The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Robert Maynard]

Agreed riverside, as mentioned by the waranted comment, things like genuine griefing, doxing, any kind of hate speak are more than justified. But i mean blocking just for being ganked goes against the open playstyle, some of my good in game friends met me by putting holes in my ship.

What is the "Open playstyle"?

.... given that the block feature and menu exit (permissible at any time) have been available to players in either multi-player game mode Open for as long as the ability to shoot at anything one instances with.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Given:

I think it's more exciting and challenging to have to build for the potential PvP encounter. It doesn't need to be much of a compromise, just enough to evade or escape.

.... this is totally understandable:

IMO if an Open PvE mode were added it would remove that little excitement remaining when meeting a stranger of unknown intent & ability.

There are, however, players who have no interest in PvP and don't enjoy the frisson of potential PvP - I expect that they'd be quite content playing in a new Open-PvE mode - and the players who do enjoy PvP would still have the existing Open to play in.

 

[Robert Maynard]

My 2 pence. The developer needed to set a firmer genre for Elite long ago. It's either an mmo, or it's not. This is based around 2 things.

They did, nearly ten years ago, when they published the game design at the beginning of the Kickstarter - which made it clear that all players experience and affect the single shared galaxy and where players choose which game mode to play in, making other players, and therefore PvP, optional extras that no player need choose.

1. IMO you cannot have in game mechanics (BGS, PP) that can be manipulated from the safety of an offline mode when those mechanics cannot be defended, or can only be swayed by out grinding the oposition, in the interest of fairness any in game mechanics that affect others (think player factions and PP, even exploration) should only be able to be directly defended too.
2. PVE is no challenge, where is the challenge if I have a ship that flattens elite npc's with a 5 second trigger pull, I have had more fun, gained more satisfaction, learned more and made more friends in open over the last two years than all of the previous.

1) Players in Open have exactly the same tools available to them to affect the BGS and Powerplay as those in the other game modes. Not sure for what peculiar reason having the same tools available is in any way "unfair" - in a game where PvP, the tool that some players want to use when opposing other players, is an optional extra that is not a requirement of any in-game feature.
2) PvE may pose no challenge in an engineered combat ship - however not all players optimise their ships for combat - nor are they necessarily interested in playing "target" for those who do.

(also, those that choose to fly open please dont use the block feature unless it's waranted, it does not work as advertised, you can still instance with blocked players if you, or they are in a wing where a player isnt blocked. it just ruins instancing for everyone)

Frontier likely decided to include the block feature, unasked, due to expected player behaviours - the fact that they have only strengthened it and made it easier to use over the years suggests that that need still exists.

 

[Riverside]

What is the "Open playstyle"?

.... given that the block feature and menu exit (permissible at any time) have been available to players either multi-player game mode Open for as long as the ability to shoot at anything one instances with.

My interpretation of an 'Open playstyle' is a set of self imposed rules to play by that accommodates for other playstyles one is likely to interact with. Approaching the game in an inclusive way rather than an exclusive one. I'm sure you've seen plenty of posts from contributors that say their blocklist is empty for example, or that they fly with 'report crimes' off, or that they don't combat log. A playstyle that would not be materially affected if the game adopted an 'Open Only BGS' style.

If the game were to be changed in such a way that this playstyle were enforced it would be frustrating for those who don't already play that way, just as your open PvE proposal would be frustrating for those who already approach the game with an 'open playstyle' because both limit one's options.

I have a long held opinion that anyone that needs to rely on blocking or combat logging (or mission board refreshing when that was a thing) isn't really much of an actual threat, and having played with an 'open playstyle' for in excess of 15,000 hours now my experience has generally borne that out. There are exceptions of course, there are always exceptions & edge cases.

If you just want to be left alone then allow others that same courtesy & leave them alone. Direct PvP is easily avoided using in-game tools, the effects of indirect PvP via BGS manipulation cannot (if one cares about such things, which I do).

That's how I interpret it, that's how I approach the game. I don't fire on other Cmdrs (not a guarantee), I play in Open with an empty blocklist, I don't CLog, menu log or relog, and am wary & respectful when I meet strangers because I don't know for sure that they aren't a threat

 

[Robert Maynard]

My interpretation of an 'Open playstyle' is a set of self imposed rules to play by that accommodates for other playstyles one is likely to interact with. Approaching the game in an inclusive way rather than an exclusive one. I'm sure you've seen plenty of posts from contributors that say their blocklist is empty for example, or that they fly with 'report crimes' off, or that they don't combat log. A playstyle that would not be materially affected if the game adopted an 'Open Only BGS' style.

Indeed - noting that self-imposed out-of-game rules have no relevance to those players who don't subscribe to them - only in-game rules apply to all players.

If the game were to be changed in such a way that this playstyle were enforced it would be frustrating for those who don't already play that way, just as your open PvE proposal would be frustrating for those who already approach the game with an 'open playstyle' because both limit one's options.

The difference being that nothing is Open only at the moment and to make anything Open only would be to retrospectively PvP-gate existing content sold to all on a pan-modal basis in a game where other players, and therefore PvP, are optional extras. Also noting that players can already play in vanishingly small, in relation to the potential player-base, Private Groups, which can ban PvP using out of game rules. Players can, and do, play the game in Solo - where direct PvP is guaranteed to not take place. The addition of an Open-PvE game mode would not change the game for players who chose not to play in it - as those who would play in it may not play in Open at the moment.

If you just want to be left alone then allow others that same courtesy & leave them alone. Direct PvP is easily avoided using in-game tools, the effects of indirect PvP via BGS manipulation cannot (if one cares about such things, which I do).

Indirect PvP through the BGS / Powerplay is part of the game for players in all game modes, whereas direct PvP is limited to the multi-player game modes. There's no requirement on any player to "leave them alone" - as the mode shared features belong to all players, not just those who choose to play in Open.

 

[Riverside]

Indeed - noting that self-imposed out-of-game rules have no relevance to those players who don't subscribe to them - only in-game rules apply to all players.

Unlike an Open PvE proposal, yes.

Personally I don't consider playing in a way that is accommodating to others a particularly restricting rule. But if you want to play a different way you can of course, within the existing framework as you say. Unlike an Open PvE proposal.

I find it odd that you advocate a rule change that would disrupt the playstyle of others with the justification that others aren't playing the way you want them to. Walk a mile in my shoes & you will see that, the way I approach the game I have everything you want already

You don't have to of course, you could just keep wishing others change to accommodate your specific requirements.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Unlike an Open PvE proposal, yes.

Personally I don't consider playing in a way that is accommodating to others a particularly restricting rule. But if you want to play a different way you can of course, within the existing framework as you say. Unlike an Open PvE proposal.

I find it odd that you advocate a rule change that would disrupt the playstyle of others with the justification that others aren't playing the way you want them to. Walk a mile in my shoes & you will see that, the way I approach the game I have everything you want already

You don't have to of course, you could just keep wishing others change to accommodate your specific requirements.

In what way would the addition of an Open-PvE game mode "disrupt the playstyle of others"?

 

[Riverside]

In what way would the addition of an Open-PvE game mode "disrupt the playstyle of others"?

You literally quoted my answer a few hours ago.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You literally quoted my answer a few hours ago.

As no player would require to play in an Open-PvE mode, I don't see how that statement of preference applies to the introduction of an Open-PvE game mode - as mentioned earlier, existing Open would continue as before for players who want to play in it.

 

[Riverside]

As no player would require to play in an Open-PvE mode, I don't see how that statement of preference applies to the introduction of an Open-PvE game mode - as mentioned earlier, existing Open would continue as before for players who want to play in it.

Right now if I meet a random player I don't know whether they are a threat or not. Probably not, but they might be. With a PvE flag it removes that need to IFF & be cautious. This isn't complicated, it's just that something you don't value would be removed from those that do value it.

All you have to do to get what you want is find a way to live in the same universe as some you perceive to be jerks. Avoid, evade, befriend, choose your own path within the existing framework as I have for over 15,000 hours.

Or not, that should go without saying.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Right now if I meet a random player I don't know whether they are a threat or not. Probably not, but they might be. With a PvE flag it removes that need to IFF & be cautious. This isn't complicated, it's just that something you don't value would be removed from those that do value it.

What "PvE flag"?

An Open-PvE game mode would not permit PvP - existing Open would remain unchanged.

Therefore the frisson would still exist in Open.

All you have to do to get what you want is find a way to live in the same universe as some you perceive to be jerks. Avoid, evade, befriend, choose your own path within the existing framework as I have for over 15,000 hours.

If "all you have to do" is change the way one plays then, for some, it's not worth the time - especially any time wasted in unwanted interactions forced by those who like to prey on easy targets.

Or not, that should go without saying.

Quite.

 

[Riverside]

If "all you have to do" is change the way one plays then, for some, it's not worth the time - especially any time wasted in unwanted interactions forced by those who like to prey on easy targets.

Well you could just stop wanting the game & other players to change to accommodate your specific requirements & play the game as presented? That is what I do & have done for years. Sometimes I get shot at

Just think, all these years you could have had what you want, if only you could be a little more tolerant of those who play differently from you

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well you could just stop wanting the game & other players to change to accommodate your specific requirements & play the game as presented? That is what I do & have done for years. Sometimes I get shot at

Even better if every player were to simply accept the game, and player-base, as it is, which includes those who are insistent that simply playing in Open should be sufficient to be treated differently by the game, to the detriment of those who choose not to play in Open.

Just think, all these years you could have had what you want, if only you could be a little more tolerant of those who play differently from you

What there is is "good enough" in that regard - and does not necessitate compromising ones gameplay to accommodate those who, for some, aren't fun to play with.

 

[Riverside]

Even better if every player were to simply accept the game, and player-base, as it is, which includes those who are insistent that simply playing in Open should be sufficient to be treated differently by the game, to the detriment of those who choose not to play in Open.

What there is is "good enough" in that regard - and does not necessitate compromising ones gameplay to accommodate those who, for some, aren't fun to play with.

That isn't 'even better' Rob, that's just you reframing wanting others to change.

You want something, but there is a cost. You want the thing without cost to you, but you don't consider the cost to others.

Pay the cost or go without imo. tbh Open is pretty empty too nowadays anyway, I can only imagine how sparsely populated Mobius & other PvE groups are (in terms of random encounters).

 

[Robert Maynard]

That isn't 'even better' Rob, that's just you reframing wanting others to change.

If any player is expected to stop wanting improvements to the game, e.g.

Well you could just stop wanting the game & other players to change to accommodate your specific requirements & play the game as presented?

.... then it reasonably applies to all, not just one.

You want something, but there is a cost. You want the thing without cost to you, but you don't consider the cost to others.

If playing with players who want to engage in PvP is already optional, why (other than simply because some players can't accept that others don't need to play among them to affect the game) should there be a cost associated with improving ways for players to play co-operatively (without PvP)?

Pay the cost or go without imo.

What "cost" would those PvPers who suggest PvP-gating existing game features to Open be prepared to pay that would be associated with Open only <insert feature here>?

.... as many of them don't seem to want to "pay" anything to remove content from those in modes other than Open - as they don't seem to consider that those not in Open have any "right" to affect them in the first place.

tbh Open is pretty empty too nowadays anyway, I can only imagine how sparsely populated Mobius & other PvE groups are (in terms of random encounters).

Indeed - now that there are five discrete versions of Open. Thankfully pan-modal chat and friends chat span the modes - so there's no need to instance with players to communicate with them. Between the social gameplay "tax" that is PvP and the size of the galaxy, I expect that most players play alone most, if not all, of the time.

 

[Riverside]

If any player is expected to stop wanting improvements to the game, e.g.

.... then it reasonably applies to all, not just one.

No it doesn't Rob, I'm saying the thing you want is already available without needing to change the game at all, let alone whether it is to the detriment of others.

You just have a biased agenda & you are ignoring the flaws I highlight in your reasoning. Anyone could take the approach I take (ie carry on almost entirely as normal with some accommodation for self preservation) and be able to maximise their chances to meet benign or friendly strangers at the relatively minor cost of meeting occasionally unfriendly strangers who might be better at playing the game than you.

Improving the game, in this case is not an absolute. Your position is as bad as (imo worse than) those who advocate for open only & suggest those that don't want that to suck it up.

Wherever your Cmdr is right now, just log into open. Unless you are in one of very few social hotspots chances are your session will be functionally identical to an Open PvE mode.

Getting pretty sick of your deliberate goalpost moving too (wrt my 'cost' metaphor in this case, it's not hard to grasp if you use your imagination), you do this a lot. I'm not a spicy PvPer trying to troll you, I just play in Open & take what comes in my stride. You could do that too (once again you don't have to, you are free to make your own choices & I am only suggesting you try something different to give you the opportunity to see that the game doesn't need to change, other players don't need to change, you can change & get what you want (to have more random, positive encounters).

 

[Robert Maynard]

You just have a biased agenda & you are ignoring the flaws I highlight in your reasoning.

Can anyone accurately claim to be without bias?

 

[Riverside]

Can anyone accurately claim to be without bias?

You certainly can't

I can, yes. I have no agenda.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You certainly can't

I don't claim to be. I don't enjoy PvP and make no secret of it - and, having bought a game where PvP is an optional extra, it's probably not that uncommon.

I can, yes. I have no agenda.

.... apart from the (paraphrasing) "please tolerate gankers, it'll make your game better" stance - other opinions naturally vary, of course.

 

[Riverside]

I don't claim to be.

.... apart from the (paraphrasing) "please tolerate gankers, it'll make your game better" stance - other opinions naturally vary, of course.

Okay so we just learned you don't know what an agenda is. This is progress.