- Status
Eh? Did I miss something? Where was this?
He was being polite, in order to spring his trap.
Nope, the mods will just close this one and start version 5.
Got a bit of a way to go yet, only half way there, so still time to come up with a good name...
Nope, the mods will just close this one and start version 5.
Got a bit of a way to go yet, only half way there, so still time to come up with a good name...
Infinity?
Nope, the mods will just close this one and start version 5.
Got a bit of a way to go yet, only half way there, so still time to come up with a good name...
Ha!!! I never paid any attention to the IV in the title until now. Does that mean this is actually page 4353? That just leaves me speechless....
Actually, despite the slightly jokey tone, I genuinely admire his tenacity and sheer doggedness when it comes to writing those essays. They can be repetitive, but singling him out for criticism on those grounds would be ridiculous in this of all threads.Eh? Did I miss something? Where was this?
I don't agree with his conclusions, though. I don't agree that many of the fundamental issues ED has would be solved by the changes he's proposing, nor do I believe FD would necessarily implement them even if they were. I also don't accept his widening the definition of PvP to include BGS influence; at best it's PvEvP. PvP involves the selection of a specific target or targets, whether individually or just "because hollow" and is very much an in-the-moment thing*, whereas influencing the BGS is a slower more strategic element that might have a very broad effect on any number of players who happen to be pushing in the opposite direction but can't really be targeted. They're wholly different things.
Even the scenario of "attacking" a Player Faction is problematic, as nobody has any idea how many players are pushing from each side. The infamous SDC/Mobius tugs-o-war over Azrael and Dogmaa were wars of numbers in which Mobius had the advantage, but nobody really knows how many actual players were engaged at any given time. This is very different to PvP where it's a maximum of eight players and everyone knows who is attacking whom.
Like I said, I admire 90s' tenacity but I think he's barking up the wrong tree if he thinks any proposal that changes the equality of the three modes is going to fly. Most other elements of the game are quite possibly up for debate, but I think that one's about as cast iron as FD can make it. And as for "David Braben said...", well he's said a lot of things over the years, many of which are open to wide interpretation. Some remain relevant and uncontested, others less so. And I've been around long enough to know that I wouldn't pin my hopes for radical change on any of them.
[RIGHT][SUP]*when FD spoke of the majority of players not getting involved in PvP, I'm reasonably sure this is the
PvP they were talking about. If they'd included the BGS, 100% of players would be involved by default.[/RIGHT][/SUP]
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Depends on how many posts per page you have set. For example, this post is on page #106 (of this thread) for me.
The issues around Solo, Open and Private Group modes are...
There are no issues.
Solo works just fine. It's you, the galaxy and all the NPC's you can stand.
Private Groups work just fine as well. It's you, those who are also members of the same Private Group, the Galaxy, and all the NPC's you can stand.
Open - Ok, Open does have issues. I find Open to be unplayable because the performance of the game is terrible. It's rubber-bands and dropped connection all over the place, most all of the time. I've been in the past two Open betas as well, in Open there as well, and I see a lot of the same things there too - ships rubber-banding, Transaction and Matchmaking server faults, Supercruise, Hyperspace and Glides that literally never end, short of killing the client - even black screens where I can hear but can't even access the menu to log out. I find Open simply unplayable.
I'm in the US, have great low-latency internet, plenty of bandwidth (120x60 Mb connection), professional networking hardware (Juniper routers and switches), single-mode fiber connections and Ubiquity Site-to-Site bridges to Juniper Access Points, and shielded CAT-5e cabling, combined with 20+ years of network and PC experience, I know my way around hardware
The oldest machine on my network is a 3-year old Dell PowerEdge server and it's due to be upgraded, so I can definitely write myself out of network-related issues - sometimes my ISP has problems, they all do, and I recognize those. I also recognize when the problem is "somewhere in the middle" between me and Frontier's Amazon servers. But the rest of (collective) you... I can't vouch for the quality of your connections, only what I've seen, and that leaves a lot to be desired.
But as for the modes themselves - the decision has long since been made, and it's not going to be reversed.
Three Modes, Three Styles of Play, one BGS to bind them. The choice is simple - accept it and enjoy playing, or reject it and play something else.
Griping on and on about it, berating and belittling each other over how you choose to play - it isn't going to change anything, except perhaps peoples' opinions of you.
You don't like that someone plays in a different mode? Tough. Perhaps they don't like that you do either, and I can't think of a single thread I've ever seen where the Solo and Private Group players complain that the Open players are ruining the BGS for THEM. It's always the other way around.
As far as the BGS itself is concerned... I've done a little Power Play. I've shifted the state of a system or two (for my own benefit), and honestly, it really doesn't matter than much. No, it really doesn't. It's nice when certain systems are in a Boom state - they sell more rare goods, have better stocked markets, and all the facilities work. That's about it.
Who controls what really doesn't matter all that much, no matter how much you like a particular faction. At most, a change here will close a Black Market, or make a particular commodity legal or illegal. Yep, that's it.
There's no prize for who controls the most space. There's no increased payout, and most importantly there's no check being delivered for any of it. Getting so worked up over it is pointless.
Play the game, enjoy the game, and leave others to do the same, and believe it or not, it will get better for everyone.
You get my daily Rep allotment for these statements alone. If we could all just accept that people have different interests, and they are free to pursue them, much of the contention around here would just plain dry up.
one BGS to rule them all,The issues around Solo, Open and Private Group modes are...
There are no issues.
Solo works just fine. It's you, the galaxy and all the NPC's you can stand.
Private Groups work just fine as well. It's you, those who are also members of the same Private Group, the Galaxy, and all the NPC's you can stand.
Open - Ok, Open does have issues. I find Open to be unplayable because the performance of the game is terrible. It's rubber-bands and dropped connection all over the place, most all of the time. I've been in the past two Open betas as well, in Open there as well, and I see a lot of the same things there too - ships rubber-banding, Transaction and Matchmaking server faults, Supercruise, Hyperspace and Glides that literally never end, short of killing the client - even black screens where I can hear but can't even access the menu to log out. I find Open simply unplayable.
I'm in the US, have great low-latency internet, plenty of bandwidth (120x60 Mb connection), professional networking hardware (Juniper routers and switches), single-mode fiber connections and Ubiquity Site-to-Site bridges to Juniper Access Points, and shielded CAT-5e cabling, combined with 20+ years of network and PC experience, I know my way around hardware
The oldest machine on my network is a 3-year old Dell PowerEdge server and it's due to be upgraded, so I can definitely write myself out of network-related issues - sometimes my ISP has problems, they all do, and I recognize those. I also recognize when the problem is "somewhere in the middle" between me and Frontier's Amazon servers. But the rest of (collective) you... I can't vouch for the quality of your connections, only what I've seen, and that leaves a lot to be desired.
But as for the modes themselves - the decision has long since been made, and it's not going to be reversed.
Three Modes, Three Styles of Play, one BGS to bind them. The choice is simple - accept it and enjoy playing, or reject it and play something else.
Griping on and on about it, berating and belittling each other over how you choose to play - it isn't going to change anything, except perhaps peoples' opinions of you.
You don't like that someone plays in a different mode? Tough. Perhaps they don't like that you do either, and I can't think of a single thread I've ever seen where the Solo and Private Group players complain that the Open players are ruining the BGS for THEM. It's always the other way around.
As far as the BGS itself is concerned... I've done a little Power Play. I've shifted the state of a system or two (for my own benefit), and honestly, it really doesn't matter than much. No, it really doesn't. It's nice when certain systems are in a Boom state - they sell more rare goods, have better stocked markets, and all the facilities work. That's about it.
Who controls what really doesn't matter all that much, no matter how much you like a particular faction. At most, a change here will close a Black Market, or make a particular commodity legal or illegal. Yep, that's it.
There's no prize for who controls the most space. There's no increased payout, and most importantly there's no check being delivered for any of it. Getting so worked up over it is pointless.
Play the game, enjoy the game, and leave others to do the same, and believe it or not, it will get better for everyone.
one BGS to find them;
one BGS to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
in the galaxy of Braben where the spaceships fly.
The issues around Solo, Open and Private Group modes are...
There are no issues.
Solo works just fine. It's you, the galaxy and all the NPC's you can stand.
Private Groups work just fine as well. It's you, those who are also members of the same Private Group, the Galaxy, and all the NPC's you can stand.
Open - Ok, Open does have issues. I find Open to be unplayable because the performance of the game is terrible. It's rubber-bands and dropped connection all over the place, most all of the time. I've been in the past two Open betas as well, in Open there as well, and I see a lot of the same things there too - ships rubber-banding, Transaction and Matchmaking server faults, Supercruise, Hyperspace and Glides that literally never end, short of killing the client - even black screens where I can hear but can't even access the menu to log out. I find Open simply unplayable.
I'm in the US, have great low-latency internet, plenty of bandwidth (120x60 Mb connection), professional networking hardware (Juniper routers and switches), single-mode fiber connections and Ubiquity Site-to-Site bridges to Juniper Access Points, and shielded CAT-5e cabling, combined with 20+ years of network and PC experience, I know my way around hardware
The oldest machine on my network is a 3-year old Dell PowerEdge server and it's due to be upgraded, so I can definitely write myself out of network-related issues - sometimes my ISP has problems, they all do, and I recognize those. I also recognize when the problem is "somewhere in the middle" between me and Frontier's Amazon servers. But the rest of (collective) you... I can't vouch for the quality of your connections, only what I've seen, and that leaves a lot to be desired.
But as for the modes themselves - the decision has long since been made, and it's not going to be reversed.
Three Modes, Three Styles of Play, one BGS to bind them. The choice is simple - accept it and enjoy playing, or reject it and play something else.
Griping on and on about it, berating and belittling each other over how you choose to play - it isn't going to change anything, except perhaps peoples' opinions of you.
You don't like that someone plays in a different mode? Tough. Perhaps they don't like that you do either, and I can't think of a single thread I've ever seen where the Solo and Private Group players complain that the Open players are ruining the BGS for THEM. It's always the other way around.
As far as the BGS itself is concerned... I've done a little Power Play. I've shifted the state of a system or two (for my own benefit), and honestly, it really doesn't matter than much. No, it really doesn't. It's nice when certain systems are in a Boom state - they sell more rare goods, have better stocked markets, and all the facilities work. That's about it.
Who controls what really doesn't matter all that much, no matter how much you like a particular faction. At most, a change here will close a Black Market, or make a particular commodity legal or illegal. Yep, that's it.
There's no prize for who controls the most space. There's no increased payout, and most importantly there's no check being delivered for any of it. Getting so worked up over it is pointless.
Play the game, enjoy the game, and leave others to do the same, and believe it or not, it will get better for everyone.
This has to be one of the best posts i've read on these forums for some time. [up]
The issues around Solo, Open and Private Group modes are...
There are no issues.
Solo works just fine. It's you, the galaxy and all the NPC's you can stand.
Private Groups work just fine as well. It's you, those who are also members of the same Private Group, the Galaxy, and all the NPC's you can stand.
Open - Ok, Open does have issues. I find Open to be unplayable because the performance of the game is terrible. It's rubber-bands and dropped connection all over the place, most all of the time. I've been in the past two Open betas as well, in Open there as well, and I see a lot of the same things there too - ships rubber-banding, Transaction and Matchmaking server faults, Supercruise, Hyperspace and Glides that literally never end, short of killing the client - even black screens where I can hear but can't even access the menu to log out. I find Open simply unplayable.
I'm in the US, have great low-latency internet, plenty of bandwidth (120x60 Mb connection), professional networking hardware (Juniper routers and switches), single-mode fiber connections and Ubiquity Site-to-Site bridges to Juniper Access Points, and shielded CAT-5e cabling, combined with 20+ years of network and PC experience, I know my way around hardware
The oldest machine on my network is a 3-year old Dell PowerEdge server and it's due to be upgraded, so I can definitely write myself out of network-related issues - sometimes my ISP has problems, they all do, and I recognize those. I also recognize when the problem is "somewhere in the middle" between me and Frontier's Amazon servers. But the rest of (collective) you... I can't vouch for the quality of your connections, only what I've seen, and that leaves a lot to be desired.
But as for the modes themselves - the decision has long since been made, and it's not going to be reversed.
Three Modes, Three Styles of Play, one BGS to bind them. The choice is simple - accept it and enjoy playing, or reject it and play something else.
Griping on and on about it, berating and belittling each other over how you choose to play - it isn't going to change anything, except perhaps peoples' opinions of you.
You don't like that someone plays in a different mode? Tough. Perhaps they don't like that you do either, and I can't think of a single thread I've ever seen where the Solo and Private Group players complain that the Open players are ruining the BGS for THEM. It's always the other way around.
As far as the BGS itself is concerned... I've done a little Power Play. I've shifted the state of a system or two (for my own benefit), and honestly, it really doesn't matter than much. No, it really doesn't. It's nice when certain systems are in a Boom state - they sell more rare goods, have better stocked markets, and all the facilities work. That's about it.
Who controls what really doesn't matter all that much, no matter how much you like a particular faction. At most, a change here will close a Black Market, or make a particular commodity legal or illegal. Yep, that's it.
There's no prize for who controls the most space. There's no increased payout, and most importantly there's no check being delivered for any of it. Getting so worked up over it is pointless.
Play the game, enjoy the game, and leave others to do the same, and believe it or not, it will get better for everyone.
Sounds about right. Different people like different things and this game gives all players sufficient freedom to choose for themselves and to pursue what they like in the way they like. "Play the game your way" -You will find that quote in several places on the game's official site. And it's not just hollow words. As it stands, FD has accomplished that IMO. Sure there are some gripes I have with open mode, but those have to do with people and not implementation and I don't appear in open mode too often anyway (fuel rat stuff is only exception, and even then, I can always set up a PG with a client on an as-needed basis).
20,000+ people play within PG's focused on cooperative or pve based play with restricted/consent-based pvp. This indicates a desire among the player base to have a PVE type server (consistent with so many other mmo's). FDEV can choose to ignore this, or embrace it. I believe they would see an increase in player population if a PVE server were to be added as an option. At the very least, FDEV should consider expanding the hardware and software to increase the PG group size for mobius and mobius PVE.
If this is a "game" and game mode selection OPEN, PG , Solo is acceptable, what logical reason would there be from allowing players from participating in a PG dedicated to cooperative game play? - None. Is there a practical gameplay difference between a PVE server with PVP optional play instances and a PG dedicated to cooperative gameplay? In my opinion: no.
In my opinion, FDEV should look at the data and make decisions to increase the player base. I think the data shows there are missed opportunities to do that at this time.
If this is a "game" and game mode selection OPEN, PG , Solo is acceptable, what logical reason would there be from allowing players from participating in a PG dedicated to cooperative game play? - None. Is there a practical gameplay difference between a PVE server with PVP optional play instances and a PG dedicated to cooperative gameplay? In my opinion: no.
In my opinion, FDEV should look at the data and make decisions to increase the player base. I think the data shows there are missed opportunities to do that at this time.
FD would be loudly criticized for creating the logical PvE-Open mode. They would take the heat from the PvP community for 'betraying' them by not only condoning (Adjustments made to PG to facilitate Mobius expanding) but encouraging players to abandon the open they dream of.
Now before you start yelling at me, I don't feel that way. But, I've heard enough around my PvP friends to be sure that this would be the case. The best thing FD can do is just stand their ground, and let PG's cover their butt.
Then they could at least increase the member cap of PGs, I think most of us would overlook it in patch notes.
They did. A while back Mobius was becoming unstable due to it's population size, so they did what they could. Which included creating new Mobius PG's to spread the load out. I was shifted from the original group, into Mobius PvE. Now, there are three Mobius separate groups, to absorb the number of players interested.
Last edited:
Raise the cap again? How about 50k members? nice round number, a multiple of both 10 and 5. Just looks nice.
I know there are probably technical issues that might get in the way, but I can hope.
If I remember right, 20k was as high the structure could reliably hold. FD did what they could, and continue to support the large PG's. There just happens to be limitations. I am not capable of creating a recap. I was/am just an interested observer.
Ideally it would not be limited by size at all, but if this were possible I would assume that FD would have done it. I believe that 20000 was as high as it could go at the time. Mind you, when the game first came out we could only route plot 200Lys, if I remember correctly. In 2.4 that goes up to 20000LYs (yay!). So, maybe FD can revisit PG size in the future. I'll hope so too.
- Status