Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Cheese Helmet]

Nope, reductio ad absurdum.



I'm showing that a compelled choice does not represent consent. I made the specific example extreme to underline that.



Compulsion does not require a life altering event, just some threat.



Irelavent, we are talking about one game and you using an inconsistent definition of the term consent.



Did the metaphore trigger you? You spent all your response complaining about it instead of addressing the point. A compelled choice is not consent

To be very clear, in a pvp only game, where that's the mode that devs deliver. Yes buying the game and playing constitutes consent, as long as the game was clear its pvp only. It is not consent if they lie about or hide that.

However this is Elite and consent happens at Open, not at purchase. Removing the options for not open is compelling the people who bought the game under one set of rules to accept the change or lose access to it. That is compulsion and invalidates consent.

Consent remains pertinent to this discussion.

Consent is irrelevant because it's resolved on the login screen. I don't engage with absurdity like equivalence of video game choices to killing my loved ones.

 

[Stelar 7]

Frontier have stated open is the most played mode.

This is true. But not by what percent. They have also said most players don't engage in PVP so a PVP only mode isn't likely a draw for most players.

I'm sure an OO mode would get rid of some dedicated solo players.

We have testimonies from some here on the forum, seems like a reasonable assumption.

But I'm sure it would also make lots of open players return.

Based on what? This assumption is critical because if this number is less than the number turned off by the change it's a financial loss.

I'm just saying your statement that the change must necessarily lead to a net loss isnt something we have the evidence to verify. I don't have the hard evidence to verify my opinion, that open only would net benefit the player base either, but we can at least see that frontier have said most people play in open, as well as the popularity of multiplayer sandbox games vs single player ones.

Neither of those supports the idea that Frontier would be financially better off by getting rid of Solo and PG.

However Frontier has the data and want a broadly inclusive game.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

They have also said that they are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - and designed their game to give players the option of whether to engage in PvP, or not, at their discretion

To assume that any Open only scenario would have no effect on PvP in that mode might be quite naive.

I've been quite vocal that a change to open only should accompany quite deep changes to the game to allow players proper gameplay methods to engage or not engage in the activities they wish to, via their own decisions.

 

[Stelar 7]

Consent is irrelevant because it's resolved on the login screen. I don't engage with absurdity like equivalence of video game choices to killing my loved ones.

Then you have no basis for this claim. Consent is compelled, and compelled consent isn't actually consent.

Getting emotional about the example doesn't help anything.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Then you have no basis for this claim. Consent is compelled, and compelled consent isn't actually consent.

Getting emotional about the example doesn't help anything.

Change in where you opt into PvP is not compelled because there's no hard consequences for your decision, not playing a video game, is not a hard consequence, vs life and death consequences on your example.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I've been quite vocal that a change to open only should accompany quite deep changes to the game to allow players proper gameplay methods to engage or not engage in the activities they wish to, via their own decisions.

Indeed - however that's just one proposal from the PvPer's perspective.

I expect that Frontier would also consider those players known never to engage in PvP if they were to redesign the game.

Some games use a PvP flag....

 

[Cheese Helmet]

So why all the belly-acking about Open being disenfranchised?

You're sure?

Now who's making assumptions.


But you do understand that this still means you also cannot use the argument: it will increase the playerbase, right?

Although I find it highly implausible more players would return than leave in either case. Gaining players in any game is harder than losing them.

I have been consistent in saying it's my opinion, and flatly said I don't have the hard evidence to support it.

 

[Gully Foyle]

OP wants more people in Open and then rewards them with no insurance. Lol

You are half-way there though.
No insurance should be the end sanction for C&P.
Kill enough players without a valid in-game reason (bounty hunting, PP, CZ) and you get kicked out of the Pilots Federation and lose access to insurance.

Now the scales are a bit more balanced.
The trader still doesn’t stand much chance against a Ganker’s death-boat but the Ganker is at risk of losing their ship.

I think this might work but proper implementation though....

 

[Mohrgan]

I have been consistent in saying it's my opinion, and flatly said I don't have the hard evidence to support it.

Then it will be hard to convince others. People are persuaded by evidence and sound reasoning. "Because, that's the way I want it" doesn't move anyone.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I've been quite vocal that a change to open only should accompany quite deep changes to the game to allow players proper gameplay methods to engage or not engage in the activities they wish to, via their own decisions.

But none of your propositions would allow the player who does not wish contact with any other player (as even system chat can be muted), as is currently possible, to be able to play as they wish - should those players just be discarded because they opt for the "single player in a shared galaxy" choice? It would appear to me that in your proposed scenario that these players would be forced to stop playing.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Indeed - however that's just one proposal from the PvPer's perspective.

I expect that Frontier would also consider those players known never to engage in PvP if they were to redesign the game.

Some games use a PvP flag....

The point of the changes I want to see is for a consistent design Philosophy to be implemented and adhered to. Flags do not offer that.

Then it will be hard to convince others. People are persuaded by evidence and sound reasoning. "Because, that's the way I want it" doesn't move anyone.

That goes both ways. Like the claims that the idea would destory the game, or be bad for the game, or all the Armageddon naysayers. But such is the forums.

 

[Stelar 7]

Change in where you opt into PvP is not compelled because there's no hard consequences for your decision, not playing a video game, is not a hard consequence, vs life and death consequences on your example.

That's not true.

People paid for a product under terms A and you would change the terms to B. There would be grounds for some punishing lawsuits, especially with UK and EU courts where Frontier is based.

Just because you think some compulsion is ok doesn't actually make it ok, it does guarantee I'd never choose to do business with you though.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

But none of your propositions would allow the player who does not wish contact with any other player (as even system chat can be muted), as is currently possible, to be able to play as they wish - should those players just be discarded because they opt for the "single player in a shared galaxy" choice? It would appear to me that in your proposed scenario that these players would be forced to stop playing.

Not forced to stop playing but forced to accept that they may see hollow boxes on the radar yes.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

That's not true.

People paid for a product under terms A and you would change the terms to B. There would be grounds for some punishing lawsuits, especially with UK and EU courts where Frontier is based.

Just because you think some compulsion is ok doesn't actually make it ok, it does guarantee I'd never choose to do business with you though.

Based on the way you leap to absurdity yet still only offer vapid remarks I can return that sentiment in kind.

 

[Mohrgan]

That goes both ways. Like the claims that the idea would destory the game, or be bad for the game, or all the Armageddon naysayers. But such is the forums.

When fundamental changes to a system are suggested, there has to be sound reasons for the changes, and evidence that those changes would result in the desired outcome. Those proposing those changes have to supply them. Because you are just running with opinions, they are easily dismissed. Bring ideas that the player base can support, you'll get support. Bring idea that disenfranchise, and you'll face opposition. Just calling for change isn't enough, everyone wants change. You have to back up your ideas, or modify them to meet your audience.

 

[Mohrgan]

Not forced to stop playing but forced to accept that they may see hollow boxes on the radar yes.

That's not what we have now. You need to show evidence that your proposed changes will solve whatever problem you are having. In the end, "I want everyone in open" isn't terribly convincing.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Not forced to stop playing but forced to accept that they may see hollow boxes on the radar yes.

And forced to be "content" for some lulz troll.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

When fundamental changes to a system are suggested, there has to be sound reasons for the changes, and evidence that those changes would result in the desired outcome. Those proposing those changes have to supply them. Because you are just running with opinions, they are easily dismissed. Bring ideas that the player base can support, you'll get support. Bring idea that disenfranchise, and you'll face opposition. Just calling for change isn't enough, everyone wants change. You have to back up your ideas, or modify them to meet your audience.

I've supplied the reasoning several times, and to the same people over and over. Id prefer not repeat it again and again and again, to the same people.

In fact I've made entire threads on it. Check them out.

 

[Mohrgan]

Based on the way you leap to absurdity yet still only offer vapid remarks I can return that sentiment in kind.

I thought that he was pretty clear. Make your suggested changes and FD would face backlash. Would that backlash overwhelm what ever positives may result? By the reaction here in the forums, the answer is a definite Yes.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Not forced to stop playing but forced to accept that they may see hollow boxes on the radar yes.

The "forced to accept" part sums it up entirely - it would have been (from one who considers blunt discourse the only way to converse, a point you have made several times) more honest to your own stance to have written "No, they won't be able to choose to play effectively alone" and be done with it, surely?