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

[ethelred]

Its worth pointing out that increased rewards in Open don't really address the reasons why ppl don't play in open.

We've spoken ad infinitum about mode locking a particular aspect (such as Powerplay) could perhaps be feasible, but for the "base" game it's not, and probably shouldn't happen.

 

[Brrokk]

This just goes round and round, doesn't it?

The carousel goes round and round and you see the same people riding the same things each time. They never actually approach each other and cannot meet. Being aboard can make you dizzy after a while, but seen from outside it's mildly entertaining.

 

[ethelred]

The bingo is good.

 

[lemon407]

As i said in another thread that I've posted oblivious to the existence of this one:

Solo play shouldn't even be possible not to mention jumping back and forth between Solo and Open play. But we don't have player made corporations and from what I know (I'm a new player) the current way to distribute profits while mining in wings is rudimentary. (we need some way to reward all players that were in wing with the mining ships upon the successful sale of the amount mined)
Keep Solo play as it is but make Open play worth the danger of getting jumped by gankers. Give a 100% boost to mining resources in Open play and another 100% boost to sale price (assuming you don't move cargo while by switching to solo).
That way, as miners we could stomach the occasional gank and the pirates are also happy.

Why? why should we not be able to jump between solo and open?

And i have said it before and ill say it again, increasing minging rewards will NOT make more people want to play in open.
It does not matter if you increase the reward of mining by 200% most players dont want to deal with pvp, because the possibility of getting ganked and loosing all that work and wasting all that time, still exists. What good does 200% pay out do me, if i get shot down and loose it all?

If you have one person mining in solo, and one in open, and the guy in open gets shot, guess what, the guy in solo will make more.

The only way you will ever get people to join open is simply this, you have to have a pvp flag system where players can willingly opt to not engage in pvp. Nothing else will work, because the reason people dont wanna play in open, is because they dont wanna deal with pvp, they dont wanna deal with the headache of it, and open offers absolutely zero benefit to the game, it only offers draw backs.

As you said, you are new, so ill also give you a slight bit of history of elite. Elite has been a primarily solo game from its inception. Elite dangerous is the first multi player interaction of the game, this game series, im going to safely bet, is probably older then you are. So multi player is a very new feature in the series, and is a secondary aspect to the game not a primary one.

 

[here_it_comes]

Some players don't like the fact that players have a choice of three game modes and all players affect the single shared galaxy.

All players bought a game with these features in place - which means that PvP is an optional extra for those who wish to engage in it, but is not required for any game feature (apart from CQC, but that's out of game).

FD has set the precedent that they won't allow negative interactions with the slavery kerfluffle, they really should just introduce PvP flags. Of course they only did that because of media outlets reporting "they be hurting children!"

I should organize a gank squadron that camps people for being minors, we'd have PvP flags in a week.

 

[lemon407]

we'd have PvP flags in a week.

nno you would not lol you would just get sent to the shadow realm of solo only.
They did not even perma ban the guy that was cheating with shield hacks and blocking the dock at Jameson memorial.

 

[Robert Maynard]

We've spoken ad infinitum about mode locking a particular aspect (such as Powerplay) could perhaps be feasible, but for the "base" game it's not, and probably shouldn't happen.

Powerplay forms part of the base game, like CGs and the BGS.

 

[here_it_comes]

nno you would not lol you would just get sent to the shadow realm of solo only.

The horror. Imagine all the player driven content I'd miss out on.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

It all boils down to different people wanting different gameplay.

The problem is, a small part of the community don't want other people having the gameplay they want for the same rewards.They want special treatment, they want to be acknowledged as being superior.

I really wish FD would add an open only server, and then they can do all the chest thumping they want there and let FD give them whatever rewards they want.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I really wish FD would add an open only server, and then they can do all the chest thumping they want there and let FD give them whatever rewards they want.

Me too - and it would not even need a complete copy of the galaxy (it's been commented on before now that the size of the galaxy is part of the problem) - a few thousand systems would likely be enough. No switching between galaxies with assets though - that way leads to trivial exploitation.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Me too - and it would not even need a complete copy of the galaxy (it's been commented on before now that the size of the galaxy is part of the problem) - a few thousand systems would likely be enough. No switching between galaxies with assets though - that way leads to trivial exploitation.

Its a good point, they want the pew pew, they just need enough systems to have enough territory to fight over.

 

[ethelred]

Powerplay forms part of the base game, like CGs and the BGS.

Ja, I know that - I'm talking about a proposed PP 2.0 as well you know, you naughty volunteer moderator.

 

[Brrokk]

It all boils down to different people wanting different gameplay.

The problem is, a small part of the community don't want other people having the gameplay they want for the same rewards.They want special treatment, they want to be acknowledged as being superior.

I really wish FD would add an open only server, and then they can do all the chest thumping they want there and let FD give them whatever rewards they want.

... and they still wouldn't like it because obvious reasons.

 

[DemiserofD]

let's not lose sight of the fundamental premise here.

One of the biggest issues with open, is that it makes it far easier to be an aggressor than to work together with a friendly player. If all you want is a hollow Square to shoot at, it's very easy to do that. Frankly, it's so easy to do so, that it would almost make sense to remove the Hollow Square icon entirely.

But the chances of meeting Another player who's doing the same thing as you are vanishingly small. So, naturally, even if you are theoretically interested in playing cooperatively with other players , you still wouldn't be incentivized to play in open, because it's probably not going to happen.

Naturally, there are some players who simply aren't interested in player interaction whatsoever, and this would have no impact on them, but there is also, I imagine, a substantial population of players who would theoretically be interested in Cooperative gameplay, but simply lack the means to acquire it. Giving them those means could draw a substantial amount of players into open, with virtually no downsides other than, of course, developer time. But any change would take that, so if you have to choose, why not choose the option that has the fewest potential downsides to the players?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Naturally, there are some players who simply aren't interested in player interaction whatsoever, and this would have no impact on them, but there is also, I imagine, a substantial population of players who would theoretically be interested in Cooperative gameplay, but simply lack the means to acquire it.

Indeed.

Giving them those means could draw a substantial amount of players into open, with virtually no downsides other than, of course, developer time. But any change would take that, so if you have to choose, why not choose the option that has the fewest potential downsides to the players?

The downside would be betrayal of trust, i.e. if a player found one or more players who claimed to want co-operative gameplay, what would stop one or more of those players simply using it as a means of acquiring targets?

 

[DemiserofD]

Indeed.

The downside would be betrayal of trust, i.e. if a player found one or more players who claimed to want co-operative gameplay, what would stop one or more of those players simply using it as a means of acquiring targets?

It's true, you may get some players doing that. But for the most part, why would they even bother? The game already makes it far Easier to find Targets than to find Cooperative players.

So, for the most part, I think it wouldn't be a problem simply because it would be more trouble than it's worth for them.

If you absolutely had to, you could Implement some sort of system where in killing players you were recently allied with would temporarily ban you from using the system. but I really doubt it would be enough of an issue to even bother with that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Its a good point, they want the pew pew, they just need enough systems to have enough territory to fight over.

Which wouldn't actually need a separate (and divergent) galaxy - it could be achieved by permit locking a tiny (in comparison to the size of the galaxy) portion of the galaxy to players in Open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's true, you may get some players doing that. But for the most part, why would they even bother? The game already makes it far Easier to find Targets than to find Cooperative players.

So, for the most part, I think it wouldn't be a problem simply because it would be more trouble than it's worth for them.

If you absolutely had to, you could Implement some sort of system where in killing players you were recently allied with would temporarily ban you from using the system. but I really doubt it would be enough of an issue to even bother with that.

Betrayal seems to be part and parcel of the "fun" for some players (who don't care whether their targets have any fun in the encounter) - so abuse of a co-op finder feature would be, I expect, rife.

 

[3navis]

Which wouldn't actually need a separate (and divergent) galaxy - it could be achieved by permit locking a tiny (in comparison to the size of the galaxy) portion of the galaxy to players in Open.

open bubble

 

[DemiserofD]

Betrayal seems to be part and parcel of the "fun" for some players (who don't care whether their targets have any fun in the encounter) - so abuse of a co-op finder feature would be, I expect, rife.

I don't know that I agree. In any case, some basic information would heavily alleviate this problem. For example, just displaying what ship the sharing player is in would make a big difference on its own; if they are in a hauling ship, and the shared mission is a wing delivery Mission, with a significant portion of it already delivered, and then the player would have a reasonable expectation of safety. By contrast, if the sharing player has nothing delivered, and is in a FDL , they would have a good idea that the sharing player is untrustworthy. And since this basic information would be useful even without the possibility of betrayal, it wouldn't take any particularly extra developer time to implement compared to just the basic feature.