How FD could make a lot more people play in open play

[StiTch]

> It would be an interesting thing to watch from FDev's perspective. How many players they would lose / gain from dropping Groups and Solo.

It's certainly a more interesting idea than "hurr durr make the penalty for dying meaningless", but while games like CoD can get away with it, Elite has too steep a learning curve for newer players. People talk about how newer players should go straight to a RES and earn a few mill to get a nice ship by hitting stuff the defence force is going for, but...I have to put my hands up and be honest here, the first hours I played were spent learning to use my landing gear, hypercruise and not press "silent running" so often I nearly cooked consistently.

Combined with the prevalence of noob griefing as it is, it just isn't tenable. Not to mention that sometimes even as a "grown up" player, I'll use private with my buds sometimes because the connection seems more reliable. The P2P system FD uses isn't exactly a golden wonder of reliability for playing with others.

"Online only" (what would be open only in Elite) games can do wonders. And did so for Destiny. But this game is not one it would benefit.

Now...talking about removing or reducing the PP influence etc. you have in solo - that's a more tenable discussion. But a discussion for another time and thread

 

[Jypson]

It's been stated numerous times by Pirates and PKers that that C&P rules would make zero difference to them or there game play unless it crippled them to the point they didn't play at all. I tend to believe them

Indeed, the game isn't the problem. Altering game mechanics won't fix a social problem, it only locks the game down for everyone.

 

[sewerratuk]

For me, it's not about the difference that is made to the aggressor. If johnny smallpants gets his kicks by destroying vastly underpowered opponents, then all power to him. The key, for me, is that that doesn't negatively affect my game experience. At the moment, it potentially can, to the tune of millions of credits, which equates to hours of play time, which I consider to be fairly valuable, what with that being actual hours of my life and all...

Fix the consequences for the victim, and you'll see more people in open.

Yep, but they are also on this thread complaining about that.
They won't get their kicks if they didn't feel that they were causing you RL annoyance. For them its not about collecting space money or destroying pixels, its about collecting what they concider RL salt

 

[=71st=RuSh]

fu5e how about, if you could toggle, lose credits on death, dont lose credits on death.
brian of earth i wasnt suggesting forcing anyone, if you wanted to play solo then do so, im talking about the people, who would like to play in open, but know, if they do, they will lose hours of work, which possibly then cant afford to lose, or at the worse, die in a combat, say against 4 people in a wing, they have zero chance of winning, so then stick to solo

i personally would like to see a lot more people flying about, to have conversations etc with them, but last time i went into open, i was intradicted 4 times, by the same group, and lose about a weeks worth of effort, so now i play in solo, or private mobius group.

I agree, thats why manytimes I dont play in open (in fact I like to play open and interact with other humans in ED), but the reality is that, you are flying with your T9 with 5+ mill cargo and appear 4 guys in ASP and you loose not only the 5+ but all the rebuy of 12-15 millions!.

And what about the suicidewinder?, you fill your T9 in one station and there is an ahole with no shields waiting for you and BAM!!, the station dont make a trial to see who did what! the station simply kick your a** to void!

 

[Seonid]

just because stuff hasnt change thus far doesnt mean you should stop trying

Fair enough, after roughly 2.5 years, how's it going?

 

[Mr_Blastman]

I say Frontier just forces everyone to play open. Strap them into their cockpit and give them forced interaction! Open only, baby.

It probably won't happen but it is fun to think about. The Galaxy would be richer and more diverse.

 

[mistohise]

Yep, but they are also on this thread complaining about that.
They won't get their kicks if they didn't feel that they were causing you RL annoyance. For them its not about collecting space money or destroying pixels, its about collecting what they concider RL salt

Aye, but I don't give two figs about that. If it's a toggle, no one will know whether the toggle is on or off, aye?

 

[Rampant]

I'm pretty sure you don't want to play in open because there is no self-determination on when combat can occur (because that extends to everything from location, time, which ship you are in, etc). It isn't really all of the commanders' who play in open fault. Actually.

The developer decided to provide an open experience, where combat can occur at any time, with trivial crime costs. It's not that Open has been "perverted", it's that frontier are in no apparent rush to give people control over when they can be shot at, in open. So it doesn't really matter what the crime and punishment model looks like; because that was never the problem. It's that Commander Y doesn't ever want to be shot at by Commander X.

When you distill the arguments down to their core, some people elect to not be shot at, by a commander. That's fine. But one does not need to brand or blame commanders for what is, ostensibly, a lack of self-determination; that is all on the developer.

Note, I have no problem with Frontier adding better PVE options. More people playing Elite is always a good thing. And there can be any number of reasons why a PVE setting may be preferred. But I think we can all prefer the mode we prefer, without branding entire portions of the community as "the bad people".

Don't put words in my mouth. I am not branding every one who plays in Open as "the bad people". Far from it. But here's the rub. There are jerks who pursue anti-social play in Open. In my book, or in any language, being anti-social does not make an individual part of "the community".

Also, in any language, it is clearly a "perversion" of the in-game description of a star system if it is supposed to be a "secure" system with a democracy government but in actual game-play it is "unsafe" for an unarmed trader to venture into that system. Don't waste your words arguing that this isn't so - instead argue with the English language.

Like I said, I would very much like to play in Open if the basic meta of the in-game description was followed, instead of being targeted with impunity by players in supposedly safe systems, while I can be free of combative player interaction in so-called Anarchy space. Alternatively, if the BGS was able to reflect the actual safety level of all the systems in the bubble and change in-game descriptions of the populated systems on a trend and smoothed out dynamic basis. Clearly that can't happen.

Clearly FD didn't forecast how players would choose to play, or we wouldn't have Sandro posting about considering an overhaul of the crime system...

You a part way there when you talk about player self-determination on when combat can happen. But only part way. For a great many PvP combatants in Powerful PvP combat optimised ships, they do have self-determination on when PvP combat happens. And they have no compunction in making that happen with grossly under-powered opponents who have no chance, zero chance, of being able to *fight* back. This happens. It has happened to me and to everyone I know who plays this game. On multiple occasions. So please don't come back trying to insist that is a "rare" occurrence. It isn't rare.

So - to the conclusion - *if* there was a way to ensure the in-game meta was followed by players - and in so doing, this gave the common or garden recreational player some semblance of self-deterministic and fairer way to chose when to "risk" PvP combat, then I'm pretty sure Open would be more popular.

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[Midnight Sun]

It's too much for me to lose too, and it's not just the rebuy, it's all the uncashed vouchers I'm probably carrying.

There are ways to address this that might keep more people happy. Like having an insurance package you could buy for a considerable fee to cover cargo for a limited period. Or a very expensive module that maintains a real-time link with a local station to keep track of your vouchers. Things that provide options at an additional expense so you have to decide if the extra protection is worth it.

 

[Majinvash]

Yay another one of these threads.

I will post my standard reply, which will get ignored along with everyone else's contribution.

Separate Open from the other modes, each with their own save file.
Separate BGS, make player actions count and give them static stuff to own, work towards, be proud of, want, etc etc
Players who want to play in Open will and wont be able to mode switch when it gets scary. So they will improve, learn, adapt and say in Open.
This exciting emergent game play and community will attracted the right types of players from other modes.


If separation is not an option, incentivise Open with a boost to all actions, to counter the increased risk.

Nothing else is going to make a blind bit of difference. Crime and punishment to level of Division included, still wont get players out of solo or private.
The risk to their game is higher for the same reward, so why would they?

See y'all in the next one of these

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[sewerratuk]

One thing I would like to see is the Abandon Cargo' button greyed out if you get interdicted. If you want to RP a pirate you should have to do it properly with illegal cargo as you do against NPC's

 

[Seonid]

See y'all in the next one of these

Toodles old chap, sorry but I have to head back to Open (since Gamma) to trundle my trading Cutter around with the speed and grace of Dr Nefario's mobility scooter, time is money, friend!

 

[Crimson Kaim]

I guess the same can be said for pirates and PKers that come on the forums complaining about the lack of victims

The difference here is they can't do anything about that. While I personally don't complain about the lack of targets, I complain about combat loggers but this, however, is a punishable act.

 

[CMDR Argent Steel]

It's not about PvP for me. Sometimes I just don't want to be bothered with other people, period. How are you going to entice me to Open, hmm?

 

[valbarr]

Not trying to force anyone into open but there are people who want to play with other people but dont because of what happens to them when they try they become defenseless victims

 

[Rampant]

I would only allow changes in modes to occur whilst docked and empty of cargo
.
I have no problem with people playing open private solo or what ever - I do think that its a problem that on the first sign of a problem the first thing some people do is swap to private or solo as a "get around"
.
I would have community goals only available in open as the clue is in the name they are for the community not for a small subset of the community nor for someone on their own.
A community goal should have a group within the community who want a task to succeed and a group who don't - the two groups are the same community and shouldn't avoid each other
.
Having things only available in open has a precedence - The elite challenge was definitely only available to open players - think the video card hunt may have been as well

All I can see here is an extension of "want to stay safe - stay away from CGs". Simply because CGs appeal to a wide cross-section of players, (trade CGs in particular) this is what attracts the jerks in - to slaughter the less well defended. For reasons other than in-game lore. I've seen this described by well equipped combat optimised ship flyers as "purging" a system. (Targeting only other players, of course, while disregarding all NPCs. If there was any lore behind that role-play, then NPCs would also be valid targets...)

For me, the clue is in the name. "Community". Being anti-social is not presenting yourself as a part of a Community.

The proposition that CGs be only available in Open mode smacks to me of denying Solo and Group players some of the good content simply out of spite.

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[Mohrgan]

The bottom line is that open doesn't need coddling. It just attracts those that enjoy that environment. Nothing more. Open isn't the apex of Elite play, it is just another choice you make at the log in screen. I say this all of the time, why should open be propped up? When you log in, choose what environment you wish to play in, if your opinion changes, so can your mode.

I was invited to 'stay out of open for 6 months, and then you'll see what you're missing', so I have been doing that. At the end of April my 6 months is over. In the mean time I have missed nothing by staying clear of open. Open holds no magic, it is just another state of the matchmaking system. Once players can rid themselves of the silly notion that open has to be special, these discussions will cease.

 

[EUS]

It's not about PvP for me. Sometimes I just don't want to be bothered with other people, period. How are you going to entice me to Open, hmm?

Well, if inticement won't work, you'll be forced to join open, by closing all other modes (if some had their way).
Same discussion over and over, and why this hasn't been merged is a mystery.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

it is the PvP Combat Brigade that have basically nerfed the Galaxy - perverted the Galaxy - subverted the Open play-space. What *should be* the "Wild West" - Anarchy systems, etc,,, - is pretty safe at the moment, while the front doorstep of what is *supposed to be* "secure and governed" space is exactly where all the jerks lurk taking out easy prey with impunity - and costing their chosen targets (almost exclusively players with weaker and non-PvP combat optimised equipment) a lot of the progress that they have invested their game time towards. While this persists, many otherwise willing Open PvE players, including myself, will "hide" (their word, not mine) from the jerks in Groups and Solo. Such is the way that E: D Galaxy has been perverted.

Your reasons are your own but you're wrong about 1 thing - what is *supposed to be* is down to FD exclusively ... not the elitist people you talk about. If a system is marked as high security it's down to the NPCs to make it so which you and I know they don't .. that's AI / Coding / FD. Equally the *Wild West* of anarchy systems is just like any other system at present - boring, safe, cloned from any other you could pick at random. Again, that's AI / Coding / FD - not the people who fly there.

Now, I am not saying that the elitist people you speak of take advantage of that as that's something entirely different, but make sure you vent your disdain at the right people.

 

[Norwyn]

Solo/Group should just become entirely separate from Open Your balance/assets should be two entirely separate ones and background simulations should be separate. Its just amazing to me how so many people go on about factions in game and about affecting background simulation without being turned off by the fact that someone can affect pretty much as a ghost in Solo/group to something you are trying to do.