General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[Florizel]

If I want to play with people, I play Arma, HLL or PS. But there are 400 billion stars here ... Think about this, and then all these demandings will seem like childish caprices ..

 

[Frankymole]

Is it too early to start humming the tune yet?

You know which one.

Colonel Bogey March?

 

[MarKr The Real One]

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.

Sure, nobody would be taking the right to affect the game from them, they would only all do it in the same game mode - rights conserved for everyone.

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

I'm just saying that using as argument or proof of intended result something that Frontier said during the Kickstarter carries little weight because since them many things have changed and some things they said they would implement were scrapped. We can just assume what of the current state got there due to it being planned and what got there because it was added to the plans later on. As you showed, the intention for solo mode was there from start but it doesn't mean it has to stay if it proves to be more of a burden than asset.

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.

There would be a justified need for that if the "subset" was actually a majority. I'm not saying this is a democracy or whatever, but Frontier is a company and majority means potentially more profit, thus it would make sense if they followed the consensus of the majority group. Not saying they will, just saying it would make sense.

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?

1) This point doesn't carry much weight as I could just as well ask why the desires of those who accept the game for what it is should be prioritize over those who seek change.
2) Because if we "accept the game for what it is" we might as well say "stop development, the game is fine as it is" with many of the features added over a year ago still broken (e.g. multi-crew and engineering), others are bland (e.g. squadrons and the whole Powerplay) and the main "gameplay" of the game will remain grind for the sake of grind.

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.

I agree this solution would be perfect. I hope this will be one of the things that they change their mind about one day.

 

[Taifu]

Colonel Bogey March?

You're not new around here... are you?

 

[Manticore]

........ and single Player.

Not again. Years later and people are still whinging about this.

 

[Spacerschoice-00]

I'm was thinking back to that time recently when Zac mentioned they're looking into making power play open only.

Spoiler: Source

Hey Piglet,

At the moment we're focusing on some of the big hitter feedback regarding PowerPlay that have been circulating for a while, for example, the idea of 'Open-only' PowerPlay. We're weighing up the pros and cons of both, as well as the technical aspect, and once we have a decision we'll feed that back, but I can't put a timescale on that considering a lot of focus is on Odyssey at the moment. Once we have a handle on the bigger things, I think it would be a good idea to have a focused feedback thread.

Spoiler: Source thread

Latest stream has more dislikes than likes... FD are you listening?

PowerPlay: Still working on behind the scenes, considering options based on player feedback Zac is this past player feedback that you have already collated or are you going to do a focused feedback post where players can add their current feedback? If it's already ongoing it would sound like...

forums.frontier.co.uk

So it possible we see the end of solo and pg, and console.







Maybe.

 

[Lord Rak]

I'm was thinking back to that time recently when Zac mentioned they're looking into making power play open only.

Spoiler: Source

Spoiler: Source thread

Latest stream has more dislikes than likes... FD are you listening?

PowerPlay: Still working on behind the scenes, considering options based on player feedback Zac is this past player feedback that you have already collated or are you going to do a focused feedback post where players can add their current feedback? If it's already ongoing it would sound like...

forums.frontier.co.uk

So it possible we see the end of solo and pg, and console.







Maybe.

then for sure ED is DOOOoooommed

 

[varonica]

Just want that we all play together.

(I´m a salesman for shield-modules)

But having seen your posts I don't want to play with you, you appear to be exactly the sort of person I would most want to avoid while playing the game, and yet you would want to force me to take part in your game, do you see how......uncomfortable, that sounds?

 

[Lord Rak]

I want to hear from @David Braben. What he thinks about this idea of removing Solo and PG modes from the game or excluding Solo and PG modes from PowerPlay. Changing fundamental gameplay that many bought this game for and deprive them from enjoying the game in full extend.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sure, nobody would be taking the right to affect the game from them, they would only all do it in the same game mode - rights conserved for everyone.

The right to affect the game from ones preferred game mode while affecting shared content would have been removed from those who play in Solo and Private Groups - so somebody would be taking that right away - as there is no need to play in Open to affect the galaxy in this game, by design.

I'm just saying that using as argument or proof of intended result something that Frontier said during the Kickstarter carries little weight because since them many things have changed and some things they said they would implement were scrapped. We can just assume what of the current state got there due to it being planned and what got there because it was added to the plans later on. As you showed, the intention for solo mode was there from start but it doesn't mean it has to stay if it proves to be more of a burden than asset.

Some things have indeed changed, i.e. Offline mode was cancelled prior to launch - however the tri-modal shared galaxy that formed the basis of the pitch remains, through design, development and release of the game, eight years later - with the addition of two more platforms (with no crossplay). Following the reaction to the removal of Offline mode, I very much doubt that Frontier would double down by removing Solo and Private Groups or the ability of players who play in those modes to affect the mode-shared galaxy.

There would be a justified need for that if the "subset" was actually a majority. I'm not saying this is a democracy or whatever, but Frontier is a company and majority means potentially more profit, thus it would make sense if they followed the consensus of the majority group. Not saying they will, just saying it would make sense.

1) This point doesn't carry much weight as I could just as well ask why the desires of those who accept the game for what it is should be prioritize over those who seek change.
2) Because if we "accept the game for what it is" we might as well say "stop development, the game is fine as it is" with many of the features added over a year ago still broken (e.g. multi-crew and engineering), others are bland (e.g. squadrons and the whole Powerplay) and the main "gameplay" of the game will remain grind for the sake of grind.

There's an assumption that those who support Open only are a majority - and also that the desires of a majority should be catered to (regardless of adverse outcomes to other players). Frontier have previously indicated that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - does that mean that there is support for removing PvP completely from the game? Also regarding majority, Sandro advised in his last stream appearance before leaving the project that although most players play in Open it should not be assumed that Open only Powerplay was going to happen as that was "the last thing on our minds" - just as he said during the Powerplay Flash Topics that the only feature even possibly being considered for Open only was Powerplay.

Those who accept the game for what it is aren't the ones demanding that Frontier change the game in a manner that would adversely affect other players with no regard for those other players. Those players who bought a game where they can't accept fundamental game features didn't pay a supplement to entitle them to have content removed from other players. Proponents of contentious change don't have the ability to force through the change - only Frontier can do that. All we can do is express support or opposition to proposals - and Frontier have been aware of the Open vs Solo / Private Groups debate for years. In the absence of consensus there's no compelling reason to change the status quo.

I agree this solution would be perfect. I hope this will be one of the things that they change their mind about one day.

As ever, we'll see, in time.

 

[MarKr The Real One]

The right to affect the game from ones preferred game mode while affecting shared content would have been removed from those who play in Solo and Private Groups - so somebody would be taking that right away - as there is no need to play in Open to affect the galaxy in this game, by design.

But that's not what I reacted to - you said that "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." - not a word about game modes.

Some things have indeed changed, i.e. Offline mode was cancelled prior to launch - however the tri-modal shared galaxy that formed the basis of the pitch remains, through design, development and release of the game, eight years later - with the addition of two more platforms (with no crossplay). Following the reaction to the removal of Offline mode, I very much doubt that Frontier would double down by removing Solo and Private Groups or the ability of players who play in those modes to affect the mode-shared galaxy.

This is like running in circles:
You: Devs intended 3 play modes from the start, why remove it?
Me: Intentions can change.
You: But devs intended 3 play modes from the start.
Me: Intentions can change.
You: Yes, but devs intended 3 play modes from the start.
Me: ...

There's an assumption that those who support Open only are a majority - and also that the desires of a majority should be catered to (regardless of adverse outcomes to other players).

1) I don't know if majority of players play in Solo or Open and I don't claim that Open is a majority. You may notice I used a conditional sentence there, so I was talking theoretically - that if a majority of players ask for something, there is a reason to listen to their request.
2) And yes, when you implement any change to the gameplay, there will always be someone who will be against it because it somewhat negatively affects their game style. E.g. the shield stacking on ships has been a cancer for a long time, anytime someone suggest doing something about it, the people who grinded for hours to get materials for engineering their shields and all shield boosters will cry like crazy because they don't wanna lose something they had spent so many hours on. However, if the change is for general improvement of the game, it should be done regardless of how much people cry about it.

Frontier have previously indicated that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - does that mean that there is support for removing PvP completely from the game?

Again, I don't know the stats and I don't know what Frontier have indicated so I'm just taking your word for it, but if the majority of players wanted it for some solid gameplay reason, then yes.

Also regarding majority, Sandro advised in his last stream appearance before leaving the project that although most players play in Open it should not be assumed that Open only Powerplay was going to happen as that was "the last thing on our minds" - just as he said during the Powerplay Flash Topics that the only feature even possibly being considered for Open only was Powerplay.

Ofcourse he would say that - Powerplay is more of a gimick that has literally no impact on the game and currently is only there as a 4-week waiting period for the powerplay modules. It is a late game feature and there are much more pressing things to fix and balance because they affect the gameplay in every stage of the game. I think anyone would say that changes to powerplay have very low priority.

Those who accept the game for what it is aren't the ones demanding that Frontier change the game in a manner that would adversely affect other players with no regard for those other players.

This is again running in circles:
You: The change would affect Solo players negatively and those who want the change don't consider the negative effect on other players.
Me: The current state affects Open players negatively and those who don't want the change don't consider the negative effect on other players.
You: The change would affect Solo players negatively and also the Solo mode was intended from the start.
Me: The current state affects Open players negatively and also the Open mode was intended from the start.
You: But the change would affect Solo players negatively and those who want the change don't consider the negative effect on other players.
Me: Yes, but the current state affects Open players negatively and those who don't want the change don't consider the negative effect on other players.
...

Those players who bought a game where they can't accept fundamental game features didn't pay a supplement to entitle them to have content removed from other players.

Yes, they "didn't pay a supplement to entitle them to have content removed from other players". I haven't seen a single person here say "I bought this game, I don't like Solo/Private so it will be removed. I will remove the modes tomorrow." Because just as you said:

Proponents of contentious change don't have the ability to force through the change - only Frontier can do that. All we can do is express support or opposition to proposals - and Frontier have been aware of the Open vs Solo / Private Groups debate for years.

We're just expressing opinions here, not forcing anything.

In the absence of consensus there's no compelling reason to change the status quo.

I would say this is a rather situational and convinient rule that sometimes in real world caused more harm than good.

Anyway, we can probably agree that proponents of both sides have presented their points of view on the topic. We both know that the final decision is on Frontier, so there's little reason keep this going. If Frontier wants to see what players think about this, there is enough material for them to go through already on these 35 pages.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But that's not what I reacted to - you said that "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." - not a word about game modes.

The game modes are implicit to the discussion - as it is those who complain about players in modes other than Open affecting "their" (i.e. all of our) game who seek to have the ability to do so removed, then claiming that nothing would have been removed.... What would have been removed is the complete optionality of playing among players who may wish to engage a player in PvP while affecting the shared galaxy.

This is like running in circles:
You: Devs intended 3 play modes from the start, why remove it?
Me: Intentions can change.
You: But devs intended 3 play modes from the start.
Me: Intentions can change.
You: Yes, but devs intended 3 play modes from the start.
Me: ...

Nothing has changed in this seemingly interminable impasse of a discussion between players who want different things - neither the design of the game nor the dissatisfaction of some players regarding game features that form part of the game that all players bought nor the opposition to proposals containing contentious changes that would benefit one subset of the player-base at the expense of another.

We're just expressing opinions here, not forcing anything.

Indeed - and we don't all agree what would constitute an improvement to our respective games.

Anyway, we can probably agree that proponents of both sides have presented their points of view on the topic. We both know that the final decision is on Frontier, so there's little reason keep this going. If Frontier wants to see what players think about this, there is enough material for them to go through already on these 35 pages.

We can certainly agree that we don't agree regarding what would be best for the game.

.... and this thread represents a tiny fraction of all of the pages of discussion on this topic.

 

[T200]

So what about a singleplayer mode that allows us to have mods but has basically the BGS and PP just as our own little sandbox?
heck I don't even care about PP or whatever or BGS as it's currently implemented for that matter, I'd just like a singleplayer client that can be modded without fear of attracting a banhammer for cheating against nobody.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So what about a singleplayer mode that allows us to have mods but has basically the BGS and PP just as our own little sandbox?
heck I don't even care about PP or whatever or BGS as it's currently implemented for that matter, I'd just like a singleplayer client that can be modded without fear of attracting a banhammer for cheating against nobody.

Not sure that Frontier would offer such a mode after cancelling Offline mode citing that it would not offer the desired game experience.

 

[Vadim Kleitsin]

Sorry to go off-topic, and for poking my nose in, but there's one thing that comes up that keeps bugging me. I'm on PC so I don't know the details of console play.

So, to play with other people, console players need to pay the 'console tax', i.e. subscription fees. Yet, at least to my understanding, we all share one galaxy. Which implies that console players are able to connect to Frontier servers without needing to pay?

Again, sorry for the interruption.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sorry to go off-topic, and for poking my nose in, but there's one thing that comes up that keeps bugging me. I'm on PC so I don't know the details of console play.

So, to play with other people, console players need to pay the 'console tax', i.e. subscription fees. Yet, at least to my understanding, we all share one galaxy. Which implies that console players are able to connect to Frontier servers without needing to pay?

Again, sorry for the interruption.

Indeed - we all share the same galaxy, regardless of platform (or game mode) and console players without premium platform access can play the game in Solo only. For console players to be able to play in the multi-player game modes requires them to pay for premium platform access.

 

[Spacerschoice-00]

Indeed - we all share the same galaxy, regardless of platform (or game mode) and console players without premium platform access can play the game in Solo only. For console players to be able to play in the multi-player game modes requires them to pay for premium platform access.

* this "premium" access is not paid to frontier. But to Microsoft and Sony.
PlayStation plus and Xbox live are the multiplayer access. ( though free to play games like star trek online and fortnite don't require them.)

 

[Robert Maynard]

* this "premium" access is not paid to frontier. But to Microsoft and Sony.
PlayStation plus and Xbox live are the multiplayer access. ( though free to play games like star trek online and fortnite don't require them.)

Indeed - paid to the company that owns the platform.

 

[Northpin]

Sorry to go off-topic, and for poking my nose in, but there's one thing that comes up that keeps bugging me. I'm on PC so I don't know the details of console play.

So, to play with other people, console players need to pay the 'console tax', i.e. subscription fees. Yet, at least to my understanding, we all share one galaxy. Which implies that console players are able to connect to Frontier servers without needing to pay?

Again, sorry for the interruption.

Yes, console players have to pay for multiplayer.
The advantage is playing in a controlled environment with quite similar control options and without cheats (trainers, invulnerable shields, etc)

 

[Vadim Kleitsin]

Indeed - we all share the same galaxy, regardless of platform (or game mode) and console players without premium platform access can play the game in Solo only. For console players to be able to play in the multi-player game modes requires them to pay for premium platform access.

So, connecting to the servers of the game itself is free, but you have to pay for the privilege of connecting to other people?