Rubbernuke.exe has stopped working

[bangermsuk]

there a new version of 3d glassware that coming out, don't know how good it is. but it supposed to be 3d vr portaits.
now if ailsing was portait like this i be a happy bunny. cough

but VR isn;t for me, i still miss parts of the big picture, i needed new eyes first before any gadget..LOL

 

[Planewalker]

Why not both? Rewarding gameplay that goes beyond factions and perks / rewards for being loyal?

Would being pledged longer and having NPC difficulty scale up to a degree make sense?

It could also be that longer pledges could reward some of those hard to come by materials.
(i've no idea if the latter is even a good idea, just thought of it. -it could add incentive to pledge)

 

[Rebel Yell]

Was it designed for PvP (explicitly, players shooting each other in open)?

I recall it being said that it was (words to the effect of) the group vs group competititve game layer[1]. To me, that implies competition between groups of players, but doesn't imply pew pew lasers beyond how the game currently makes that a thing (which is; it's optional).

In other words, player vs player doesn't imply players killing players.

[1] My futher understanding was that it was introduced when they realised how popular supporting factions the BGS was, but FD knew the BGS wasn't intended to, balanced for or capable of functioning as a formalised group vs group activity, and why OG PP was supposed to have powers rise and fall from factions, in reflection of that activity by players.

This is the broader concept of PvP I've represented many times on this sub: on a late extent, even selling explo data to station X, owned by the faction Y is conceptually a PvP action (I mean = there's very little pure theoretical PvE in the game).

Anyway, the PP idea was to provide some ground to such kind of players confrontation, and given what the designer said regarding the potential "open only" framework that makes me believing that the original design was somehow pointing at that... then we can spend ages here discussing about "optionality" of PvP and other phylosophic interpretations of the deisgner's original ideas.

Bottom line it was a good idea, but realised in the way that it just translated into a pure number grinding (which a) awards bigger groups b) is way more efficient than spend time camping in systems, for blockades or hoping to have some pew pew action c) paves the way to C5 detrimental activity).

 

[Darrack]

If you think PP going Open only or PvP oriented will attract more players you are all sadly mistaken, it would be the final death knell to PP.
BTW are we there yet?

O7

 

[Rebel Yell]

If you think PP going Open only or PvP oriented will attract more players you are all sadly mistaken, it would be the final death knell to PP.
BTW are we there yet?

O7

I can't speak on behalf of so many players who don't like PvP or don't like that or this as many seem to do here... tl:dr no one knows, as it will very likely never happen.

 

[metatheurgist]

Was it designed for PvP (explicitly, players shooting each other in open)?

It was never designed as PvP, that was just one of the desperate attempts to breathe life into (along with Hotel California, exclusive modules etc) when it turned out to be a massive DOA turkey. Of course, the smart thing to do would've been to make it interesting gameplay to start with, or even to second with.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Not really, the other modes are considered easier than open just due to the PvP threat. Otherwise everyone would be in open at Deciat or in a CG.

I feel that being in open is greater risk, therefore you should have greater reward.

(Please note I did not say open only).

The modules offered by Power Play were a bribe for participation. The result was module shoppers who seem to be disliked generally by the PP fans.
The alleged difficulty of Open doesn't actually exist, I did acquired Cytoscramblers and Pacifiers in open without dealing with anything other than NPCs.
I would interpret the statement that Fdev are revamping PP would be to increase participation as opposed to dissuading potential participants by erecting barriers that run contrary to the policy of mode agnosticism.

 

[metatheurgist]

They shouldn't repeat Fleet Carrier Syndrome.

They spent dev time creating something that was only going to be used by a tiny portion of the player base (squad leader toy with everyone else in the squad paying for it); the backtrack resulted in FCs polluting the galaxy.

If they are serious about increasing the player base, every new feature has to be accessible to 100% of the player base. Otherwise they are wasting their time and resources.

ED's gameplay is not in such a great place that players are saying we'll be mining it's depths for decades and devs can say "Hey let's give that one small group of players that enjoys larping as furries some love".

 

[Rubbernuke]

Would being pledged longer and having NPC difficulty scale up to a degree make sense?

It could also be that longer pledges could reward some of those hard to come by materials.
(i've no idea if the latter is even a good idea, just thought of it. -it could add incentive to pledge)

Sort of- for me it would be the more you do and the (if you have them) higher ranks mark you as a priority target since you are doing more. That way a scrub beginning the feature won't be spanked by G5 NPCs.

But added to that if the rookie wanted to gamble a mission based Powerplay could allow them to risk harder missions.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It was never designed as PvP, that was just one of the desperate attempts to breathe life into (along with Hotel California, exclusive modules etc) when it turned out to be a massive DOA turkey. Of course, the smart thing to do would've been to make it interesting gameplay to start with, or even to second with.

Although I don't want to discuss the point excessively (since I don't think V2 is going to be Open Only and that its going to be a BGS layer) PP as it stands was as close as an Open Only feature as you could get. It contrasts wildly with a true pan modal BGS system where activity is participation within a day, with heavily abstracted actions and limited influence.

Unlike the BGS it was without abstraction and near real time in its feedback (as in, merits were counted in minutes, PP bounties minutes, all merits were 1:1 and not S curve based) and that each time a proposal was mooted (two) for V1 it was Open Only (and that FD saw it as a PvP mode) because instanced ED NPCs could not offer meaningful resistance. This was and is a problem because PP territory is seen as supra-system (as in, an average PP journey is over multiple jumps) but the NPCs were tied to system level.

PP V1 was logical from this standpoint as it extended out the scale of conflict, but was let down by technical reasons- while players can be unpredictable in this situation NPCs could not.

In other words, player vs player doesn't imply players killing players.

The issue is, to truly make a mark on V1 in an Open context you had to kill others because fortification was what kept a power solvent or prevent combat expansion merits- no NPC fortified or dropped merits. Its why the mode issue was such because NPCs could not compare to (eventually) engineered players and the design unraveled.

This is why I think (given how ED has evolved) V2 will remove merits / explicit PP cargo because they will remove the supra system point to point nature of V1. Instead it will make influence local (like factions) but apply it to a more evolved expansion mechanic driven by general ED tasks plus PP missions on top, with unique bonuses to make it a BGS+ like system. It means NPCs can be priced in and not be avoided too, all the time doing varied tasks.

 

[Darrack]

resulted in FCs polluting the galaxy

Have to disagree on this one, FCs for all was a brilliant idea and has changed the way i mostly explore for the better.
2 months out in the Black ive only seen 3 carriers, they were all at Tourist spots.

O7

 

[metatheurgist]

Have to disagree on this one, FCs for all was a brilliant idea and has changed the way i mostly explore for the better.
2 months out in the Black ive only seen 3 carriers, they were all at Tourist spots.

O7

I'm not saying I don't enjoy my FC either, but that wasn't the plan. That was the fallout of a bad decision.

 

[yianniv]

I'm not saying I don't enjoy my FC either, but that wasn't the plan. That was the fallout of a bad decision.

Allow me to disagree, cmdr. I enjoy my FC, too, and I wouldn't have liked the initial version. But as with many other features FDev introduced, they moved on and didn't fine tune them. Only recently did they tidy up the system map. I think having unused FCs moved automatically to unoccupied systems after a period of days would be a good solution.

 

[Planewalker]

Sort of- for me it would be the more you do and the (if you have them) higher ranks mark you as a priority target since you are doing more. That way a scrub beginning the feature won't be spanked by G5 NPCs.

But added to that if the rookie wanted to gamble a mission based Powerplay could allow them to risk harder missions.

Yea more activity makes a player more visible, and risk/reward makes sense too.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Allow me to disagree, cmdr. I enjoy my FC, too, and I wouldn't have liked the initial version. But as with many other features FDev introduced, they moved on and didn't fine tune them. Only recently did they tidy up the system map. I think having unused FCs moved automatically to unoccupied systems after a period of days would be a good solution.

Or consider parking it away from Shinrarta...

 

[Ian Doncaster]

If they are serious about increasing the player base, every new feature has to be accessible to 100% of the player base. Otherwise they are wasting their time and resources.

Sure, but we could argue forever about what "accessible" means in this context, with everything from "must be possible in a stock Sidewinder flown by a complete beginner" to "doesn't somehow require the Cobra Mk IV" possible.

There's a fair argument that new features can be safely directed at 1000-hour veterans, because the existing features already cover players up to that point. Sure, they won't be the big feature that directly attracts a whole range of new players to the game but they're not going to change the basic concept of the game anyway, so if someone isn't interested in "Elite-like space games" adding core mining or passenger missions or whatever isn't likely to change that in itself: the value might come from both getting 1000-hour veterans to play more and from getting them to talk more positively about the game and attract new players that way.

Equally, the biggest things Frontier could do to increase the player base directly probably involve further polish on the onboarding process so people don't keep getting stuck at the "create Frontier account" stage, better tutorials and/or guided early-game missions, etc. to get more people up to the 100-hour point, and other things like that which probably are completely irrelevant to any current forum poster.

 

[Rebel Yell]

We do still see quite a lot of new/low ranked accounts hanging up nearby starting systems or grinding money on trade routes (i.e. the mostly harmless T7 is the classic one, 2 routes after on a T9). We did even a further experiment... camping in a prison ship near one of the starting systems, plenty of newbies spawning there over a day. That makes me believing that there's a constant inflow of new players, but very likely not staying committed in the game for long.

Same happened to our powerplay group, we have new joiners on a regular basis... but they stop playing as far as they hit the engineering wall.

On a side note... we had the biggest inflow of new players during Covid-19 and WFH times, but now most of those players either stopped playing because of less spare time or reduced substantally their attendance (I'd say the same for me, as I moved back to the office too 3/5 or 4/5 now).

 

[Rubbernuke]

Sure, but we could argue forever about what "accessible" means in this context, with everything from "must be possible in a stock Sidewinder flown by a complete beginner" to "doesn't somehow require the Cobra Mk IV" possible.

There's a fair argument that new features can be safely directed at 1000-hour veterans, because the existing features already cover players up to that point. Sure, they won't be the big feature that directly attracts a whole range of new players to the game but they're not going to change the basic concept of the game anyway, so if someone isn't interested in "Elite-like space games" adding core mining or passenger missions or whatever isn't likely to change that in itself: the value might come from both getting 1000-hour veterans to play more and from getting them to talk more positively about the game and attract new players that way.

Equally, the biggest things Frontier could do to increase the player base directly probably involve further polish on the onboarding process so people don't keep getting stuck at the "create Frontier account" stage, better tutorials and/or guided early-game missions, etc. to get more people up to the 100-hour point, and other things like that which probably are completely irrelevant to any current forum poster.

Effectively this is taking the advice of the 'synergy' thread (by making all the disparate parts of the game work holistically) to build a compelling experience that scales beyond basic activity. This gives vital context and meaning that elevates your time spent.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Have to disagree on this one, FCs for all was a brilliant idea and has changed the way i mostly explore for the better.
2 months out in the Black ive only seen 3 carriers, they were all at Tourist spots.

O7

So far, the only actual fleet carriers I’ve visited are those of the DSSA, which is the only public good use for them. Every other one of these Monuments to Ozymandias reminds me far too much of housing spam in UO: they’re private structures in public spaces, and interfere with normal gameplay. They clutter the system map, the nav panel unless you filter them out, and are false positives for USSs when scanning for them visually.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

PP would potentially support PvP. You sign on, then you go to a defined place and to things. Someone else might come and disagree with you. A natural matchmaking, if you so will. Much better than griefers hanging around engineer bases to sealclub. It wouldn't address the sealclubbing ofc but potentially bring people together who actually don't disagree about shooting each other. The thing about PP is that you have spots to meet and do it and don't need abusive talk, mom jokes and insults to provoke players who don't really want to fight others. If someone comes to the meeting -you know how it is: Don't talk about fight club. And don't cry about it either.

Personally I think the ship has long sailed.