Modes Contraversal but Crucial: Lets be OPEN

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's a little rude.

Actually, I don't project my sentiments. As I aluded to--I actually spend MOST of my time in solo. But I find it to be a crutch. As I mentioned in my post, though, I'm open to dialogue.

Can you tell me what solo adds that Open doesn't?

It is without question that there are people that don't want to play open. The reason is simple--they are worried about PvP. But in terms of being a successful, thriving game, I have to question the decision a little, as it fractures the playerbase.

Of course, one big caviat to this, and something that would change my whole stance (and only Frontier knows), is how the servers work. That is, if current OPEN sessions are more/less maxed out, then adding more people to OPEN won't really improve the OPEN experiance, it will just cause them to be segregated off into some other server.

I have no desire to force people to play a game a certain way for the sake of it. But I value the interactions and gameplay mechanics that can develop from having AI replaced with people, who are more dynamic, cunning, and clever.

As per above, I can honestly not think of any way in which solo can be better than Open. I can, however, think of dozens of ways OPEN can be better than SOLO.

Again, I'm open to counter points.

You're forgetting the Private Group mode. There's lots of player interaction and cooperation or just a friendly o7 at times.

And what Solo has that both PG and Open don't, it's the opportunity to not interact with other players if I'm not in the mood. It's the [do not disturb] sign. And when I do feel more social, in my experience private groups deliver better content than Open, because it's content that is geared toward what I'm looking for.

And you say you have no desire to force people into one mode or another, but when you suggest to make Solo and Private slave modes to the action in Open, that is exactly what you are doing. Might not have been your intention, but it is the result. People should play in Open when they want the random encounters including hostile ones. People can play Private when they want random encounters without hostile ones, And Solo when they don't want to encounter other CMDRs.

All play styles served and accounted for. Open is not the end-all mode. It is just another mode.

 

[castleberg]

Yeah, I sort of set myself on fire with this post. I had no idea people took the concept so personally lol.

To be fair, I suppose it is understandable that my motivation was misinterpreted, as it was poorly expressed. Honestly, the entire topic was probably mislabeled. Ultimately for me, the idea of "open" was a means to and end. That end being robust player-player game mechanics.

Whether someone engages in them, I could really care less.

I see now that I had the cart before the hoarse. I advocated for pushing players to "open" in the hopes this would foster player interaction and incentivize Frontier to focus on player mechanics, while what I SHOULD have done is advocated for player mechanics, that would make people WANT to join open to experiance them (or not...whatever they want to do). But again, I see my priorities were a little out of order. And further, I had no idea how passionate people were about the current mode system.

 

[Jockey79]

.... while what I SHOULD have done is advocated for player mechanics, that would make people WANT to join open to experiance them

Yup, I've listed a few ideas in another thread here.

And further, I had no idea how passionate people were about the current mode system.

Oh yes, it's a hot topic. I joined the debate in December 2014, but it had been going some time before I join in.

The thing is, there are lots of reasons people do not play Open Mode.
Some folks have disabilities and are unable to react quickly when attacked (hence the tame AI, as MOM can make them a lot better).
Some folks may have mental disorders or PTSD, so fast paced gaming isn't and option as it could be a trigger.
Some folks are just plain anti social, others like a mate of mine has really bad internet (he lives in a remote part of Wales with no broadband) and can only play with a max of 1 other person before his net just gives up or the game lags out and kicks him.
David Braben did show of the game on a moving train using mobile internet in Solo mode (that's how little it uses).
People away on business using a hotel connection tend to favour Solo. Or anyone deployed to another country using whatever net they can get.

Giving a bonus to open mode or trying to force open mode will penalise some people, who through no fault of their own cannot play open mode.

Plus we all love the game, and it's easy to be passionate about something we love

 

[Robert Maynard]

I advocated for pushing players to "open" in the hopes this would foster player interaction and incentivize Frontier to focus on player mechanics, while what I SHOULD have done is advocated for player mechanics, that would make people WANT to join open to experiance them (or not...whatever they want to do). But again, I see my priorities were a little out of order. And further, I had no idea how passionate people were about the current mode system.

Indeed - and any new player mechanics would be implemented in both multi-player game modes - so there would still be no requirement for players that don't enjoy PvP to play in Open to experience them (ref. Wings and Multi-Crew).

 

[Archduke]

Speak for yourself. I have never "mdoe switched" except for two occasions.Once where Mission list was not appearing and a second time (desperate to try anyhting that woked) I was suffering from repeat disconnectsOther than that I don't think I have ever played in any PG or SOLO mode - so not sure what you're ona bout with adiction and claiminig this "mode switching" is something ubiquitous.__________________________I will say (as I have done many times in many loosely connected threads) that it would be PREFERABLE in my opinion, if efforts were aimed at promoting, encouraging and incentivising more INCLUSIVE play, rather than widening the divisions and exascerbating the philosophical dichotomies within the community.In todays world there are so many huge problems stemming from an unwillingness to simply accept others or at least refusal to reach across te divides - why should this abhorrent mentality be applied in a form of entertainment also???

 

[Robert Maynard]

In todays world there are so many huge problems stemming from an unwillingness to simply accept others or at least refusal to reach across te divides - why should this abhorrent mentality be applied in a form of entertainment also???

The PvP / PvE debate existed long before this game - and Frontier chose to accommodate both types of players through the three game modes.

Some players enjoy direct PvP and some don't - it's that simple.

 

[Archduke]

The PvP / PvE debate existed long before this game - and Frontier chose to accommodate both types of players through the three game modes.Some players enjoy direct PvP and some don't - it's that simple.

Indeed it has existed even before videogames.Not sure why any discussion of player interactivity is draged into the limited perspect ive of PCvPC combat though.Incidentally, it is often neglected that it's perfectly possible to include PCvPC combat in private group modes as well.There's plenty of scope to improve the potentials and gameplay elements to both allow players who wish to avoid or evade PCvPC combat, whilst providing a greater opportunity for more players to enjoy interactions with others. For example, hiring bodyguards etc.There seems to be a blanket labelling across any aspect of player intereactivity as a "bad thing" or relating to "being killed by someone else" etc. which perpetuates an antithetical stance towards any kind of community.

 

[Faded Glory]

There's plenty of scope to improve the potentials and gameplay elements to both allow players who wish to avoid or evade PCvPC combat, whilst providing a greater opportunity for more players to enjoy interactions with others.

You assume, incorrectly IMHO that players only want to avoid combat interactions with other players. I'm sure there are some players who want to meet others but not be shot at by them (there's around 40,000 in Mobius by all accounts), but there are definitely others who have no interest in any interactions with others of any kind. Not even "Hello".

For example, hiring bodyguards etc.There seems to be a blanket labelling across any aspect of player intereactivity as a "bad thing" or relating to "being killed by someone else" etc. which perpetuates an antithetical stance towards any kind of community.

Which can be done right now, by players who would enjoy it... Again for those who don't wish to have other real players impact their leisure time, being obliged to hire a bodyguard so they can spend an hour or so relaxing while trading would not add anything at all to their gaming experience.

People bandy the word community around as if the 1 million or so players who have purchased ED are some like minded group of individuals who all share the same goal within the game. FD give all players the ability to be a part of whatever community in game that they want, from the random meetings with strangers in open, to the privacy of one in solo, and everything in-between.

Form groups of traders, pirates and bodyguards (you'd probably all need to be in a group and on each other's friends list for the instancing to work well anyway). It just seems with each of these conversations that players don't really want that. No, it has to be, willing or not, that everybody should be potential content.

No matter how hard you try, or how loudly you protest, you will never get people who don't want to play with you to play with you. FD seem to understand that. They do what they can to encourage and endorse open play, not because they see it as superior, but because they think it would be more fun. But they clearly realize that not everyone in their player base shares that opinion, and they certainly don't seem to be inclined to force it on anyone.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There seems to be a blanket labeling across any aspect of player interactivity as a "bad thing"

Quote someone from this or the other thread that labels any aspect of player interactivity as a "bad thing".

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed it has existed even before videogames.Not sure why any discussion of player interactivity is draged into the limited perspect ive of PCvPC combat though.

.... because when players can interact in ways that they find to offer mutual "fun" there are those that can, and do, come along and spoil it for them in Open.

Incidentally, it is often neglected that it's perfectly possible to include PCvPC combat in private group modes as well.

Indeed it is - and some members of a Private Group that has recently moved to a zero-PvP stance (previously PvP was permitted in CZs) have found out to their cost when some members chose to ignore the Private Group's rules.

There's plenty of scope to improve the potentials and gameplay elements to both allow players who wish to avoid or evade PCvPC combat, whilst providing a greater opportunity for more players to enjoy interactions with others.

Challenging in Open - quite possible in Private Groups.

For example, hiring bodyguards etc.

Hiring bodyguards requires trust (in the bodyguards by the player hiring them) and availability - plus we lack direct credit transfer between players (something that Frontier are resistant to introducing).

There seems to be a blanket labelling across any aspect of player intereactivity as a "bad thing" or relating to "being killed by someone else" etc. which perpetuates an antithetical stance towards any kind of community.

Which probably comes back to the fact that some players don't enjoy being shot at by other players, i.e. they do not find it to provide a "fun" experience - and the fact that some players would seem to go out of their way to attack players simply because they are players, regardless of whether or not thje target is likely to provide anything in the way of a challenge.

 

[Chaparral]

I see quite a few threads either encouraging folks to play in open, forcing open as the "only" mode for "real" gameplay, or incentivizing open. I don't see these threads started by Mobius or Mobius PVE members or founders. (maybe I'm wrong about that).

There are tons of survival PVP games out there, Elite only requires that in Open. If that part of Elite is empty - or becoming empty - or is not well populated, then there simply isn't the player base interest to support survival PVP in this genre.

I would personally be curious to see a direct questionnaire through the client to investigate whether the player base would choose the Open experience to be survival PVP or complete PVE or PVE with PVP zones. With that kind of data, we could truly get some insight as to what the players want instead of circularly arguing our point of views for mode.

 

[MannyDib]

I tell you what OP: If I get my own BGS so I can play single player you can go play in Open. I have no interest in a multi-player game.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

No progress in any mode apart from Solo? Wow, that's even more extreme than some of the other suggestions made hereabouts.

So people who never go into open would never be able to get out of their sidewinders?

Craziest suggestion of the year award candidate i feel.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I don't see these threads started by Mobius or Mobius PVE members or founders. (maybe I'm wrong about that).

Rarely, and sometimes as a joke in response to someone pushing the Open only agenda. Then you might see someone suggest an Open PvE mode.

 

[Shadowdancer]

And another one who thinks that "open" is all about the PvP.

Dare I say murderhobo? I do.

 

[Tiwaz]

Yeah, I sort of set myself on fire with this post. I had no idea people took the concept so personally lol.

To be fair, I suppose it is understandable that my motivation was misinterpreted, as it was poorly expressed. Honestly, the entire topic was probably mislabeled. Ultimately for me, the idea of "open" was a means to and end. That end being robust player-player game mechanics.

Whether someone engages in them, I could really care less.

I see now that I had the cart before the hoarse. I advocated for pushing players to "open" in the hopes this would foster player interaction and incentivize Frontier to focus on player mechanics, while what I SHOULD have done is advocated for player mechanics, that would make people WANT to join open to experiance them (or not...whatever they want to do). But again, I see my priorities were a little out of order. And further, I had no idea how passionate people were about the current mode system.

I have bad news for you. All the mechanics you want will not change what players ARE. And reality is that when offered opportunity to be amoral, sociopathic murderhobos going after other humans in particular to just pewpew them to death....

Huge number of players will embrace it. Not all, but enough to make the activity miserable for those not interested in it. And this group, no matter what player mechanics you offer them, will choose the murderhobo attitude to follow. They will not do it only if you make it IMPOSSIBLE to be murderhobo. Which means you have to take away PvP entirely, because as long as option to blow up another player exists there are many, many people who embrace it to point where it is their main activity to pursue.

It is nothing new, it has been bane of multiplayer games for ages.

 

[Jockey79]

And another one who thinks that "open" is all about the PvP.

Because you know I'm all about them guns,
'Bout them guns, no Solo
I'm all 'bout them guns, 'bout them guns, no Solo
I'm all 'bout them guns, 'bout that bass, no Solo
I'm all 'bout them guns, 'bout them guns.


Yeah it's pretty clear, I ain't no PvE
But I can pew, pew like I'm supposed to do
'Cause I got that boom boom that all the boys chase
All the right mods in all the right places
I see the magazines working that Engineer
We know that sh*t ain't real
Come on now, make it stop
If you got beauty beauty just raise 'em up
'Cause every inch of you is griefer
From the bottom to the top

 

[Theodrid]

That's okay.

Not everyone knows the history of the topic, the mode system has been widely talked about since the Kickstarter fund raising.
So I find it useful to keep a brief history post to pass on to others.

Should you ever need / want to refer back to it, or see if anything new has been added to it, I keep a link to it in my sig with the last time I've updated it.

Ahhhhh, have some rep Jockey, glad you got to scratch that itch again buddy - for my sake and yours!

 

[Jockey79]

Ahhhhh, have some rep Jockey, glad you got to scratch that itch again buddy - for my sake and yours!

Cheers buddy, I'll get forum Elite one day.

If you need anything form the wall, or if you'd like a copy paste version for yourself just shout up and I'll PM it to you.
And of course, the link will forever be in my sig

If by the time I pass away (hopefully old age, many, many years from now) we have digital headstones, I'm having The Wall of Information proudly displayed on it.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

I tell you what OP: If I get my own BGS so I can play single player you can go play in Open. I have no interest in a multi-player game.

Yeah I wish this would be the case, Solo players will actually get their single player mode with their own BGS while not affecting the global BGS/PP.