Modes The Open v Solo v Groups thread IV - Hotel California

[Lngjohnsilver1]

One player's problem is another's feature.

indeed - but is it multiple player's problems....? then it isn't a feature its a design flaw.

1) Other opinions vary. For some, Private Groups offer a pseudo Open-PvE mode where they can play without other players attacking them for no reason. The published game design offers the possibility of multiple Open "groups" (i.e. modes) where the rules can be different to accommodate different play-styles. Frontier have not yet chosen to implement these.

I am sure they do vary - but is it varying on a theme? Attacking them for 'no reason' - opinions vary on what 'no reason' means? If FDev haven't 'chosen' to adopt this mechanic was this explained why?

2) The three game modes have offered this from the very beginning of the Kickstarter, over four years ago.

indeed - but at that time they also said it was an open sandbox universe, and they did not say that it wold be sub-partitioned into different 'zones' of activity created by mass private groups that act invisibly on each other? Or did I miss that somewhere?

3) By design - the BGS works on indirect PvP, as does Powerplay.

Lost me?

4) Indeed - Frontier are well aware that the majority of players do not get involved in PvP.

so then changing it wont affect too many people right?

5) Indeed - however there is no requirement on any player to play as a target in this non-PvP focussed game.

If, as you state, it is a non-pvp game then that is simple - state that this is the case publicly and then build in automatic friend or foe fire protection so that all players are incapable of shooting each other.

6-8) C&P is a separate matter - however significant improvements to it may encourage some players to play in Open. Only PvP Bounty hunting relies on other players.

but the problem is they are absolutely not seperate. As noted in one of my posts the Pilot's Federation itself was formed as a result of privacy (crime) and their response was brutal and according to some 'bloodthirsty'. So crime and punishment is an inherent lore of the game and also it is the social fabric that ties it all together. If piracy (shooting another commander) is a crime then it must be met with punishment. To change this into an RPG element of the game is the trick - ignoring it or somehow separating it is not. If you make unsolicited PVP a crime with suitable game play modifications then yo can introduce Bounty Hunting as part of the potential punishment. It should also be noted that by its nature, crime should be an ostracisable offence that ultimately means pushing PVP'ers into the remote and anarchic systems - which adds the danger to those that wish to pursue danger and leaves that do not, safe within a crime free (or at least crime-less) bubble. If people feel safer playing within their 'bubble' then they do not need a private group?

9) Not sure on this one - the block feature is, as I understand it, only guaranteed to block comms from a player (unless the functionality has been changed).

Ohh someone posted a trial using the feature and they said they blocked someone form instancing but it wasn't wholly clear, I had questions they went unanswered - the main issue being, as far as I could ascertain, that you had to have 'met' them already which was not such a good thing perhaps.


And finally - new discourse should not be discouraged. Whining perhaps yes, new discourse no. Even if YOU have heard all the arguments before - maybe you haven't and, rather like a teacher at the beginning of every year - when new players enter they will ask the same questions every year, every year, every year, every year.... that does not make the question dumb. It just makes it a common question.

The real question is, if its the same question does it deserve the same answer every year, every year, every year, or should the answer perhaps also change? We didn't get from throwing stones at each to throwing nuclear missiles at each other without asking questions...repeatedly.

 

[Theodrid]

Bloody hell Mr Maynard, there I was, happy it was Friday, looking forward to a nice evening and weekend, quiet at work, thought I'd peruse the forums and..........WHACK!!!....SOGGY is revived.

You are not the moderator you are a very naughty boy......This weekend TJ gets a pass from me, it's all your fault dammit!

 

[Phosphora]

Oops! I just clicked 'Solo'.

 

[Robert Maynard]

indeed - but is it multiple player's problems....? then it isn't a feature its a design flaw.

In the opinion of some players, no doubt. Opinions vary on the subject - and Frontier's opinion holds sway.

I am sure they do vary - but is it varying on a theme? Attacking them for 'no reason' - opinions vary on what 'no reason' means? If FDev haven't 'chosen' to adopt this mechanic was this explained why?

I expect that there is a desire within Frontier to encourage players to play in the single Open game mode.

indeed - but at that time they also said it was an open sandbox universe, and they did not say that it wold be sub-partitioned into different 'zones' of activity created by mass private groups that act invisibly on each other? Or did I miss that somewhere?

The fact that the published design states that all three game modes share the single shared galaxy state (BGS) and each and every player experiences it and affects it, by design, shows that they did.

Lost me?

Your "invisible manipulation" comment - every player affects the BGS (i.e. not just players in Open).

so then changing it wont affect too many people right?

If you mean removing direct PvP then that would probably affect fewer players than forcing players into a single game mode that is PvP enabled.

If, as you state, it is a non-pvp game then that is simple - state that this is the case publicly and then build in automatic friend or foe fire protection so that all players are incapable of shooting each other.

That's would not seem to be Frontier's stance - they are reluctant to attempt to introduce an Open-PvE mode as there would be many issues to be dealt with in relation to what constitutes PvP (other than shooting at players).

but the problem is they are absolutely not seperate. As noted in one of my posts the Pilot's Federation itself was formed as a result of privacy (crime) and their response was brutal and according to some 'bloodthirsty'. So crime and punishment is an inherent lore of the game and also it is the social fabric that ties it all together. If piracy (shooting another commander) is a crime then it must be met with punishment. To change this into an RPG element of the game is the trick - ignoring it or somehow separating it is not. If you make unsolicited PVP a crime with suitable game play modifications then yo can introduce Bounty Hunting as part of the potential punishment. It should also be noted that by its nature, crime should be an ostracisable offence that ultimately means pushing PVP'ers into the remote and anarchic systems - which adds the danger to those that wish to pursue danger and leaves that do not, safe within a crime free (or at least crime-less) bubble. If people feel safer playing within their 'bubble' then they do not need a private group?

The existence of the game modes is independent of the crime and punishment system.

Ohh someone posted a trial using the feature and they said they blocked someone form instancing but it wasn't wholly clear, I had questions they went unanswered - the main issue being, as far as I could ascertain, that you had to have 'met' them already which was not such a good thing perhaps.

Time will tell how effective the block feature is.

And finally - new discourse should not be discouraged. Whining perhaps yes, new discourse no. Even if YOU have heard all the arguments before - maybe you haven't and, rather like a teacher at the beginning of every year - when new players enter they will ask the same questions every year, every year, every year, every year.... that does not make the question dumb. It just makes it a common question.

While the participants may, in some cases, be new, it's not a new topic. Here's a selection of relevant developer quotes:

Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.

Michael

Thanks for that clarity Michael.

Are you in a position to confirm that group switching between the three game modes will remain as a feature of the game?

We're not planning on changing that.

Michael

According to some members of the community, Solo players should have a limited or no effect on Powerplay - or, alternatively, playing in Open should offer Powerplay bonuses. Is this something you are considering?
No. For us Solo, Groups and Open are all valid and equal ways to play the game.

Is there planned to be any defense against the possibility that player created minor factions could be destroyed with no possible recourse through Private Groups or Solo play?

From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.
Michael

The real question is, if its the same question does it deserve the same answer every year, every year, every year, or should the answer perhaps also change? We didn't get from throwing stones at each to throwing nuclear missiles at each other without asking questions...repeatedly.

For some, the only "acceptable" solution is to remove Solo and Private Groups so that every player is forced to play with everyone else in a PvP enabled game mode. Given that XB1 players with Silver Xbox Live access can only play in Solo (and PS4 players with similar PSN access are expected to be similarly limited) then it is very, very unlikely, in my opinion, that Frontier would remove Solo - especially after the furore over the cancellation of the Offline Solo mode that was added to the scope about half way through the Kickstarter.

Frontier decided, before the game was pitched (over four years ago), to offer players the freedom of choice with regard to who they play the game with - that has not changed.

 

[Roland2]

Nice. I had no idea this thread existed but great! There's been a re-animation of these issues lately. New blood apparently finding out that they have spotted problems that have been around for a while. So to summarise my position:

1. private groups are too big if they exceed the 'friends' bracket. I put this at around 25 peeps.
2. Having excessively large private groups is creating a private group sub culture who get all the benefits of playing but do not have to react with the rest of the open players and they still affect the bgs
3. A large sub group of private players can materially affect another players, or group of players, gameplay through invisible manipulation
4. Players do not want to be killed by other players while playing the game
5. Players who want to kill you are also playing the game they way they want to play the game.
6. The crime and punishment system is inconsistent with juxtaposing these two view points because npc's authorities are too easily outwitted by seriously modded player ships
7. The crime and punishment system does not make bounty hunting feasible for players
8. The crime and punishment system does not penalise or react to player piracy with significant magnitude or penalty to marginalise this kind of anti social behaviour
9. If you really want to avoid a player it is possible to do so by addding them to your blocked list and unfriendliness them (apparently)


Ohh and I have put about 3 posts in the suggestions section about how the crime and punishment system might be modified to accomodate the rebalance.

Your post seems to break down into two areas. Private Groups, and Crime and Punishment.
There are many reasons for people to make Private Groups, only one of which is to avoid PvP. However, I would agree that PGs are being used in a way FD probably didn't plan. FD seems to be supporting this however. When the Mobius group got too big, FD didn't say "your group is too big, cut it down", instead, they helped make a new group, so more people could join.

As for C&P, I think it is a fallacy that a proper C&P will get PG and Solo players flocking to open. The real question is what does Open offer that a PG doesn't. To me, the answer is nothing except unwanted PvP. If a player is going to play where PvP is minimized, either by C&P or by going out of the bubble, why would anyone care which mode they play in? Maybe to see new/friendly faces, and to help set up co-op play. I would be all for this.

Spoiler

indeed - but is it multiple player's problems....? then it isn't a feature its a design flaw.





I am sure they do vary - but is it varying on a theme? Attacking them for 'no reason' - opinions vary on what 'no reason' means? If FDev haven't 'chosen' to adopt this mechanic was this explained why?



indeed - but at that time they also said it was an open sandbox universe, and they did not say that it wold be sub-partitioned into different 'zones' of activity created by mass private groups that act invisibly on each other? Or did I miss that somewhere?



Lost me?



so then changing it wont affect too many people right?



If, as you state, it is a non-pvp game then that is simple - state that this is the case publicly and then build in automatic friend or foe fire protection so that all players are incapable of shooting each other.



but the problem is they are absolutely not seperate. As noted in one of my posts the Pilot's Federation itself was formed as a result of privacy (crime) and their response was brutal and according to some 'bloodthirsty'. So crime and punishment is an inherent lore of the game and also it is the social fabric that ties it all together. If piracy (shooting another commander) is a crime then it must be met with punishment. To change this into an RPG element of the game is the trick - ignoring it or somehow separating it is not. If you make unsolicited PVP a crime with suitable game play modifications then yo can introduce Bounty Hunting as part of the potential punishment. It should also be noted that by its nature, crime should be an ostracisable offence that ultimately means pushing PVP'ers into the remote and anarchic systems - which adds the danger to those that wish to pursue danger and leaves that do not, safe within a crime free (or at least crime-less) bubble. If people feel safer playing within their 'bubble' then they do not need a private group?



Ohh someone posted a trial using the feature and they said they blocked someone form instancing but it wasn't wholly clear, I had questions they went unanswered - the main issue being, as far as I could ascertain, that you had to have 'met' them already which was not such a good thing perhaps.

And finally - new discourse should not be discouraged. Whining perhaps yes, new discourse no. Even if YOU have heard all the arguments before - maybe you haven't and, rather like a teacher at the beginning of every year - when new players enter they will ask the same questions every year, every year, every year, every year.... that does not make the question dumb. It just makes it a common question.

The real question is, if its the same question does it deserve the same answer every year, every year, every year, or should the answer perhaps also change? We didn't get from throwing stones at each to throwing nuclear missiles at each other without asking questions...repeatedly.

If the teacher handed out the answers to the common questions, such as this post, and students kept asking them, then the question is dumb.

New discourse that adds nothing new, is not beneficial. What new has been brought up? PG's are bad...not new, been around since before the game was created. C&P needs to improve...not new, been around since C&P was added to the game, and fell way short of what the DDF described.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

This threads like a bad penny stuck in groundhog day. Lol

 

[stormyuk]

Is this the right thread to find the PS4 version?

 

[Robert Maynard]

This threads like a bad penny stuck in groundhog day. Lol

1) Frontier publishes design of game with contentious (for some) approach to multi-player;
2) Some players see that their preferred play-style is compromised because other players can choose not to play with them;
3) Some players complain / other players are quite content with the status quo;
4) Frontier releases game with design features intact;
5) Some players see that their preferred play-style is compromised because other players can choose not to play with them;
6) Some players complain / other players are quite content with the status quo;
7) New players arrive; goto 5.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Is this the right thread to find the PS4 version?

It is a common thread for all platforms....

.... and it's worth mentioning that all platforms share the single shared BGS even though we cannot crossplay - so even if all players were in Open there's no way to directly oppose the actions of XB1 or, soon, PS4 players.

 

[the100thmonkey]

Nooooooo!

 

[CMDR Beltane]

All true Robert, but that doesn't change the fact that an already dead beaten horse remains dead. And with 290 pages in this one alone one could guess it was discussed back and forth more than once. Responses like the one you quoted shouldn't come as a surprise therefore. Just saying - without offense to you or the TN.

 

[Robert Maynard]

All true Robert, but that doesn't change the fact that an already dead beaten horse remains dead. And with 290 pages in this one alone one could guess it was discussed back and forth more than once. Responses like the one you quoted shouldn't come as a surprise therefore. Just saying - without offense to you or the TN.

Of course - there will always be new players who hope that Frontier will "see the light" and sufficiently cripple Private Groups to force everyone into Open (who does not play in Solo, of course - I don't think that Frontier would ever seriously consider removing Solo).

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

1) Frontier publishes design of game with contentious (for some) approach to multi-player;
2) Some players see that their preferred play-style is compromised because other players can choose not to play with them;
3) Some players complain / other players are quite content with the status quo;
4) Frontier releases game with design features intact;
5) Some players see that their preferred play-style is compromised because other players can choose not to play with them;
6) Some players complain / other players are quite content with the status quo;
7) New players arrive; goto 5.

That's an excellent way to summarise this entire thread, and those that came before it.
However many that was. Lol

I'm perfectly fine with all modes being in game.
Sure they mess up some dynamics a bit, but then everyone gets to play how they choose.

Except for those who's choice is to force other to play their way. They don't get to be happy.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

2. Having excessively large private groups is creating a private group sub culture who get all the benefits of playing but do not have to react with the rest of the open players and they still affect the bgs

Pfft... i hate all those open players who mess with my PG/Solo BGS! Down with players hiding in Open! Cowards!

Except for one teeny tiny problem... the BGS is a 100% PvE activity. So modes don't matter at all to it. You want to PvP the BGS? Sorry mate, you can't. You want to attack people working the BGS? Go right ahead, waste your time trying to PvP them while they are PvEing. They will beat you. All they have to do is complete one mission or hand in one bounty or one combat bond, and they have you beat.

The way to win BGS battles it to out PvE your opposition. All PvPing does is slow you down.

 

[thirstyfish]

Of course - there will always be new players who hope that Frontier will "see the light" and sufficiently cripple Private Groups to force everyone into Open (who does not play in Solo, of course - I don't think that Frontier would ever seriously consider removing Solo).

If the day comes that Frontier has their heads so far up their.....noses and they decide to ditch PG and solo mode, I will absolutely configure my firewall, router, whatever I have to do, to ensure that I will never be instanced with another person.

 

[Mouse]

Nice. I had no idea this thread existed but great! There's been a re-animation of these issues lately. New blood apparently finding out that they have spotted problems that have been around for a while. So to summarise my position:

1. private groups are too big if they exceed the 'friends' bracket. I put this at around 25 peeps.

Why 25? Why not the size of a wing at 4? Why not 20,000? Why do you care how many people play in a private group?

2. Having excessively large private groups is creating a private group sub culture who get all the benefits of playing but do not have to react with the rest of the open players and they still affect the bgs

It isn't a sub culture...I'm sorry but to view private groups that way is extremely stupid and shows that you view your playstyle the only real way to play the game. What it is called is people wanting to play the game the way they want to play it as promised by FDev and that way is PVE... Also What is done in open effects what is done in private groups. Plus what about Solo? I notice you haven't mentioned them at all? Are you a Forced Open player since you feel that we who play in modes other than open get all the "benefits" and apparently unfairly affect the BGS but don't have to deal with those in Open?

3. A large sub group of private players can materially affect another players, or group of players, gameplay through invisible manipulation

Again not a sub group, but you completely miss that the group of Private players are affected by what is done by players, or group of players, gameplay through invisible manipulation. In fact ALL players are affected by everyone else through invisible manipulation.

4. Players do not want to be killed by other players while playing the game

You damn skippy, I bought and paid for the game because I could play without being harassed and griefed by other players.

5. Players who want to kill you are also playing the game they way they want to play the game.

And they have CQC and Open to do so...

6. The crime and punishment system is inconsistent with juxtaposing these two view points because npc's authorities are too easily outwitted by seriously modded player ships
7. The crime and punishment system does not make bounty hunting feasible for players
8. The crime and punishment system does not penalise or react to player piracy with significant magnitude or penalty to marginalise this kind of anti social behaviour

I agree with you and I've made recommendations as have many other people.

9. If you really want to avoid a player it is possible to do so by addding them to your blocked list and unfriendliness them (apparently)

I look at this and you're "apparently" and I can't tell if you are truthful or trying to sucker people into open so you have more targets. Either way I won't be testing it as I can play where I am in a private group since there is not a official PVE mode yet.

Ohh and I have put about 3 posts in the suggestions section about how the crime and punishment system might be modified to accomodate the rebalance.

Good for you

 

[adiman73]

Please remove SOLO PLAY and Privat Group from the game.
With these options you've ruined the game.
So all players will be forced to play in the same place and the gampley will be greatly improved
I think it's like you got to play game with these nonsense. The game is only one not divided into groups

 

[Robert Maynard]

Please remove SOLO PLAY and Privat Group from the game.
With these options you've ruined the game.
So all players will be forced to play in the same place and the gampley will be greatly improved
I think it's like you got to play game with these nonsense. The game is only one not divided into groups

The game was pitched on Kickstarter well over four years ago with the three game modes, single shared galaxy state and the ability to choose which game mode one wanted to play in all part of the published design information - it was funded on the basis of that design and every single player who has bought the game did so with these features in place.

All players would not be forced to play in the same place - as the galaxy is enormous.

Gameplay would be improved for whom? This game has not been sold as a game where PvP is mandatory.

 

[Mouse]

Please remove SOLO PLAY and Privat Group from the game.
With these options you've ruined the game.
So all players will be forced to play in the same place and the gampley will be greatly improved
I think it's like you got to play game with these nonsense. The game is only one not divided into groups

If you want to play a game where PVErs are forced to PVP then go play EvE, this clearly isn't the game for you. I wish I had the numbers, but from what I've heard it is the solo and private group players that make up a substantial chunk of the Elite Dangerous player base.

Play in Open all you want, but quit being one of those moronic wingnuts who thinks their play style trumps everyone else's and we should be forced to play your way.... again if I wanted that draconian claptrap I'd still be playing EvE..

 

[VR Murgle]

Zombie thread rises from the grave once more.


Can we burn it this time, you know to be sure it doesn't come back again...