Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Stelar 7]

I said dangerous. Not consensually dangerous. We don't stop an attacking thargoid to demand his consent, do we??

Thargoids are NPC. So the analogy is useless. When you want to play with other humans you need to obtain consent. That's why wrestling isn't a form of assault.

In most games consent happens when you login, in Elite it happens when you log in to Open.

People who are attempting to remove versions that are not Open are trying to force consent.

Its sketchy and makes you a person of questionable morality.

 

[Mohrgan]

Do keep saying it. True in spades. Private mode was supposed to be for playing with friends not for easy mode and has failed because playing with friends is so often borked by the game's broken instancing. Easy mode belongs in a separate corner of space like EVE hisec.

Private group is/was intended as an alternative to open. The same as Solo. Trying to create your own interpretations and definitions just points out a bias you have. If you are willing to slice the galaxy up, surely slicing up instancing can't be an issue.

Anyone who feels there is an advantage to using Solo/PG are perfectly capable of choosing them when logging in. As a matter of fact, I invite them to. If you're going into combat you pick your most capable ship, you and all are welcome to pick the mode you feel most effective in. After all, we all have the same choices we can make. Enjoy them

 

[Stelar 7]

Analogy is fine. Dangerous is dangerous either way.



No you don't, not in this game.

Any loser who complains just because their better opponent had CMDR in their name is deeply wrongheaded.

Yes you do need consent. That's how lawful and moral human interaction works. The other person has the same rights and privileges you do.

No one has to interact with you, if you are a toxic person. The rest of us can and will censor you from our lives.

 

[Brrokk]

Do keep saying it. True in spades. Private mode was supposed to be for playing with friends not for easy mode and has failed because playing with friends is so often borked by the game's broken instancing. Easy mode belongs in a separate corner of space like EVE hisec.

Easy mode? Is that really why you think people play in PG?

Suppose I accept this for a moment. So you would have me play in Open because it's less easy. I'd claim that the difference is actually negligible, but let's pass over that too for a moment. What exactly is the extra difficulty in Open? Simply, the chance of getting ganked and not being quick enough to high-wake. In other words, random destruction.

Do you think random destruction makes the game better? If so I can easily offer you even more game improvements. How about a 1% chance that your ship explodes every time you do a jump?

If that wouldn't be an improvement, maybe the ganking wouldn't be either. So maybe PG isn't used because it's "easy mode". Try to entertain the possibility that you might not completely understand other people's reasons for their game choices.

 

[Guizin239]

engineering mods gone? are you taking the ing ? collecting materials is the most tedious part of the game, and you want to do away with my ing engineered modules? no.

 

[Hopix]

So... Have we reached a conclusion yet?

 

[Robert Maynard]

So... Have we reached a conclusion yet?

The conclusion seems to be an impasse. Those who accept only a subset of the game design want the game changed to suit their play-style (and who don't seem to care how that will affect other players) continue to meet resistance from those who accept the game design as it is.

 

[Stelar 7]

You need to read the game rules.

I have, and the EULA, I also explained how consent works in the game.

You should brush up on your rhetoric or reading comprehension. Those assumptions are having a predictable effect on you.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Any loser who complains just because their better opponent had CMDR in their name is deeply wrongheaded.

Well combat is by consent, being in open is consent. If you do not consent you are not in open.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

I have, and the EULA, I also explained how consent works in the game.

You should brush up on your rhetoric or reading comprehension. Those assumptions are having a predictable effect on you.

If you're in open, you've consented to the possibility of PvP. You don't actually have to fight, since the game gives you avenues of escape. But you can't just stamp your foot and whimper that you don't consent if someone opens fire.

Well, I mean... you can... but at that point you're occupying some seriously cringy territory.

 

[Stelar 7]

If you're in open, you've consented to the possibility of PvP. You don't actually have to fight, since the game gives you avenues of escape. But you can't just stamp your foot and whimper that you don't consent if someone opens fire.

Well, I mean... you can... but at that point you're occupying some seriously cringy territory.

Correct.

If you go back to the conversation that spawned that response I specifically underlined launching in Open as the tool of consent, and how trying to force Open play forces that consent whereas currently players can withhold consent by playing in solo.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

Correct.

If you go back to the conversation that spawned that response I specifically underlined launching in Open as the tool of consent, and how trying to force Open play forces that consent whereas currently players can withhold consent by playing in solo.

Ah, okay.

I've always thought that the word "forced" is used somewhat recklessly on these forums (not referring to you specifically, but in general). There is always a decision available, and always the burden to reasonably manage one's expectations. No one's playstyle is "forced" upon another in a PvP-enabled open environment when both have consciously chosen open. No one is "forced" to outfit their ship differently to account for possible player hostility. No one is "forced" to travel 5K light years from their starting point to unlock an engineer. The conditions were made known and each player weighed what they wanted vs the potential or actual cost required— and then proceeded accordingly.

 

[Hopix]

The conclusion seems to be an impasse. Those who accept only a subset of the game design want the game changed to suit their play-style (and who don't seem to care how that will affect other players) continue to meet resistance from those who accept the game design as it is.

And what about those who think both should exist but the balance is a little off?

 

[House0fDerp]

And what about those who think both should exist but the balance is a little off?

That just begs the question "Were they intended to have different levels of effect on the game?"

If no then no, the balance is functioning as intended even if not as some desire. If Yes, then it probably is off.

Evidence so far suggests that no, the players preference was supposed to be just that and not a balance point.

 

[Stelar 7]

Ah, okay.

I've always thought that the word "forced" is used somewhat recklessly on these forums (not referring to you specifically, but in general). There is always a decision available, and always the burden to reasonably manage one's expectations. No one's playstyle is "forced" upon another in a PvP-enabled open environment when both have consciously chosen open. No one is "forced" to outfit their ship differently to account for possible player hostility. No one is "forced" to travel 5K light years from their starting point to unlock an engineer. The conditions were made known and each player weighed what they wanted vs the potential or actual cost required— and then proceeded accordingly.

Yup,

You the player choose your level of involvement. However if a choice which currently exists is denied to players, that is compulsion. Then force is exactly the right word. They are reduced to play a way they don't want or don't play at all.

Some here have advocated for making Open so fun that everyone plays there. That's awesome, I'm in favor. Others just want the choices of solo and PG players to be removed. That is selfish, short sighted and thankfully unlikely to happen.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

Yup,

You the player choose your level of involvement. However if a choice which currently exists is denied to players, that is compulsion. Then force is exactly the right word. They are reduced to play a way they don't want or don't play at all.

Some here have advocated for making Open so fun that everyone plays there. That's awesome, I'm in favor. Others just want the choices of solo and PG players to be removed. That is selfish, short sighted and thankfully unlikely to happen.

As much as I love open I wouldn't advocate removing PG and solo, simply because that isn't the game we were sold. This is to say nothing of excluding an entire swathe of players who, though no fault of their own, don't exactly have the best internet connections. Open-only would also create in-game problems as well, such as pad shortages in popular systems.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Imbalanced in what way?

Given the advantage of some to be on other platforms or different times and avoid any possibility of player interception, doesn't it make sense to offer that equally to everyone?

You can't avoid any possibility of encountering players in Open mode, regardless of what time you're on. You can reduce that possibility, even to almost none, depending on where you are in the galaxy and what time you play, but you can't eradicate the chance. Keep in mind also that the existence of these separate modes contributes heavily to the reduction in players you might otherwise have encountered in Open mode.

It's not balanced to have disparity in game modes and yet have equal impact in a universe shared with invisible but real denizens.

 

[Han Zulu]

...

As much as I love open I wouldn't advocate removing PG and solo, simply because that isn't the game we were sold. This is to say nothing of excluding an entire swathe of players who, though no fault of their own, don't exactly have the best internet connections. Open only would also create in-game problems as well, such as pad shortages in popular systems.

Yeah. That's one of my problems right now. After having multiple problems in the house and having to do construction and shutting down my gaming computer and gaming room, I'm now stuck with a wifi connected laptop. It works most of the time, except in combat. It sometimes hang or lags, even fighting NPCs! Really annoying. I know if I go to Open... my computer wouldn't play nice with me. I just know it. So I'm "hiding" in a PG... actually, I'm hiding behind the keyboard, not even starting the game at the moment. Studying Unreal Engine instead. More fun. (After fixing a broken valve to our sprinkler system, and many other stupid things lately...)

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Not all multi-player games require any player to engage in PvP.

This is true. Though a sim-like game that involves space combat and is multi-player can only reasonably be assumed to include PvP encounters, so in the case of Elite, it would be quite bizarre if that play was excluded.

I would also suggest that for those who were pitched a game where they would not require to play among players but at the same time experience and affect the shared galaxy that "mechanics to properly cater for single mode universe sharing" would not fit the description of what they were sold.

This is what I'm taking issue with. That it was designed, advertised, and sold in this form. That is the poor design I'm referring to, which should not have been.

Frontier would seem to be aware that not all players agree with their stance - and have been for years. That hasn't changed it.

I'm not advocating for modes to be removed, or for players in Solo or PG to be disadvantaged as an incentive/punishment. I'm just giving my opinion on how poor a game design choice it was.

 

[Han Zulu]

This is true. Though a sim-like game that involves space combat and is multi-player can only reasonably be assumed to include PvP encounters, so in the case of Elite, it would be quite bizarre if that play was excluded.

This is what I'm taking issue with. That it was designed, advertised, and sold in this form. That is the poor design I'm referring to, which should not have been.

I'm not advocating for modes to be removed, or for players in Solo or PG to be disadvantaged as an incentive/punishment. I'm just giving my opinion on how poor a game design choice it was.

I wonder if the model No Man's Sky would've been better? You're all in the same mode/universe, but you change your multiplayer settings (quite a bunch of them) to allow messaging, contact, view, voice, etc to no-one, friends only, or anyone. Maybe it wouldn't have raised as many complaints.