Sandro: "People who play Open versus other modes are majority, by significant margin"

[StuartGT]

Is this thread still going? Bless.

The number bickering in this thread amount to at best 0.1% of active players, a much lesser percentage even of total game owners.

Congrats, you'll definitely change FDev's policy of looking at player stats ("majority play in Open") and making game-improvement decisions based on them.

 

[Maxulic]

Until we see figures about Open and other modes, I call bullcrap on this.
If the majority of people are in Open, then how is people powerplaying in groups or solo an issue since they are the minority? Their effect would be minimal.

 

[StuartGT]

Until we see figures about Open and other modes, I call bullcrap on this.

"More people play in Open, it's the majority, more than the other modes by a significant margin"

If the majority of people are in Open, then how is people powerplaying in groups or solo an issue since they are the minority? Their effect would be minimal.

1. Please retake high-school mathematics. Your logic deduction is broken and would fail an exam for 16yr olds.
2. "Majority in Open" != "Powerplay majority in open"
3. "Bots Powerplay-farming 24/7 safely in Solo/Group" != "minimal"

 

[kofeyh]

Until we see figures about Open and other modes, I call bullcrap on this.

So the developer is lying? Bold move. It does them no service or advantage to lie about such things.

If the majority of people are in Open, then how is people powerplaying in groups or solo an issue since they are the minority? Their effect would be minimal.

It would be; if the scenario was identical. It's not. So maybe the developer isn't actually lying, and they are simply responding to community requests for more engagement in mechanics? You know, the majority that are not on the forums; many of whom are in open.

--

Even when the developer is basically saying how it is; people be like "are you sure, I don't think you know?". lol. okay.

 

[Genus]

Fool me once, shame on me.

Fool me twice, shame on the leadership.

 

[DukeIronHand]

"More people play in Open, it's the majority, more than the other modes by a significant margin"

1. Please retake high-school mathematics. Your logic deduction is broken and would fail an exam for 16yr olds.
2. "Majority in Open" != "Powerplay majority in open"
3. "Bots Powerplay-farming 24/7 safely in Solo/Group" != "minimal"

More “facts” eh?
No, I’m tired of Pvp’er nonsense and fever-dreams.
Do hope you get what you deserve though. Enjoy it.

 

[DeathStroke]

So the developer is lying? Bold move. It does them no service or advantage to lie about such things.

Sandro is trying to push an open only agenda. Are you saying, trying to justify pushing an agenda does them no service? Bold move.

People lie. Liars get called out. Deal with it.

 

[kofeyh]

Sandro is trying to push an open only agenda. Are you saying, trying to justify pushing an agenda does them no service? Bold move.

No I am suggesting people saying the developer is obviously lying doesn't really do them (the developer) any good. They won't get far on a complete lack of trust. So why would they? Also if people have to claim the developer is obviously lying, purely to justify the assumption that they are right (and it is everyone else that is wrong) is problematic because the developer can see what we can't.

I think commanders have become a tad myopic and believe their world view, regardless of what it is, is correct; anything anyone else says is clearly wrong. This is pretty deeply flawed thinking. I may not always agree with Sandy's decisions? But I am not going to call the guy a blatant lier, because really I haven't seen an example of where the guy has, to be fair.

Will the developer spin the results of anything a bit? Sure. But that's a whole other thing that blatant lying, falsehoods and so on. Reckon you might be off the mark there just a tad bit.

People lie. Liars get called out. Deal with it.

If you want to claim Sandy is lying, you go right ahead. I tend to think if the developer is seeing a pattern, maybe shutting my yap and listening, before I decide to sound-off like some religious preacher, might be a relevant strategy? I dunno, internet person, you do you.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

1. Please retake high-school mathematics. Your logic deduction is broken and would fail an exam for 16yr olds.
2. "Majority in Open" != "Powerplay majority in open"
3. "Bots Powerplay-farming 24/7 safely in Solo/Group" != "minimal"

Things tend to average out once you get enough numbers. And looking at some of the responses from PPers, it does seem like a majority of PPers are already in open.

All things being equal, its likely if a majority of players are in open, then a majority of PPers are also in open.

Bots are a separate issue and need dealing with by FD differently. However, if people are resorting to bots, then you can be sure they won't be put off by open only. They will just resort to other means to ensure they are not instanced with others or just let their bots run the gauntlet anyway. At the end of the day, no power is going to have coverage that will stop a majority of people making deliveries to their desired systems. Not without putting so much effort in they start losing due to not making enouigh PvE efforts. The bots will get through in Open anyway enough, and the credits from losses can easily be farmed back thanks to everyone who incessantly complained about how hard it was to make credits. This is the result of making credits too easy to get, it makes loses worthless.

The botters might change a little, instead of flying Anacondas/T9s/whatever they are using, they might use Cutters and Clippers for speed.

Regardless, i don't believe OO is going to stop botters. At best it might slow them down a little.

 

[RamirezKurita]

So the developer is lying? Bold move. It does them no service or advantage to lie about such things.

Very few people here are claiming that Sandro was outright lying, however many of us are skeptical of the methods. Statistics without clarifying how they were obtained are easily manipulated to fit a desired agenda. We don't know if Sandro was talking about hours logged, number of logins or favoured mode for each player, all of these values can be different. We don't even know what time period, platform or time zone he was talking about.

The advantage for Sandro is that he has been trying to push a PvP MMO-style game for a long time, rather than the lone wolf blazing his own trail in a cruel galaxy that ED was built upon. It therefore makes sense for him to cherry-pick his data to support his goals, and selectively ignore and dismiss information that doesn't support said goals.

 

[sollisb]

"More people play in Open, it's the majority, more than the other modes by a significant margin"

1. Please retake high-school mathematics. Your logic deduction is broken and would fail an exam for 16yr olds.
2. "Majority in Open" != "Powerplay majority in open"
3. "Bots Powerplay-farming 24/7 safely in Solo/Group" != "minimal"

Hate to break it to you but....

The bots were doing their stuff in ... Open.... Moving PP to Open Only won't fix bots!

 

[Rubbernuke]

Hate to break it to you but....

The bots were doing their stuff in ... Open.... Moving PP to Open Only won't fix bots!

The irony being that we found out about bots in Open too- and that if you can see them you can intercept them.

The thing is, none of the proposed changes will fix the problem on their own, I hope in combination they will- filtering down the problem until its minor rather than game breaking.

 

[Faybs]

The irony being that we found out about bots in Open too- and that if you can see them you can intercept them.

The thing is, none of the proposed changes will fix the problem on their own, I hope in combination they will- filtering down the problem until its minor rather than game breaking.

In my opinion (FWIW), making PP open-only is not going to fix any of its problems. People botting or fifth columning are just going to find a way around it, and instancing will still be a thing. What it will do is greatly increase the perception of fairness, so people taking part will enjoy it more. And at the end of the day, Elite is a game. If it's not enjoyable, it's not doing what it's supposed to.

 

[DukeIronHand]

The advantage for Sandro is that he has been trying to push a PvP MMO-style game for a long time, rather than the lone wolf blazing his own trail in a cruel galaxy that ED was built upon. It therefore makes sense for him to cherry-pick his data to support his goals, and selectively ignore and dismiss information that doesn't support said goals.

Without putting too find a point on it...Yes. This is what I believe also.

 

[Eymerich]

No I am suggesting people saying the developer is obviously lying doesn't really do them (the developer) any good. They won't get far on a complete lack of trust. So why would they? Also if people have to claim the developer is obviously lying, purely to justify the assumption that they are right (and it is everyone else that is wrong) is problematic because the developer can see what we can't.

I think commanders have become a tad myopic and believe their world view, regardless of what it is, is correct; anything anyone else says is clearly wrong. This is pretty deeply flawed thinking. I may not always agree with Sandy's decisions? But I am not going to call the guy a blatant lier, because really I haven't seen an example of where the guy has, to be fair.

Will the developer spin the results of anything a bit? Sure. But that's a whole other thing that blatant lying, falsehoods and so on. Reckon you might be off the mark there just a tad bit.



If you want to claim Sandy is lying, you go right ahead. I tend to think if the developer is seeing a pattern, maybe shutting my yap and listening, before I decide to sound-off like some religious preacher, might be a relevant strategy? I dunno, internet person, you do you.

It would nt definitly be the first time Fd says things far away from truth ( expansion free, off line mode, just to name a few)

Is lying? Honestly dont know

But with a statistic under your hand truth a d lie begin to blend one each other

So: if 51 of player base is playing open Sandro is telling the truth
If 40 of player base is playing open ( + 30 + 30) Sandro is lying

You don t know this neither I

The fact he didn't t show us the percentage makes me think it s the second option here the mora probable .

 

[jasonbirder]

No I am suggesting people saying the developer is obviously lying doesn't really do them (the developer) any good. They won't get far on a complete lack of trust. So why would they? Also if people have to claim the developer is obviously lying, purely to justify the assumption that they are right...

If you want to claim Sandy is lying, you go right ahead.

Nobody said Sandro was lying, people suggested that Sanro's (at best ambiguous) statement could easily be interpreted in Multiple ways...
a) Open is an overall majority (Greater in total than Single + Co-op)
b) Open is the largest single mode (but not an overall majority compared to single+co-op)
c) Open is the most popular mode for powerplay (with no comment on its wider popularity)
Then the cynical amongst us thought...hmmm when do I give an ambiguous answer MYSELF??? Could it be when I'm trying NOT to say something with 100% clarity???

 

[Zelos1983]

If you want to claim Sandy is lying, you go right ahead. I tend to think if the developer is seeing a pattern, maybe shutting my yap and listening, before I decide to sound-off like some religious preacher, might be a relevant strategy? I dunno, internet person, you do you.

I'm not very confident in Elite's developers.

However, even if he's right - does it change anything?

Trying to remove parts of the game from a minority just isn't right. Ok, the impact of combat logging players to PvPers is lessened if they are not many, but then again, there is still nothing gained.

 

[kofeyh]

Look I don't believe for a second it solves everything. What I think it will do is remove some of the foregone conclusions and perhaps a combination of factors will at least go some way.

It's more the resulting outcomes; it reduces the sense of a lack of being able to help define outcomes. Who knows how it will go? But I think being militantly apposed to the developer trying solutions will just lead to what we in fact have.

I'd rather they try, and hey maybe it needs more work post change. Than not. And miss an opportunity. They are infrequent; PP hasn't seen major change in three years.

Game is five years old. Opportunity to address mechanics is going to be finite in number. I'm not sure resisting approaches to problems because they aren't perfect every time, is really doing any good.

I'd rather they try. Than not. And I tend to think that's where the broader community is likely to sit. It would be consistent with what's been asked for, really.

 

[Zelos1983]

Game is five years old. Opportunity to address mechanics is going to be finite in number. I'm not sure resisting approaches to problems because they aren't perfect every time, is really doing any good.

There is a difference between a "not perfect" change and a change that even in the best case scenario makes stuff worse.

Plus, there are lots of other issues that can be addressed and aren't. Why not start there?

I occasionally did PP. It's not soo bad.
But I never tried out wings or example because I'm unable to hire NPCs. And wing mechanic in Freespace or the Star Wars games was quite fun.

 

[Jockey79]

Nobody said Sandro was lying, people suggested that Sanro's (at best ambiguous) statement could easily be interpreted in Multiple ways...
a) Open is an overall majority (Greater in total than Single + Co-op)
b) Open is the largest single mode (but not an overall majority compared to single+co-op)
c) Open is the most popular mode for powerplay (with no comment on its wider popularity)
Then the cynical amongst us thought...hmmm when do I give an ambiguous answer MYSELF??? Could it be when I'm trying NOT to say something with 100% clarity???

I don't think it was an ambiguous statement.

"the people playing open are the majority"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52kOyADxK5E&feature=youtu.be&t=2945

52:00 timestamp.

That seems very clear to me.