How Open-only would balance ED

Indeed.

Not a PvP-flag in the usual sense then.

.... it'd probably also be abused - as players could collude to earn "BGS inf-like points" in non-contested encounters.

It'd likely make little difference to those disinterested in PvP as those intent on attacking soft targets would still do so - flag set or not.
You are making up objections based on nothing but subjective negativity ;)

A PvE flag (one that disables PvP) has several significant downsides that would adversely affect the game for some playstyles.

A PvP flag (one that enables meaningful PvP) has no downside over what we currently have. Any abuse of the flag would be actions that can already be done in the game anyway, unless I'm missing something :)
 
Indeed.

Not a PvP-flag in the usual sense then.

.... it'd probably also be abused - as players could collude to earn "BGS inf-like points" in non-contested encounters.

It'd likely make little difference to those disinterested in PvP as those intent on attacking soft targets would still do so - flag set or not.
Ironically, I suppose, IF a "PvP flag" system was only used to ignore PvP, I guess everybody who isn't interested in PvP should be in favour of it.
I mean, if I'm just intent on mining or trading or exploring then I can just un-set my PvP flag and not give two poops whether or not the system is being abused by PvPers in order to avoid consequences and/or retrubution or just to interfere with PvP.
None of that, as a PVE player, would be my problem.

Trouble is, of course, that it's not how a "PvP flag" system would be misused.
As with everything else, the main abuse of it would be for griefers to use as a tool to inflict themselves on others.

Which is why a "PvP flag" system should never, ever, be adopted... unless there's 100% certainty that it cannot be used to harass PvE players.

How about setting it up so that setting your PvP flag immediately takes you out of any instance where there's players who don't have their PvP flag set?
I can predict how popular that'll be too.
 
A PvP flag (one that enables meaningful PvP) has no downside over what we currently have. Any abuse of the flag would be actions that can already be done in the game anyway, unless I'm missing something :)
If the best argument in favour of implementing a new system is "Well, it won't be any worse than the current system" then it's probably not worth implementing.

I'd like to think we set our standards a bit higher, especially when the "current system" is actually no system at all.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
You are making up objections based on nothing but subjective negativity ;)
Claims of "no downside" are just as subjective. ;)

.... and spotting flaws in proposals is part and parcel of discussing them.
A PvE flag (one that disables PvP) has several significant downsides that would adversely affect the game for some playstyles.
PvP itself has a significant downside that adversely affects some playstyles. The existence of the modes means that PvP is already entirely optional - however only one game mode has an unlimited population and that game mode is PvP enabled.

If a PvP flag is not palatable then an Open-PvE game mode might be better in the sense that players playing in it would not be able to be encountered by those wishing PvP.
A PvP flag (one that enables meaningful PvP) has no downside over what we currently have. Any abuse of the flag would be actions that can already be done in the game anyway, unless I'm missing something :)
What would the "points" result in? If it would be an "extra something" for players who engage in PvP then that would be a downside for those who don't flag themselves.
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Seems like having an offline mode project for two years doesnt really fit with your story of the online modes being a constant in their design "direction" tho.
Offline mode being added and subsequently removed from the scope had no apparent effect on the existence of the three online game modes that were announced at the outset, developed and released as part of the game - except to very likely make removal of Solo even less likely as its existence was used in partial mitigation of the removal of Offline mode.
 
Last edited:
Maybe because complex gaming is nearly impossible with the current infrastructure/servers/AWS´s/PC´s. Just guessing.

But a couple of hundred players in the same session, including mega-furball-dogfights seems to be ... well... far away - not only for Elite.
Back in 2002 I was playing 256 person Tribes 2 games and fighting first-person space sim battles with three-hundred people in the same instance in Jumpgate. Even most of the tactical/arena shooters I was playing fifteen-plus years ago allowed more than 32 players.

Current games like Planetside 2 and Infinity: Battlescape also support hundreds of players in the same vicinity.

Where there is a limit on players per game session/instance it's usually a gameplay decision first, with bandwidth and server load secondary considerations.

Elite: Dangerous is peer-to-peer with clients also acting as instance hosts. This is a pretty big constraint because not only do you have to be able to have peers run there client with minimal slow down, they have to be able to simultaneously host many others. It also results in situations where spikes in load on one peer can crap up the game for everyone in that instance, if that peer is the instance host.

Simple fact is, ED allows for a diverse array of gameplay and Open-Only is likely to hinder almost every aspect of gameplay aside from PvP.
There is nothing I can do with my CMDR that isn't better in Open, except for having to deal with the lack of time-limited docking queues (something I've been complaining about since before launch) and the occasional instancing bug.
 
If the best argument in favour of implementing a new system is "Well, it won't be any worse than the current system" then it's probably not worth implementing.

I'd like to think we set our standards a bit higher, especially when the "current system" is actually no system at all.
Good job it isn't the best argument for it then eh?
 
Disclaimer - I am NOT advocating for Open-Only, I'm just making an observation.

Today I decided to join the Tritium Truckers, in hopes to make some meager credits to help me slowly progress to my goal of someday owning a fleet carrier. The best prices were between two outposts, so I configured my Python for cargo running and started my trucking - in a private group. Was I worried about gankers? A little, but not terribly so. No, what I wanted to avoid was an insane line of CMDRs all competing for that one medium pad. And that's when it dawned on me - everyone lining up for a great deal is realistic, and I'm basically "cheating" (figuratively, not literally) by creating my own parallel universe Walmart on Black Friday where there are no lines.

If the game was Open-only, these lines would force players to spread out and accept less than the perfect exchange rates in trade, thus bringing balance to the game. It would also bring legitimate PvP piracy (something I enjoy), and yes, ganking, which would also balance the game. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, heck it's not a solution at all (modes are here to stay), but I do think that a large contributor to the success of all these gold rushes is that we can create our own private realities where we don't have to deal with long lines, criminals, and other realistic challenges. And because of this, I do think the game is less than what it could be.

And yet, here I am trading in the safety of a PG / Solo, so I guess I want a FC more than I want realism at the moment, LOL.

EDIT - I just found a route between two large stations, but the theory still applies I believe. Just consider some of the traffic jams we used to see during community goals.
If Open was only allowing realistic in-game behaviour of players that is in line with lore, that would be great. It doesn't though. So you are not opting out of realism if you're not playing in Open, but just out of the minority of disrupting "lol lol Ima gank you lol" people who are in no way realistic or immersive.

Also: congratulations to creating your own mammoth marathon thread! :D
 
Sure, ED isn't real-life but real-life does allow people to go and find places where they can participate in a war or become a criminal kingpin but it also allows people to earn an honest living in relative safety or just potter about minding their own business.
This is the point I'm making in the OP - a gold rush in Solo isn't what I'd describe as an "honest living". A IRL gold rush (think old California) is not your typical 9-5 job or trucking route where you're running produce for the local grocery stores. It's a gold RUSH, and in Open it actually feels this way - be it a mining system like Borann was or a crazy lucrative trade route that everyone is hopping on. Being able to take advantage of a gold rush without the "rush" is not honest IMO.

But there is an an alternative answer to "Open-only" (which in hindsight probably wasn't the best title for this thread in light of how it's devolved in to PvP arguments). That is to have NPC traffic in Solo and PG mirror CMDR traffic in Open. If a system is busy in Open, it should be busy in Solo and PG. We living in a shared universe after all. Oh, and check out my recent thread about NPC pirates where I observe that NPCs are acting like gankers now. I made the suggestion (far fetched as it may be) that perhaps Frontier has coded NPCs to mimic CMDRs in systems where ganking is occurring - shoot first, ask for cargo never. But in light of this discussion, perhaps that's not such a bad thing.

However, I'm pretty sure there is a host of CMDRs who don't want to make an "honest" living, even in Solo. They want their money for nothing and their ships for free. (Don't look at my signature right now, LOL). Just watch, this post will be blasted with the force of 1000 suns by the those who oppose any form of "honest" living in ED.
 
Last edited:
To set the proper tone, when the game is started, the titles "You Are Dead" from ESO, and "You Lose" from Terraforming Mars should display first, then a Clean Save Screen should follow. That way, the whippersnappers would spend a week grinding up to value X (being under constant attack in Open), before being Clean Saved again. :)
 
This is the point I'm making in the OP - a gold rush in Solo isn't what I'd describe as an "honest living". A IRL gold rush (think old California) is not your typical 9-5 job or trucking route where you're running produce for the local grocery stores. It's a gold RUSH, and in Open it actually feels this way - be it a mining system like Borann was or a crazy lucrative trade route that everyone is hopping on. Being able to take advantage of a gold rush without the "rush" is not honest IMO.
Fair comment, and I agree.

As I've said, what I'd like to see is for systems to be as safe as their security status suggests, thus compelling players to make conscious decisions about where they travel to.
If you're satisfied with making a few bucks as a taxi driver or transporting plastic lampshades around (metaphorically speaking) good luck to you.
If, OTOH, you're looking for the big score, you're going to need to do more risky things, in more risky places.

That sort of mechanic would really revolutionise the entire game, IMO.
People who want to "play it safe" would be forced to study the galmap when accepting missions and plotting their routes to ensure they didn't accidentally stray into dangerous systems.
Lawful players who were looking to get rich would have to plan their adventures carefully, possibly recruiting merc's to protect them.
Lawless players would have to find the places where the best opportunities were, or they could just murder-hobo each other in some random backwater anarchy.

Trouble is, in the absence of any kind of meaningful safety for lawful players in high security systems, everybody (who chooses to play in open) is forced to make the "lowest common denominator" choice to fly a suitable ship everywhere if they wish to protect themselves optimally because they're just as likely to be ganked in a high-sec system as an anarchy.

Everywhere in ED is "the wild west" and that only works if everybody wants to be a cowboy - and ED claims to give players the opportunity to take on many other roles as well.
 
But there is an an alternative answer to "Open-only" (which in hindsight probably wasn't the best title for this thread in light of how it's devolved in to PvP arguments). That is to have NPC traffic in Solo and PG mirror CMDR traffic in Open. If a system is busy in Open, it should be busy in Solo and PG. We living in a shared universe after all. Oh, and check out my recent thread about NPC pirates where I observe that NPCs are acting like gankers now. I made the suggestion (far fetched as it may be) that perhaps Frontier has coded NPCs to mimic CMDRs in systems where ganking is occurring - shoot first, ask for cargo never. But in light of this discussion, perhaps that's not such a bad thing.
Can we rule out that is actually the case ?

Sure after so many years they have various "AI behaviourial packages" that can be implemented, should be possible to tie those to various triggers to achieve just that...

and obviously now and again, that will go entirely wrong :)

I remember that for a while station security acted like "gankers" - doing dangerously close fly-by's of leaving ships.

Right now I'm have a strange number of "pirates" in expensive but shieldless ships attacking me for example, no doubt ED monitors such things and makes adjustments ?

However, I'm pretty sure there is a host of CMDRs who don't want to make an "honest" living, even in Solo. They want their money for nothing and their ships for free. (Don't look at my signature right now, LOL). Just watch, this post will be blasted with the force of 1000 suns by the those who oppose any form of "honest" living in ED.
I turn to solo as much to avoid irritating player flying skills (slot blocking, ramming, exploding etc.) near stations, as much as deep space piracy.

I'd rather not have the AI replicate that behaviour, if you don't mind.

I do agree "Open only" would make for a more interesting/challenging game experience, although probably not a more enjoyable one for many, I fear.
 
Last edited:
People who want to "play it safe" would be forced to study the galmap when accepting missions and plotting their routes to ensure they didn't accidentally stray into dangerous systems.
Just a minor nitpick to that, it is solved by a simple galmap filter, so I wouldn't expect a gameplay loop would be formed around that. It would simply make trucking longer, taking detours.
 
But there is an an alternative answer to "Open-only" (which in hindsight probably wasn't the best title for this thread in light of how it's devolved in to PvP arguments). That is to have NPC traffic in Solo and PG mirror CMDR traffic in Open. If a system is busy in Open, it should be busy in Solo and PG. We living in a shared universe after all. Oh, and check out my recent thread about NPC pirates where I observe that NPCs are acting like gankers now. I made the suggestion (far fetched as it may be) that perhaps Frontier has coded NPCs to mimic CMDRs in systems where ganking is occurring - shoot first, ask for cargo never. But in light of this discussion, perhaps that's not such a bad thing.
Meant to address this part too.

I've always said that FDev should create some kind of tool which looks at the make-up of the current player-base and use that as the basis for generating NPCs instead of the current system where NPCs are generating solely to match a CMDR's combat rank.

Yes, it would be tough for newbies when they routinely find themselves being attacked by Dangerous/Deadly NPCs but it'd also make the transition from Solo to Open much less jarring.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I've always said that FDev should create some kind of tool which looks at the make-up of the current player-base and use that as the basis for generating NPCs instead of the current system where NPCs are generating solely to match a CMDR's combat rank.

Yes, it would be tough for newbies when they routinely find themselves being attacked by Dangerous/Deadly NPCs but it'd also make the transition from Solo to Open much less jarring.
In a game with optional PvP, why should players in Solo and Private Groups be forced to play at a difficulty level effectively set by other players?

.... not every player sees playing in Open as a necessity for their continued enjoyment of the game.
 
Top Bottom