Sandro: "People who play Open versus other modes are majority, by significant margin"

[Julio Montega]

The game has ALWAYS been marketed for both single and multiplayer.

Interesting read, never doubted it be marketed for both ways to play.
We will see what ED will become in the future the market tends strongly to MP games.
And we will continue to see controversial discussions and FD asking people about those topics
and then paddling back again with the tail between their legs.

FYI I've no problem with multiplayer features being added... but the continued insistence that everything must revolve around multiplayer is what I DO have a problem with.

FYI i have no problem with keeping Solo and PG and enabling features for those playmodes,
it is the impact of actions done in these modes on the open galaxy that disturbes me.

Problem is, that some extremists want to usurp the entire game for multiplayer (open-only) and continue to spread misinformation and propaganda to this effect.

Misinformation always is disturbing, including those open = gweefing threads.

 

[Genus]

Some of us are sick and tired the propaganda and Frontier's LACK of action on it.

And the affect it's had on FD's engagement policies too. The bickering in the student lounge does nothing for anyone.

Especially when "negative feedback" becomes "being nasty to devs" (when what's being discussed doesn't even involve devs especially)...or when any cultural factor is highlighted as counter-productive, those supporting the ideal throw their teddies out of the pram.

There's a reason why marginalising under-performers is a thing in business. Trying to keep the swing voter happy just ends in a not very well hung governance. You have to use it or lose it.

No-one likes being left with a choice of one at the bottom of the Quality Street tin.

 

[Sylveria]

FYI i have no problem with keeping Solo and PG and enabling features for those playmodes,
it is the impact of actions done in these modes on the open galaxy that disturbes me.

And people need to stop blaming the players for the outcome. The players don't have a choice, and never did.

Frontier designed and implemented this mess... it's their responsibility.

The point being a solution is needed that is acceptable to everyone who paid for this game- not just the current "fad" they choose to follow for monetary gain.

I'd also be willing to wager that most PG/Solo players would NOT have a problem with Open having its own BGS. Very few intentionally play it to affect Open. (I know I sure as hell don't)

Most people are just faffing about playing the game because it's their personal style/preference.

 

[Julio Montega]

And people need to stop blaming the players for the outcome. The players don't have a choice, and never did.

Frontier designed and implemented this mess... it's their responsibility.

The point being a solution is needed that is acceptable to everyone who paid for this game- not just the current "fad" they choose to follow for monetary gain.

I'd also be willing to wager that most PG/Solo players would NOT have a problem with Open having its own BGS. Very few intentionally play it to affect Open.

Most people are just faffing about playing the game because it's their personal style/preference.

Agreed on.
The goal is not to exclude players, but to have a galaxy, open,
that is directly accessible, changeable and reactive.
The ability to meet any player there, and see what they do,
generating actions and results on the bgs and pp that is a living galaxy.

It is that simple:
Action->it is perceived-> reaction.

However, we never should rule out the choice a player has,
once he knows what he can achieve.

I wouldn't rule out there are players who know they can impact the gameworld
in other modes to oppose factions that operate in open, who would just make him/her a KOS target,
without using another mode to dogde any backfire.

 

[Sylveria]

Agreed on.
The goal is not to exclude players, but to have a galaxy, open,
that is directly accessible, changeable and reactive.
The ability to meet any player there, and see what they do,
generating actions and results on the bgs and pp that is a living galaxy.

It is that simple:
Action->it is perceived-> reaction.

Trust me, I get it. I used to play PvP all the time. Strategy, etc.

I did not, however, buy ED for that. Nor was it ever explicitly stated as a requirement to purchase or play.

If I wanted it, I would have stuck with EVE- because that's already available, albeit in a much smaller setting and no flight controls. (point and click, bouncing off stations/stars)

I agree completely that if people want to engage in adversarial combat with each other- they need to accept everything that comes with it.

I personally bought ED because I wanted the 1984 experience with updated graphics, solid objects and colors, etc. HOTAS flight and possibly VR (which I have yet to experience, waiting for better VR options)

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Trust me, I get it. I used to play PvP all the time. Strategy, etc.

I did not, however, buy ED for that. Nor was it ever explicitly stated as a requirement to purchase or play.

If I wanted it, I would have stuck with EVE- because that's already available, albeit in a much smaller setting and no flight controls. (point and click, bouncing off stations/stars)

I agree completely that if people want to engage in adversarial combat with each other- they need to accept everything that comes with it.

I personally bought ED because I wanted the 1984 experience with updated graphics, solid objects and colors, etc. HOTAS flight and possibly VR (which I have yet to experience, waiting for better VR options)

Stay in solo. And enjoy the game without others affecting you. And you affecting others. Just like in 1984. There ya go problem solved. They make changes to the game you get what you want. We get what we want.

 

[jasonbirder]

The ability to meet any player there, and see what they do,
generating actions

Of no interest to somebody that bought a single player game...and Frontier have ALWAYS marketed it as a single player game (and a multi-player game) ever since it was trying to raise kickstarter pledges...

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Stay in solo. And enjoy the game without others affecting you. And you affecting others. Just like in 1984. There ya go problem solved. They make changes to the game you get what you want. We get what we want.

I bought a game that promised me a dynamic, changing galaxy that I could affect - whatever mode I choose to play in.
So no, not 'problem solved' at all.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I bought a game that promised me a dynamic, changing galaxy that I could affect - whatever mode I choose to play in.
So no, not 'problem solved' at all.

You mean. Have the ability to influence others with out anyone being able to stop you? Because you may not enjoy "direct pvp". Even though you are directly influencing a group of people. And are aware of the intentions while doing it?

Seems fair.

 

[Jockey79]

You mean. Have the ability to influence others with out anyone being able to stop you? Because you may not enjoy "direct pvp". Even though you are directly influencing a group of people. And are aware of the intentions while doing it?

Seems fair.

You know this is an outright lie.

Anyone in any mode can counter another actions from another person.
You also know, even if they were in Open, they can block you and carry on..... so kind of the same thing.

So it's very fair that the manner used to attack, is the same manner used to defend.

 

[Genus]

This instigated behaviour is below us all.

I move that we put aside our own benign leanings toward one mode or another, and send a message that this community refuses to demean itself, by entering into some kind of useless mode war that does nothing but serve to progress a game we all wish to see thrive and full it's potential, toward an alternative end.

And shame on any party that calls out one mode over another going forward.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

You know this is an outright lie.

Anyone in any mode can counter another actions from another person.
You also know, even if they were in Open, they can block you and carry on..... so kind of the same thing.

So it's very fair that the manner used to attack, is the same manner used to defend.

No its not. BGS player factions and powerplay. Both suffer from the same exact issues. And its why they spoke about powerplay going open only.

If people are playing against each other and not the game itself (PVE).

Then it needs to be on the same playing field for those types of actions. I shouldnt have to farm back because someone called in sick and was able to farm 12 hours. Then you find out the next day when a tick happens. No, your people in the area should be able to claim whats on the bounty boards. Thats why they are there. Another mechanic in the game not able to be used because the mode system once again. You cant even claim the bounty of the people attacking your systems.

You are aware blocking can easily be changed to reflect comms only?

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Spot on. There should have been a strategic partnership with CCP from the start, with a link at the bottom of every MMOW reference. FD attempting a MMOW in ten years from now is something I'd like to see, but for the last four years it's been like a 5 year old trying to drive a Nissan GTR, down Tottenham Court Road.

With Solo and Group, we would have got a much higher quality of player managed groups (for PvP as well as everything else like racing and risk based stuff), concentrated populations and subsequently, better data over how demand evolved in line with a pseudo-simulation tying it all together. It's not a BGS, it's just a BG as a result. With loads of EVE players just fancying a change of scenery making noise to the detriment of the game.

FD would then have been able to learn what they needed to learn, get the business side sorted and when the time was right, bring in people that know how to build a simulacrum, based on open system mechanics and some vital fuzzy logic. And ED could have just continued on as is, while all the MMOW PvP'ers got something that served them right, and ED players could risk if they fancied it.

Right now, I feel I'm trying to drown in the paddling pool, just to be able to swim as a Solo player. Interestingly, reading the posts many Open fans feel the same way. It's a pigs ear right now.

I remember in the 1980's thing's like Gaming Ethics being a thing, The League of Gamers being set up and the whole culture being one of highlight the best of us, through having fun. Every MMOW I've played over the last 20 years has been an exercise in trying to avoid the worst of us. Building a good MMOW game requires having to know how to marginalise those that would display what has become understood as a very specific, very common flavour of mass sociopathy, that actually offers great benefit for those that find enacting it through gaming. It's cathartic and serves the same psychological triggers as film media.

FD ain't there...yet. While CCP have been there for over ten years, they understand the boundaries that ED's Modes highlight in neon speckled crayon.

But they are young, and with the advent of the new digs in Cambridge, they might accelerate that learning curve and do something useful with ED still, as FD as an organisation matures and comes to realise what the Institution of Elite means, outside of the minds of the top brass.

Engagement means profit after all.

I was *flying a real airplane* when I was four...

Didn't have the fuel for Tottenham Court, though.

Frontier had all the lessons learned *right out in front of them* when they wrote the base code. They made a decision, and now all of us are affected by the consequences.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

I always did

I'm just trying to explain that to all those who harras other players just because they want a multiplayer game. I've never been against a solo mode. I'm just asking for the multiplayer game they sold me.

Don't "harras the labble". It was written by Space Loaches.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Just for the fun of it:

[video=youtube;S9J7XE-ctMU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9J7XE-ctMU[/video]

 

[Nyra Amarin]

You have one. And Solo players also have their game.

Where is the multiplayer Elite: Dangerous? :S I want to see players in the conflicts. Not numbers representing players.
NPC's are more communicative and "real" in this game than real players.

 

[Genus]

I was *flying a real airplane* when I was four...

Didn't have the fuel for Tottenham Court, though.

Frontier had all the lessons learned *right out in front of them* when they wrote the base code. They made a decision, and now all of us are affected by the consequences.

Well then.

This might well be the "talent" they needed back then.

And now, more than ever.

Metaphorically speaking of course

 

[Faybs]

You mean. Have the ability to influence others with out anyone being able to stop you?

I had no idea I could block others from playing the BGS.

Besides, now that we've established that solo and PG players are minority, it seems like that was never a problem to begin with.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Go ahead and shut down solo. I spent three hours playing DEFCON, and having more fun.

It's the gameplay at fault, not about having different modes.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Where is the multiplayer Elite: Dangerous? :S I want to see players in the conflicts. Not numbers representing players.
NPC's are more communicative and "real" in this game than real players.

It’s the nature of the this game.

Let’s run the numbers shall we. According to SteamCharts, the average number of concurrent players is about 3300. If I remember correctly, Steam represents about half of all PC sales for this game, so raise this to 6600 PC players at any one time. We won’t count console players, since we’ll never see them.

First, let’s remove the effects of geographical based instancing on how many players you could potentially see. We have no idea what the geographical spread of players is, so I typically divide it into three groups who are likely to be instanced together: Europe, North America, and East Asia. I’m tempted to add Australia and an “Other” category as well, but let’s keep it to three for now. Right away, your potential pool of players is down to 2200 players.

Now let’s spread out those 2200 players across the 20,000 inhabited systems. Okay, that leaves your odds of a player being in any random system at about one in ten.

But wait! Surely there are popular locations to visit! CGs, Engineers, Jameson Memorial!

Okay, let’s use a CG. In fact, let’s use the recent set of CGs in The Pleiades. Approximately 4600 players participated in both CGs, both based out of the Oracle. I squeaked into the 50% tier, which represents my threshold for repetitive tasks, so I’m going to base these calculations on myself, since those are the only numbers I have, and according to SteamSpy, before it went behind a pay wall, I’m pretty darn close to the average player when it comes to this game.

My typical play session lasts an hour, and on average, I get five play sessions a week. It took me one session to get to The Pleiades and find a pristine metallic ring. I spent four sessions mining, and it took me the length of a session to fill my ship with about 50% CG material (other 50% was 3Ps and gold). So each session, I visited the Oracle once. Unlike normal, I fly safely at CGs, so it took me approximately 3 minutes to dock, sell my completely legally acquired cargo, and jump out. So about 5% of my time was spent at the Oracle over the course four hours.

So how many of those 4500 players would I have potentially seen, assuming I represent the average player in both CGs? First, let’s remove the 20% that play on other platforms besides PC. That brings it down to 3600. Now, let’s spread those 3600 players out across a whole week, allowing for one play session spent traveling to the Pleiades in the first place. That brings the number I could potentially encounter in the general area down to about 100. Assuming they spent a similar amount of time at the Oracle, and we’re down to five... four if we remove non-Open players. If we remove geographical instancing concerns, that brings us down to one or two players: yourself than one other.

Which pretty much matches my experience at the Oracle. My normal play window coincides with the daily peak players, which is about twice the average number of players. I typically saw two or three players at the Oracle.

And that is why you’re not likely to see many people, despite Open being the “MMO” Mode. Even at “busy” systems, we’re too spread out temporally, geographically, and in the game to see hardly anyone. Unless you meet up with friends, there’s no guarantee of meeting random strangers, and quite frankly the odds are against it.