Make Elite an MMO again !!

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I meant for it to be absurd. Motivations for mode choices are as varied as they are irrelevant. Supposing those who don't play like you do so out of fear is silly, and even if you could somehow prove it, it would be meaningless. A lack of interest in something, whether it may end in ship destruction or not, does not equate to a shortcoming preventing someone from playing one way. I'm glad you enjoying playing in open and use your time to meet people and help them out or whatever, blaze your own trail and all of that. Just know it isn't any better than any other trail might be to someone else.

So by extension you're saying the supposition that no-one is avoiding open out of fear (however overblown) of an in-universe detriment at the hands of a player, just because you're not, is also not applicable? Because that's basically what my thrust was. It's treated here as a myth, but I have enough reason to think it's as likely as other reasons. It's not just rebuy or inconvenience, it's something more emotional.

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

I feel like the whitelist version is already essential private group mode

 

[TiberiusDuval]

So by extension you're saying the supposition that no-one is avoiding open out of fear (however overblown) of an in-universe detriment at the hands of a player, just because you're not, is also not applicable? Because that's basically what my thrust was. It's treated here as a myth, but I have enough reason to think it's as likely as other reasons. It's not just rebuy or inconvenience, it's something more emotional.

Well is risk aversiveness worse reason than others?

 

[RamirezKurita]

I feel like the whitelist version is already essential private group mode

True, but private groups aren't usually in the running to get free stuff, unlike how some players demand open gets free stuff.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I do know an easy solution to the open-only stuff (or bonuses that are only available in open), one that would work really well with existing instancing and current mechanics with the only issue being for console players (I guess console players would get access to these bonuses even in solo to prevent it being PtW):

Have two versions of open that can both instance with each other as per normal, effectively making them the same open. The current one gets renamed to "open - blacklist" that keeps its current mechanics, while the new one becomes "open - whitelist" that is fully open except that we can only enter instances or have people enter instances if they are on our friend list. In effect, the new whitelist mode would automatically block everyone not on our friends list.

Heck, I'd happily play a whitelist version of open. I don't mind meeting a few friends here and there on the off-chance, while a whitelist system would do a good job of keeping out the riff-raff that I don't want to associate with (which is probably 99.99+% of ED's player base, I've only got 4 or so friends that play ED). A whitelist open would probably end up replacing my solo playing entirely.



Actually, a simple "auto-block those that attempt to instance with me" tick box would probably solve most of the problems in open. Alternatively, just a "block all" button that adds every single user in the game to block list would work too, but would be more effort on my part as I'd have to remember to press it regularly to keep up with new players coming to the game.

Troll!

 

[Gully Foyle]

Hello CMDRs,

First of all, sorry for my english, Im from Spain. I hope it dont hurt your eyes too much...

As the title said, maybe we need to put a bit more of MMO in Elite as almost every player right now is playing solo or priv. session with his Sqad.
IMO this is leading to a feeling that we are playing a solo videogame in a massively multiplayer 400 billion starts universe.... When you do thousands of missions from a thousand NPCs game lacks some human interacion if you ask me. Even if its a pvp interaction.

Im not saying to force people to play open, this change will never affect negatively people that actually play solo or priv. They will be playing same rules as they are now.
This will just give CMDRs a reason to play open in a balanced risk vs reward bonuses that actually just dont exist, and thats the reason nobody plays open, because, why will I risk my ship and cargo in open if I can do it in solo?

This needs to be a simple and impacting change, not a complicated or incomprehensible mechanic if you ask me.

Thats why I propose this change :

When you play open, you get X2 in all rewards, including missions, mining and every loot you can get in game including engineering materials and so...

To avoid exploits (you do the mission and log in open to claim the reward), if you log in in solo/priv while doing a mission (or accept it in solo/priv) or entering a signal source, that mission or signal source will give normal rewards. So any Login in sol/priv will turn all your missions or instances into normal loot.

Im sure it has been proposed or studied by FDevs before, still, what do you think? Why never something like whis was implemented?

The game is loved and it is unique precisely because it isn’t a standard MMO and solo and private have just as much right to play as open. This provides more variety and attracts more different kinds of players rather than being purely an MMO.
Welcome to the best darn space game out there

 

[RamirezKurita]

Troll!

Actually half-serious. I'd happily play open if it were whitelist or if I had a handy "block ALL users" button. If open had a "block ALL" button and gave free stuff compared to solo, I'd have a new favourite game mode! It's also a perfect win-win for the open-only folk as they technically would have more people in open, it's just that they wouldn't be able to instance with them.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Well is risk aversiveness worse reason than others?

When the main argument is about risk and reward, or what's preventing people from playing in open, then it becomes rather relevant... if that fear is overblown then someone is missing out on a mode they might rather enjoy without realising it.

 

[gorankar]

Assigning the desire not to be interfered with or inconvenienced by PvPers and gankers/PKers the labels of fear or cowardice almost always comes off as a weak, or perhaps even desperate, attempt at shaming people into playing the part of victim for PvPers and gankers/PKers. It tends to put people off ones other arguments even when there may be some meat worth chewing on in them. Few people are scared of PvPers, we are annoyed by them and uninterested in their gameplay.

I am against any weighting at all at this point. I used be fine with considering a certain amount of weighting for PP, but that quickly went away when many of the people arguing for that, kept going with "recommending" open only, neutering block, and other measures designed to force other people to play with them the way they want to play. Never even understanding that most of those players would just leave the game in short order, or outright avoid places like CG, Deciat, or ShinDez and the like, and they would be there alone in open with fewer and fewer victims anyway.

Block is the bane of the PvP player, the fact that it exists at all in it's current form should indicate just how optional Fdev considers it.

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

True, but private groups aren't usually in the running to get free stuff, unlike how some players demand open gets free stuff.

How about open pvp and open pve servers? However I feel the same argument for low/no risk would be the same. Other games like eso require one to issue a challenge requiring you to accept a pvp challenge. Same argument for low/no risk.

I feel like looking for more potential pvp targets is secretly what drives this request for most

 

[Robert Maynard]

When the main argument is about risk and reward, or what's preventing people from playing in open, then it becomes rather relevant... if that fear is overblown then someone is missing out on a mode they might rather enjoy without realising it.

Sandro made a pertinent comment on this:

Hello Commander Ozram!

I think you are perhaps conflating two separate issues: the amount of challenge present in each game mode, and player versus player interactions. I think these are so fundamentally different that comparisons might not be particularly useful.

The challenge of playing in solo being too low (without taking sides) is a valid argument to make, although it might better be phrased as "the opportunities for challenge are too low in Elite Dangerous". It's actually something we are interested in looking at.

However, cranking up difficulty will not make Open more enticing. Conflict between actual people, even within a game, is a very different matter to taking on NPC ships. It has many psychological and social elements that would otherwise not be present. Incidentally, increasing the difficulty of NPC engagements would also make Open harder rather than fairer, so there's also that.

Perhaps the bottom line is the different modes are there to enable Commanders to play how they want to. We don't want everyone to play in Open because we want some sort of Armageddon PvP scenario. We just think that playing with other people, both cooperatively and adversarial, can be more fun, which is why we advocate Open play.

So in the context of a karma system, people playing in Private Group or Solo mode are not relevant. Why should folk in Open be interested in what goes on there? This is about making player versus player interactions more equitable in Open, getting more folk in there, surely?

 

[TiberiusDuval]

When the main argument is about risk and reward, or what's preventing people from playing in open, then it becomes rather relevant... if that fear is overblown then someone is missing out on a mode they might rather enjoy without realising it.

Well typically only thing Open adds compared to PG is some purplehaired commanders blasting your ship to smithereens without demands or explanations or warnings. So in effect only people really getting more of game when there are more people playing in Open are those purplehaired brethrens. Personally I would not be very sad if those people just vanish from game.

 

[Brrokk]

Actually half-serious. I'd happily play open if it were whitelist or if I had a handy "block ALL users" button. If open had a "block ALL" button and gave free stuff compared to solo, I'd have a new favourite game mode! It's also a perfect win-win for the open-only folk as they technically would have more people in open, it's just that they wouldn't be able to instance with them.

This is the problem. The minute we get any Open-only content or reward, Solo players will have an incentive to play in Open while blocking every hollow square they see immediately from the contacts list. Surely no-one wants to create an incentive for others to take an axe to instancing in that way? It would be a daft situation.

About the MMO debate; it's clear that ED is a multiplayer game but I can't see any justification for calling it "massively multiplayer". The P2P that gives us a budget game and real time twitchy shooting won't permit that. It never has been and never can be an MMO. Most MMOs are effectively turn-based even when they have central servers for good reason.

 

[Kelster87]

I only play in Open, but I don't see why I should be rewarded for it.

PvP is so optional in this game that it's effects on the BGS and PP are more often detrimental than they are positive. In the 2ish years I've been playing I've lost 2 (maybe 3) ships to PVP 'combat', so my 'fear' of gankers is nonexistent, however, I don't view them as adding much to the game. My 'home' system on the edge of the Bubble often has 5-6 carriers lurking about, but I rarely see another human player.

 

[skananote]

How about open pvp and open pve servers?

Don't we have that already: Open and PG??

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

Don't we have that already: Open and PG??

Kinda yea but I suppose pve servers would have more randoms than only invited friends

 

[Robert Maynard]

Don't we have that already: Open and PG??

Neither of the multi-player modes guarantees PvE - as they are both PvP-enabled.

 

[Vedmo]

So by extension you're saying the supposition that no-one is avoiding open out of fear (however overblown) of an in-universe detriment at the hands of a player, just because you're not, is also not applicable? Because that's basically what my thrust was. It's treated here as a myth, but I have enough reason to think it's as likely as other reasons. It's not just rebuy or inconvenience, it's something more emotional.

I'm saying it is irrelevant.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Sandro made a pertinent comment on this:

Well, you know the reasons for interest in PG and solo players' activities as regards powerplay (which can also apply to BGS). Otherwise I see myself converging with the "open should be fun not forced" view. Plus phantoms of open as a griefer paradise being dispelled.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, you know the reasons for interest in PG and solo players' activities as regards powerplay (which can also apply to BGS).

Indeed - players who prefer to engage in PvP in features that don't require players to engage in PvP are quite interested in what players in Solo and Private Groups are doing to "their" features (forgetting that the features are pan-modal by design).

Otherwise I see myself converging with the "open should be fun not forced" view. Plus phantoms of open as a griefer paradise being dispelled.

Open facilitates griefers - and griefers can't get to players who choose not to play with them. Each player's perception of Open is their own, based on their experiences.