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

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Name one thing that is more beneficial in open then solo or PG?

If we're talking game progression (and not just social opportunity) then the advantage I'm seeing is the opportunity for serendipitous interactive play, which is something OP is trying to amplify.

One example - the leader of an allied PMF squad I have friended offered me some wing payouts over time and I offered to help with some missions, to make me more comfortable taking the payouts. Went to the system he told me to and found 4 or 5 CMDRs there, so I told him "hey these guys might be working against you, they're not in your squad", and passed on their names, "oh no they're people I've friended and asked to help!". So, people make extra cash and he gets free BGS intel and an auxiliary political force, basically. Even just people handing in his shared wing missions boosts his faction, and costs him nothing.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

If we're talking game progression (and not just social opportunity) then the advantage I'm seeing is the opportunity for serendipitous interactive play, which is something OP is trying to amplify.

Yep. First thread on this topic I've seen for ages which actually gets what the advantage [1] of Open is: you can easily meet people you don't already know without using out-of-game tools, and actually tries to make that better by making it easier to communicate with people, meet new people, etc.

It's a pity it was set up as a "more people in Open" thread - if it had been started as a "make comms better" thread without mentioning modes then it might be getting more interesting ideas on how to do that without the usual diversion.

On the "make comms better" side ... one small thing they could do is make the first direct message you get from a player give a more noticeable visual and audio alert. I've missed several comms until I was out of the system because I had the market screen open, or was fighting off an NPC, and didn't see the message until some cruise liner in the next system re-highlighted the comms panel.


[1] Obviously for some people that's a disadvantage, and they won't be in Open, and that's fine.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Very nice summary and analysis there.

Or it's a complete mischaracterisation. Open mode by design (a design element that I and many others like) has player interactions that swing both ways - positive and negative. PvP flagging would make it something different, just like a thousand other MMOs. OP is trying to enable a better balance between positive and negative interactions, where they believe that it's currently skewed toward the negative by weaknesses of, or lack of, game features.

I'm happy enough with the current balance but wouldn't complain about a well-designed boost to co-op to have Open more populated/retain its population.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Open mode by design (a design element that I and many others like) has player interactions that swing both ways - positive and negative. PvP flagging would make it something different, just like a thousand other MMOs.

Both multi-player modes offer positive and negative player interactions - it's up to the Private Group owner to curate the membership to create a co-op experience as Frontier chose not to offer any PG rules to reduce negative interaction. Negative interactions are a tax on those who desire to play co-operatively.

Unlike a lot of MMO games, this one lacks a developer created multi-player PvE mode with an unlimited population which, given that one Dev has indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP, seems to be a glaring omission.

I'm happy enough with the current balance but wouldn't complain about a well-designed boost to co-op to have Open more populated/retain its population.

Those who prefer PvP benefit from both multi-player game modes being PvP-enabled as it forces those seeking co-op to play with them, those seeking co-op and no PvP not so much.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Open mode by design (a design element that I and many others like) has player interactions that swing both ways - positive and negative. PvP flagging would make it something different, just like a thousand other MMOs

If a thousand other MMO's elect to separate PvE from PvP intentionally, there must be a solid (probably financial) reason to choose such, wouldn't you agree?
(edit: typo)

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yep. First thread on this topic I've seen for ages which actually gets what the advantage [1] of Open is: you can easily meet people you don't already know without using out-of-game tools, and actually tries to make that better by making it easier to communicate with people, meet new people, etc.

It's a pity it was set up as a "more people in Open" thread - if it had been started as a "make comms better" thread without mentioning modes then it might be getting more interesting ideas on how to do that without the usual diversion.

On the "make comms better" side ... one small thing they could do is make the first direct message you get from a player give a more noticeable visual and audio alert. I've missed several comms until I was out of the system because I had the market screen open, or was fighting off an NPC, and didn't see the message until some cruise liner in the next system re-highlighted the comms panel.


[1] Obviously for some people that's a disadvantage, and they won't be in Open, and that's fine.

But beyond what we have, what else is needed? The only part missing imo is a bulletin board where you ask to join up with others within a certain local focus (i.e. not duplicating system messages and chat) or 'would like to meet' style ads like INARA does.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Both multi-player modes offer positive and negative player interactions - it's up to the Private Group owner to curate the membership to create a co-op experience as Frontier chose not to offer any PG rules to reduce negative interaction. Negative interactions are a tax on those who desire to play co-operatively.

Unlike a lot of MMO games, this one lacks a developer created multi-player PvE mode which, given that one Dev has indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP, seems to be a glaring omission.

Those who prefer PvP benefit from both multi-player game modes being PvP-enabled as it forces those seeking co-op to play with them, those seeking co-op and no PvP not so much.

Some of these things are a matter of perspective - e.g. PvP is not a tax, it's a hazard that balances the free lunch of co-op PvE.

I could be attracted to a PvE mode if the NPCs in it were a significantly greater challenge than those in open. Maybe not all the NPCs (which could get tedious) but the tail end of an RNG distribution, or they may be involved with choices you have made (taking a certain mission, backing a certain faction). Every so often one comes along that will interdict you competently on their first pass and you may have to fight to the death or be skilled in order to either escape or avoid the interdiction. Not the hard opt-in of dropping on a signal POI (e.g. thargoids), but a soft opt-in that arises more organically.

I'd be happy for NPCs to change in this way now in all modes, but if they were only available in this form in a fourth (fifth?) mode, that might get me through the door. It's not trying to replace gankers and spoil the PvE mode, it's more a case of not having to use gankers as top tier NPCs in open.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

If a thousand other MMO's elect to seperate PvE from PvP intentionally, there must be a solid (probably financial) reason to choose such, wouldn't you agree?

Self-evidently I do not. But by all means bait me to state so.

 

[Rat Catcher]

But beyond what we have, what else is needed? The only part missing imo is a bulletin board where you ask to join up with others within a certain local focus (i.e. not duplicating system messages and chat) or 'would like to meet' style ads like INARA does.

With system chat being cross-mode it does have the benefit of opening up opportunities to 'meet' other players. Although, of course, they have to be active in chat to start with, so better communication options would be welcomed by me

 

[Rat Catcher]

Self-evidently I do not. But by all means bait me to state so.

Happy to oblige

Is such a simple observation baiting?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Some of these things are a matter of perspective - e.g. PvP is not a tax, it's a hazard that balances the free lunch of co-op PvE.

A matter of opinion, certainly. Not everyone agrees that PvP is a balance (given the lengths that some of those who "offer" it to others go to reduce the risk to themselves to an absolute minimum).

I could be attracted to a PvE mode if the NPCs in it were a significantly greater challenge than those in open. Maybe not all the NPCs (which could get tedious) but the tail end of an RNG distribution, or they may be involved with choices you have made (taking a certain mission, backing a certain faction). Every so often one comes along that will interdict you competently on their first pass and you may have to fight to the death or be skilled in order to either escape or avoid the interdiction. Not the hard opt-in of dropping on a signal POI (e.g. thargoids), but a soft opt-in that arises more organically.

That's one datapoint. Frontier set the PvE challenge in the game taking into account all players - and half of players are at or below median skill. Their approach relating to greater PvE challenge has been to make it largely opt-in up to now.

I'd be happy for NPCs to change in this way now in all modes, but if they were only available in this form in a fourth (fifth?) mode, that might get me through the door. It's not trying to replace gankers and spoil the PvE mode, it's more a case of not having to use gankers as top tier NPCs in open.

Some players might be happy with such a change - I doubt that all players would be.

Adding modes where variations can take place would be more equitable than changing the game for all players to suit a subset of players, in my opinion.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Happy to oblige

Is such a simple observation baiting?

Sorry , rereading I think see your point. I think enough people agree with me, to make it a good financial decision to differentiate from other MMOs in this way. Even if not, I thank them for taking the hit to make a better game that can nevertheless flourish despite.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Sorry , rereading I think see your point. I think enough people agree with me, to make it a good financial decision to differentiate from other MMOs in this way. Even if not, I thank them for taking the hit to make a better game that can nevertheless flourish despite.

I was illustrating your point, not in a negative way - apology not required, my wording should have been a little more explicit.
But, thanks for re-reading

 

[RamirezKurita]

Agree, except there are no positive interaction that benefit the player monetarily or provide progression in the gam in open while their are plenty of negative interaction that monetarily hurt the player.

Except that there is potential for positive interaction. You can offer to wing up with a fellow to get that juicy 5% extra trade income, you can focus on the same bounty targets to kill them in half the time and you can wing up to support each other in CZs. In fact, all the positive interaction that is possible in private group is also possible in open!

The problem here is human nature. Other players mostly either don't care about you or sadistically want you to suffer, it's a rare thing for someone to see a random name on a screen and think "I want to cooperate with this person".

 

[Rubbernuke]

With system chat being cross-mode it does have the benefit of opening up opportunities to 'meet' other players. Although, of course, they have to be active in chat to start with, so better communication options would be welcomed by me

This is what I mean, take the example of a wing mission- its time limited, local (ish). Someone with no wing could use the local chat to fill slots, but how realistically could a system be to find others outside that immediate area, contact them, vet them etc? Its where EDs decentralized and opportunistic nature comes out- people make friends by getting out there and meeting people, chatting locally and then sending friend requests.

One way is you could have everyones commander generate an automatic profile (based on activity data) to 'pre vet' people (i.e. someone who kills a lot won't be eligible for a 'non violence filter) and this profile is entered onto a squadron like searchable database that could look for commanders online and in proximity to you (to within a set Ly radius) - sort of acting as a proc gen matchmaker.

Once people are aware of each other then the direct / indirect chat would be used, and so on.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

A matter of opinion, certainly. Not everyone agrees that PvP is a balance (given the lengths that some of those who "offer" it to others go to reduce the risk to themselves to an absolute minimum).

That's one datapoint. Frontier set the PvE challenge in the game taking into account all players - and half of players are at or below median skill. Their approach relating to greater PvE challenge has been to make it largely opt-in up to now.

Some players might be happy with such a change - I doubt that all players would be.

Adding modes where variations can take place would be more equitable than changing the game for all players to suit a subset of players, in my opinion.

By perspective I mean "looking at it a different way".

PvP is generally very asymmetric due to engineering and other progression elements, and gankers don't fit the hole well as top tier NPCs, but they'll have to do. Changing NPCs offers a way to generate equivalent encounters to organic PvP in a more controlled way.

 

[Jukelo]

This is a misrepresentation. Open is more popular than Solo or PG, but Open is actually LESS popular than non-Open (Solo and PG) IIRC. Which I believe is the OP's point - less people are playing in Open than are not playing in Open.

What Sandro said, was that "Open is the most played mode, by a wide margin". This doesn't tell us about the combined weight of Solo and PG compared to Open either way, but it does tell us (much) more than one third of the playerbase plays in Open.

Now if we assume Open represents half the total playerbase, this means in the best case scenario (say, Frontier removed Solo and PG and this didn't lead to a smaller playerbase as a whole), the Open population could at most double. If OP thinks Open is empty now, doubling the population isn't going to change anything I would think: the bubble is huge and ED has a relatively small concurrent playerbase, not to mention all the explorers out there: even if everybody played ED in Open, you could still count on one hand the players you met outside of the two dozen most frequented systems every day.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

But beyond what we have, what else is needed? The only part missing imo is a bulletin board where you ask to join up with others within a certain local focus (i.e. not duplicating system messages and chat) or 'would like to meet' style ads like INARA does.

That's a pretty big missing part in terms of capabilities, though. The ability to notice or interact with someone you'd missed in-instance by a couple of minutes would be huge, or advertise spots in a wing to people who show up to the station later.

For Fleet Carriers, a way to advertise the operations and needs of the carrier beyond its name and services list (destination, cargo plan, etc.) - possibly over a fair range, for the deep space ones.

As I mentioned above, the comms interface is really easy to miss messages on if you don't already have it focused, especially with the amount of Local chat NPCs generate.

Some alternatives in Powerplay between "randomly do unhelpful stuff that looks useful" and "join the unofficial official planning group" perhaps?

Squadrons are less of a big deal in that they can set up enough of an internal message to direct to a proper 3rd-party tool ... but even there:
- search for squadrons supporting a particular minor faction
- send a message to a squadron which isn't a membership application
...would both be pretty useful.

 

[RamirezKurita]

That's one datapoint. Frontier set the PvE challenge in the game taking into account all players - and half of players are at or below median skill. Their approach relating to greater PvE challenge has been to make it largely opt-in up to now.

Some players might be happy with such a change - I doubt that all players would be.

I find the "account for all players" in terms of difficulty to be a bit of a fallacy though, as there's plenty of space in the galaxy, mission ranks and unused variety (and potential for expansion of system states and CZ categories and the like) that could be used in turn to account for different skill levels.

The fact that, in terms of PvE difficulty, the norm for established players is to take on Elite ranked wing assassination missions. Let that sink in for a moment - they are going after the ultimate top-tier challenges that are meant for a full wing of 4 to take on. And if players can reasonably solo such a challenge, then what's left for actual wings to do?

Really, in my eyes, a regular (as in, non-wing) Elite ranked assassination mission should present a serious challenge to a highly experienced combat pilot (top 10%? Maybe top 5%?) flying a fully engineered Cutter, Anaconda or Corvette. The wing version should present a similar challenge to a wing of 4 such ships flown by skilled pilots.

Obviously, not all players would be able to complete such a mission, whether by a lack of practice or not being equipped for it. This is not a problem though, as those players could choose to simply take a lower ranked mission that is better suited to their skill level and equipment.

Similarly, by careful selection of systems that players operate in and the value of the cargo they are carrying, traders could regulate the difficulty of pirates that they encounter. Pirates killing your trade ship? Consider restricting trade routes to higher security systems and/or carrying lower value cargo. The problem here is that system security makes very little difference to the pirates you encounter, and pirate behaviour doesn't seem to be affected by what cargo you are carrying but instead simply whether you are carrying any piratable cargo.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That's a pretty big missing part in terms of capabilities, though. The ability to notice or interact with someone you'd missed in-instance by a couple of minutes would be huge, or advertise spots in a wing to people who show up to the station later.

I addressed this in a later answer, where profiles highlight those around you, at least showing who is there who plays like you do.

For Fleet Carriers, a way to advertise the operations and needs of the carrier beyond its name and services list (destination, cargo plan, etc.) - possibly over a fair range, for the deep space ones.

Carriers certainly need a bulletin board.

As I mentioned above, the comms interface is really easy to miss messages on if you don't already have it focused, especially with the amount of Local chat NPCs generate.

Can't you filter messages already though? But certainly having a more explicit prompt might help. The problem is a lot is being crammed into a finite space- any more and it would need its own LH panel for screen estate.

Some alternatives in Powerplay between "randomly do unhelpful stuff that looks useful" and "join the unofficial official planning group" perhaps?

A lot of Powerplay comms issues can be sorted by designing out (and making plain) what a bad and good move is. If good moves are made apparent then a lot of low level 'DONT DO THAT' style messages are not required. The other is that Powerplay / BGS chat often requires more than what one panel can give you- out of game tools when discussing strategy go beyond chat and involve INARA, EDDB, various spreadsheets and so on. So, even if you had better in game comms (which is great) you'd still need to go outside the game.

Squadrons are less of a big deal in that they can set up enough of an internal message to direct to a proper 3rd-party tool ... but even there:

• search for squadrons supporting a particular minor faction
• send a message to a squadron which isn't a membership application

...would both be pretty useful.

That would be nice.