How Open-only would balance ED

[Ralph Vargr]

It can! PM me and I'll explain how. It requires a fleet carrier of your own, however (unless you want to mine a Cutter full of LTDs and give them to me, but that sounds painful).

PM launched.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

My T-6 is too pretty to carry fish

Just noticed I need an FC. Rats.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

Other people have mentioned that ED needs a proper economy, which I totally agree with. Right now we can all go to our parallel universes and get our own private Walmart during the Black Friday deals with no lines at all, which is not realistic. OTOH, I freely admitted in the OP that I too have no desire to wait in line, thus I took the easy way and switched to PG. If the game was Open-only, then I would be forced to either wait in line, or go to another system that's not as crowded (just like I might go to Target instead of Walmart on Black Friday to avoid lines).

However, back to the balanced economy - if all of us were in our own "phase" where we can't see each other (typical sci-fi trope), but there was just ONE Walmart, this would also balance the game. In this scenario there wouldn't be any lines, but all the PS5s would be disappearing off the shelves as other people in their own little phase instances grabbed them, and soon Walmart would be empty. In fact, without lines it would empty out SOONER.

Now I get it, most people don't want this either. They just want free and easy credits with no realism whatsoever. Heck, right now I'm in the same boat! But the game is less because of this, and I think that's kinda sad.. Just my 2c.

I think, as a gamer, it's a matter of hygiene to be able to describe, at all time, the things you're in the middle of doing, to a peeking buddy or your wife or husband, whatever, and not sounding like an utterly mad nerd in the mean time.

I mean, I have already explained to her why I need to scoop 36 phloem excretions from those space mushrooms and 48 pharmaceutical isolators. She already know I'm a sad person.

But queuing at space walmart. Nope. Wont try to explain that.

And... Technically, we're already all in separate phases, even with open only we would, there's no single massive instance for each mode. Having congestion in open is already a failure of the matchmaker.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

That is not the case, technically or otherwise.

The three online game modes we have now were all announced at the beginning of the Kickstarter with Offline mode being added about halfway through.

Really? We're not talking years between announcements tho...

Such a shame, such an elegant, simple, tried and true design, instead we're stuck with this MMO identity crisis and a gaas. May the holy Braben be true to his word and release the server code as promised when they unplug the Amazon potato. Amen.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Sooo... One of you want additional timesink with mundane mechanics (queues? REALLY?!), and another one wants orthodox gameplay using only in game tools which are of pitiful quality, obscure, and unreliable on purpose.

Yes, I can see this working flawlessly.

As I wrote in the posting you quoted - what I mentioned would be required (what you call orthodox gameplay) is impossible.
And that was without mentioning that it would require a different network system for the game, would only work if there was only one instance for everybody (requiring probably faster PCs than currently available).

In short, what I wrote was not what I want, but what would be required to achieve what Old Duck wanted as a way to point out how futile Old Ducks wish is.

That said, I remember the fun waiting lines at an outpost that was the CG "station" for an exploration CG - all the Asps waiting for the single landing pad. It was fun because I was using a DBS and always had a free pad to land on.

Oh and I remember that CG at Hutton. A perfect example why "open only" to get "realistic" waiting lines is a very, very bad idea with this game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Really? We're not talking years between announcements tho...

It was a bit over a month between the three online modes being announced and Offline mode being added to the scope.

The point being that Open does not have any seniority, in terms of how long it has existed in the published design information, over Solo and Private Groups.

 

[iFred]

I ask again - is the 32 player limit for Open Play still a thing? If yes - the whole discussion is useless.

I can only speculate why companies like Rockstar, which seem to be slightly bigger than Frontier, have a almost identical player limit in their lobbies.

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.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

It was a bit over a month between the three online modes being announced and Offline mode being added to the scope.

The point being that Open does not have any seniority, in terms of how long it has existed in the published design information, over Solo and Private Groups.

Seems development was fast paced with features announced or removed on a monthly basis back then. Then they had five years to show how to balance their freeform organic mode based MMO... With Horizon...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Seems development was fast paced with features announced or removed on a monthly basis back then.

Not in relation to the three online game modes or shared galaxy state - those have remained a constant throughout development and release.

Offline mode formed as part of the scope from Dec'12 when it was added until Nov'14 when its cancelled was announced.

 

[Riverside]

I ask again - is the 32 player limit for Open Play still a thing? If yes - the whole discussion is useless.

I can only speculate why companies like Rockstar, which seem to be slightly bigger than Frontier, have a almost identical player limit in their lobbies.

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.

AFAIK the limit is the upload speed of the client, not a hard, arbitrary limit. If lots of data on position & hitpoint changes are being transferred during PvP the practical limit is presumably the number you quote (I thought it was 16), if a bunch of explorers are all sitting essentially inactive in an instance hosted by someone with a really nice fat connection then it can be much higher.

So if you are prepared to have a choppy, laggy, rubberbanding PvP fight then sure, FDev could make it go higher

 

[Old Duck]

I ask again - is the 32 player limit for Open Play still a thing? If yes - the whole discussion is useless.

Why is that? Even if there were just 10 CMDR in an instance, that can create enough traffic to make some CMDRs seek alternative stations to trade in (especially when they are all flying T9s and Cutters that clog up the mailslot).

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Why is that? Even if there were just 10 CMDR in an instance, that can create enough traffic to make some CMDRs seek alternative stations to trade in (especially when they are all flying T9s and Cutters that clog up the mailslot).

I remember being at CG stations in open with more than 10 players in big ships - just normal operation. 10 - even 20 players are probably not enough to saturate a station.

Even burning stations have enough room for two or 3 players going in and out in very short succession.

But then, you will probably get that one or two players who just fly in and out of the slot in a over engineered Cutter trying to ram others. And that's that for realism then.

 

[Old Duck]

I remember being at CG stations in open with more than 10 players in big ships - just normal operation. 10 - even 20 players are probably not enough to saturate a station.

The CG is the example I'm thinking of. I found that crowd CGs slowed me down, not so much from a "docking permission denied" point of view, but rather waiting for ships to clear the slot. It wasn't a huge slowdown, but it definitely cut into my turnaround time. On more than one occasion I switched from Open to Solo during a CG because of the "griefer" Type-9s flying full steam ahead through the mailslot regardless of who was there first. On one of those occasions I switched to my Vulture to give a certain T9 his comeuppance.

 

[Rampant]

If you are under the impression that Solo is a single player mode, you are grossly mistaken.

You have at least the same agency (arguably more) over the setting we all share in Solo as in any other mode. If you get to play by your own personal set of rules, and they happen to make things easier or faster for you, you get a leg up on everyone else.

For the game to be fair, the same rules have to apply to everyone.

But the same rules DO apply to everyone.
Everyone is free to join Solo Mode if it's so great.

Indulge yourself. Go on.

That is - if you think that Solo Mode somehow means "special privileges" or somesuch...

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

Not in relation to the three online game modes or shared galaxy state - those have remained a constant throughout development and release.

Offline mode formed as part of the scope from Dec'12 when it was added until Nov'14 when its cancelled was announced.

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.

 

[SamSlade]

But the same rules DO apply to everyone.
Everyone is free to join Solo Mode if it's so great.

Indulge yourself. Go on.

That is - if you think that Solo Mode somehow means "special privileges" or somesuch...

Don't tell me how to play!

Everyone should be free to play how they like without being forced to not engage with other players, just to get the same experience. All modes are supposed to be equal, that's the game that I purchased so don't try and force me to play in solo just so you can get the experience you want.

Nothing pertinent to add to the discussion then?

Yes, plenty to add... but, as I said, there is no discussion to be had here. A thread talking about queuing at stations and economy balance was derailed into 'PvP bad! Open bad! PvP griefers!' with barely a page of replies. To no ones surprise this derailment when unmoderated, except for a little tacit trolling encouragement, even after the OP reminded and requested everyone to focus on the topic.

 

[schmu666]

I want to have the choice..
I regularly come home from work and want to do some chill exploring or mining while listening to music.
Open only would not allow me to relax.. wouldn't enjoy that gaming experience.

But I do think we need an incentive for PvP gameplay. Maybe make BGS open only and make it more rewarding.
Pretty sure some carebears like me would fly in open - if it offers cool gameplay.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

On a dark deserted forum, cool posts in my head
Warm smell of forum rage, rising up through the air
Top post on the forum, I saw a shimmering sight
My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim
I had to post all night
There it was in the browser
I heard the mission bell
And I was thinking to myself
"This could be Heaven or this could be Hell"
Then the debate started and it showed me the way
There were posters posting on the forum
I thought I heard them say

Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely thread (Such a lovely thread)
Such a lovely thread
Plenty of posts at the Hotel California
Any time of year (Any time of year)
You can find it here

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes, plenty to add... but, as I said, there is no discussion to be had here. A thread talking about queuing at stations and economy balance was derailed into 'PvP bad! Open bad! PvP griefers!' with barely a page of replies. To no ones surprise this derailment when unmoderated, except for a little tacit trolling encouragement, even after the OP reminded and requested everyone to focus on the topic.

The first post in the thread also mentions the following:

It would also bring legitimate PvP piracy (something I enjoy), and yes, ganking, which would also balance the game.

..... then it goes on to say:

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.

The disclaimer at the start of the OP and the title are somewhat conflicted. Even so, the discussion is informed by the OP - which mentions the modes and things that the OP would like to see changed to create a game that is "better" for them.

Naturally there are those who don't agree that making the game Open only would constitute an improvement for them.

 

[SamSlade]

...would like to see changed to create a game that is "better" for them.

Said without an iota of irony...

The OP's disclaimer set's the tone; 'not an Open only argument', and yet the thread immediately devolves into the aggressively propagated zeitgeist. All the well intentioned attempts at conversation on changes to economics or AI are swamped in pointless, unmoderated, irrelevant strawman bleatings over PvP and Game-modes.

Clearly not the point of the post, clearly not the direction a conversation on the post would have headed, clearly pandering to the same gaggle of noisy trolls who show up and twist every thread like this into bad faith arguments about 'open vs solo', and 'PvP = ganking'...