If you want more people in Open, the best way to accomplish it are QOL features to make Open more desirable.

The fundamental draw of Open is playing with others. It's the only real difference between Open and Solo, so it's also the main selling point.

The trouble is that, at present, meeting new random players is largely biased towards aggression. If you see a new player, your initial response should ALWAYS be caution. This makes playing in Open simply too much trouble for players who don't enjoy random combat.

The key to solving this is to introduce more systems that let friendly players meet and cooperate, easily and intuitively.

For example, take Powerplay. In theory, it's a great way for sympathetic players to meet and coordinate, but in practice, if you want to actually meet a friendly player, you probably need to coordinate that meeting using external services like Discord.

The trouble is, if you're already looking into things like Discord, you're already interested in meeting people, and Open doesn't need to be sold to you in the first place.

A real-life example is the difference between a Chevy advertisement and a Chevy dealership. The Dealership is just great for those already looking for a Chevy, but if you don't have much desire for a Chevy to begin with, you'll never go to the dealership in the first place. That's where ads come in, to draw attention to the dealership for those people who don't realize that the benefits of owning a Chevy might be helpful to them.

Discord is the Dealership. What is needed is the advertisement.



Examples

1. Allow players to post wing missions publicly. For example, if you start a wing massacre mission, you can post it on your Powerplay faction's message board, and other members of your faction can go to the power tab and locate nearby missions that are available, join them, and go help complete them.

2. An ingame message board. Letting reputable members of the faction post twitter-like posts that are shared across the faction would help players know the best way to help their faction, or just find others with similar interests. For example, "Tomorrow at 1600, I will be jumping my FC, the Liar's Coinpurse, to the Coalsack Nebula to do some Thargoid Combat. Feel free to join me!" This system could be moderated by community vote of reputable members of the faction, reducing load on fdev.

3. Let players see long-term crime stats on other players. For example, seeing how many players someone has killed might help them to determine whether or not that person is safe to meet, or if they should run away. This could be done as simply as a separate ranking based on accrued bounties, perhaps going from "Upstanding Citizen" all the way to "Pirate Lord".

These sorts of features make Open more ...open. More welcoming, and more likely to get players in the door and experiencing the good multiplayer aspects that are this mode's primary selling point.

Remove the people from open and I’ll happily play.
 
I don't think that's entirely true.

For example, I primarily play in Solo(barring the occasional boredom-inspired visit to Open). But when I'm watching a streamer who I KNOW to be a decent person play in Open, I'm much more likely to join them and play together.

The problem isn't other players, the problem is not knowing whether or not other players are a worthwhile investment of time and energy. Not to mention finding them to play with them in the first place.

By adding ingame tools that helps to meet and play with other players in your own faction, you create opportunities for more meetings like this.

I do support that this is a more positive approach to incentivising Open play, by making cooperative interaction easier than just kablammo’ing each other. It’s a much better launch pad in my opinion!
 
I’d happily play in Open all the time if it wasn’t for the stupid Microsoft Tax.

I can’t afford to be wasting money on things like Xbox Live at the moment and I disagree with being forced to pay a subscription fee just for the occasional player interaction in principle when PC players generally get it at no extra cost.

A lot of online games charge a subscription fee just to play them (thank god ED doesn’t!) and then Xbox & Sony insist on locking almost every MMO behind their own extra subscription on top of that as if they don’t already take a cut from the purchase of games from XBL/PSN.

Well the Microsoft tax as you called it is hardly new is it. I’d understand the indignation a little if that were the case.
 
I think this is aimed at players on the fence or mixing modes, and new players, more than those in solo since forever, and improving open for those already there.

No. 1. I'm on the fence about it as it feels intrusive somehow. I'd prefer it broadcast only in-system (e.g. a "wing missions available" tab in the left panel). You could have a selector for who sees it similar to fleetcarrier landing permissions.

2. I think would get abused. It might work better as a dropdown system.

3. Would be interesting as some kind of "Pilot's Federation profile" with some nuance (e.g. who they killed and why, if they did) but removes some mystique. On the fence again.

It does seem odd not to have any info, e.g. on the CMDR murder rate in a system you're jumping to, or reports on murderers (via notoriety) being there. It'd be more in-universe to have something that gave you info on CMDR dangers based on your rep with the controller of a system (and/or superpower rep, gov type) in which they're flying, so more woven into the game fabric (PvEvGank). It could control your level of access to a CMDR's profile for winging on a mission, or just "here be dragons" warnings.

Now that I think more deeply about it, just the powerplay tab might not be sufficient.

Perhaps a better approach might be something like a message that gets sent to you. "A nearby(less than 20ly away) player in your faction has made a Wing mission public! Click accept to swap over to Open mode and join them!"

At the same time, a faction reputation would probably help too. Pilot's federation might not care if someone's a mass murderer, but I bet each individual faction would mind, and would keep track of that guy that killed 2500 of their pilots over a few years.
 
I don't think that's entirely true.

For example, I primarily play in Solo(barring the occasional boredom-inspired visit to Open). But when I'm watching a streamer who I KNOW to be a decent person play in Open, I'm much more likely to join them and play together.

The problem isn't other players, the problem is not knowing whether or not other players are a worthwhile investment of time and energy. Not to mention finding them to play with them in the first place.

By adding ingame tools that helps to meet and play with other players in your own faction, you create opportunities for more meetings like this.

And I'm not saying no to your suggestion- it just can't be prioritised over actual game content, since its duplicating what exists to a lesser extent. All of this is possible now, it just takes slightly more legwork and Discord in a background window.
 
Well the Microsoft tax as you called it is hardly new is it. I’d understand the indignation a little if that were the case.

Doesn't matter how long it's been around, it's still another unnecessary pay wall. I can completely understand paying for XBL to get free games every month or discounts, but using it to lock players out of online games is scummy behaviour.
 
And I'm not saying no to your suggestion- it just can't be prioritised over actual game content, since its duplicating what exists to a lesser extent. All of this is possible now, it just takes slightly more legwork and Discord in a background window.

The whole point of having ingame factions is to make cooperation simpler and easier. If you need to use external services to cooperate anyway, you may as well not have an ingame faction at all.

The first priority should be integrating existing features so that they facilitate other aspects of gameplay, and, together, become more than the sum of their parts. This serves to multiply available features, rather than simply adding to them.

It's akin to using all heavy duty shield boosters, rather than mixing in some resistance boosters to multiply the value of your shields.
 
The whole point of having ingame factions is to make cooperation simpler and easier. If you need to use external services to cooperate anyway, you may as well not have an ingame faction at all.

The first priority should be integrating existing features so that they facilitate other aspects of gameplay, and, together, become more than the sum of their parts. This serves to multiply available features, rather than simply adding to them.

It's akin to using all heavy duty shield boosters, rather than mixing in some resistance boosters to multiply the value of your shields.

And again, I'd love to have this in game. However I know it would come at the expense of something else, and if that was the case I'd file this under 'nice to have'.
 
And again, I'd love to have this in game. However I know it would come at the expense of something else, and if that was the case I'd file this under 'nice to have'.

Ultimately it comes down to what's best for the game as a whole.

New content is all well and good, but if only a small portion of the playerbase uses that content, due to a lack of ground-level QOL features to get players in the door, then those new features are a poor devtime investment.

Ultimately, getting as many players as possible into the existing content, of which there's quite a bit already, is much more important than any amount of new content, which would be unused by a significant portion of the playerbase.

Frankly, I think you're being a bit shortsighted here. The best way to get additional content for powerplay is to get more of the playerbase interacting with it, and you can't get that without drawing in those new players. By rejecting one in favor of the other, you're essentially rejecting both.
 
You bought the Xbox.
Master Race.png
 
People make Open sounds like the wild west where every single CMDR shoots at another just for existing. After playing for years, I will make this incredibly plain. YOU ARE ONLY BEING SHOT AT BECAUSE YOU ARE IN A POPULAR SYSTEM. Do your research on popular systems so you know what systems to take caution in.

What's my sources? I help do system maintenance for Lavigny's Legion. We're in 32 systems and ALL our activities involving faction BGS & Powerplay are conducted in Open. I encounter maybe 4-5 CMDRs outside of LL when in our systems. If you're encountering people in places like Deciat, Wyrd, Shinrarta Dezhra, Asellus Primus, Kamadhenu, Nanomam, Rhea and others, these are high traffic systems for a reason. The very fact that I can do BGS in a bi-weave Python and not get bothered by anyone is a testament to my experience and a discredit to this wild west rhetoric I keep reading about.
 
The thing is though, this goes against how FD 'see' MP and Open IMO, and the game as a whole. For example Powerplay was designed from the outset to be lots of individuals 'doing the right thing' separately and not what we see now (focused organisation that requires things like Discord). MP (and most activities regardless of mode) are local with wings and whoever is in that instance opportunistically (who then can be made 'permanent' by the friend system). All of that was a choice, and putting in a layer above squadron chat to me is them going back on that. In principle I'm not against it, if FD have time because it would deprive more pressing needs (like actually updating Powerplay to begin with, and designing systems that sort out the 'what the hell do I do?').

People who don't like Open will (IMO) not be tempted into it via having better communication, they simply dislike other players and their unpredictable nature.

Pretty much this. But I'd also go even further and say that increased communication would actually further deter me from entering open mode. In most multiplayer games, if I have randomers trying to communicate with me, my usual emotional response (which I am too polite to forward to the perpetrator) is to think "why is this person trying to talk to me, they should just shut up and play the game".

Rather than further differentiating us from the NPCs that populate the galaxy, I'd much rather that NPCs were made more engaging and human-like in their behaviour. That being said, if FD made these kind of communication channels and gave NPCs the required scripts to interact with them, that would be pretty fantastic. I'd much rather cooperate with some procedural NPC with their own personality and goals for a bit rather than a human. Converge NPC and player dynamics, rather than make them diverge.

Going onto OP's post, one phrase that very much concerns me is "reputable members of the faction", which could easily mean those who have reached allied reputation with them, but a lot of players would interpret as being some kind of discord cabal that involves players upvoting and downvoting each other's messages in order to create their own echo chamber.
 
Pretty much this. But I'd also go even further and say that increased communication would actually further deter me from entering open mode. In most multiplayer games, if I have randomers trying to communicate with me, my usual emotional response (which I am too polite to forward to the perpetrator) is to think "why is this person trying to talk to me, they should just shut up and play the game".

Rather than further differentiating us from the NPCs that populate the galaxy, I'd much rather that NPCs were made more engaging and human-like in their behaviour. That being said, if FD made these kind of communication channels and gave NPCs the required scripts to interact with them, that would be pretty fantastic. I'd much rather cooperate with some procedural NPC with their own personality and goals for a bit rather than a human. Converge NPC and player dynamics, rather than make them diverge.

Going onto OP's post, one phrase that very much concerns me is "reputable members of the faction", which could easily mean those who have reached allied reputation with them, but a lot of players would interpret as being some kind of discord cabal that involves players upvoting and downvoting each other's messages in order to create their own echo chamber.

Unfortunately, making actual AI is somewhat difficult, so I don't think making NPCs that are indistinguishable from humans is a very realistic solution.

If you're the sort of person who simply doesn't enjoy contact with other players, friend OR foe, then Open will never be a mode for you, no matter what changes are made to it. But the number of people utterly against player contact is a relatively small portion of the overall playerbase.

As far as one group of people taking control of a faction is concerned, I don't really see the problem, to be honest. Groups of players ALREADY control many of these factions and it hasn't been a problem, so really, not much will change, other than offering these groups better ways of communicating with each other and with new recruits.
 
Frankly, I think you're being a bit shortsighted here. The best way to get additional content for powerplay is to get more of the playerbase interacting with it, and you can't get that without drawing in those new players. By rejecting one in favor of the other, you're essentially rejecting both.

You need a compelling, 5C proof feature first otherwise you wind up with the situation we have now. Lack of popularity is not caused by lack of communication tools, its caused by a poor underlying game feature.

Maybe those Powerplay balances and eventual 'proper look' Arthur always teases might actually do that and bring new people in- in an ideal world we should have both (your idea and better Powerplay) but we both know FD does not work like that. Powerplay can't wait for change, your idea can if its a choice between the two.
 
You need a compelling, 5C proof feature first otherwise you wind up with the situation we have now. Lack of popularity is not caused by lack of communication tools, its caused by a poor underlying game feature.

Maybe those Powerplay balances and eventual 'proper look' Arthur always teases might actually do that and bring new people in- in an ideal world we should have both (your idea and better Powerplay) but we both know FD does not work like that. Powerplay can't wait for change, your idea can if its a choice between the two.

What you continue to fail to realize is, they have no reason to improve a feature that nobody uses. Fixing 5c makes a better feature for the tiny portion of the playerbase that uses it, but most people don't. That means it's very low on the priority list, just like bugged megaship cargo hatches. Fixing powerplay won't suddenly draw in a bunch of new players, because most of those players are still in solo and not on Discord, meaning they don't give a crap.

To repeat this point, just to make sure I'm absolutely clear; so long as Powerplay remains a tiny niche only used by a fraction of the playerbase, there is zero reason to waste any significant amount of effort on it. It's nothing but a waste of time and effort.

But powerplay's gameplay mechanics don't need ANY changes for the powers themselves to function perfectly well as a social hub. Adding a few features like improved social aspects and mission sharing help far more than just powerplay, and players can utilize these social aspects without giving any sort of crap about 'winning' at powerplay.

Crucially, these players would be in the powers ONLY for the social aspects. They would be doing missions together and playing with their friends. The majority of them would not care whatsoever about hauling merits or whatever, because...why would they? It's boring as heck.

But by getting players in the door, getting them playing and socializing with others in their club, you bring them, at least tangentially, into the powerplay system. The more players you have even tangentially related to powerplay, the more likely it becomes for Fdev to consider it an efficient use of resources to fix the gameplay aspects, and the more likely you are to get what you want.

But what you must accept is that the gameplay aspects of powerplay are more or less irrelevant, not only to most players, but also to Fdev. And until you create the impetus to change that, powerplay is incredibly unlikely to see any changes.
 
Last edited:
What you continue to fail to realize is, they have no reason to improve a feature that nobody uses. Fixing 5c makes a better feature for the tiny portion of the playerbase that uses it, but does nothing for the majority of players, so it's very low on the priority list, just like bugged megaship cargo hatches.

To repeat this point, just to make sure I'm absolutely clear; so long as Powerplay remains a tiny niche only used by a fraction of the playerbase, there is zero reason to waste any significant amount of effort on it. It's nothing but a waste of time and effort.

But powerplay's mechanics don't need ANY changes to function perfectly well as a social hub. Adding a few features like improved social aspects and mission sharing help far more than just powerplay, and players can utilize these social aspects without giving any sort of crap about 'winning' at powerplay.

Except by doing so, you actually get players in the door and socializing with others in their club. The more players you have even tangentially related to powerplay, the more likely it becomes for Fdev to consider it an efficient use of resources to fix the gameplay aspects, and the more likely you are to get what you want.

But what you must accept is that the gameplay aspects of powerplay are more or less irrelevant, not only to most players, but also to Fdev. And until you create the impetus to change that, powerplay is incredibly unlikely to see any changes.

And you fail to realise (as I pointed out in my OP) ED is not set up the way you think it is. ED is heavily decentralized and assumes people won't talk to each other. Powerplay was designed like this, all missions are designed around small low level groups and opportunistic communication.
 
And you fail to realise (as I pointed out in my OP) ED is not set up the way you think it is. ED is heavily decentralized and assumes people won't talk to each other. Powerplay was designed like this, all missions are designed around small low level groups and opportunistic communication.

...which is why I suggested this entire concept in the first place.

The reason Open isn't used by many people is for the exact reasons you lay out. These are not perks, these are critical design flaws that hold it back from being what it could be.

Changing them is the best way of helping Open become a more thriving and vibrant community.
 
Back
Top Bottom