How Open-only would balance ED

[Sharkfood]

There is positively and absolutely no way this game could ever be "Open/PVP Only" without completely overhauling just about every game play mechanic.
Two big examples:
1) The costs of getting a decent ship built and engineered, especially for new players, would be ridiculous given the fact open is mostly "ganker fest" against anyone for no reason other than the yucks. You'd never get past maybe a D ranked python for every year played unless you decided to simply use exploration to build credits... then likely get ganked on your way back to sell the data.
2) Combat would become greatly limited and lack options. Right now, building a ship for grinding PVE credits is a totally different beast from a PVP ship. So given #1 above, you'd be limited to mainly giving up any NPC bounty hunting and focus on PVP builds just to play.

Other games have similar limitations but worked around it by making PVP voluntary... i.e. must "ask" to duel someone or enter specific PVP/Combat areas where it is allowed. I can't fathom any fun in "Cmdr NotCompensating wishes to interdict you. Ok?" and the latter is what we basically have today between PVE servers and Open.

I love the idea of Open-Only but the devs would have a massive job ahead of them to basically redo so many facets of this game to pull it off.

 

[SamSlade]

You guys are turning this into PvP vs PvE (of which we have endless threads)...

That's going to happen without fail; the same small gaggle of noisy trolls show up and twist every thread like this into bad faith arguments about 'open vs solo', and 'PvP = ganking'...

Don't expect constructive discourse here, it's a graveyard of good intention.

"
Robert Maynard said:


Except that it doesn't. There are plenty of risks in the game unrelated to player encounters.
"
also lol

 

[Robert Maynard]

If one resorts to attempts to denigrate those who disagree in a discussion it is very often a sign that one lacks a compelling argument.

 

[SamSlade]

If one resorts to attempts to denigrate those who disagree in a discussion it is very often a sign that one lacks a compelling argument.

That supposes that there is a discussion to be had; every thread like this, without fail, attracts the same smug, hypocritical, thread-derailing, hyperbolic nonsense peddled by the same smug, hypocritical self-righteous trolls.

Regardless of the merit of the suggestions, the responses are always exactly the same; hence the graveyard of good intentions.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That supposes that there is a discussion to be had; every thread like this, without fail, attracts the same smug, hypocritical, thread-derailing, hyperbolic nonsense peddled by the same smug, hypocritical self-righteous trolls.

Regardless of the merit of the suggestions, the responses are always exactly the same; hence the graveyard of good intentions.

Threads like this are presumably created with the intent of engaging in discussion - and any forum user can engage in that discussion if they wish - however some topics are so closely related to one that is so old and worn that the discussion very often jumps straight to the crux.

Whether suggestions have merit, or not, rather depends on ones opinion - and different players have different opinions. Some of those opinions are supported by the design of the game, some aren't.

Whether intentions are good, or not, also depends on ones opinion.

Attribution of characteristics to participants is also a matter of opinion - and the participants are not the topic.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

How solo only would remove all the meta around Inara, EDDB, market connector and external databases, thus balancing trade in ED.

 

[SamSlade]

Threads like this are presumably created with the intent of engaging in discussion - and any forum user can engage in that discussion if they wish - however some topics are so closely related to one that is so old and worn that the discussion very often jumps straight to the crux.

Whether suggestions have merit, or not, rather depends on ones opinion - and different players have different opinions. Some of those opinions are supported by the design of the game, some aren't.

Whether intentions are good, or not, also depends on ones opinion.

Attribution of characteristics to participants is also a matter of opinion - and the participants are not the topic.

"the same smug, hypocritical, thread-derailing, hyperbolic nonsense"

 

[Robert Maynard]

"the same smug, hypocritical, thread-derailing, hyperbolic nonsense"

Nothing pertinent to add to the discussion then?

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
Don't expect constructive discourse here, it's a graveyard of good intention.
…

Good intentions don't make a good suggestion. Good intentions are a required basis for a constructive discussion. Discussing the suggestion then can show if it has merits or if it can work based on the existing framework of the game.

The issue with most suggestion that touch the topic of modes is, the difference between the reality of the game design and the imagined result of the suggestion. This difference is what kills most suggestions about modes.

Suggestions that require a complete rewrite of core elements of the game are simply not feasible.

And that's not even taking into account that different players have vastly different ideas what would make the game better (for the majority of the player base).

 

[smiths121]

Interesting debate - modes without the PvP verses PvE derailer. 2 points came to my mind.

Some time in 2.x I think, the current NPC behaviour was implemented. If you arrive at outpost in any mode, when you apply for docing and our rejected because an NPC is in bay/on the pad, after a random timer they take off. This was not the case originally, an NPC could hold you up for an arbiraty amont of time. This behaviour was added in 2.x, to avoid the situation the OP finds so interesting. Whilst I agree with OP, its was as is not gameplay most would consider good. We had a similar situation with Lough Trading Community Goals, these were "fetch X weapons" . I only know from the Fed side, but supply in close in systems dried up (the supply/demand values worked back then), and forced out 6 jumps in a T-6 (about 100LY if I recall). Again is this good gameplay? I do not remember the the 5 jumps out of every 6, I remember the jump bakc into the system the Feds were gathering the forces, and the different techniques used to get by the blockade by Crimson supported by Empire's Grace. Tools used included (bribery, taunting, winning the interdiction - really rare back then, surviving being interdicted, volunteer escorts taking one for the team, dying). There is no way anyone can tell me tha tthe risk level in open was not significantly higher than open or private group.

However, game design has always treated all game modes equal, given how far we have travelled down the path, imperfect as it is, I think its the only option left.

Someone noted the DDF for game modes, and the intriduction/removal of off-line earlier in the thread, and there has been some talk of "solo too easy", open-PVE. I thought I would mention my memories of the originall DDF proposal. The original DDF proposal for game modes had the 3 modes, I do not remembe roff-line actuall being added to the proposal, but its some time ago and I did not read everything. There were some nasty tweaks, such as criminals being forced into open and similar, a little more nuanced than we have now. There was even an iron man mode!

Given at the time, the total audience was not known, I think the more exotic aspects were droppeed, becuase of DDF feedback about splitting the player base, which we can see has naturally occured today, with just the saimplified solution. We know that off-line was dropped becuase the dynamic galaxy could not easily be implemented. Iron Man mode was just not popular and you cna self enfornce, and forcing into all player group is a no-no for those with lousy connections, just breaks instances for everyone else, which is counter to the intent. I am sure mode design on consoles was also a factor, even back then.

Simon

 

[Darkfyre99]

As someone else wrote above, the best way of balancing this game's economy is to actually balance this game's economy.

Restore the game's Economic Sim, and allow demands to be once again fulfilled, based on local population as well as production rates. Allow supplies to be depleted, again based on local population, as well as supply rates. Organically balance the other income streams against the average of local and galactic trade profits. Finally, balance ship and module prices to properly reflect the (mostly) linear increase of their capabilities, as opposed to this exponential price growth we see currently.

Open Only is kind of like cutting off your leg to fix a broken ankle. Yes, the ankle would no longer hurt, but you've introduced a bunch of potentially game-killing complications into the mix. Leaving aside the issue of PvP, the percentage of people acting like jerks would increase, all because they now have a captive audience to ruin the day of. And a lot of people don't enjoy playing with jerks.

It wouldn't even work as intended, because this game does not use a client-server networking solution. The game's peer-to-peer network is easily disrupted by distance, latency, carrier, ISPs, network security settings, the host computer's capabilities... all of which can be easily mimicked by players desiring a solo experience in Open.

Open in Elite Dangerous has one of the best player environments of any similar game I've played in the past. For an open-PvP environment, it is remarkably free of griefers. This is because their target audience are all in private groups or solo, leaving behind an Open cohort that is likely to view them as content, rather than the other way around. I like the environment in Open as it is. It provides additional challenges than the other modes, including the different kinds of challenges other players bring to the table, but unlike games I've played that have similar environments, other players have rarely been jerks about it. Even something as benign as queuing up to access a popular outpost's sole medium pad has been remarkably free of the jerkatude I'd see in other games.

Given Frontier's many, many, many, many missteps on the MMO front, it's pretty clear to me that Frontier pulled a Homer when it comes to this game's somewhat unique tri-mode solution to the problem of griefers of all types. Allow a griefer's "audience" to self-isolate, and you leave behind a cohort that is at worst able to ignore a griefer's typical tactics, and at best likely to view the griefer as their content, and griefers hate being the content of others.

 

[The Galactic Penguin]

I've not read the entire thread to this point so someone may already have posted along these lines, if so, apologies.

Speaking as a player who mainly wants to do Exploration I'd be concerned about forcing Open-only on the playerbase unless new mechanics were brought in to mitigate exploration risk.

Exploration is pretty much seen in some quarters as risk-free I think, and it's true that you aren't going to get shot out of the sky all that often, but the risk of death pressure scales exponentially the further you head out. All it takes is one bad jump into a contact binary system, or a poor landing, and it's all up in smoke, potentially months of painstaking effort gone in one fell swoop.

None of the other professions face such a risk of total loss. If you're a miner and you get blown up, you'll be back in a ship in no time and have a new cargo in no time. Same for a bounty hunter or a trader. Yes, you're more likely to get shot down in those professions, but the actual loss you suffer when it happens is minuscule by comparison because you can replace your assets quickly and easily.

That simply isn't the case with exploration because of the 'if you die you lose it all' mechanic. You can't get those months of hard work back. Now just imagine we do get open-only play, and you're returning to the Bubble from a 60klyr trip with a billion in exploration credits and somebody ganks you. There goes your months and months and months of hard work just for someone's lulz. That would be so disproportionately unbalanced against explorers as to make exploration completely pointless in my opinion, I mean why take such a massive risk? And you know it will happen.

Now, if FD were to introduce an account-locked black box system so that on death, a black box is generated that only the affected player could retrieve so that if this does happen to you, you can retrieve your months of hard work (within perhaps a set timescale) that would mitigate the risk to an acceptable level. You could even team up with fellow players in a wing to hold the gankers off while you retrieve the black box, which would create another interesting team gameplay dynamic.

But as the exploration dynamic is currently constituted, open-only would be a nighmare imo.

 

[badibeat]

I don't own a fleet carrier (sniff sniff), so I have no idea what this sadness is all about.

You probably don't want to have one that badly, or you would have invested the time spent for posting in the mining meta instead or whatever it takes to get one in relatively short time. But it's probably just not your chosen gameplay, something I highly respect (except for the sniffing ; )

 

[badibeat]

I realize that these threads are too fast for me, maybe the same is true in my case for open. I like to have the choice.

 

[Old Duck]

How solo only would remove all the meta around Inara, EDDB, market connector and external databases, thus balancing trade in ED.

Technically OFFLINE-only (where we each have our own independent BGS) would do as you say. Solo isn't truly Solo in ED, it's Open with the "Block Everyone" feature turned on.

 

[PaulieWotsit]

"Open only" or "open and pg only" would really screw things up for console players who aren't on xbl or ps+ but still want to play the game as there wouldn't be a game mode they could get on, basically. I understand that pc players don't need to pay a monthly fee for access to the game, but us lot who aren't on pc do.

Incidentally, I agree there should be more than one save as well...

 

[zarrazee]

Nuke Solo as a starter. It's functionally useless.

Not for those who live in areas with slow broadband. Solo is the only mode I play in when the Mrs is D/L ing a film and/or all our kids are watching youtube.

 

[PaulieWotsit]

I would actually love well balanced open only mode. I'm sure with very few subtle changes it could be quite great experience for both new and old players, but alas, we all know that never going to happen. But then again, with my gameplay style, I will probably never meet a single player in years even if whole playerbase will jump into the open and instances get widened, and I assume, there are enough players like me. Because let's be real, outside of very few hotspot, there are close to 0% chance to meet a soul. Galaxy is just way too big.

But, at the same time, solo feels like awkwardly strapped-on mode, just to keep promise of advertised singleplayer mode way back during kickstarter, although I would definitely much prefer real offline mode, as I often say. The problem is, however, that if offline mode would launch, I do not think there will be much people left in any online mode, if anyone at all, haha.

I'm not sure offline would be possible, as it's a p2p setup. Can you imagine the size of the hard drive you'd need to store the stellar forge on?

 

[VirtueXOI]

Solo is basicly your own private group with just you.
If you get rid of solo , people will create PG with only them.

Also while I understand OP on the fact that open only may bring more "life" (and death ahah) to the game, and change some mech for the better, ( no more SSD reset when you have 15 "gankers" waiting ), the only open would ruin an entire part of the community that may just leave the game while the PvP community that already left , may never come back.

And lastly , open only would make the game unplayable for many given the current PvP interaction (aka chain kill / constant interception). And again , make security matter

 

[Morbad]

Not advocating Open only for the current incarnation of the game, but these complaints are fallacious.

1) The costs of getting a decent ship built and engineered, especially for new players, would be ridiculous given the fact open is mostly "ganker fest" against anyone for no reason other than the yucks. You'd never get past maybe a D ranked python for every year played unless you decided to simply use exploration to build credits... then likely get ganked on your way back to sell the data.

Credits and materials can be had anywhere, doing almost anything, while making it to any of the Engineers--even in Open with gankers about--is hardly an insurmountable challenge for an unEngineered small vessel.

2) Combat would become greatly limited and lack options. Right now, building a ship for grinding PVE credits is a totally different beast from a PVP ship. So given #1 above, you'd be limited to mainly giving up any NPC bounty hunting and focus on PVP builds just to play.

Any of my CMDR's PvP ships can swat wings of NPCs like flies. Even his Vulture (which is essentially a PvP 'meme' build) can knock out a spec Ops wing and win a high intensity CZ without problems.

That simply isn't the case with exploration because of the 'if you die you lose it all' mechanic. You can't get those months of hard work back. Now just imagine we do get open-only play, and you're returning to the Bubble from a 60klyr trip with a billion in exploration credits and somebody ganks you. There goes your months and months and months of hard work just for someone's lulz. That would be so disproportionately unbalanced against explorers as to make exploration completely pointless in my opinion, I mean why take such a massive risk? And you know it will happen.

Exploration is essentially risk free with a trivial bit of preparation and Open barely changes this.

Unless one is dead set on selling data to heavily trafficked systems the odds of encountering another CMDR are next to nil. Even if one is intent on visiting a popular system to deliver data, nothing prevents one from swapping ships first, should the ship that one did the exploration not be up to task for avoiding or surviving a hostile encounter.

All of my CMDR's exploration has been in Open and upon return from the longest exploration trip hes been on (about 6k jumps/scans) I had his very first stop upon return be Leesti, back when it was one of the most heavily populated systems in the game. I took the precaution of contacting some allies and having them scout ahead/escort me, but even in a worst case scenario, that would not likely have been needed, and the odds of any one or any wing being able to stop my CMDR from delivering his data successfully would have been quite low. Little has changed in this regard.

As for why someone would take such a risk...for the player, the risk is a large part of the reward of Open. My CMDR sure isn't going to face any risk, or even the illusion of risk, otherwise and I find that rather dull.