The Open Only Incentive

[FNLWA]

what have I miss quoted?



You defending this survey, as that is the best truth out there, and now this is the 3rd tie you have totally ignored to tell where this come from. and for some strange reasons, you hold this survey, in higher regard than what Fdev said in that stream. And you have totally ignored anything I have said about that the selection of the participant of the survey is probably skewed, due to their selection method.... You flat out reject my logic as guesses, without and then you are not as critial to that survey, so yes, that is dishonest behaviour by you.

I love how when I provide information you're accusing me of "presenting things as facts" but when I encourage you to do your own research you're accusing me of not providing information. Do you not see the irony here? You're the one yelling "fake news fakew news" here, so it's your job to do your homework and provide some arguments.

Ah yes, the flawed participant selection. How exactly does participants using the official forums or reddit make the results invalid? Where is the correlation and how would it affect the results? I have pointed out that, mildy put, I doubt that there is such a correlation, or that it's substantial enough to make a real difference. And even if we assume for a moment that there is such a correlation, wouldn't it mean that those players are somehow more "involved" or "active" and thus more likely to vote "open", overrepresenting it in the results?

People have been using Sandro's statement to further push their open-only agenda. In response I have shown that Sandro's statement can be understood in multiple ways, and since no numbers were provided by FD we simply cannot know which interpretation is correct (absolute vs. relative majority). And yes, I'm looking at things realistically. The statement was not a written press release, but made during a livestream where they get bombarded with questions. Is it so unlikely that maybe the statement wasn't worded as carefully as it maybe should have been? We don't even know how FD decited someones preferred game mode. And yes you can start guessing based on what you would have done, except it's absolutely pointless. In the end, unless FD provides hard numbers and how they came up with those numbers multiple interpretations are possible and plausible.

Literally the only numbers we do have come from the ED mega survey which has a large enough sample size to give us a very good estimate on how people play the game, it also let people choose their preferred game mode (instead of FD deciting it for them). The survey's results don't conflict with Sandro's statement at all if you interpret his words as "Open is the most popular out of the 3 modes". It does however conflict with the interpretation people have been using to build arguments for open-only, as it shows that in absolute numbers players in open are not the absolute majority.

If you want to discredit the survey please do so based on real arguments and not your lack of knowledge about it, but apparently so far you have been unable to even google it. I see no issues with how the participants were selected as I see no correlation between using the forums/reddit (or however they've stumbled upon it) and the preferred game mode. I didn't make the survey, and I can't prove to you that it's 100% accurate but I see no reason why someone would go though all that trouble of setting up a webform, providing spreadsheets, a dedicated website and detailed information about every single submission, all of which is readily available by doing 2 minutes of research, only to pretend open is not as popular as some people would like it to be. In that sense yes, I trust this survey more than an ambiguous statement made during a livestream (which, keep in mind, does not conflict with the survey results) or the ramblings of someone on the forums on "how they would have done it".

 

[Asp Explorer]

Yes it is.

Maybe not five or six years ago, but certainly now.

The industry has changed. The number of people who play this game who don't have a subscription is slim to none I guarantee it.

In fact it's the worst possible point to use againt the OO argument. It's a fallacy.

Actually - I cancelled both my PS+ and XBLive subscriptions for both precisely this reason - and for the lulz

If a player wants to force me to be their game content on those platforms, urm, well it isn't going to happen any time soon.

I could challenge you to a beat-down fragfest, and declare you the loser by default because I never got my Mac client to instance with you, or urm, actually work at all these days

 

[khaos526]

He wants to force people in open to benefits his own PvP gameplay. While most people want each mode equal.

I think the Dev always said they are going to keep each mode the same, Solo, Private and Open. So there's really no point in the post, since it's been time and time brought up on the boards for years and the answer has always been "No" they will remain the same.

Which to me is just fine as I don't care to see other people and hence why Elite is great the way it is, I can play alone or in a private group without having to deal with random people and I don't get penalized for it...

 

[FNLWA]

Yes it is.

Maybe not five or six years ago, but certainly now.

The indrustry has changed. The number of people who play this game who don't have a subscription is slim to none I guarantee it.

In fact it's the worst possible point to use againt the OO argument. It's a fallacy.

This is not how things work. If I'm selling you a product I can't be coming around two years later and be like "ok so I know you already paid for this but from now on you need to pay a monthly fee to keep using the product".
Oh and by the way, no you can't "guarantee" anything of the sort.

 

[Lestat]

I think the Dev always said they are going to keep each mode the same, Solo, Private and Open. So there's really no point in the post, since it's been time and time brought up on the boards for years and the answer has always been "No" they will remain the same.

I think I remember that. But not sure where the topic was or when.

Which to me is just fine as I don't care to see other people and hence why Elite is great the way it is, I can play alone or in a private group without having to deal with random people and I don't get penalized for it...

I also Agree. I am in 3 different private groups. Well, 2 Mobius servers (different accounts) and Fleetcomm.

Actually - I cancelled both my PS+ and XBLive subscriptions for both precisely this reason - and for the lulz

If a player wants to force me to be their game content on those platforms, urm, well it isn't going to happen any time soon.

I could challenge you to a beat-down fragfest, and declare you the loser by default because I never got my Mac client to instance with you, or urm, actually work at all these days

bummer. You never tried the workarounds with Macs.

 

[Asp Explorer]

bummer. You never tried the workarounds with Macs.

Oh I tried a few

In it's day - it's enjoyed some ED fun both native and Bootcamped. Sadly - my 2013 Air just isn't really up to scratch these days, so it's relegated to terminal duties and the occasional blast of Baldur's Gate

 

[Lestat]

Oh I tried a few

In it's day - it's enjoyed some ED fun both native and Bootcamped. Sadly - my 2013 Air just isn't really up to scratch these days, so it's relegated to terminal duties and the occasional blast of Baldur's Gate

Well I hope you upgrade soon. I had to upgrade my laptop that was from 2013 last year.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Well I hope you upgrade soon. I had to upgrade my laptop that was from 2013 last year.

Naah - I'm going to keep this thing until it reaches the point of catastrophic failure - wether by SSD destruction, board failure, or battery deformation resulting in an interesting electrothermal event.

I'll still not play in Open on platforms I don't want to

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Actually - I cancelled both my PS+ and XBLive subscriptions for both precisely this reason - and for the lulz

If a player wants to force me to be their game content on those platforms, urm, well it isn't going to happen any time soon.

I could challenge you to a beat-down fragfest, and declare you the loser by default because I never got my Mac client to instance with you, or urm, actually work at all these days

So you can be a person who says "Well I dont have the subscription so it can't go open only."?

Get in the sea xD

Why do you not do the sensible thing and make them your content instead of trying to make the people who do enjoy PvP look like idiots? The constat demonisation and mockery that your particular camp indulge in makes them seem FAR more toxic than any PvPer. Beleive me.


If you challenged me to a frag fest your remnants would be scattered across the width of the bubble. I promise.

 

[Misty_Dark]

I love how when I provide information you're accusing me of "presenting things as facts" but when I encourage you to do your own research you're accusing me of not providing information. Do you not see the irony here? You're the one yelling "fake news fakew news" here, so it's your job to do your homework and provide some arguments.

Ah yes, the flawed participant selection. How exactly does participants using the official forums or reddit make the results invalid? Where is the correlation and how would it affect the results? I have pointed out that, mildy put, I doubt that there is such a correlation, or that it's substantial enough to make a real difference. And even if we assume for a moment that there is such a correlation, wouldn't it mean that those players are somehow more "involved" or "active" and thus more likely to vote "open", overrepresenting it in the results?

People have been using Sandro's statement to further push their open-only agenda. In response I have shown that Sandro's statement can be understood in multiple ways, and since no numbers were provided by FD we simply cannot know which interpretation is correct (absolute vs. relative majority). And yes, I'm looking at things realistically. The statement was not a written press release, but made during a livestream where they get bombarded with questions. Is it so unlikely that maybe the statement wasn't worded as carefully as it maybe should have been? We don't even know how FD decited someones preferred game mode. And yes you can start guessing based on what you would have done, except it's absolutely pointless. In the end, unless FD provides hard numbers and how they came up with those numbers multiple interpretations are possible and plausible.

Literally the only numbers we do have come from the ED mega survey which has a large enough sample size to give us a very good estimate on how people play the game, it also let people choose their preferred game mode (instead of FD deciting it for them). The survey's results don't conflict with Sandro's statement at all if you interpret his words as "Open is the most popular out of the 3 modes". It does however conflict with the interpretation people have been using to build arguments for open-only, as it shows that in absolute numbers players in open are not the absolute majority.

If you want to discredit the survey please do so based on real arguments and not your lack of knowledge about it, but apparently so far you have been unable to even google it. I see no issues with how the participants were selected as I see no correlation between using the forums/reddit (or however they've stumbled upon it) and the preferred game mode. I didn't make the survey, and I can't prove to you that it's 100% accurate but I see no reason why someone would go though all that trouble of setting up a webform, providing spreadsheets, a dedicated website and detailed information about every single submission, all of which is readily available by doing 2 minutes of research, only to pretend open is not as popular as some people would like it to be. In that sense yes, I trust this survey more than an ambiguous statement made during a livestream (which, keep in mind, does not conflict with the survey results) or the ramblings of someone on the forums on "how they would have done it".

What information have you provided? a link to something without any backing information. and then refuse to add any more information regarding this... with just go and search for it. You brought the source to this discussion, and your continuation of refusing to elaborate where this came from etc, makes the use of that source way worse than FDev live stream...


I have never said it would make it invalid, if you would show to actually know ANYTHING about how surveys works and how sample size and how you select the target group can have huge effect on the result of the survey.
And online surveys, posted on forums, etc, have inherent flaws in what kind of participants you get. so that is why I go on about that, since you are presenting that as the best as it gets, which we already know is false, FDev have already told us, they know the truth, they have the numbers.


Where does this crap with open only come from? where have I advocated, defended, or said anything about Open should be the "only" mode?



I will not take your word about this survey, because how you presented it and refuses to give source who is behind it etc. As this "survey" could just be a made up web-page by you to troll, and your refusal to give sources further indicates that this could indeed the case.

 

[FNLWA]

snip

So you basically refuse to use google so you can pretend I made the website to trick you? I'm done lmao.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Yes it is.

Maybe not five or six years ago, but certainly now.

The industry has changed. The number of people who play this game who don't have a subscription is slim to none I guarantee it.

In fact it's the worst possible point to use againt the OO argument. It's a fallacy.

I have a ps4 pro. I have zero interest in paying for psn+. I dont know about anyone else, but i absolutely promise you the number of people with a ps4 without paying for online is NOT slim to none... and indeed i *suspect* one of the things which will have appealed to some players is the fact that ED offers multiplayer play - in a manner of speaking - without having to pay for PSN+.

So if anything it is likely there will be comparatively more players playing ED without an online sub than there are other games with an MP slant because it offers some MP functionality for free.

I have a real problem with moving the goalposts AFTER your money has been taken...... at the very least IF ED ever became open only (not gonna happen, of that i am convinced but as a hypothetical exercise), then i think morally every console player should be entitled to a refund if they want one.

What some players fail to "get" is that open is just a matchmaking filter... it has, and indeed should have, no more weight than those who choose solo or PG. Everyone knows, or has the ability to know about the different modes and how they all have an equal weighting with no carrots or sticks. you want to play in open, play in open, you want to play in solo play in solo. IF Open cant support itself then, that is not the problem of the players not in open to worry about... (but we are continually told that open is the most popular mode, if this is true then what is the problem?)

PP is a slightly different proposal because that was apparently made to encourage PvP . (I doubt this TBH based on what we were told about it at launch, but Sandros has since claimed this is the case so I can accept that). IF PP was given a weighting in open, OR if it was moved to open only, personally i would be ok with that - so long as all the crap which comes with it such as the PP targets are ALSO moved to open only. if they have no function in my game then do not saddle me with the PP targets which are just an annoyance imo... oh and the PP only weapons would need to be also moved to tech brokers imo..

Whilst i defend the rights of players to gank or do what ever they want in open if that is how they get their jollies, the shoe on the other foot is anyone who is not into that should be absolutely free to play outside of open. and multiple open modes with different rules was in the kickstarter... so whilst these seem to have been dropped in favour of PGs, the ability to choose how we play is fundamental to the game.

 

[Rubbernuke]

so long as all the crap which comes with it such as the PP targets are ALSO moved to open only. if they have no function in my game then do not saddle me with the PP targets which are just an annoyance imo... oh and the PP only weapons would need to be also moved to tech brokers imo..

In the proposal PP NPCs would be limited to control systems, capitals and expansions plus modules would be tech broker based.

 

[Misty_Dark]

So you basically refuse to use google so you can pretend I made the website to trick you? I'm done lmao.

If you do not even care to bother to go and fetch the source, why should I do it then?


Do you use the same argument when you apply for a job? here is my grades, etc, you have to look on the internet to see where I got those from.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

In the proposal PP NPCs would be limited to control systems, capitals and expansions plus modules would be tech broker based.

I could live with that then personally... but that is just me of course. i am sure there are plenty of PP PvEers who would not like it.

 

[FNLWA]

If you do not even care to bother to go and fetch the source, why should I do it then?


Do you use the same argument when you apply for a job? here is my grades, etc, you have to look on the internet to see where I got those from.

That's not how the story went. I posted the survey results. You did not first ask where the results came from but instead immediately disregarded the results, it "tells us basically nothing". It's called attitude. You went confrontation right away and did not even attempt to research anything. Just flat out ignoring what 12k people have done. Even calling it a "magical survey" because you are unable or unwilling to use google. There's an ObsidianAnt video on the survey, there's a post on this forum and on reddit. It's basically public knowledge at this point. More than 12000 people have participated and you are seriously sitting there saying I made that site to trick you. Are you listening to yourself mate? I have no words. Just wow.

 

[Misty_Dark]

That's not how the story went. I posted the survey results. You did not first ask where the results came from but instead immediately disregarded the results, it "tells us basically nothing". It's called attitude. You went confrontation right away and did not even attempt to research anything. Just flat out ignoring what 12k people have done. Even calling it a "magical survey" because you are unable or unwilling to use google. There's an ObsidianAnt video on the survey, there's a post on this forum and on reddit. It's basically public knowledge at this point. More than 12000 people have participated and you are seriously sitting there saying I made that site to trick you. Are you listening to yourself mate? I have no words. Just wow.

You started out with the attitude, ignoring statements and producing a what if scenario, that you later justified by linking to a survey, with no references to who or when the survey was made.


To end it, you calls Sandro's statement basically useless, and now using the survey as proof, since it has numbers, and Sandro did not give numbers...



So just because something is posted on this forum, on reddit and someone makes a youtube video bout it, then that basically makes it into public knowledge?

 

[Para Handy]

I don't see the point of this bickering.

Sandro said they don't give numbers but that Open Play was the most frequented by a large margin. That should be good enough for anyone, particularly since user surveys are very prove to self-selection and confirmation bias.

... and so back to the topic in hand. The fact of Open being most used rather destroys any argument for encouraging more people into open since it seems that most are in there anyway.

 

[Han Zulu]

I don't see the point of this bickering.

Sandro said they don't give numbers but that Open Play was the most frequented by a large margin. That should be good enough for anyone, particularly since user surveys are very prove to self-selection and confirmation bias.

Agree.

... and so back to the topic in hand. The fact of Open being most used rather destroys any argument for encouraging more people into open since it seems that most are in there anyway.

Agree again. That's my point as well. Why do we need anything to entice or reward people to play in Open if a large portion is already doing it? And even if it would attract some players from PG/Solo, it doubt it would be any large numbers. And if things were forced Open Only, quite a few players would leave the game all-together rather than switching. It would hurt the game more than make any improvement. That's why I think we haven't see it done. Frontier might suspect the same. They would lose customers by doing it, not gain more.

 

[CenturionPuch]

Agree.


Agree again. That's my point as well. Why do we need anything to entice or reward people to play in Open if a large portion is already doing it? And even if it would attract some players from PG/Solo, it doubt it would be any large numbers. And if things were forced Open Only, quite a few players would leave the game all-together rather than switching. It would hurt the game more than make any improvement. That's why I think we haven't see it done. Frontier might suspect the same. They would lose customers by doing it, not gain more.

I doubt even 1% plays open only. The "gankers" know how to stay out of fights they can't win. They go solo/pg for engineering, farming mats etc. Nobody does Dav's hope in open for example. Open only needs a whole new play style.