Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Stelar 7]

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.

Correct, it's always possible you may find another player in open.

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

False.

The odds are a crapshoot in open, you may find someone, you may not. However Open is totally optional. This means that everyone has equal access to Powerplay and BGS in solo pg and open and if people are willing to take on additional risk, or want to provide it, they can opt in to open.

You might wish the best way to gain points or effect powerplay or BGS was combat, but that isn't how the game is designed. Its just a preference that you may advocate for.

Everyone is equal now, you want to have less controll and possibly to freeze out players from the process because they have different play preferences than you.

That's pretty selfish.

 

[Stelar 7]

No, you explained how you would like to think consent worked in the game.

Go ahead, instead of just insisting your right explain how logging into Open is not consent to pvp, or how logging into solo somehow does consent to pvp.

I'll wait. Your only option is to try some disengenious crap and pretend I used a definition of pvp that isn't about two people shooting with internet spaceships.

 

[Han Zulu]

But it wouldn't have raised as many sales. "Hunt other Commanders" was advertised for a reason. And "Hunt other Commanders until they withdraw their consent by combat logging to safe solo mode" was not.

Was "Hunt other commanders" a promise?

 

[Mohrgan]

But it wouldn't have raised as many sales. "Hunt other Commanders" was advertised for a reason. And "Hunt other Commanders until they withdraw their consent by combat logging to safe solo mode" was not.

The material says you can hunt others, or play in a private group with your friends, or alone. The advertising material mentions all three options. Blanking out two, because of reasons, isn't a very strong argument.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

False.

The odds are a crapshoot in open, you may find someone, you may not. However Open is totally optional. This means that everyone has equal access to Powerplay and BGS in solo pg and open and if people are willing to take on additional risk, or want to provide it, they can opt in to open.

You might wish the best way to gain points or effect powerplay or BGS was combat, but that isn't how the game is designed. Its just a preference that you may advocate for.

Everyone is equal now, you want to have less controll and possibly to freeze out players from the process because they have different play preferences than you.

That's pretty selfish.

I'm not speaking specifically about playing the BGS or PowerPlay. I'm talking generally about having to accomplish your goals in Open mode and all that entails, which includes all your travelling, ship and module purchasing and configuring, material collecting, mission running, smuggling, engineering, and mining, as well as any PvP activities, such as pirating and bounty hunting. Any of these activities can bring you near moderate to high traffic player populated areas, which adds risk and costs, and may require adjusting your strategies to account for human threats. If your actions are impacting the universe, and you're not running the same risks, incurring the same costs, and needing to weigh the same decisions, that destroys any notion of balance or equality.

Moreover, it's the existence of other modes, and the related poor game design for universe sharing that has reduced the population in Open, and lessened the potential threat of it.

Lastly, I'm not advocating for changing how things are now, so I don't want to do any of the things you've accused me of whilst labeling me selfish for it. That's what people paid for, so that's what they should get. I'm merely commenting on the poor choice it was to design, advertise, and sell the game in this fashion, rather than make one shared universe for a massively multiplayer game, with gameplay mechanics deep and sophisticated enough to make it work, and without ever tabling the concept that you can exist in and impact the same universe as everyone else, where space combat is a thing, whilst being invisible and incorporeal.

 

[Stelar 7]

I'm not speaking specifically about playing the BGS or PowerPlay. I'm talking generally about having to accomplish your goals in Open mode and all that entails, which includes all your travelling, ....

Ok let's look at that.

Any of these activities can bring you near moderate to high traffic player populated areas, which adds risk and costs, and may require adjusting your strategies to account for human threats.

Correct

If your actions are impacting the universe, and you're not running the same risks, incurring the same costs, and needing to weigh the same decisions, that destroys any notion of balance or equality.

Almost.

If you are required to play that way, sure, so anyone playing while sleepy, or with a impediment of some kind is at an unfair disadvantage. However no one should be expected to code for that, it's just one of those unfair bits of life.

As for people playing in open, they are making a choice to opt in to a harder mode. Their choice is completely voluntary. So just like I don't expect you to be forced to play sleepy or with a bad net connection you shouldn't expect others to have to play in Open.

Moreover, it's the existence of other modes, and the related poor game design for universe sharing that has reduced the population in Open, and lessened the potential threat of it.

Letting people play on consoles reduces the count in open? No, that's not sensible. You likely have no data on people playing in not open or why. I will agree it's almost certain that some people choose not to play in open when they are doing something that they don't want another player to interfere with. Happily that option is available to everyone so its perfectly fair. As an added bonus, that means everyone who is in Open wants to be there, so everyone's desires are being respected and a format has been made available for people who want to compete with people to do so.

Lastly, I'm not advocating for changing how things are now, so I don't want to do any of the things you've accused me of whilst labeling me selfish for it. That's what people paid for, so that's what they should get.

Fantastic, then instead of advocating for a bad change you are just advocating for a bad idea about a bad change. That's less selfish.

I'm merely commenting on the poor choice it was to design, advertise, and sell the game in this fashion, rather than make one shared universe for a massively multiplayer game, with gameplay mechanics deep and sophisticated enough to make it work, and without ever tabling the concept that you can exist in and impact the same universe as everyone else, where space combat is a thing, whilst being invisible and incorporeal.

Why? Inherent in this paragraph is the unspoken notion that combat should be a powerful tool in these systems. That artificially limits the systems to be for people who like combat, against humans. If it were true it would reduce by the number of all the people who don't enjoy that game loop the number of participants.

With our current system everyone can participate. So you are saying being more exclusive is better?

I get that you like combat, I do too, even surprise combat, even when I'm not set up for it. However I like that challenge to involve other people who enjoy it. It's why I play in Open. There everyone wants to be involved.

What I don't understand is the desire to have that experience, the thrill, with people who don't want to play that way. Why would you want to push your playstyle on people who don't enjoy it?

I understand that the people who enjoy pvp combat are a subset of the total number of people who enjoy games. This game developed a design that accommodates all of us. That's good for the bottom line of Frontier, which is good for the longevity of the game and good for me.

What's your angle?

 

[Cheese Helmet]

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.

Nope it would just mean you consent when you play.

Plus this whole "muh consent in video games" rhetoric is self victimization for some sort of pity sympathy party

 

[Momatty]

I decided not too long ago that I would play only in open. I have a decent amount of credits and if I get ganked, I get ganked.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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

Why should the game be balanced around entirely optional player interactions - interactions that are not guaranteed even in Open?

Then there's the fact that some players collude to gain rewards for player interactions that are meant to be contested. Frontier learned early that they can't trust players in that regard.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

An assumption is not a fact - more of an opinion - and not all players share that opinion. PvP is not excluded - however no player requires to engage in it.

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.

More than that - it was pitched in this form and may not have been funded if it had been pitched as an Open only game. Whether the design is poor, or not, remains a matter of opinion.

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.

Indeed.

 

[Robert Maynard]

"Hunt other Commanders" was advertised for a reason.

Interesting that that particular phrase was removed from the advertising some time ago.

.... and hunting is not finding - as Frontier cannot force players to provide themselves as targets for the hunters.

 

[Taimaru]

I'm tired of the Open vs Private Debacle as well.

People should accept that the different modes are part of the game's design from the beginning and doing research on the game before purchasing should have highlighted that there are different modes and then factored into the decision on whether to buy the game or not.

The different modes are one of the reasons I bought Elite: Dangerous. I suspect many others also brought the game for the same reason. If Elite: Dangerous had been Open only I would not have bought the game and if Frontier remove the modes or remove some of the functionality of Private/Solo I would probably stop playing Elite: Dangerous.

Personally I think the different modes are a great game design, although I realise a few don't agree, and it's one of the many reasons Elite: Dangerous is still my favorite game.

The reason I often don't play in Open has nothing to do with PvP / Ganking or the "danger" of Open. It's because I prefer to either play on my own or with friends. I'm not really one who enjoys playing with strangers all the time (sometimes I do). So Open only would need a filter to filter out strangers. Oh wait, we have it already.

 

[Stelar 7]

Nope it would just mean you consent when you play.

Plus this whole "muh consent in video games" rhetoric is self victimization for some sort of pity sympathy party

If the game had only an open mode, sure. I've played lots of games like that, and told pve players they were out of line to demand changes.

However your rhetoric here is garbage.

We have choice and its wrong to take that away. As for calling consent some kind of victim speech, that is just tribalistic crap.

It's the language of someone looking to victimize others and blame them for the things you do to them.

That is sick.

Human interaction is human interaction, on the forum, in a game, in person. Pretending that treating someone in a way they don't want to be treated is ok if it's in a game is not ok.

Generally I like your ideas, but your attitude on this needs serious adjustment if you want to succeed in life. Seeing other people as less than you will blow up in your face.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Almost.

If you are required to play that way, sure, so anyone playing while sleepy, or with a impediment of some kind is at an unfair disadvantage. However no one should be expected to code for that, it's just one of those unfair bits of life.

As for people playing in open, they are making a choice to opt in to a harder mode. Their choice is completely voluntary. So just like I don't expect you to be forced to play sleepy or with a bad net connection you shouldn't expect others to have to play in Open.

Irrelevant. We're talking about game design. A person's state or connection quality whilst playing is not the responsibility of the game designers or developers when considering balance.

Letting people play on consoles reduces the count in open? No, that's not sensible. You likely have no data on people playing in not open or why. I will agree it's almost certain that some people choose not to play in open when they are doing something that they don't want another player to interfere with. Happily that option is available to everyone so its perfectly fair. As an added bonus, that means everyone who is in Open wants to be there, so everyone's desires are being respected and a format has been made available for people who want to compete with people to do so.

Having multiple modes spreads players across those modes, thereby reducing the number of players in any given mode. Not difficult.

And no, not everyone's desires are being respected. The desire for fair play is not being met, which would require the game design to enforce the same game conditions and rules on all players at the same time. The choice should not be allowed to players, to have the same impact on the same universe under different "difficulties".

Fantastic, then instead of advocating for a bad change you are just advocating for a bad idea about a bad change. That's less selfish.

Begging the question. Also inaccurate. I'm not advocating for anything. I'm giving my opinion about what would have made a better game, without any recommendation for actions pursuant to that opinion.

Why? Inherent in this paragraph is the unspoken notion that combat should be a powerful tool in these systems. That artificially limits the systems to be for people who like combat, against humans. If it were true it would reduce by the number of all the people who don't enjoy that game loop the number of participants.

With our current system everyone can participate. So you are saying being more exclusive is better?

Then you're reading something into it that I never intended. Combat is a part of Elite. Elite is multiplayer. Therefore PvP is a natural part of Elite. It's not that combat should be a powerful tool, but rather that the potentiality of PvP encounters is actually an impactful aspect, the lack of which in certain game modes makes the splitting of the play modes unfair and imbalanced.

I get that you like combat, I do too, even surprise combat, even when I'm not set up for it. However I like that challenge to involve other people who enjoy it. It's why I play in Open. There everyone wants to be involved.

What I don't understand is the desire to have that experience, the thrill, with people who don't want to play that way. Why would you want to push your playstyle on people who don't enjoy it?

I barely engage in combat. My rank is quite low, and I've only ever had the one account which I've never reset. I've never even attacked another player.
So I'm not trying to "push my playstyle". I'm pointing out what I perceive as broken design.

I understand that the people who enjoy pvp combat are a subset of the total number of people who enjoy games. This game developed a design that accommodates all of us. That's good for the bottom line of Frontier, which is good for the longevity of the game and good for me.

What's your angle?

Again, it doesn't accommodate everyone, and it's not about pushing PvP combat. It's about being in the same world where PvP encounters occur, having the potential threat, as well as the potential neutral and friendly scenarios that can occur that would have given life to what is already far too large a game world to suffer low player counts caused by split modes or poor design, particularly with the low quality NPC interactive AI. It's about fairness, achieved by having everyone forced to play under the same conditions.

I will repeat that this would still require far better gameplay mechanics than what is currently available to achieve, and that's one of the reasons I wouldn't advocate for a change to the current system. The other reason being that the game was designed, advertised, and sold on this flawed yet fundamental basis.

 

[Stelar 7]

Irrelevant. We're talking about game design. A person's state or connection quality whilst playing is not the responsibility of the game designers or developers when considering balance.

Not irrelevant, highlighting the unavoidable presence of inequality. It undermines a call for pure equality. It also highlights that you are calling for a difficulty which is opted into, to instead be universally applied. Such a move demonstrably reduces a games playerbase. That's bad business.

Having multiple modes spreads players across those modes, thereby reducing the number of players in any given mode. Not difficult.

True, but it caters to different types of players. Having only a pvp combat mode means the people who refuse to play under those conditions don't buy the game. So, they are never options in your pvp only game. For a developer the choice is, should they artificially limit their potential customers. Sometimes it's the right choice and sometimes itit's not.

And no, not everyone's desires are being respected. The desire for fair play is not being met, which would require the game design to enforce the same game conditions and rules on all players at the same time.

This game does enforce the same game conditions. All three modes are available to all players, you then have a choice to take on additional difficulty if like. It can't get more fair than that.

The choice should not be allowed to players, to have the same impact on the same universe under different "difficulties".

If the lower "difficulty" is available to everyone it's fair. The choice to play in open is self imposed, no one is forcing you to do that.

Begging the question. Also inaccurate. I'm not advocating for anything. I'm giving my opinion about what would have made a better game, without any recommendation for actions pursuant to that opinion.

Ah the name the fallacy game, no evidence or argument, no fallacy. As for what you are or are not doing, you are arguing that a very smart design choice is actually bad. That is advocacy. The only way it could not be is if you try to apply a narrower definition of the word advocacy and that would be a strawman fallacy.

Then you're reading something into it that I never intended. Combat is a part of Elite. Elite is multiplayer. Therefore PvP is a natural part of Elite. It's not that combat should be a powerful tool, but rather that the potentiality of PvP encounters is actually an impactful aspect, the lack of which in certain game modes makes the splitting of the play modes unfair and imbalanced.

You are wrong. Combat is part of Elite, but just like Mining is part of Elite. A player can choose to engage in that game loop or not. The game is open and rewards lots of different playstyles.

I barely engage in combat. My rank is quite low, and I've only ever had the one account which I've never reset. I've never even attacked another player.
So I'm not trying to "push my playstyle". I'm pointing out what I perceive as broken design.

That's not a counter it's a red herring. You are pushing for an open world pvp only mode. Whether or not you personally shoot people while playing that way is irrelevant.

You aren't pushing for ED to have that mode, cool, why are you saying games with PVP should not also accommodate people who don't like that?

Again, it doesn't accommodate everyone, and it's not about pushing PvP combat. It's about being in the same world where PvP encounters occur, having the potential threat, as well as the potential neutral and friendly scenarios that can occur that would have given life to what is already far too large a game world to suffer low player counts caused by split modes or poor design, particularly with the low quality NPC interactive AI. It's about fairness, achieved by having everyone forced to play under the same conditions.

That's an argument for why people should choose to play in open. The games population is split on three platforms. Those players can't play together, it's a platform thing. But we can share a little by having a shared world.

The games locations are instances, that's a net code choice, and a server size choice. They traded massive eve style get togethers for a much lower overhead cost, which is why we get to play without a monthly subscription. That opens the game up to more people.

The different game modes offer a style of play that a broader base of people can engage with. That increases the playerbase and increases the number of people who may not have come for open, but might give it a try.

I run into other commanders all the time. The game isn't empty.

I will repeat that this would still require far better gameplay mechanics than what is currently available to achieve, and that's one of the reasons I wouldn't advocate for a change to the current system. The other reason being that the game was designed, advertised, and sold on this flawed yet fundamental basis.

Then I'm really not sure what you are getting at, save that you think a pvp game should be pvp only? I think that's bad business unless you have a really solid pvp offering.

 

[Brrokk]

Not in the slightest. I would have you play in easy mode any time you like.

So, you decided not to address the issue of whether random unexpected destruction improves the game.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Again, it doesn't accommodate everyone, and it's not about pushing PvP combat. It's about being in the same world where PvP encounters occur, having the potential threat, as well as the potential neutral and friendly scenarios that can occur that would have given life to what is already far too large a game world to suffer low player counts caused by split modes or poor design, particularly with the low quality NPC interactive AI. It's about fairness, achieved by having everyone forced to play under the same conditions.

You seem to have missed that a lot of players do enjoy the choice of modes and would not have bought the game, or would have quit (sooner), if this option had not been available. Since a small minority of the entire playerbase enjoys PvP, as Frontier has claimed, you would be alienating the larger part of your playerbase in favour of a much smaller section of it.

That would have far larger consequences to the playercount than the modes are. Since most of those who have issues with modes have so out of a PvP perspective. Make no mistake, a forced one mode design choice which is subject to constant PvP is far more detrimental to the number of active players.

Fairness is everyone having the same choices and options available. This is the case. If you pick Open as your preferred mode, and you feel that's a disadvantage, it is a disadvantage you had a free choice in.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

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.

Excellent point. Which means the modes also act as a shield against players who complain about being shot down in open by other players. Pick another mode.

If you take away that choice, the choice for the player that remains is: stop playing this game, or don't buy this game.

Also modes introduce non-MMO players like me to PvP. Now, I don't like PvP, but others might. I hear Pvpers boasting stories about carebears who take up PvP or even ganking.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And no, not everyone's desires are being respected. The desire for fair play is not being met, which would require the game design to enforce the same game conditions and rules on all players at the same time. The choice should not be allowed to players, to have the same impact on the same universe under different "difficulties".

I agree that the desires of those who insist that the game should be an Open only game where everyone must play in a single game mode are not being met - which leads to the question of what the game is trying to be - and which audience it aims for.

Some games adopt the Open only / PvP required approach and are designed on that basis. Other games don't adopt the Open only / PvP required approach. This game is one of the latter.

Insistence that players not being forced to play in Open (to be available for others to engage in PvP, should they wish to do so) is in some way "unfair" in a game where PvP itself is an optional extra does not make the perceived unfairness an objective truth in the context of a game where no player requires to engage in PvP. That some players bought the game expecting it to be something that it is clearly not is on them.

Whether the choice should be left to players, or not, remains a matter of opinion - that some players can't accept that others have that choice is obvious - that Frontier haven't changed their stance in over seven years is also obvious.

 

[Leper Messiah]

The situation we have now is the fault of lack of proper repurcussions for crimnality leading to a lack of control from many in the PvP community (not all I hasten to add). People were forced into Solo/PG/using block function, You reap what you sow.

I'd much prefer it if FD dropped open and brought in people like Drew to write up storylines to bring life to the galaxy, I realise that would stop "emergent content", but let's look at Elite's "emergent content" the best is the fuel rats.....hardly exciting (sorry fuel rats but you're basically the AA/RAC!). No matter how good Elite dangerous is, it pales in comparison to Freespace 1+2 and the Xwing/TIE Fighter games. (all it's got is better graphics/controls/physics)