you don't have to.

I would even propose a test to you - fly in Solo to some system at the edge of the Bubble. Log off, log back in Open and play for a week your normal routines (missions, trading, mining...you name it) and then tell me how many players you encountered and how many of them tried to attack you. Of course don't try to actively search for players and dangerous situations just to "prove" your point.
If you really get destroyed by a player attack in the one week, I'll shut up about this point for good .

Why should players avoid the interesting places in the galaxy (where those who seek other players may choose to hang out) and be exiled to the periphery of the bubble just because they don't enjoy PvP?

I've no interest in wasting my game time on such a test - I've flown often enough in Open and been destroyed often enough by no-chat no-skill-exhibited players in murderboats already - as they say, I already have the t-shirt.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Yep, instancing is still an issue.... some times on XBOX we can't instance between EU and US players, even if in same squadron and party chat.

Just as some encouragement, instancing in Odyssey appears to be much more 'robust' than Horizons - although a bit more testing is in order before I'm convinced.

 

[DemiserofD]

I wouldn't say it is the same. Yes, what I sell in a station affects the costs for you too but my point was that people collectively try to achieve something and it is being actively undermined by someone they cannot interact with.

No, it is not but it would be one way to persuade a player who is actively undermining your BGS efforts to stop. This way even if you somehow found them (e.g. here or Discord etc.) and asked them nicely to stop, they can just say "f*ck off, you cannot touch me so I don't give a damn".

Yes, they don't have to - even in Open they don't have to. I've said it already. I've had ONE negative encounter with a player in Open (and even that one could have been avoided) and since then I have been playing in Open for over a year and I didn't have to endure a single negative attention from player pirates, gankers or any other players with annoying behavior - and I'm not even trying to actively avoid players. When I pick up a mission or travel anywhere in the bubble, I never think "I better not go through that system because players might be there". The encounters are just extremely rare on their own.

Yes, we have a choice but what I'm saying is that the choices are pretty much obsolete because if you don't want to interact with players in Open, you don't have to.

I would even propose a test to you - fly in Solo to some system at the edge of the Bubble. Log off, log back in Open and play for a week your normal routines (missions, trading, mining...you name it) and then tell me how many players you encountered and how many of them tried to attack you. Of course don't try to actively search for players and dangerous situations just to "prove" your point.
If you really get destroyed by a player attack in the one week, I'll shut up about this point for good .

You're completely correct that in most cases, you're completely free from risk in open unless you actively seek it out. That doesn't justify open only, though; if anything, it does the opposite. The problem is that players don't want to engage with other players.

The mechanics of this game actively drive players away from each other, rather than drawing them together. There is pretty much zero benefit to seeking out other players, and fairly significant downsides. Even if you had open only, you'd still be relying on players seeking each other out to engage with each other, and that's just never going to happen for most players being forced to play in open. They'll keep playing the same way they always have, avoiding contact.

And the beautiful thing is, if you fix this problem, if you encourage positive player interaction, you don't even need to do open only. Players will play with each other voluntarily, of their own free will.

 

[ethelred]

Let's be real here.

• FDev isn't going to get rid of any game modes
• FDev isn't going to make any improvements to the "features" we already have
• FDev will, over the next couple of years, continue to disappoint with new "gameplay" and more broken grind mechanics
• This entire subsection of the forum is just a place to vent and feel somewhat validated when other forumites throw us a , and FDev couldn't care less what is on offer here, so long as we keep buying bobbleheads and paintjobs

1. Correct
2. I live in hope
3. I refer the gentleman to my previous answer.
4. Absolutely

 

[MarKr The Real One]

I've no interest in wasting my game time on such a test - I've flown often enough in Open and been destroyed often enough by no-chat no-skill-exhibited players in murderboats already - as they say, I already have the t-shirt.

We have very different experience then and I guess I can understand why you want to stick with Solo.
It just really feels like the only reason for keeping the solo boils down to "what if I encounter a player" and "you cannot force interaction upon me". Which from my perspective is very rare for the reasons that FX2K listed and so the interactions can simply be avoided if one wishes to. It's like holding back something that could have overall positive effect just because some players feel their personal freedom is being violated.

In the end, I don't really care that much if Solo/Private stays or not. It doesn't affect me all THAT much to lead some crusade against it. There are some much more pressing problems have been around for years and those would be nice to have sorted first. I just think that the game would overall benefit from having just one mode, even if the change would step on some toes - in game development you can never make everyone happy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

We have very different experience then and I guess I can understand why you want to stick with Solo.

Oh, I don't play exclusively in Solo - I pick whichever mode is likely to suit my preference for that game session (even Open).

It just really feels like the only reason for keeping the solo boils down to "what if I encounter a player" and "you cannot force interaction upon me". Which from my perspective is very rare for the reasons that FX2K listed and so the interactions can simply be avoided if one wishes to. It's like holding back something that could have overall positive effect just because some players feel their personal freedom is being violated.

It is obvious that some players don't accept that the fact that all players were sold a game with three game modes affecting a single shared galaxy is reason enough to keep it the way it is.

If Frontier had wanted to make PvP a requirement of the game they would have pitched it that way when they sought Kickstarter funding.

About half way through the Kickstarter a fourth game mode, Offline mode, was added to the scope. It was, unfortunately, cancelled a few weeks before the game launched. One of the reasons given by Frontier for the cancellation was that Offline mode would not offer the desired game experience for players, i.e. experiencing and affecting a shared galaxy. That statement served to reduce the likelihood that Solo (and, by inference, Private Groups) would lose the ability to affect the shared galaxy.

In the end, I don't really care that much if Solo/Private stays or not. It doesn't affect me all THAT much to lead some crusade against it. There are some much more pressing problems have been around for years and those would be nice to have sorted first. I just think that the game would overall benefit from having just one mode, even if the change would step on some toes - in game development you can never make everyone happy.

Those who seek change are often quick to disregard the fact that other players would be adversely affected by the proposals - which makes their desires that much easier to disregard.

Arguably, Frontier made their choice on the optionality of PvP and the mode shared galaxy over eight years ago - noting that the decision didn't make everyone happy.

 

[MarKr The Real One]

Oh, I don't play exclusively in Solo - I pick whichever mode is likely to suit my preference for that game session (even Open).

Oh, didn't get that. Sorry, my bad.

It is obvious that some players don't accept that the fact that all players were sold a game with three game modes affecting a single shared galaxy is reason enough to keep it the way it is.

It is also obvious that some players don't accept that the state they bought the game in is doesn't have to be the state the game will stay in forever.

If Frontier had wanted to make PvP a requirement of the game they would have pitched it that way when they sought Kickstarter funding.

I wouldn't use what Frontier had pitched during Kickstarter as an argument here. I think they also pitched that "no single gameplay style will be vastly more profitable than other" and we had mining earning triple (or even more?) the sum of combat for years and they didn't pitch the main gameplay would be repetitive grind which will lead to players rather use relogging than waste hours of their time on something that is a chore rather than fun.

About half way through the Kickstarter a fourth game mode, Offline mode, was added to the scope. It was, unfortunately, cancelled a few weeks before the game launched. One of the reasons given by Frontier for the cancellation was that Offline mode would not offer the desired game experience for players, i.e. experiencing and affecting a shared galaxy. That statement served to reduce the likelihood that Solo (and, by inference, Private Groups) would lose the ability to affect the shared galaxy.

I wasn't around back then but doesn't that only suggest that Frontier wanted all players to share one galaxy, not that keeping Solo/Private modes is necessary?

Those who seek change are often quick to disregard the fact that other players would be adversely affected by the proposals - which makes their desires that much easier to disregard.

Those who oppose change are often quick to disregard the fact that other players often already are adversely affected by the state of the game and therefore also by denying the proposal - which makes their desires that much easier to disregard.

Arguably, Frontier made their choice on the optionality of PvP and the mode shared galaxy over eight years ago - noting that the decision didn't make everyone happy.

True. Just noting that decisions in project such as this one are rarely final and as such can change, even after a long time since the decision had been made.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It is also obvious that some players don't accept that the state they bought the game in is doesn't have to be the state the game will stay in forever.

It has been obvious since some of the first backers realised that players would not need to play with them to play the game and affect the shared galaxy - over eight years ago.

That some players don't seem to accept that all players have an equal right to affect the game is not the fault of those who bought the game for what it is rather than what it is not.

I wouldn't use what Frontier had pitched during Kickstarter as an argument here. I think they also pitched that "no single gameplay style will be vastly more profitable than other" and we had mining earning triple (or even more?) the sum of combat for years and they didn't pitch the main gameplay would be repetitive grind which will lead to players rather use relogging than waste hours of their time on something that is a chore rather than fun.

It's entirely relevant in relation to their position on the mode shared galaxy - a stance that was reiterated comparatively recently.

I wasn't around back then but doesn't that only suggest that Frontier wanted all players to share one galaxy, not that keeping Solo/Private modes is necessary?

Not at all - as the three game modes which share the single galaxy were announced at the same time, i.e. at the start of the Kickstarter. Here's the relevant KS FAQ answer on the topic:

How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?
The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.

The other important aspect for us is that we can seed the galaxy with events, often these events will be triggered by player actions. With a living breathing galaxy players can discover new and interesting things long after they have started playing.

Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).

Those who oppose change are often quick to disregard the fact that other players often already are adversely affected by the state of the game and therefore also by denying the proposal - which makes their desires that much easier to disregard.

Indeed they can be - as there's no need to support proposals from a subset of the player-base that would affect all players, some adversely., given that we all bought the same game on the same terms. Why should the desires of those who seek to change a game that does not suit their needs be prioritised over those of players who accept the game for what it is?

True. Just noting that decisions in project such as this one are rarely final and as such can change, even after a long time since the decision had been made.

Anything can, of course, change - some changes are more likely than others, in my opinion.

For example, one change that was ruled out early was splitting the galaxy - however that would, in my opinion, now be the most equitable solution taking all players into account, i.e. add a new Open only mode with its own galaxy state to affect, leaving the existing tri-modal galaxy unchanged. That would give those seeking to exclude those in Solo and Private Groups from their gameplay somewhere to call their own.

 

[T200]

I would much rather user-hosted servers that were at least nominally mod friendly to a pseudo-MMO that kept all interactions in instanced P2P PVP.

At least then various things like modded UI's, trainers, etc. could be used somewhat in peace without effecting anyone else's game.
Complaints of Grinding would disappear or instead be more focused on how they're bad gameplay loops.

edit: it would also likely be an idea farm and experimentation area for features that frontier hasn't even thought of, or doesn't feel confident in investing the resources to implement.

 

[krm398]

wow after setting here reading all these comments I suddenly realized that solo sounds pretty good. never thought about it but play nothing but solo games for years. might have a go at that again on here and kill off my character in open that's an ally and see who else likes me somewhere else. also gets me a better chance to own what I want, use it the way I want and get killed only if there's a NPC around bigger than me, and not someone with torpedoes or something and a year or two more hardware on their ship...ahhaah

 

[Elliot Coleman]

wow after setting here reading all these comments I suddenly realized that solo sounds pretty good. never thought about it but play nothing but solo games for years. might have a go at that again on here and kill off my character in open that's an ally and see who else likes me somewhere else. also gets me a better chance to own what I want, use it the way I want and get killed only if there's a NPC around bigger than me, and not someone with torpedoes or something and a year or two more hardware on their ship...ahhaah

It's funny how the picture gets painted.

Someone has a bad experience in open because they don't know how to handle aggressive players, and all of a sudden everyone who plays open is out to ruin their day for those sweet, salty tears.

I assure you that is not the case, and unless you go to Deciat and don't pay attention, the chances of having such an experience are almost nil. 99.9% of players I've come across in open either ignore me entirely, or we exchange a friendly greeting and go about our business. It isn't the chaotic hellscape certain folks make it out to be.

 

[DemiserofD]

It's funny how the picture gets painted.

Someone has a bad experience in open because they don't know how to handle aggressive players, and all of a sudden everyone who plays open is out to ruin their day for those sweet, salty tears.

I assure you that is not the case, and unless you go to Deciat and don't pay attention, the chances of having such an experience are almost nil. 99.9% of players I've come across in open either ignore me entirely, or we exchange a friendly greeting and go about our business. It isn't the chaotic hellscape certain folks make it out to be.

What you depict is honestly a big part of the problem, though. There's no reason to play in Open, because the vast majority of player interaction is just ignoring them. In open, there are basically three different cases you commonly encounter; you ignore them and they ignore you(barring a potential o7), they're sitting on the landing pad afk and wasting your time, or they're trying to kill you.

There's very little in the way of cooperation, because there's little in the way of mechanics to facilitate cooperation. Frankly, the most cooperative mechanic I've encountered is multicrew, and multicrew is completely busted to the point of being nearly unusable. Supposedly team activities like powerplay are, in reality, just a bunch of people doing stuff alone, rather than working directly together in the same instance.

And when you don't have any benefits, it doesn't take much at all in terms of downsides to turn people against something. Say you've got an ice cream cone and can sit inside, or you can sit out in the open, but there's a giant flock of seagulls circling above. Even if your chances of getting pooped on are 1/1000, you're still probably going to sit inside, because sooner or later, SOMEONE'S getting poop on themselves.

This is why I think the true solution to making Open more welcoming is to add mechanics that help bring players together. Powerplay social hubs, publicly listed wing missions, etc. Combine that with proper security to keep people safe in high-sec, and pow, you've got yourself a system that at the very least welcomes in the majority, rather than outright rejecting them from the get-go.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is why I think the true solution to making Open more welcoming is to add mechanics that help bring players together. Powerplay social hubs, publicly listed wing missions, etc. Combine that with proper security to keep people safe in high-sec, and pow, you've got yourself a system that at the very least welcomes in the majority, rather than outright rejecting them from the get-go.

Which would be beneficial to both multi-player game modes, not just Open.

 

[Ettanin]

Which would be beneficial to both multi-player game modes, not just Open.

It could even be used (barring PSPlus/XBLGold subscription on consoles) to dynamically transition between Solo and Open without logging out to the menu

 

[JoeyTheMooch]

INARA

The community site for Elite: Dangerous, Starfield, Kingdom Come: Deliverance with the game databases, information, gaming news and other handy content...

inara.cz

Nah, it isn't really that bad. You can have some good times in Open, if you know where to avoid. You can find other threads around that tell you what to look for and avoid. Best advice is always have a system targeted to jump to (High Wake) and have a key targeted to the "next jump" key. For me, it is 'A' for Awww Sh$$ button. That and don't go AFK.

 

[Frankymole]

I love open, im always in it. Best played with others

That's why I play in Mobius. PvE too, so play, not ganking.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

PvP is not a required part of BGS activities.

And its the least efficient way of working the BGS and can actively harm your own efforts. (Which makes me suspect that some of those calling for Open Only don't actually have a clue about how the BGS works, and in some cases, probably don't even care about it at all, they just want Open to be special)

 

[Juniper]

It's funny how the picture gets painted.

Someone has a bad experience in open because they don't know how to handle aggressive players, and all of a sudden everyone who plays open is out to ruin their day for those sweet, salty tears.

I assure you that is not the case, and unless you go to Deciat and don't pay attention, the chances of having such an experience are almost nil. 99.9% of players I've come across in open either ignore me entirely, or we exchange a friendly greeting and go about our business. It isn't the chaotic hellscape certain folks make it out to be.

I don't want to learn how to deal with aggressive players - I don't want aggressive players in my game. It's as simple as that. It's not fun.

I've been in Open precisely twice in my 7 years of playing E: D, and both instances lasted about 15 minutes, and both instances I was ganked without reason. Once was at Jameson Memorial for no reason I can fathom, and the other was trying to find the coordinates of a crashed Thargoid ship when the Thargoid plot thing was first starting. Went out there, couldn't find it initially, someone came in a Python and told me to follow them to find the ship - which I then did, landed, then was promptly destroyed on the ground by an unseen foe & transported 500 ly from where I was because that's where I had last docked. Stupid.

Bottom line - people are d*cks. Keep them out of my game if they have the possibility to ruin it, because if they can, they will. Every time.

 

[Lord Rak]

Changing fundamental modes (Open, Solo, PG) and gameplay (PP, BGS) is out of the question. CQC was made in mind for PvP only and maybe it is missing availability of using your game ships but I'm sure Fdev could extant CQC to allow use of in game ships. All of you PvPer wont achieve nothing by trying to change how fundamental modes work but since you want more PvP, I think your only option is to lobby around about how to improve CQC so maybe more people will play CQC.

 

[Elliot Coleman]

I don't want to learn how to deal with aggressive players - I don't want aggressive players in my game. It's as simple as that. It's not fun.

I've been in Open precisely twice in my 7 years of playing E: D, and both instances lasted about 15 minutes, and both instances I was ganked without reason. Once was at Jameson Memorial for no reason I can fathom, and the other was trying to find the coordinates of a crashed Thargoid ship when the Thargoid plot thing was first starting. Went out there, couldn't find it initially, someone came in a Python and told me to follow them to find the ship - which I then did, landed, then was promptly destroyed on the ground by an unseen foe & transported 500 ly from where I was because that's where I had last docked. Stupid.

Bottom line - people are d*cks. Keep them out of my game if they have the possibility to ruin it, because if they can, they will. Every time.

I'm not advocating for open-only, so please don't make that mistake. Honestly some of the solo guys on this forum are so salty, I'd rather not be in the same instance with them. I simply wish to reiterate that these experiences, while frequently highlighted, are far from the norm. Sucks that it happened to you.

And believe me, I get that there are those who want nothing to do with other players, especially if there are no rules of conduct. I don't fully understand the draw to such things, because I would rather have my mettle tested, and I enjoy risk, but I get that people are different.

I'm just tired of seeing the same old garbage about people who play in open all being a bunch of cutthroats who get their rocks off by ruining someone's day. To be fair, it's been my experience that this forum is the single most toxic part of ED, especially where threads about PvP are concerned...and it usually isn't the PvP guys that start it.