Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Arvel Yael]

Heck ya!

And hula dancer booblehead. And why haven't we gotten the plush-dice to hang in the windshield? Maybe those things only exist in Open and that's why I've never seem them.

I want the DeeBOBE bobblehead, too!

 

[Mohrgan]

Call me nuts, but it looks like you're building up to an argument there.

You're nuts.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

That's actually a quite interesting comment, as I was under the impression your main direction was to propose Open only in the first place. I seem to recall were you stated something about PvE enhancements, but have more like a side note. I could be wrong (again) of course. Maybe I should read again what it actually is what you propose. Is there there a single post of yours somewhere that summarise your proposal(s)?

Yeah I have but I can restate it. So the premise of the suggestion is that because PvP can only exist within the greater context of the game, which is pve, the enhancement to that greater context would be beneficial to both groups.

My specific idea is that elite has a very useful asset, and that's volume of the Galaxy. Theres tons of systems in the bubble alone, with no chokepoints to speak of except maybe engineer systems.

Because there's a large volume of systems that each can be affected by different variables, it can be leveraged to solve the problems the player base encounters, via these variables and how they affect the system sandbox.

Examples of changes:
Population generally affects number of npc ships in sc

Security level affects ratio of security to non sec ships present in sc, as well as their reactions to interdictions in SC. Example high sec means they immediately close on you so they drop at the same time as you the moment the interdiction mini game starts. Also In high sec every npc security wing would have a Cascade torp boat, and the ai the ability to Target subsystems. As sec level lowers these layers peel off. Security could affect rebuy both negatively for wanted players and positively for clean ones. Etc. Also it'd be cool if fdev asked pvpers to help them craft badass security ships with our builds, be it meta boats or one trick ponies.

Government type obviously will mean a lot in the case of anarchy, but the other types could have creative influences as well.

Allegiance affecting general ship type, (empire, fed, alliance, etc) and even build types.

State would then affect all other variables even more. Boom increasing total ships, or lockdown increasing security ratio, or unrest increasing pirate ratios, etc.

It's all spitballing but the point is that we have a variable system already, just give the variables values that meaningfully impacts all players, PvP and pve, decision process for where you want to do business, as well as give a whole new purpose to bgs and potentially pp.

Or in other words create gameplay loops or changes to the sandbox/decision processes players need to make in game, to address player problems. Not invisible walls or flags.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

What you are describing is how EVE Online works.

If you really feel that system is better, you are welcome to go there.

What you haven't made a case for is why that is better.

Specifically we have a situation where people can go anywhere they want and engage with the game on their terms. You want to remove that option and shift everyone to playing on your terms. You need to outline a benefit for everyone that is worth that significant cost.



Why? You are claiming safty is based on player threat? What is your justification for that? We have a game that us up 24x7 where combat focused players can engage in combat anywhere, whenever they want. However we can't instance across platforms and not everyone plays in the same times.

The game has internal threats from the NPC for all activity. If they should be buffed or nerfed is a secondary conversation. You want players to be an additional threat, but you want to threaten people who don't want that interaction. You need to make a case for why the other player's desires should be secondary to yours. You haven't done that.




Why does that make perfect sense? I like playing with others, why should I have to buy a second copy of the game to play with my group friends and one for open to meet new friends?

If you want to argue for a restriction, which you are doing, it isn't enough to articulate a moral stance, that's your feeling. When you want to impact my game play you need an argument for how that restriction makes things better for everyone.

Right now this whole thread reads like, "I want to shoot people and its unfair that some of them don't want to be shot at and are able to push a button and avoid me."

That's a very selfish mindset. We have a pvp space, its everywhere. All the people who want to play there currently do. If you think there should be more, than you need to make it enticing, not force people to play there.

I'm describing the current layout of our game. Security levels, economies, allegiances etc. Make them actually count for something. If it's similar to Eve so be it. One mechanism similarity is not the same as the entire game being the same. That's disingenuous at best.

Safety shouldn't be based on player threat, but currently player threat is the greatest threat. I don't think it should be that way. Case and point, jumping into a thargoids incursion system should be completely butt puckering if you do so unprepared. It isn't.

The rest of your post doesn't address what I've said at all, which is modes and flags are lazy game design, whose issues they are meant to address should be addressed in the context of the actual game.

I've made no moral stance on the matter, reading ain't just for rich people Jethro.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's all spitballing but the point is that we have a variable system already, just give the variables values that meaningfully impacts all players, PvP and pve, decision process for where you want to do business, as well as give a whole new purpose to bgs and potentially pp.

Or in other words create gameplay loops or changes to the sandbox/decision processes players need to make in game, to address player problems. Not invisible walls or flags.

In the example given, there's no need to remove Solo or Private Groups. If the improvements stand on their merits, players would be encouraged (rather than forced) to play in Open.

 

[Kira Mikamy]

this is not a videogame, this is a screenshot simulator with some arcade way to move around. theres no competition in elite dangerous, change game, try something more challenge.

pve too is easy in this game, only new player can enjoy it, every person after a week can kill wing of npc with just one hand. change game, go away, this game is dead

 

[Cheese Helmet]

When in reality, what's actually needed is for the more barebone gameplay loops to actually see more improvements. Other players are not a fix for issues in the game and relying on multiplayer aspects to hide poor design is not something that should be encouraged; fix the game first before worrying about niches like PvP, and it's entirely possible that any such fixes would render PvP largely fixed as a beneficial side effect (such as appropriate NPC difficulty and behaviour, or ship/module/weapon balance which benefits both PvP and PvE).

I agree, and this is something I've been arguing for. Improve the core gameplay and the things that exist within it will improve as a side effect.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

In the example given, there's no need to remove Solo or Private Groups. If the improvements stand on their merits, players would be encouraged (rather than forced) to play in Open.

You're right, given the changes I've proposed changing modes as they are wouldn't be necessary. My angle is that proper development can make modes irrelevant and unnecessary all together. Block feature should remain of course.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You're right, given the changes I've proposed changing modes as they are wouldn't be necessary. My angle is that proper development can make modes irrelevant and unnecessary all together. Block feature should remain of course.

I doubt that Frontier would remove either Solo / Private Groups or the block feature.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Yeah I have but I can restate it. So the premise of the suggestion is that because PvP can only exist within the greater context of the game, which is pve, the enhancement to that greater context would be beneficial to both groups.

My specific idea is that elite has a very useful asset, and that's volume of the Galaxy. Theres tons of systems in the bubble alone, with no chokepoints to speak of except maybe engineer systems.

Because there's a large volume of systems that each can be affected by different variables, it can be leveraged to solve the problems the player base encounters, via these variables and how they affect the system sandbox.

Examples of changes:
Population generally affects number of npc ships in sc

Security level affects ratio of security to non sec ships present in sc, as well as their reactions to interdictions in SC. Example high sec means they immediately close on you so they drop at the same time as you the moment the interdiction mini game starts. Also In high sec every npc security wing would have a Cascade torp boat, and the ai the ability to Target subsystems. As sec level lowers these layers peel off. Security could affect rebuy both negatively for wanted players and positively for clean ones. Etc. Also it'd be cool if fdev asked pvpers to help them craft badass security ships with our builds, be it meta boats or one trick ponies.

Government type obviously will mean a lot in the case of anarchy, but the other types could have creative influences as well.

Allegiance affecting general ship type, (empire, fed, alliance, etc) and even build types.

State would then affect all other variables even more. Boom increasing total ships, or lockdown increasing security ratio, or unrest increasing pirate ratios, etc.

It's all spitballing but the point is that we have a variable system already, just give the variables values that meaningfully impacts all players, PvP and pve, decision process for where you want to do business, as well as give a whole new purpose to bgs and potentially pp.

Or in other words create gameplay loops or changes to the sandbox/decision processes players need to make in game, to address player problems. Not invisible walls or flags.

There is one simple question whats the need to restrict mode choice even with those reforms? Other than that PVP group wants more targets. Whole idea of say, solo mode is that there are no other human players in instance. Period. No need to avoid certain systems, or build ships that can withstand some overpowered gizmo and so on. Private groups turns around limited membership and mutually accepted rules, non-fitting players can be kicked out.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

I doubt that Frontier would remove either Solo / Private Groups or the block feature.

Maybe so, but I think we can all agree that if problems are solved via the sandbox, gameplay loops, and then the players own decisions within those, that the game would be massively better. And if the best result is that solo and pg just become superfluous, then so be it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

In the example given, there's no need to remove Solo or Private Groups. If the improvements stand on their merits, players would be encouraged (rather than forced) to play in Open.

Quite right. Removing the modes is dragged along kicking and screaming. It's not needed. The modes aren't the problem. They work.

 

[Kira Mikamy]

theres no need to remove modalities if you host another galaxy with day one assett only open.
Every account can have 2 cmdrs: one in the actual galaxy with solo\private\open, and one in the only open galaxy where you have to start from sidewinder. easy, competitive, mmo, reasonable, so damn obviuos.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

theres no need to remove modalities if you host another galaxy with day one assett only open.
Every account can have 2 cmdrs: one in the actual galaxy with solo\private\open, and one in the only open galaxy where you have to start from sidewinder. easy, competitive, mmo, reasonable, so damn obviuos.

So you'll have two sets of galaxy, current one with three modes, and special open only. How long it will take to that second part players start whining about not having enough easy targets, and campaigning to remove first set for good?

 

[Brrokk]

theres no need to remove modalities if you host another galaxy with day one assett only open.
Every account can have 2 cmdrs: one in the actual galaxy with solo\private\open, and one in the only open galaxy where you have to start from sidewinder. easy, competitive, mmo, reasonable, so damn obviuos.

Guess which galaxy would be empty.

 

[Ganogati]

Maybe so, but I think we can all agree that if problems are solved via the sandbox, gameplay loops, and then the players own decisions within those, that the game would be massively better. And if the best result is that solo and pg just become superfluous, then so be it.

I agree with this. IMO, the current inclination of many players, myself included, to spend our time in PGs and Solo is an indication of an overall failing of how Open is handled. There are many people who play Solo because they want to play this single player, or with just some friends, and my post is not about them; my post is about those of us who are not against the idea of playing with other players, but ARE against the idea of simply adding negative consequences (ganking) without any real upsides.

I've seen a lot of recommendations on how to handle this, and IMO the best way to go is to incentivize Open as opposed to nerfing any current enjoyment of solo, or PG; primarily because that other group of players do exist and should not be penalized for wanting to play the game the way they do. Instead, the system should account for the shortcomings of open at this moment. For example, police in high security areas should be more reliable in protecting the people in their sectors. There should be some bonus reward for missions, trade or otherwise, done entirely in open without any active time during the mission spent in PG or solo. There should be some rebuy discount for a death to another player. Etc etc.

Honestly, if they would do anything at all, even if not those suggestions, to make someone go "Solo is safer, but open is more lucrative! The risk is worth the reward!" it would go a long way. Because right now there is additional risk with no reward.

There is an inherent benefit to this game to have more people playing in Open, and enjoying playing in Open. Its the first item in the menu, and is where many new players will first go; so seeing more commanders, not getting insta-popped within the first hour of playing by a ganker, and generally experiencing the game as a true multiplayer experience would likely only be a boon for ED as a whole. So, IMO, it is worth FDev taking time to properly fix and incentivize the current experience to make it a worthwhile choice for mission runners and miners to choose to go into Open over the safety of solo/PG, without ruining the solo or PG experience for those who enjoy or prefer it. Consider the current system the baseline, and build UP from there, rather than tearing down.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Maybe so, but I think we can all agree that if problems are solved via the sandbox, gameplay loops, and then the players own decisions within those, that the game would be massively better. And if the best result is that solo and pg just become superfluous, then so be it.

In an ideal situation, the improvements would be a benefit to every player's gameplay.

 

[House0fDerp]

It's all spitballing but the point is that we have a variable system already, just give the variables values that meaningfully impacts all players, PvP and pve, decision process for where you want to do business, as well as give a whole new purpose to bgs and potentially pp.

The problem being that any static places which one would want to do business will become targets regardless of their security status because that is where targets will congregate because of mechanical benefits. The only counter to this is to replicate any useful singular places like Jameson Memorial and put copies in various places. But that just makes the low security copies undesirable and thus unused and so the hunters and the hunted move on creating the same issue we have now.

This also ignores that many chose solo/PG because they want to avoid PvP interactions, not just survive them. Short of making the penalties and responses so high that no one tries it becomes better to stay out of open for that group. And if you do it becomes pointless to the PvP crowd having those players in open. The groups are diametrically opposed. There isn't a real middle ground to stand on that can universally be called an improvement.

 

[Kira Mikamy]

So you'll two sets of galaxy, current one with three modes, and special open only. How long it will take to that second part players start whining about not having enough easy targets, and campaigning to remove first set for good?

its of course a vicious circle, everybody need a sacrifice. the second galaxy is the alternative for player wanna play a competitive PvX game, where X means, i do pve with the risk another player try to stop me. (the remote risk, bubble is big)
in the first galaxy private group player can still enjoy the gamemode they like, if some cmdrs wanna play just to shot easy cmdrs and cry because pvpers go in the open only galaxy can unistall the game. easy

actually is the opposite, competitive player go away from elite because they have nothing to be competitive for. only invisible numerical war

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Simple thing add robust consequences for senseless criminal activity, and ganker population would shrink fast. But somehow many pretty vocal people in PVP community are dead set against really stinging consequences. Or want those consequences hit all, lawfull and lawless player equally.