Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Stelar 7]

So I argue the path forward for the goal of playing totally alone should be through gameplay not modes, so you have to solve that problem and the game doesn't do it for you.

That isn't, and can't be, playing alone. Its playing evasively with others, which is not the same thing.

The paranoia of having to avoid other humans hunting them is actively unpleasant to people. Several have told me so here and in other games like Worlds Adrift where they didn't have a pve option consistently.

So we have a design choice, enable people to select their involvement, or not.

You are in the not camp. You say you want tools, but you want people using them to have restricted access to the game, because their playstyle is incompatible with yours.

Since they won't play with you under their model or yours there is no advantage to you to have that system unless you see excluding that kind of player from your game as a positive.

That's tribalism over good business sense and Frontier should reject your idea on that alone.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You're being purposefully ignorant of how players approach games.

Nope - I don't, however, subscribe to the "they must play with me" mantra.

I'm a player who enjoys combat primarily. I do not enjoy mining. Why have I mined over a billion in credits, rather than go for it via combat? Because it's the most efficient way to solve the problem of needing credits.

As was your choice to do.

Players will solve the individual problems they encounter in the most efficient way most of the time despite preferred motives. You know that. Why would braben have said he doesn't want any one activity to pay insanely more than the others so players to don't feel forced to do that, if that path of least resistance wasn't the way players will approach the game? He knew that the paths you provide forward in the game dictate player behavior. Don't present purposefully ignorant arguments, you only devalue your own position.

He also made clear, through the design that he approved for this version of the game that started his career, that PvP is optional.

So I argue the path forward for the goal of playing totally alone should be through gameplay not modes, so you have to solve that problem and the game doesn't do it for you.

Indeed - that much is clear. It is also clear that such an approach does not have anything like unanimous support.

 

[Stelar 7]

How is that a problem?? Frontier would just settle out of court as usual - Kickstarter ship models, offline mode, Mac version etc. I've lost count. Or simpler still just turn off the ED server and put new terms on the ED2 server.

That isn't simple and even settlements would result in financial loss. Also loss of goodwill.

Given there is no need to inflict that on themselves its smart not to.

Still waiting on you to show where I was wrong about consent.

 

[leeG]

It doesn't remove consent. You cannot choose to play the game and simultaneously not consent to the rules that you're entering.

Sure, the option to play without the possibility of PvP would be removed. But it's still your choice to play or not.

I choose not to play in open. Your quote above is quite clear, play open or not at all. I asked you earlier in this thread how many players are you willing to throw under the bus. Never got an answer.

Here’s a real player data point for you. I don’t play open and I don’t do combat, at all. Hard points are for mining tools. I play the exploration loop and the trade/mining loop. Wasn’t considering even buying this game until it was pointed out to me there was a single player mode. Been playing for over three years and having a ball. Elite trade and Elite exploration, 21 ship fleet and 5.7 Bcr in the bank.

Your way isn’t the only way to play. It’s just your way. Frontier has fulfilled its contract with me and provided three modes of playing in common universe. I play solo and occasionally PG with family and friends. Open never, but it’s optional. As advertised.

As you clearly understand from your statement above, when you log into Elite, you consent to three modes of play all having equal influence on the shared galaxy. If you didn’t read the box and now having buyers remorse, that’s on you.

 

[Dommarraa]

Instead of arguing for open only, why don't you instead concentrate of getting FD to implement proper c&p, in game reason for PvP, visible group membership, f&f identification, tier 2 NPC, proper seek and avoid mechanics, and all the other stuff you would need to stop open only just becoming a gank fest of furious customers.

Get all that implemented, and you wouldn't need to force open only, people might play it out of choice, sounds like a great game to me (never knowingly been in open)

Open only is a destination, not a method of implementation

 

[Rat Catcher]

I choose not to play in open....

Here’s a real player data point for you. I don’t play open and I don’t do combat, at all. Hard points are for mining tools. I play the exploration loop and the trade/mining loop. Wasn’t considering even buying this game until it was pointed out to me there was a single player mode. Been playing for over three years and having a ball.

This is the thing I am most passionate about - the right to make a choice - simple, really.

I choose to play in whatever mode takes my fancy at any particular time - but admit to being very selfish

You make your choice, as do I, to have the greatest enjoyment from the game, that choice should remain in my opinion.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is the thing I am most passionate about - the right to make a choice - simple, really.

I choose to play in whatever mode takes my fancy at any particular time - but admit to being very selfish

You make your choice, as do I, to have the greatest enjoyment from the game, that choice should remain in my opinion.

Indeed.

It seems to be no coincidence that most players who suggest restricting or removing the choice of other players seem to have a preference for PvP.

A cynical person might consider that the assurances that "it's to make the game better" need to have "(for me, not necessarily you)" appended to them to be accurate - when those disinterested in PvP would no longer be able to play the game the way they currently enjoy it, i.e. their way, not a way imposed on them by others.

 

[Robert Maynard]

They have surely learned by now that within a few months of purchase FD does an update using the ED DRM it promised not to include to prevent you using the version you bought.

Everyone requires to play the same version in an online multi-player game.

 

[Stelar 7]

On a game costing £5? That's worth very little.

Nice try at a handwaive but many have paid more than that and damages don't reflect cost a few paid.

However even if it were true it's still a totally avoidable loss which makes the smart move to avoid it.

And that's worth even less, going by Frontier's past performance. E.g. take a look at Horizon's Steam review score.

If you don't have much goodwill losing what's left is even more painful.

Also steam reviews are not a good metric for a games good will. They are just a solid metric to prove the existance of salty people in gaming.

 

[Ganogati]

I am very anti-ganking, but I am also very much in the pro-"get folks back into open" camp, so I feel like I hover between two groups here.

I don't think we should do anything to restrict solo or PGs; no one should have their gameplay style hindered if they are used to playing that way. Many people just want to play alone, and that is perfectly fine.

What I DO think we should do is incentivize Open. As it stands, Open has only an additional con with no additional pros to it. If I log into open, I get all the same benefits I would have in solo or a PG, but I also get to have the random chance, however likely, that someone will pop my ship like a balloon and I'll lose everything I've worked for over the past few hours. So of course my obvious choice if I'm doing anything time intensive is to NOT do this in Open.

How do you fix that? Make Open worth it. Give me a reason to say "well, maybe it would be more beneficial to do this in open". Whether its buffing open's mission rewards for engineering mats or having mining have better returns, etc etc. Whatever the choice is- give me a reason to say "the risk is worth the reward". Because right now there is no reward, only additional risk, and I just don't see why folks would choose that if they are already used to playing in another mode.

Ultimately, Open needs to be given some purpose to its existence beyond PvP, or its only draw will be PvP. Which is fine, but since there are a lot of other things to do in the game that are not PvP based and would ultimately be harmed by unexpected PvP more than helped, that means that folks will have little incentive to bring their other tasks into Open.

IMO, incentivizing Open would be a boon to this game. Sandbox games thrive on either intensive and continuing story (which ED kind of lacks), on tools to shape the universe (which ED kind of lacks), or upon player interaction. We don't really have much of the first two, so capitalizing on the third should be our focus. Seeing and interacting with other CMDRs will help make the universe feel more alive, but we really need more reasons for folks to do that if some of those interactions can be unsolicited and unwanted PKs at very inopportune times.

 

[Ezren]

I'm actually asking for the layers of the cake to be changed to create a different flavor of cake it's still cake.

Oh, so you're just asking to completely change the cake.

You're using the allusions of other "changes" to hedge the impact of what you want different, thus lessening the validity of very real and logical criticisms, but you're entirely weighing on these additional "changes" to correct the issues you're going to create.

Basically, what you want will create problems, but you're just dismissing that fact by saying it can be fixed... somehow. On its own merits, what you want is a bad idea and doesn't substantially improve things.

 

[Stelar 7]

I am very anti-ganking, but I am also very much in the pro-"get folks back into open" camp, so I feel like I hover between two groups here.

I don't think we should do anything to restrict solo or PGs; no one should have their gameplay style hindered if they are used to playing that way. Many people just want to play alone, and that is perfectly fine.

What I DO think we should do is incentivize Open. As it stands, Open has only an additional con with no additional pros to it. If I log into open, I get all the same benefits I would have in solo or a PG, but I also get to have the random chance, however likely, that someone will pop my ship like a balloon and I'll lose everything I've worked for over the past few hours. So of course my obvious choice if I'm doing anything time intensive is to NOT do this in Open.

How do you fix that? Make Open worth it. Give me a reason to say "well, maybe it would be more beneficial to do this in open". Whether its buffing open's mission rewards for engineering matts or having mining have better returns, etc etc. Whatever the choice is- give me a reason to say "the risk is worth the reward". Because right now there is no reward, only additional risk, and I just don't see why folks would choose that if they are already used to playing in another mode.

There is a reward to open, the same reward as the risk, other people.

If you change any game mechanics to benefit play in Open you prioritize that over the other modes. You will also just see people switching from solo to open while docked before they complete the transaction.

I agree we should make Open more inviting, but that's done by being more inviting while we are in Open, give a o7 in local, talk and answer questions. Form up anti-piracy groups to police the space ways.

Or not, that's not everyone's cup of tea.

Thing is we already know most people play in open. So why push for the few who don't to be dragged in? It's not to have a fight, so it seems to me that it's a desire for soft targets.

Don't let pvp scrubs dictate policy.

 

[Stelar 7]

Also,

When I play in open, I see lots of people. If others feel open is empty I suggest that is likely the result of blocks awarded by fellow players who are sick of toxic behavior.

 

[Ezren]

I am very anti-ganking, but I am also very much in the pro-"get folks back into open" camp, so I feel like I hover between two groups here.

I don't think we should do anything to restrict solo or PGs; no one should have their gameplay style hindered if they are used to playing that way. Many people just want to play alone, and that is perfectly fine.

What I DO think we should do is incentivize Open. As it stands, Open has only an additional con with no additional pros to it. If I log into open, I get all the same benefits I would have in solo or a PG, but I also get to have the random chance, however likely, that someone will pop my ship like a balloon and I'll lose everything I've worked for over the past few hours. So of course my obvious choice if I'm doing anything time intensive is to NOT do this in Open.

How do you fix that? Make Open worth it. Give me a reason to say "well, maybe it would be more beneficial to do this in open". Whether its buffing open's mission rewards for engineering mats or having mining have better returns, etc etc. Whatever the choice is- give me a reason to say "the risk is worth the reward". Because right now there is no reward, only additional risk, and I just don't see why folks would choose that if they are already used to playing in another mode.

Ultimately, Open needs to be given some purpose to its existence beyond PvP, or its only draw will be PvP. Which is fine, but since there are a lot of other things to do in the game that are not PvP based and would ultimately be harmed by unexpected PvP more than helped, that means that folks will have little incentive to bring their other tasks into Open.

IMO, incentivizing Open would be a boon to this game. Sandbox games thrive on either intensive and continuing story (which ED kind of lacks), on tools to shape the universe (which ED kind of lacks), or upon player interaction. We don't really have much of the first two, so capitalizing on the third should be our focus. Seeing and interacting with other CMDRs will help make the universe feel more alive, but we really need more reasons for folks to do that if some of those interactions can be unsolicited and unwanted PKs at very inopportune times.

I've made similar arguments in the past, but the barrier is that making content mode-gated is a problem. I would love to have new roles for Multi-Crew that are necessary for certain activities, or Wing matchmaking for high-difficulty missions. Making not just things that require teamwork, but a method through which to encounter people to interact with in that context.

 

[ElectricFactory]

Do we know that ? Are there published player stats ?

Thing is we already know most people play in open.

 

[Ganogati]

I agree we should make Open more inviting, but that's done by being more inviting while we are in Open, give a o7 in local, talk and answer questions. Form up anti-piracy groups to police the space ways.

Unfortunately, even if 99 people "o7" you on your way back from a long exploration, and just 1 of them kills you before you dock to sell your data, that 1 person ruined your day in a way the other 99 could not make up for.

You will also just see people switching from solo to open while docked before they complete the transaction.

I would suspect the only way to make this work would be to ensure that the rewards are only available for missions or mining ops that take place entirely in Open. If you begin a mission transaction in open, it's flagged at open benefited. If you go into solo or PG at any point while that mission or mining op (ore in cargo, for example) is in progress, you lose that flag on the mission or the current inventory load. This would essentially necessitate finishing your business in open before popping back to solo if you want that sweet buff.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

Not entirely no, that is true. It's a problem the player would be tasked with addressing themselves, which is how I think it should be. These new problems give rise to more player agency, more room for imagination, and maybe demand for new cool additions to the game to serve as tools.

Example. I like to pirate player cargo ships.

I'm immediately faced with the fact that I need to use specific in game tools to accomplish this, and must also find somewhere that offers what I want to do.

I do not have some button to press and make it happen. So that means I have to make ship build choices. These choices mean that a dedicated PvP ship will out do mine should I try to face it. So I'm faced with how to confront that problem too. The onus, to deliver the experience im seeking within the sandbox, is on me. I argue that should be the case for everyone.

So solving the desired player experience of wanting to be alone, should be on the player. It also opens up potential for new tools in the sandbox (which I have tons of ideas for too as I imagine everyone would) to help the player thrive in it via smart ship choices and decisions.

Like I've said previously, the problem would be better solved through game mechanics than modes, and the existence of modes means the problem no longer exists to be solved.

I think you should stop kidding yourself and accept that some people don't want to play with you.
I propose that FDev add a simple 'invulnerability versus other players' mode to the open mode,

That way when we select Open/PG/Solo we can opt for Open-safe too, this would allow you to have more people in open and interact with them on their terms, after all it's a game of choices isn't it!

Your cake my recipe!

 

[Ganogati]

I've made similar arguments in the past, but the barrier is that making content mode-gated is a problem.

I would say that buffs or rewards, as opposed to content gating, would be my preference. Increased rewards for existing content, or even new rewards for time spent in open. Say a new ship variant comes out as a "veteran reward" of sorts, which requires 20-40 hours flying time (not docked time) in open. Even if you spend it out in the black, that's fine.

At the end of the day there will be folks who will game any system, and you can't beat em; at least I can't, as they're probably all smarter than me lol. But what you can do is at least try to create the incentive and hope that even a few folks will be lured to the goodness.

 

[Bigmaec]

Unfortunately, even if 99 people "o7" you on your way back from a long exploration, and just 1 of them kills you before you dock to sell your data, that 1 person ruined your day in a way the other 99 could not make up for.

To put it bluntly, if you are ganked while handing in data, the only one to blame is yourself.
There are umpteenthousand ports where to hand in safe.
People who hand in at Shin or Deciat frankly deserve to be ganked.

Jump in a system -> select highwake target -> check contacts -> if empty proceed to port.
It's that easy.

Exemption of course was Explorer's Anchorage during DW2, it obviously was a gank magnet.
Build accordingly, my Phantom had 950 mj shields, 591 m/s speed and a range of 57 LY.
Suffice to say I survived whole gank wings...

 

[Robert Maynard]

I would say that buffs or rewards, as opposed to content gating, would be my preference. Increased rewards for existing content, or even new rewards for time spent in open. Say a new ship variant comes out as a "veteran reward" of sorts, which requires 20-40 hours flying time (not docked time) in open. Even if you spend it out in the black, that's fine.

At the end of the day there will be folks who will game any system, and you can't beat em; at least I can't, as they're probably all smarter than me lol. But what you can do is at least try to create the incentive and hope that even a few folks will be lured to the goodness.

A ship parked at a sustainable scooping distance from an out of the way star could be left indefinitely earning "Open hours" if something like that proposed was implemented.

Frontier have been rather clear that only Powerplay is considered, by them, suitable for even being considered for some form of Open only / Open bonus though.