Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Mr Jack Burton]

They can be avoided entirely in open too - what's your point?

Yet they ask players to join their PG in preference, don't they?

Love your arguments against anything but open, if only they were 100% factual it would be fantastic!

I think your comment is a bit out of context, I'm for content and gameplay that could make Open sexy for everyone and weighting of rewards for who does (related to efficency balancing issues)

 

[anShpan]

The game would not benefit from removing or curbing engineering, that would only serve to make the game very flat and lacking in dimension, however the task of making engineering into something that, in its essence, would make the entire game gel together, is a massive undertaking.

I do not think that somebody would ever propose to remove engineering, that is too much fun. But something tells me that initial point was more about imbalance of engineering bring to gameplay.
Will be speaking only for myself: never flew Sidewinder other than training, bought Pmk2 Stellar instead. Later unlocked Engineers and only what I can say that me Expert in stock Pmk2 has no singe chance against me Harmless in somewhat engineered Pmk2. That has to be balanced somehow, probably.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think your comment is a bit out of context, I'm for content and gameplay that could make Open sexy for everyone and weighting of rewards for who does (related to efficency balancing issues)

The notion that some form of gameplay could make Open attractive to all players is a fine aim - but also an impossible one - as there are some who don't want to play among other players at all, some who don't enjoy PvP or the possibility of it at all, etc., etc..

Unless the content and gameplay made unwanted PvP impossible even in Open?

 

[Rat Catcher]

I think your comment is a bit out of context,

No, it was spot on, I checked...

I'm for content and gameplay that could make Open sexy for everyone

An impossible task, wouldn't you agree?

and weighting of rewards for who does (related to efficency balancing issues)

Ahhh....

You can hope, I guess...

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

The notion that some form of gameplay could make Open attractive to all players is a fine aim - but also an impossible one - as there are some who don't want to play among other players at all, some who don't enjoy PvP or the possibility of it at all, etc., etc..

Unless the content and gameplay made unwanted PvP impossible even in Open?

I highly doubt that every CMDR playing in Solo or PG is doing so out of fear of unwanted PvP. There are several reasons why players might prefer these modes:

• CMDRs playing Solo/PG because BGS and certain activities (like PP) are simply more efficient in these modes. Until Open offers the same efficiency, but with the added challenge of being more dangerous, players will continue to optimize their gameplay in Solo/PG.
• CMDRs who are aware of Open but feel more comfortable in Solo because the interactions available in Open aren't meaningful enough for them. It's not always about fear, sometimes it's about the lack of compelling reasons to engage with other players.
• CMDRs who might be avoiding Open because of a perceived or real threat of PvP. While fear of PvP is certainly a factor for some, it's just one part of a larger equation.

As for making unwanted PvP impossible in Open, that idea defeats the very purpose of Open mode. Open is about the possibility of organic interactions with other players, both cooperative and competitive. To remove PvP entirely would undermine the core of what Open represents, reducing it to little more than a larger version of PG or Solo. Open should be about risk, but it should also offer meaningful incentives to make that risk worthwhile for all players, not by making PvP impossible, but by creating systems that make every encounter feel significant and varied.

 

[Rat Catcher]

There are several reasons why players might prefer these modes:

True...

Some of us just don't want to play with others who we might find boring in the extreme, there are plenty of candidates for that.

I know it is hurtful, but not everyone wants to play your way and there could never be any enticement offered to change that.
As long as you are enjoying your own playstyle, everything is fine, isn't it?

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Stelanebula's online material is predominantly in German, which limits its effectiveness in engaging and retaining new players compared to the broader, more accessible content produced by AXI. That said, I don’t intend to question or debate the value of ingame activities, they are perfectly valid! However, when it comes to attracting and supporting new players, the reach and influence of AXI content is more substantial.

And BLOP speak Portuguese, the native language of a group or individual has no bearing on their effectiveness.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

True...

Some of us just don't want to play with others who we might find boring in the extreme, there are plenty of candidates for that.

I know it is hurtful, but not everyone wants to play your way and there could never be any enticement offered to change that.
As long as you are enjoying your own playstyle, everything is fine, isn't it?

Sure, but as I enjoy Open, it's pretty understandable that I also appreciate having other CMDRs who enjoy it too. It's not about forcing anyone to play in a certain way, but having more players engaged in Open contributes to a richer experience for those who prefer this mode. Player activity and potential balancing changes can naturally encourage more people to join Open, which would benefit not just those of us who already enjoy it, but also the overall dynamics of the game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I highly doubt that every CMDR playing in Solo or PG is doing so out of fear of unwanted PvP. There are several reasons why players might prefer these modes:

• CMDRs playing Solo/PG because BGS and certain activities (like PP) are simply more efficient in these modes. Until Open offers the same efficiency, but with the added challenge of being more dangerous, players will continue to optimize their gameplay in Solo/PG.
• CMDRs who are aware of Open but feel more comfortable in Solo because the interactions available in Open aren't meaningful enough for them. It's not always about fear, sometimes it's about the lack of compelling reasons to engage with other players.
• CMDRs who might be avoiding Open because of a perceived or real threat of PvP. While fear of PvP is certainly a factor for some, it's just one part of a larger equation.

As for making unwanted PvP impossible in Open, that idea defeats the very purpose of Open mode. Open is about the possibility of organic interactions with other players, both cooperative and competitive. To remove PvP entirely would undermine the core of what Open represents, reducing it to little more than a larger version of PG or Solo. Open should be about risk, but it should also offer meaningful incentives to make that risk worthwhile for all players, not by making PvP impossible, but by creating systems that make every encounter feel significant and varied.

View attachment 404708

1) Possibly - some players who prefer PvP at times will play against their inclination for the purpose of efficiency. The same can't be said of players with no interest in PvP as playing without it is quite often their default state.
2) Possibly - noting that many player/player interactions are, from the perspective of one player, a meaningless waste of their game time. To ascribe "fear" to a dislike of an optional aspect of a video game played in the comfort and safety of ones preferred gaming environment can be quite telling - in the lack of understanding of those players who don't choose to play the way some players want them to.
3) Again with "fear". See above. For some players in-the-same-instance represents a tedious and predictable waste of their game time, initiated by one or more other players who don't care what their chosen targets get out of the forced interaction. Put differently, those who play for their fun disregarding the fun of others aren't fun for to play among, for some players.

So the proposal is about increasing the number of players available for those so inclined to shoot at (disregarding whether they want to be shot at by other players) - as usual.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Open contributes to a richer experience for those who prefer this mode.

Good, exactly as it should be.

Player activity and potential balancing changes can naturally encourage more people to join Open

I doubt that, but can't prove it...Time will tell, surely?

which would benefit not just those of us who already enjoy it, but also the overall dynamics of the game.

The overall dynamics of the game work very well today, don't they?

Players are playing how they wish and enjoying whatever it might be that brings them pleasure in their recreation...

I enjoy playing as I wish, but have no desire to 'encourage' others to mimic my behaviour, the individual chooses, surely?

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

And BLOP speak Portuguese, the native language of a group or individual has no bearing on their effectiveness.

Speaking of targeting languages:

German: ~130Mil
Portuguese: ~265Mil
English: ~1.5Bil

So it does when we talk about engaging old and new players in their activities

 

[anShpan]

I highly doubt that every CMDR playing in Solo or PG is doing so out of fear of unwanted PvP. There are several reasons why players might prefer these modes:

• CMDRs playing Solo/PG because BGS and certain activities (like PP) are simply more efficient in these modes. Until Open offers the same efficiency, but with the added challenge of being more dangerous, players will continue to optimize their gameplay in Solo/PG.
• CMDRs who are aware of Open but feel more comfortable in Solo because the interactions available in Open aren't meaningful enough for them. It's not always about fear, sometimes it's about the lack of compelling reasons to engage with other players.
• CMDRs who might be avoiding Open because of a perceived or real threat of PvP. While fear of PvP is certainly a factor for some, it's just one part of a larger equation.

Bravo! No, really, excellent identification of reasons. Hopefully, PPxx.0 can fix that, and that should not be very hard: just on the mission board appears mission "Take down known pirate CMDR xxxx" with very juicy reward. And we can do that with friend(s) in a wing.

As for making unwanted PvP impossible in Open, that idea defeats the very purpose of Open mode. Open is about the possibility of organic interactions with other players, both cooperative and competitive.

Hopefully that is just my imagination: I do not believe that Open is a native mode for ED, but PG is. Hence "ignore" mechanism and such.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Good, exactly as it should be.

I doubt that, but can't prove it...Time will tell, surely?

There are objective game design flaws, and how to fix it is already written in 40 years of videogame design and 2500 years of Game Design.

Imagine if the design issues of an ancient game like Chinese checkers hadn’t been resolved 2,500 years ago. Today, we might face a ridiculous situation: two players in the same tournament, but one is playing against a real opponent while the other is playing against a wall. It’s obvious that this wouldn’t be a fair competition, as one player faces a real strategic challenge while the other is in a completely different scenario.

So "I like vanilla ice cream" may be an opinion while "the earth is flat" is definetly not.

The overall dynamics of the game work very well today, don't they?

No. There are a lot of complaints by any side. As it should be for a any live service!

Players are playing how they wish and enjoying whatever it might be that brings them pleasure in their recreation...

I enjoy playing as I wish, but have no desire to 'encourage' others to mimic my behaviour, the individual chooses, surely?

Instead many of us want to encourage it because our playstyle need other players to actually exist

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Speaking of targeting languages:

German: ~130Mil
Portuguese: ~265Mil
English: ~1.5Bil

So it does when we talk about engaging old and new players in their activities

If you're going to use those proportions then English speakers are amazingly ineffective in comparison to either other group.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There are objective game design flaws, and how to fix it is already written in 40 years of videogame design and 2500 years of Game Design.

Maybe from the perspective of someone expecting this to be a PvP game - however as it's not a PvP game (and isn't sold as one according to DBOBE), what might be considered to be flaws from that perspective of someone who wants PvP to be something other than optional are instead features welcomed by those who didn't buy the game with any inclination or appetite for PvP.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Maybe from the perspective of someone expecting this to be a PvP game - however as it's not a PvP game (and isn't sold as one according to DBOBE), what might be considered to be flaws from that perspective of someone who wants PvP to be something other than optional are instead features welcomed by those who didn't buy the game with any inclination or appetite for PvP.

I understand that you want the game to remain as it was when it was first released. However, unless Frontier releases a patch to revert everything back to the original build, I think it's more productive to have meaningful discussions about how the game can be improved moving forward. This doesn't have to involve players who are unwilling to consider other perspectives or who are simply dismissive of any changes.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I understand that you want the game to remain as it was when it was first released. However, unless Frontier releases a patch to revert everything back to the original build, I think it's more productive to have meaningful discussions about how the game can be improved moving forward.

I doubt that any player wants the game to return to 1.0, noting significant improvements made over the course of the last (nearly) ten years and two DLC. Of course it's more productive to discuss improvements, noting that existing players won't necessarily agree on what constitutes an "improvement" from their perspective, e.g. for some the game could be significantly improved if an Open-PvE game mode were to be added alongside the other three game modes that share the galaxy.

This doesn't have to involve players who are unwilling to consider other perspectives or who are simply dismissive of any changes.

The desires of those whose proposals disregard the players who would be adversely affected by the proposals can be just as quickly disregarded by those who would be adversely affected.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Speaking of targeting languages:

German: ~130Mil
Portuguese: ~265Mil
English: ~1.5Bil

So it does when we talk about engaging old and new players in their activities

Gosh, so everything should be in Chinese, not English, then?

There are objective game design flaws, and how to fix it is already written in 40 years of videogame design and 2500 years of Game Design.

Really? Actual flaws, or just perceived by a tiny minority?

Imagine if the design issues of an ancient game like Chinese checkers hadn’t been resolved 2,500 years ago. Today, we might face a ridiculous situation: two players in the same tournament, but one is playing against a real opponent while the other is playing against a wall. It’s obvious that this wouldn’t be a fair competition, as one player faces a real strategic challenge while the other is in a completely different scenario.

Imagine if Solitaire hadn't been invented!

Also, the greatest number of games, by a vast majority, in the video gaming world are single player ones, hadn't you noticed? Many humans really don't want to socialise in their precious play time with people where the only common interest is a game, they just want to play.

No. There are a lot of complaints by any side. As it should be for a any live service!

I agree, many gamers complain about anything and everything..

Instead many of us want to encourage it because our playstyle need other players to actually exist

But they don't need you, ironic, isn't it?

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Gosh, so everything should be in Chinese, not English, then?

Are you being serious or just trying to stir things up? There aren't any major Chinese actors involved in this discussion. If there were, they would certainly be Frontier's primary focus.

Really? Actual flaws, or just perceived by a tiny minority?

Imagine if Solitaire hadn't been invented!

Game design is both an art and a science, requiring an analytical and thoughtful approach, not casual conversations. Questions like yours lack the depth needed to engage in this topic seriously, so I prefer not to entertain them any further.

Also, the greatest number of games, by a vast majority, in the video gaming world are single player ones, hadn't you noticed? Many humans really don't want to socialise in their precious play time with people where the only common interest is a game, they just want to play.

I agree, many gamers complain about anything and everything..

But they don't need you, ironic, isn't it?

Claiming that the majority of games are single player is an oversimplification. While single player games have their place, the biggest revenue generators and cultural phenomena in the industry like Fortnite, Apex Legends, League of Legends, Warthunder are multiplayer, and Elite Dangerous itself is a live service game just like those. People seek different experiences: some thrive on competition and cooperation, while others enjoy immersion alone. Reducing this diversity to a blanket statement ignores the evolution of gaming.

The idea that gamers don't want to socialize may reflect a personal bias rather than the reality of the industry.

 

[Wily Rites]

Are you being serious or just trying to stir things up? There aren't any major Chinese actors involved in this discussion. If there were, they would certainly be Frontier's primary focus.


Game design is both an art and a science, requiring an analytical and thoughtful approach, not casual conversations. Questions like yours lack the depth needed to engage in this topic seriously, so I prefer not to entertain them any further.

Claiming that the majority of games are single player is an oversimplification. While single player games have their place, the biggest revenue generators and cultural phenomena in the industry like Fortnite, Apex Legends, League of Legends, Warthunder are multiplayer, and Elite Dangerous itself is a live service game just like those. People seek different experiences: some thrive on competition and cooperation, while others enjoy immersion alone. Reducing this diversity to a blanket statement ignores the evolution of gaming.

The idea that gamers don't want to socialize may reflect a personal bias rather than the reality of the industry.

Out of curiosity: Have you played the original game elite, perhaps via Ooelite which is still very much alive with a thriving community?