Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Brrokk]

Someone's been in self-isolation waaaaaay too long

You've hit the nail! That's why there are so many of these threads lately.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

The PvP vs. PvE discussion is rather pointless. This game is basically abandoned by FDev. It doesn't matter anymore how Open or Solo or any other mode works. FDev has been throwing features randomly at this game for a long time, hoping that something sticks. They don't know what they do, they have no direction and no plan.
Big words about how this or that feature would allow for new things and how it would interact with other things - and then nothing.
The big GalNet Audio announcement? That's FDev way to handle Elite Dangerous.
Now the FDev newsletter is about Planet Zoo, Coster or what ever and not about Elite Dangerous. Not that there is anything to say about Elite Dangerous anymore.

PvP in Elite Dangerous? The worst implementation of PvP I've ever had the misfortune to experience in any PvP enabled game and while other game developers actually tried to make the PvP experience better if they had problems, FDev did everything to make it worse.

P.S.: Freedom is not about denying others their freedom. That's been the core of the PvP vs. PvE discussions in Elite Dangerous since a long time. It doesn't help that some infuse their real world ideology or young male toxic masculinity into this topic. But hey, it's pointless - so just relax.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It doesn't help that some infuse their real world ideology or young male toxic masculinity into this topic. But hey, it's pointless - so just relax.

It doesn't help, but it sure is entertaining.

I still chuckle when the same people who deride people over getting upset over playing a game, start boasting about the way they play a game. This cognitive dissonance is one of the things that keeps me entertained in these threads

 

[4ndr34]

A side side side thinking about Elite Dangerous game mode:

• Maybe game modes could also a way to segment the market and letting FDev reach in a better way different kind of players, otherwise without any market segmentation at all FDev woudn't be able to reach out. I really don't understand if something isn't my cup of tea, I should be forced to get it, if I can choose instead something that I like more...
• Not every Solo or Private Group gameplay sessions are made by fear or rage quit from Open ganking, maybe sometime someone feels the sacred need to being alone, to stay alone and to play alone, or with just some of his friend, as much as some other times the same people would be happy to do some Open...
• As far as I see true, serious PvP is much more possible/probable to happen in Private Group than in Open... ...as far as I can see, IMHO Open is much more a pretty raw "social" game mode than a massive PvP arena battle, you have to consider that the size of the arena in this game is always confined inside the size of instancing...
• About the actual capacity of game world influence by a single player, yep I agree that some kind of supply and demand game mechanic has been introduced in the game and maybe more will be introduced and it will be a bit more heavy, but a part of being pretty artificial and far from being realistic, AFAIK FDev won't consent that a lone player in Solo Mode could become an overly powered power monger tycoon able to really monopolize forever the whole galaxy economy... ...please get real, at the moment, the game economy is designed in a way that make this pretty improbable, even for a large group of players, they could be able to influence for a short time some systems economy, but the whole game world is totally another thing, more there are also a lot of deus ex machinas designed and implemented inside game economy and I am pretty confident that they won't fade away in the near future...

 

[Cheese Helmet]

So now imagine system X. System X is pvp but also has a planet or a reasource or is on the way somewhere, whatever.

Both kinds of players open and solo want what is in system x, but it can't be pvp and pve without our current system or flags or something. If its pve the pvp crew get sad, or a copy of it needs to be in the pvp side and vice versa.


You are using flowery language instead of an argument. "Meaningful gameplay loops" like what? We have a system where everyone is able to go everywhere and experience everything in the game. Your ingame solution divides the game board up into pvp and pve zones. That's not meaningful its just taking away from people what they want where they want it.

Eve uses that system and the consequence is PVP everywhere and players who never see 0.0 because they don't dare leave high sec.

Your proposal denies players of open and groups something they currently have, the ability to go anywhere and not have human conflict. It also denies pvp players the ability to start a fight anywhere.

All that in service to what? Specifically, not just nice sounding adjectives.

Specifically, as I've said, you start with the systems security levels and state. Where certain states strengthen the security response and other weaken it. And then the security response itself, you can use existing game mechanics.

For example, if you're wanted/or have cargo, npcs will move on you in SC, and if you interdict/get interdicted they will drop on you immediately because they're following as you do the mini game.

So in a high sec there would always be a wing of engineered security with a full gank compliment of weapons, patrolling the shipping lanes and any interdiction in the area will cause this wing to get in position to drop immediately as you do the mini game. Then just scale the security response up via size or number of ships based on state. You can then scale the base mechanic based on sec level too.

More flavor can be added for systems allegiance via ship choice of security. As well as keeping ATR, (and maybe having some of the PvP community design the loadouts for some real teeth) the game can leverage its current mechanics to provide safe or dangerous areas.

It can go further than a security response too, insurance scaling with security, where in high sec maybe even a % of lost cargo is covered too, and increased bounties applied to for unlawful acts and faster scaling noteriety for acts in that space.

The game has a large bubble, it needs to utilize that space to allow the player to be more or less safe based on smart gameplay rather than hand wave mode switches

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Conflating player risk with all risk is common in these discussions.

There is no guarantee that players will face no risk from the game in any mode.

All risk from players is an optional extra - and no players can be encountered in Solo, making it a guarantee of zero risk from players.

To be clear, I'm not talking about any activities that players engage in that may, indirectly, affect how other player play - that's the BGS, Powerplay, etc. - and can be considered to be indirect asynchronous PvP if it is to be considered to be PvP at all.

The game is only neutered for those who want everyone to play in the same game mode. A different view is that the game facilitates each player to play how they want to, anywhere in the galaxy - taking into account the choices of other players who may not wish to share that gameplay or even interact with players.

Different players see different potential in the game.

Not every player sees this game as a game where all players are expected to play with each other and be available for, regardless how rare, PvP.

Not everyone shares the opinion that this game is a poor implementation - because the question is then what is the game trying to be. It's not trying to be an Open only game - which has been clear from the game design for over seven years. Frontier have been aware since the outset that not all players agree with their stance - and have not changed it to suit those who disagree.

As an aside, I was reflecting on the earlier discussions in this "debate" - specifically the first "threadnaught - 'The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread'. One of Frontier's first confirmations of their commitment to player choice was linked in it soon after it was made (and about four weeks in to that thread):

It rather seems, with the recent restatement of who the BGS is for, that Frontier's stance with regard to player choice hasn't changed since then (investigation into possible Powerplay changes notwithstanding - as it was made very clear that Powerplay is the only game feature that might be considered for either Open only or an Open bonus).

I'm aware of frontiers current public stance, doesn't change my stance. Frontier makes the decisons, but decisions made are not always necessarily the correct ones.

If the game was an open only game, and allowed for players who wish to avoid pvp, do so in the game itself, rather than via modes, the Galaxy would be a much more interesting and dynamic place.

No risk should be optional, only mitigated via smart play.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm aware of frontiers current public stance, doesn't change my stance.

Indeed.

Frontier makes the decisons, but decisions made are not always necessarily the correct ones.

Equally those decisions are not necessarily the wrong ones either - it rather depends on ones point of view.

If the game was an open only game, and allowed for players who wish to avoid pvp, do so in the game itself, rather than via modes, the Galaxy would be a much more interesting and dynamic place.

It might be - for those who choose to tolerate PvP and are content to be effectively limited to "safer" areas of a gameworld the size of the galaxy.

No risk should be optional, only mitigated via smart play.

That's where the disagreement is - we all bought a game where risk associated with player interaction is entirely optional and has been from the outset. Some players can't accept that, some can - and while Frontier have been aware of this since the design was published, it hasn't changed their stance.

 

[Cosmik_Debris]

My two cents is that Open / Solo should be a choice at account creation, not log on. That keep the zone for the people who simply want no player interactions at all, but removes what i consider to be a cheat option where you simply remove all the actually dangerous opponents at times of your choosing.

This is coming from someone who has never killed another player and mostly runs from PvP, but always plays in open. Escaping ganks is ridiculously easy 90% of the time anyway, especially if you fly ships designed to be tricky to gank/pirate (for example i mine in a clipper. almost nothing can keep up, so interdictions just result in boosting)

 

[Robert Maynard]

My two cents is that Open / Solo should be a choice at account creation, not log on. That keep the zone for the people who simply want no player interactions at all, but removes what i consider to be a cheat option where you simply remove all the actually dangerous opponents at times of your choosing.

This is coming from someone who has never killed another player and mostly runs from PvP, but always plays in open. Escaping ganks is ridiculously easy 90% of the time anyway, especially if you fly ships designed to be tricky to gank/pirate (for example i mine in a clipper. almost nothing can keep up, so interdictions just result in boosting)

In which case those who don't want an Open only experience would play in Private Groups - and still affect the shared galaxy state while playing with like minded players.

 

[Ian Skippy]

In which case those who don't want an Open only experience would play in Private Groups - and still affect the shared galaxy state while playing with like minded players.

Obviously that would not be possible with his proposal. He is saying you decide whether to be Open or not at account creation, which makes perfect sense and would not harm those who prefer Solo or PG.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If the game was an open only game, and allowed for players who wish to avoid pvp, do so in the game itself, rather than via modes, the Galaxy would be a much more interesting and dynamic place.

No risk should be optional, only mitigated via smart play.

If the game was an Open Only game, I would not have bought it. I did buy it because I could decide when I wanted to interact with players and when I did not. Restricting me to areas in the Bubble if I chose not to interact is not acceptable to me.

I decide where I want to go, and I am subjected to Frontier's rules when doing so. No player in the world is going to tell me: if you go to system X you have to go through me. No Sir, I will go through you when I decide I want that confrontation.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Obviously that would not be possible with his proposal. He is saying you decide whether to be Open or not at account creation, which makes perfect sense and would not harm those who prefer Solo or PG.

The only proposal in the post I quoted was regarding removing the session-by-session choice of which mode to play in - nothing was said about the fact that every player affects the single shared galaxy state.

 

[Rat Catcher]

In which case those who don't want an Open only experience would play in Private Groups - and still affect the shared galaxy state while playing with like minded players.

Groups are the best feature of this game in my opinion, allowing "Meaningful Interaction" with like-minded players. (Of course, such interaction may not be the one implied by other contributors here)

Isn't it interesting that the wish to remove freedom of choice of any player is only made by a minority of players who desire "Meaningful Interaction" (on their terms, naturally) with those players who they consider "Unfairly Advantaged" as they are unreachable by said players?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Obviously that would not be possible with his proposal. He is saying you decide whether to be Open or not at account creation, which makes perfect sense and would not harm those who prefer Solo or PG.

Given this proposal could not be implemented now before FCs carriers come out, I would simply elect for Solo, buy a second account, and then switch between open and solo by changing account, and have fleet carrier shared between both instances to facilitate this.

But anyway, the boat sailed about 6 years ago. I dont understand why its still being discussed.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My two cents is that Open / Solo should be a choice at account creation, not log on. That keep the zone for the people who simply want no player interactions at all, but removes what i consider to be a cheat option where you simply remove all the actually dangerous opponents at times of your choosing.

This is coming from someone who has never killed another player and mostly runs from PvP, but always plays in open. Escaping ganks is ridiculously easy 90% of the time anyway, especially if you fly ships designed to be tricky to gank/pirate (for example i mine in a clipper. almost nothing can keep up, so interdictions just result in boosting)

What if my preferences changes every playing session?

Sure, for someone who always plays in Open, this would have no impact on you. But why deny me the choice every time I log in?

And by the way, the way you can tell if something is a cheat option, you check if it goes against the rules of the game. If it isn't, it's not a cheat.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Isn't it interesting that the wish to remove freedom of choice of any player is only made by a minority of players who desire "Meaningful Interaction" (on their terms, naturally) with those players who they consider "Unfairly Advantaged" as they are unreachable by said players?

It smacks of "my choice is to remove your choice regarding who you play with" - when playing a game, for fun.

 

[Rat Catcher]

It smacks of "my choice is to remove your choice" - when playing a game, for fun.

With a large chunk of the developed world in one form of lockdown or another it isn't surprising that this topic, and similar dissatisfied opinions over game mechanics, is rearing its head as folk are bored...

That's my opinion, anyway

 

[Cosmik_Debris]

What if my preferences changes every playing session?

Sure, for someone who always plays in Open, this would have no impact on you. But why deny me the choice every time I log in?

And by the way, the way you can tell if something is a cheat option, you check if it goes against the rules of the game. If it isn't, it's not a cheat.

Sure, i absolutely accept its not cheating as in violating any rules.

However, in terms of the effect it has on gameplay, it works like a godmode switch, which to me FEELs like cheating. Imo, NPCs are only challenging at all if you specifically seek out challenging NPCs, so in solo mode you are functionally invincible if you want to be. I simply don't like that option existing, much as i would feel that a menu enableable godmode in Doom (for example) was a negative for the game.

Its obviously not going to change, so im just blowing about.

Edit: I also think that random encounter NPCs should be VASTLY more dangerous. So that mining in a shieldless T9 is actually a risky endeavour even in solo (it should be. In a universe where force fields exist to protect your ship from harm, and they dont cost a disproportionately large amount compared to other vital components, literally NO ONE would EVER accept being in a ship that didnt have them. It would be considered suicidal)

 

[Ian Skippy]

Edit: I also think that random encounter NPCs should be VASTLY more dangerous. So that mining in a shieldless T9 is actually a risky endeavour even in solo (it should be. In a universe where force fields exist to protect your ship from harm, and they dont cost a disproportionately large amount compared to other vital components, literally NO ONE would EVER accept being in a ship that didnt have them. It would be considered suicidal)

Yup, boost NPCs, nerf GodMode shields, vastly increase the rate of interdictions and mission rewards in anarchy, vastly increase law response in high-sec et cetera.

 

[4ndr34]

If the game was an Open Only game, I would not have bought it. I did buy it because I could decide when I wanted to interact with players and when I did not. Restricting me to areas in the Bubble if I chose not to interact is not acceptable to me.

Standing ovation.

I wouldn't bought it too. I want my sacred right to choose to stay alone when I wish. To help to make it crystal clear, I am the kind of person that I easy mute & derender people in chats and in other MMOs if these people are unable to understand my sacred right to stay alone.