General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[Fenwe]

Because open is not that you are engaged 24/7 by other players... of course flying to popular spots or Deciat, Shinrarta etc. may be risky because of the presence of PvPers in the area who are there for shooting everyone coming in, but definitively it is not the standard case for the rest of the galaxy (and this is why all the ones who are against open-only for certain activities are wrong).

The problem though boss is the fact that gankers do hang out in in those 'popular' systems to catch newbies that haven't had a chance to even start engineering.

It's one of many reasons why FDev would be more than a little foolish to do open only. Seal clubbing isn't PvP, nor is feeding puppies to piranhas. Forcing open only would be FDev giving the go ahead to that.

 

[ethelred]

It's like a lovely spectrum of opinion

Open only
PP Open only
Some PP activities have an Open bonus
Optional new activities that are done with NPC or with CMDRs
PvE / PvP flags
No more hollow squares
Everything is fine
Ban Open
Ban Open & PG
Offline solo only

And we all get to talk over each other.

Did I miss anything?

 

[enonymous]

Did I miss anything?

I'll happily give Cmdr Richard the opportunity to shoot at me when they fix the parasitic design of the interaction.

Though I'd also accept an offline solo version that lets me mod out the travel mechanic. That's a DLC I'd actually buy

 

[Manticore]

They mainly moved over to playing Store Citizen. Small play area, choke points, always plenty of easy targets to kill. It must be like a playground for them.

I have to laugh:

It's like a lovely spectrum of opinion

Open only
PP Open only
Some PP activities have an Open bonus
Optional new activities that are done with NPC or with CMDRs
PvE / PvP flags
No more hollow squares
Everything is fine
Ban Open
Ban Open & PG
Offline solo only

And we all get to talk over each other.

Did I miss anything?

No not really. I think that covers the general whinge factor.......

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Maybe, maybe not - only Frontier have indisputable numbers.

So it's not even unanimously agreed among those who Powerplay?

It's not Frontier's fault that those players bought a game that does not contain features that are designed to meet their play-style needs, nor the fault of those who bought the game and who don't enjoy PvP - yet there seems to be an expectation that those PvP players must be catered to at the expense of the rest of the player-base.

I'm purely laying out the numbers as far as I can see them. Are you saying that you've been arguing against OOPP all this time to troll a unanimous community? If it were unanimous there'd be little to argue about. A substantial benefit to a majority vs. a smaller detriment and to a minority would be grounds for a change, as I see it. And please don't now again restate the obvious uncertainties around the numbers, it's tedious.

The conflation of OOPP with bunches of savages running around lopping each others' heads off and cackling all day is odd. OOPP cements PvP's role in the feature, but it's not "the PvPers" asking for it, it's the whole spectrum of participants. I wanted this (or whatever optimal way to maximise engagement in open, or at least balance the modes so that open PP is not penalised) from when I joined in a cobra with 10mil credits and no engineering until now, and I see the broad swath of players of all levels engaging in my group totally happy to play in open. It's about wanting an oppositional, explicitly multiplayer feel to a feature where that seems entirely appropriate (i.e. a multiplayer simulation of some kind of semi-clandestine conflict, which is what PP is).

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

TBH mate, don't think that PvP'ers demanding all the attention, everyone else be damned, is just here.

My time in ESO was an eye-opener. Same story. PvP'ers demanding everything be catered to them. In fact, it screwed up some sets in PvE for the sake of PvP balance.

Looked further. It's the same everywhere. PvP'ers demanding everything be about them, as they are "better". (AKA they think they are brave for playing against other people in a video game)

This eye-opener is largely why I have shifted my views away from my old Open-only ones.

I realise now that was just stupid. Game is for everyone and if people want a pure-PvP game, they bought the wrong game.

OP fits your description maybe, but as far as OOPP or related suggestions for PP go, it's about having one feature where PvP and co-op combined can have a meaningful role. Or alternatively, if NPCs are deployed to balance the modes, a feature where at least you are not penalised for engaging in those aspects. Even voluntary open-only powerplay as it currently stands offers a large range of activities from week to week that allow you to completely dial in the level of risk that you want. Someone has to do the dangerous stuff, sure, but in a sizeable group, there will always be experienced players who are game to take that on.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Start killing all players you see in system then I guess "doing those missions" is gonna be hard.

Yes, its going to be hard for you to do and while you're trying to kill players, you're not getting any missions done. Meanwhile some will be evading you and getting missions done. You're going to lose any BGS war spending time trying to kill players.

 

[Manticore]

It's not Frontier's fault that those players bought a game that does not contain features that are designed to meet their play-style needs, nor the fault of those who bought the game and who don't enjoy PvP - yet there seems to be an expectation that those PvP players must be catered to at the expense of the rest of the player-base.

Word.

A misplaced sense of entitlement sucks.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm purely laying out the numbers as far as I can see them. Are you saying that you've been arguing against OOPP all this time to troll a unanimous community? If it were unanimous there'd be little to argue about. A substantial benefit to a majority vs. a smaller detriment and to a minority would be grounds for a change, as I see it. And please don't now again restate the obvious uncertainties around the numbers, it's tedious.

Obviously not - as the whole premise of OOPP is to stop players who currently engage in the feature in Solo and Private Groups from doing so - which means that some do so, which means that the Powerplay community is not of a single mind when it comes to Powerplay itself. If the Powerplay community was unanimous in its opinion then there'd be no need for Open only Powerplay.

"A substantial benefit to" which "majority"? Those who currently engage in Powerplay are not a majority of the player-base (and not all of those who do engage in Powerplay do so in Open) - yet the whole player-base would be forced to play in Open if they wanted to, at any time in the future, engage in Powerplay if it were made Open only and the feature forms part of the game that the whole player-base bought on the same terms.

The conflation of OOPP with bunches of savages running around lopping each others' heads off and cackling all day is odd. OOPP cements PvP's role in the feature, but it's not "the PvPers" asking for it, it's the whole spectrum of participants. I wanted this (or whatever optimal way to maximise engagement in open, or at least balance the modes so that open PP is not penalised) from when I joined in a cobra with 10mil credits and no engineering until now, and I see the broad swath of players of all levels engaging in my group totally happy to play in open. It's about wanting an oppositional, explicitly multiplayer feel to a feature where that seems entirely appropriate (i.e. a multiplayer simulation of some kind of semi-clandestine conflict, which is what PP is).

No conflation - simply the observation that Open only Powerplay would require any participant to play among all other players in Open. When engaged in any game feature in Open one may meet any type of player, for better or worse, whether or not those players are engaged in that feature.

Rather than "take away" any feature from any player (in their preferred game mode) to suit a subset of players by changing a fundamental aspect of the game, i.e. all players have an equal effect on the shared galaxy regardless of game mode, it would be better to change a different fundamental aspect of the game, i.e. the singularity of the shared galaxy. This would give those seeking Open only gameplay a galaxy to call their own, to affect from a new Open only mode - and leave the tri-modal shared galaxy as it is for players who accept the optional nature of PvP in game features.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Because open is not that you are engaged 24/7 by other players... of course flying to popular spots or Deciat, Shinrarta etc. may be risky because of the presence of PvPers in the area who are there for shooting everyone coming in, but definitively it is not the standard case for the rest of the galaxy (and this is why all the ones who are against open-only for certain activities are wrong).

Way to not get the message.... PvP is not desired the majority of players, and trying to force everyone to accept PvP is just plain stupid. And way to go to ignore that the development of New World is going from PvP centric to be more and more PvE centric, and that matches what FDev have told us about how "popular" PvP is among elite players...


And just to think that explorers have created the biggest event in this game. Distant Worlds II expedition... Can you name a single organised PvP event that has even close to that numbert of players participating? can you even name an event that matches the Distant World I expedition?

 

[varonica]

Way to not get the message.... PvP is not desired the majority of players, and trying to force everyone to accept PvP is just plain stupid. And way to go to ignore that the development of New World is going from PvP centric to be more and more PvE centric, and that matches what FDev have told us about how "popular" PvP is among elite players...


And just to think that explorers have created the biggest event in this game. Distant Worlds II expedition... Can you name a single organised PvP event that has even close to that numbert of players participating? can you even name an event that matches the Distant World I expedition?

Well there was the Distant Ganks where a lot of PvP players got together to try and gank as many explorers on Distant Worlds 2 as possible, but that only demonstrates the point, not refutes it. The PvE players are the driving force of the game, PvP players are a poor second with an unrealistic viewpoint that the entire game must be changed to benefit just them and no-one else.

Quick Stats

• 3,023 Open-only kills
• 14.91% of active DW2 roster killed
• 47 kills/day average
• 372.8 billion cr. kill cost (est.)
• 18.6 billion cr. rebuy cost (est.)
• 1,813 unique CMDR kills
• 75 unique killers

So PvP players are absolutely reliant on PvE players to give them targets, PvE players couldn't care less, and Open Only anything is just a dream because without the PvE players, who won't be taking part, it will just be a silent and wind blasted wasteland with tumbleweed blowing through!

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Obviously not - as the whole premise of OOPP is to stop players who currently engage in the feature in Solo and Private Groups from doing so - which means that some do so, which means that the Powerplay community is not of a single mind when it comes to Powerplay itself. If the Powerplay community was unanimous in its opinion then there'd be no need for Open only Powerplay.

"A substantial benefit to" which "majority"? Those who currently engage in Powerplay are not a majority of the player-base (and not all of those who do engage in Powerplay do so in Open) - yet the whole player-base would be forced to play in Open if they wanted to, at any time in the future, engage in Powerplay if it were made Open only and the feature forms part of the game that the whole player-base bought on the same terms.

I think that's right, it's a weighing up pf concerns. If the detriment to some players is small (I believe it is, though overblown by some, particularly if consoles were exempted from any mode restriction, assuming restriction rather than say, NPC rebalancing, were the option hypothetically in the table), and the gain for a perceived majority sufficiently outweighs that, then how is that different to so many other decisions that a developer might make? Basically it's a yes it is no it isn't argument for all but FDev.

No conflation - simply the observation that Open only Powerplay would require any participant to play among all other players in Open. When engaged in any game feature in Open one may meet any type of player, for better or worse, whether or not those players are engaged in that feature.

Rather than "take away" any feature from any player (in their preferred game mode) to suit a subset of players by changing a fundamental aspect of the game, i.e. all players have an equal effect on the shared galaxy regardless of game mode, it would be better to change a different fundamental aspect of the game, i.e. the singularity of the shared galaxy. This would give those seeking Open only gameplay a galaxy to call their own, to affect from a new Open only mode - and leave the tri-modal shared galaxy as it is for players who accept the optional nature of PvP in game features.

Better to you. For me, the single, not multiple, shared universe is a selling point. I don't mind sharing it with people I can't see, if it's done fairly.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

No conflation - simply the observation that Open only Powerplay would require any participant to play among all other players in Open. When engaged in any game feature in Open one may meet any type of player, for better or worse, whether or not those players are engaged in that feature.

On this specific, there really is a gulf between the closed mode non-PP group of naysaying players and open PP players in the perception of what open PP is like. It's really very different to the random gankfest of Deciat or CGs. There is a roster of familiar foes, and a protective team of friendlies. The PvP is in-context and proportionate, responsive, tactical and strategic and weaves into each player group's "story". Players of all levels and roles (PvP, PvE, cargo, explorer) in a power's team are treated equally. It's basically the antithesis of the unstructured, purposeless, gratuitous random squishing of the typical ganking hotspots.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think that's right, it's a weighing up pf concerns. If the detriment to some players is small (I believe it is, though overblown by some, particularly if consoles were exempted from any mode restriction, assuming restriction rather than say, NPC rebalancing, were the option hypothetically in the table), and the gain for a perceived majority sufficiently outweighs that, then how is that different to so many other decisions that a developer might make? Basically it's a yes it is no it isn't argument for all but FDev.

Quite. It'll be interesting to see what changes Frontier propose.

Better to you. For me, the single, not multiple, shared universe is a selling point. I don't mind sharing it with people I can't see, if it's done fairly.

When a change to one of the fundamental principles upon which the game is built is proposed it is perhaps unsurprising that players will disagree as to which one should be changed, if any. The definition of "fair", in a game where PvP is an optional extra that no player requires to engage in to affect any game feature apart from CQC, varies between players. It can be argued that the game is perfectly fair in that regard already - as players in all three game modes equally affect the galaxy and there is no requirement to play in a game mode where one may be impeded by other players - noting that those who want to remain as competitive while also choosing to engage in PvP won't necessarily agree.

 

[Robert Maynard]

On this specific, there really is a gulf between the closed mode non-PP group of naysaying players and open PP players in the perception of what open PP is like. It's really very different to the random gankfest of Deciat or CGs. There is a roster of familiar foes, and a protective team of friendlies. The PvP is in-context and proportionate, responsive, tactical and strategic and weaves into each player group's "story". Players of all levels and roles (PvP, PvE, cargo, explorer) in a power's team are treated equally. It's basically the antithesis of the unstructured, purposeless, gratuitous random squishing of the typical ganking hotspots.

The gulf relates to the preference / tolerance, or lack thereof, for PvP - in a game where PvP is an optional extra.

 

[Kwoung]

Quite. It'll be interesting to see what changes Frontier propose.

When a change to one of the fundamental principles upon which the game is built is proposed it is perhaps unsurprising that players will disagree as to which one should be changed, if any. The definition of "fair", in a game where PvP is an optional extra that no player requires to engage in to affect any game feature apart from CQC, varies between players. It can be argued that the game is perfectly fair in that regard already - as players in all three game modes equally affect the galaxy and there is no requirement to play in a game mode where one may be impeded by other players - noting that those who want to remain as competitive while also choosing to engage in PvP won't necessarily agree.

In 25 years of MMO's, I have yet to not come across at least a subset of the PVP community in each that wasn't always asking that PVE players be forced into their PVP areas, and insisting it would make the game more fun and fair for everyone. I have seen soooo many different reasons, excuses, etc that each of those games should be changed to make this happen, but not one developer in all those years ever did it oddly.

Although in ESO they do hold a few events a year, which while not directly forcing PVEers into PVP, does entice them in pretty well. But, during those times, the PVEers are going to walk out with some pretty nice rewards for making themselves fodder for a couple weeks, so most come away satisfied, and many who never previously considered it, actually find that they enjoyed PVP and stick around.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Well there was the Distant Ganks where a lot of PvP players got together to try and gank as many explorers on Distant Worlds 2 as possible, but that only demonstrates the point, not refutes it. The PvE players are the driving force of the game, PvP players are a poor second with an unrealistic viewpoint that the entire game must be changed to benefit just them and no-one else.

I avoided mentioned this, as that would mean that I also have to get into the rabbit hole where FDev issued refunds for ship rebuys etc for the explorers! which in itself is a pretty remarkable action from FDev and is a pretty strong stance against what some says, Open is dangerous and should be dangerous.
Not to mention how we also got more validation that these PvP players are very dishonest players, as they have been caught, often several times, lying to get into private groups, and then go on a killing spree... in a place they had agreed to no PvP. when they signed up. Noone forced them to sign up, they did it on their own free will, and yet, they showed how little they care about what their promise is worth. This did not only happen in Distant Worlds II, they have done it to Mobious groups several times, a well know set of PvE only private groups in Elite.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Hard kernel of these discussions is still couple of unanswered questions? What positive stuff PVE or coop player gets from Open only? And no, I do not consider getting ganked particularly exciting or positive experience. Ok, it is true that outside of certain popular spot galaxy is mostly safe from other players. But certain spots are popular for some reasons, and running avoid ganker minigame every time you get there gets old pretty fast.

I do understand that for gan...ah PVP'ers Open only would give positive experiences. Thats true. Price is that for everybody other it does not.

 

[Ski'Thor]

Edit 2: Man, so many people who are afraid of that they could meet a griefer in over 400 billion star systems, smh. How high are the chances, especially while exploring more of the empty areas of the galaxy? People act like it's the end of the world, when they die and lose cargo or exploration data.

In fact, this IS a big problem for people, who have no interests in PowerPlay or such things.
Some people just want to have their fun, playing the game in their sparetime
And yes, it IS the end of the world, since explorers are usually countless days or month out in the dark and when you try to get home, to sell your exploration data or try to get rewarded for yout countless weeks of playing and another player just interdicts you for no fu... dam... reason, you will loose more than just some exploration data. You loose the whole time you've invested for nothing.
Having a single player mode is mandatory when thinking in such time scales. And when axing the singleplayer mode, well, no problem, I will just set up my own private group, with only ONE player when entering populated areas...

 

[Northpin]

Well there was the Distant Ganks where a lot of PvP players got together to try and gank as many explorers on Distant Worlds 2 as possible, but that only demonstrates the point, not refutes it. The PvE players are the driving force of the game, PvP players are a poor second with an unrealistic viewpoint that the entire game must be changed to benefit just them and no-one else.



So PvP players are absolutely reliant on PvE players to give them targets, PvE players couldn't care less, and Open Only anything is just a dream because without the PvE players, who won't be taking part, it will just be a silent and wind blasted wasteland with tumbleweed blowing through!

So...
Distant Ganks: 75 unique killers pvp-ers
Distant Worlds: 13000+ explorers

And those 75 "pvp-ers" managed to kill 1800+ Explorers (and probably managed to make some of them quit the DW2 event for good)