Seriously, what's the point in open play?

[Felix DiCestria]

Given that just about every mission can influence the BGS, it would put a target on everyone running missions to a station if they were not beneficial to the controlling faction. And even then, others may take a hand. Effectively severely affecting inter system commerce (unless the system controller allowed it).

Steve

PP is effectively tangential to the rest of the game and could (modules aside) be potentially put in its own category.
The BGS on the other hand affects all of us regardless of mode so we must all have the ability to affect it regardless of mode. There's so many interactions possible I doubt it would be feasible to defend against them all.
Frontier have already shown their hand when a group try to gate things.

 

[Morbad]

Umm… one of the major reasons I stayed pledged while doing Power-Play oriented BGS work was so that I could be opposed by players supporting the Federation Powers.

You can be opposed without that pledge.

My CMDR has never officially joined any PP faction (the carrot of marginally better equipment is not remotely enough to overcome his distaste of such formal entanglements), but he's certainly done PP oriented BGS work, and been shot at for it. I'm playing a combatant, but more of an insurgent or saboteur than a line infantryman.

PvP enthusiasts or however you may call them, along with the gankers, lawfuls, PvP bounty hunters and PvP BGS/powerplayers are probably the loudest and most visible group (flooding platforms like Youtube with combat videos), but I have the sneaking suspicion that the quiet, calm truckers and relaxation players outnumber them by an order of magnitude. We will never know though, as we don't get any numbers anytime soon.

I'm positive these groups are so thoroughly mixed that you'd be hard pressed to cleanly separate them.

Be careful with words like "anybody" or "everyone", because whatever you say next will be wrong.

The main theme of many of these arguments is over-generalization, with commenting on things one has negligible experience with being a close runner up.

The big issue for me in Open is the TERRIBLE performance that can occur if someone with (I assume) either a particularly poor connection or low-spec PC enters an instance. Several times when I was last playing in Open regularly, I'd be happily playing - perhaps in a HazRes for example - and would suddenly start experiencing poor game performance, ships rubber-banding, hits not counting and the like, only to notice another player had just entered the instance. This ruins the experience totally, with the only option being to relog.

Performance is usually only bad when the instance is hosted by someone with performance problems. Whatever metrics they use to assign, or more importantly, reassign, the host peer, has always been pretty sketchy.

Back in the gud olden days (2015, probably), when CPU encoding was the only good way to capture high quality video (especially if you had an AMD GPU) if you didn't want to spam hundreds of megabytes per second into your recording array, I made the mistake of starting my recording (with some new, very borderline settings) when I was clearly the host of a very large instance (I could tell by the pixels in the send bandwidth meter) at a CG RES site. Chat was quickly flooded with complaints, everyone was stuttering around and crashing into rocks, NPCs were teleporting kilometers at a time, and I'm pretty sure several players were booted to the main menu. Evidently, the game selected my client as host at some point, probably because I was there for a while, normally had good performance, and had a low ping to the bulk of others present (it was prime time for my location)...but failed to quickly move hosting duties to another peer when I inadvertently overloaded my CPU by trying to encode 1440p60 video with it while playing the game.

I've been more cognizant of my civic responsibilities as a network peer since.

I have never participated in a wing mission. How do I get into those?

Being in a wing of people running them is usually enough, and all it takes for that is to have a pool of acquaintances in your friend's list.

Indeed, I usually reject most of the wing requests I get because people on my friends list like to screw with me by spamming me with wing mission invites cause they know I've sworn off accepting wing missions because I find the reward multiplication an immersion defying absurdity. Not that non-influence rewards really matter at this point.

Seriously, why would someone pay more for the same work, on the same schedule, just because they happened to bring more people? A million ways co-op missions could be incentivized and they picked the absolute worst way conceivable, but I digress.

 

[Shabine]

My CMDR has never officially joined any PP faction (the carrot of marginally better equipment is not remotely enough to overcome his distaste of such formal entanglements), but he's certainly done PP oriented BGS work, and been shot at for it. I'm playing a combatant, but more of an insurgent or saboteur than a line infantryman.

But the prismatics, Morbad... they're so... prismatic. How anyone has managed to avoid pledging themselves to space waifu in order to get them is beyond me. On some of my builds, they make a major difference in overall survivability.

Seriously, why would someone pay more for the same work, on the same schedule, just because they happened to bring more people?

I often ask myself the same question when thinking about the construction industry.

 

[Morbad]

But the prismatics, Morbad... they're so... prismatic. How anyone has managed to avoid pledging themselves to space waifu in order to get them is beyond me. On some of my builds, they make a major difference in overall survivability.

Prismatics would be nice, but I don't feel overly limited by not having access to them. I tend to prefer more hull-focused hybrid setups, and don't often participate in the sort of organized PvP events where prismatics on shield focused vessels would make or break the ship.

From an in-character perspective, the price (the pledge itself) is too high and the reward negligible (the difference can be made up elsewhere).

I often ask myself the same question when thinking about the construction industry.

Get a quote for a job before construction starts and the contractor is sure to bring as few people as they can get away with.

 

[Brrokk]

⁰

You can be opposed without that pledge.

My CMDR has never officially joined any PP faction (the carrot of marginally better equipment is not remotely enough to overcome his distaste of such formal entanglements), but he's certainly done PP oriented BGS work, and been shot at for it. I'm playing a combatant, but more of an insurgent or saboteur than a line infantryman.



I'm positive these groups are so thoroughly mixed that you'd be hard pressed to cleanly separate them.



The main theme of many of these arguments is over-generalization, with commenting on things one has negligible experience with being a close runner up.



Performance is usually only bad when the instance is hosted by someone with performance problems. Whatever metrics they use to assign, or more importantly, reassign, the host peer, has always been pretty sketchy.

Back in the gud olden days (2015, probably), when CPU encoding was the only good way to capture high quality video (especially if you had an AMD GPU) if you didn't want to spam hundreds of megabytes per second into your recording array, I made the mistake of starting my recording (with some new, very borderline settings) when I was clearly the host of a very large instance (I could tell by the pixels in the send bandwidth meter) at a CG RES site. Chat was quickly flooded with complaints, everyone was stuttering around and crashing into rocks, NPCs were teleporting kilometers at a time, and I'm pretty sure several players were booted to the main menu. Evidently, the game selected my client as host at some point, probably because I was there for a while, normally had good performance, and had a low ping to the bulk of others present (it was prime time for my location)...but failed to quickly move hosting duties to another peer when I inadvertently overloaded my CPU by trying to encode 1440p60 video with it while playing the game.

I've been more cognizant of my civic responsibilities as a network peer since.



Being in a wing of people running them is usually enough, and all it takes for that is to have a pool of acquaintances in your friend's list.

Indeed, I usually reject most of the wing requests I get because people on my friends list like to screw with me by spamming me with wing mission invites cause they know I've sworn off accepting wing missions because I find the reward multiplication an immersion defying absurdity. Not that non-influence rewards really matter at this point.

Seriously, why would someone pay more for the same work, on the same schedule, just because they happened to bring more people? A million ways co-op missions could be incentivized and they picked the absolute worst way conceivable, but I digress.

Performance of AX combat zones in Open is appalling. After several frustrating experiences I've decided to only enter those in PG situations. (Since everything is fine in PG I'm pretty sure it's not my internet connection). These days I think that the best argument for keeping Solo and PG isn't the good old "all modes are equal"; it's more that you need them to make the game work.

 

[Morbad]

Performance of AX combat zones in Open is appalling.

I've only participated in a handful of AX CZs, but performance was tolerable. Of course, I would expect to eventually encounter issues.

These days I think that the best argument for keeping Solo and PG isn't the good old "all modes are equal"; it's more that you need them to make the game work.

I'm inclined to agree. I think separate is inherently unequal, but the game has problems at technical and conceptual levels that require far too much in the way of active player management to ensure a good experience without modes, if only as a fallback.

 

[Chaparral]

What an amazing thought - people like positive social interaction.

What an amazing thought - a multiplayer game where you can meet others and have a positive social interaction.

What sad thought - a desire to ruin the opportunity for people to have a positive social interaction.

Oh well - this is the house that FDEV built. Enjoy.

 

[nemolomen]

...

But this brings up the question: If I play in open mode, I risk being randomly destroyed by some idiot ganker, with no recourse against it. So why should I play in open mode at all? What is the counter-balancing benefit that would incentivize me to play in open mode, even at that risk? What do I get from open mode that makes it worth it? What is the positive side that supersedes the risks?

...

I play in Open for its unpredictability.

When I don't want to/can't afford to lose stuff, I play in PG.

I haven't played in Solo since probably my first month in game.

Sometimes I play with the gankers so other don't have to...as long as I'm having a good time...

I have been playing since September 2020 (roughly 2.5 years now). I play daily, mostly. I have almost 4000 hours in game. I don't play any other games (besides "Toon Blast" on my phone). I haven't unlocked all of the engineers. I haven't unlocked all of the ships. I haven't beaten all of the Thargoids. There are many mission types I have not tried yet. I could go on...

 

[Shabine]

Get a quote for a job before construction starts and the contractor is sure to bring as few people as they can get away with.

Yeah, so long as it isn't a public work paid for by the government. In that case, everyone and their cat shows up.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

I've sworn off accepting wing missions because I find the reward multiplication an immersion defing absurdity. Not that non-influence rewards really matter at this point.

Seriously, why would someone pay more for the same work, on the same schedule, just because they happened to bring more people? A million ways co-op missions could be incentivized and they picked the absolute worst way conceivable, but I digress.

Yeah, so long as it isn't a public work paid for by the government. In that case, everyone and their cat shows up.

Welcome to the world of Government job creation schemes. Money no object just so the politicians/bearucrats can claim to have maximized employment opportunities, tick a box, pose for a photo op and help themselves to the buffet.

 

[Sysmon]

well no NPCs in reality, or are there...

I dated a real-life NPC once. Couldn't figure out what game she was from, but she was definitely from a game. I think. Reality is hard.

S

 

[nemolomen]

...Reality is hard.

S

like a rock...

 

[Jack Winter]

I've only participated in a handful of AX CZs, but performance was tolerable. Of course, I would expect to eventually encounter issues.



I'm inclined to agree. I think separate is inherently unequal, but the game has problems at technical and conceptual levels that require far too much in the way of active player management to ensure a good experience without modes, if only as a fallback.

IMO, they should give the player an option for a local or a global instance, and if the player choses global they should strive to put all players in a squadron. or a PG, or open into the same instance, just like a team.

And also preferably that they work correctly when the player count increases, at the moment the limit on foot seems to be about 30-40, and in space maybe 75 or even a hundred, It's no good to get bugs when trying to play together, and I suppose that if the rendering requirements exceed the player's system, that's a choice that the player would have to make.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

The problem really is - why is there solo mode?
If solo didn't exist players would be forced to confront gankers in a more organised and proficient manner. As it stands we can just slither off to solo and play virtually risk free.

We all know that players would rather not play the game at all, then.

 

[Markov Chaney]

The main theme of many of these arguments is over-generalization, with commenting on things one has negligible experience with being a close runner up.

Welcome to the Internet. But seriously, an extra thing that happens a lot in discussions about Elite: Dangerous is that people suggest a change to gameplay that fixes issues with two playstyles without seeing that it would break another dozen playstyles. This isn't an issue with many other games because the games simply are not this broad and deep.

That is kinda the problem with anything this broad; it's a problem in any sandbox but it's even harder for FDev because BGS, PP, and AX are three major narratives which must also stand up on top of all those playstyles known and unknown.

Which brings me back on topic: open play is vastly outweighed by all of the above anyway so it doesn't stand a chance until literally hundreds of players get together on a Discord to work out what they can affect. However, this is partly because it's impossible to find out anything about the narratives OR open play initiatives in-game because discoverability is absolutely terrible. I'm wondering if "what's the point of open play" is just a symptom of the "what's the point of anything?" that a player who doesn't use the forums or Reddit would experience.

 

[Brrokk]

... in space maybe 75 or even a hundred, ...

My recent experience is that in AX situations Open starts to go wrong with 3 or 4 players. :-(

A single example: I was in a wing of 3. We decided to go to a different attacked surface base. I dropped in, and I could see their two "wing beacons" (I now know that this is a bad sign). I fought the thargoids for a bit until one wingmate asked me, "Where did you get to?" We were a pre-existing wing of three who had already instanced together and the game chose to put us into separate instances!

I have a suspicion that the invisible interceptors and the interceptors which seem to be surrounded by visual black hole effects are also connected with instancing, because I've only seen those in Open too.

 

[Shabine]

Which brings me back on topic: open play is vastly outweighed by all of the above anyway so it doesn't stand a chance until literally hundreds of players get together on a Discord to work out what they can affect. However, this is partly because it's impossible to find out anything about the narratives OR open play initiatives in-game because discoverability is absolutely terrible. I'm wondering if "what's the point of open play" is just a symptom of the "what's the point of anything?" that a player who doesn't use the forums or Reddit would experience.

Really well said.

From what I can tell, the "root of all evil" in this game is how difficult it is for people to organize. It happens. 13th. Buckyball. AXI. There is no doubt about that. But the resources we're provided to develop organizations with cultures of their own within the game are borderline nonexistent. They're also finicky and not particularly well thought out. Not being on a single shard hinders progress toward the evolution of larger player structures.

EVE has its corporations, alliances and power blocks, and tools galore to bring people together in whatever group size they want. Fantasy mmo guilds tend to be very simple affairs as well. It's easy to look for them, to join them, and to operate within a gameworld with similar ease of cooperation.

Elite has all these weird barriers, both optional and unavoidable. P2P. Modes. Instancing. Just plain bad player faction and squadron design. Blocking. Lack of channels (my god, how are we not able to create channels that allow us to bring other players into our social circles in a very obvious and efficient way?)

I love this game in spite of flaws like this. ED has its cultures. Racing. Exploration. AX. And players can find one another. But new players aren't thrust into fluid communication. They're deployed into the black very much alone.

That isn't based on a personal experience or anything. It's based on a general observation. There is an abundance of solitude in this game, and a desire for it among its players. Whether this is cause or an effect is debatable.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

do you enjoy playing with other players with the potential for anything to happen, if yes play open.

if you enjoy playing with others but not wanting to risk being attacked by players and like a more coop experience, then create or join a PG

if you want to play as close to the original elite experience as this game allows play solo.

there is a point to open in that some people enjoy being in it. i have gone back to it myself for a few things (thargoid combat) and found it to be decent enough.

I always consider elite dangerous to be Elite........ but with multiplayer options for those who want it...... rather than a primarily multiplayer game with single player for those who want it.
I also consider the MMO part to be the BGS rather than the actual gameplay.

of course its not cut and dry because some of the features in the game only work in multiplayer and offer nothing if playing single player, but personally i put that down to lack of investment rather than it being a multiplayer focussed game.... but this may be my bias, FD it is fair to say sold the game as all things to all people depending on which stream you watched at the time.
Overall i like the modes personally.

 

[Screemonster]

 

[Rebel Yell]

A fault in it self. Elite alienates its own player base.

...and we did find the medicine to revert it some time ago (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/media-kumo-crew-finds-the-medicine-to-save-the-game.591840/)