Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Bigmaec]

Nope - just interested in players who paid just as much for the game as players whose play-style the game is not designed around retaining access to base-game content.

I'd actually be quite open to new content, that does not affect players who don't engage in it, being introduced for players who prefer PvP.

A wide majority (according to whom and what method was used to verify that only players participated) of a tiny fraction of the player-base.

Games change Robert.
You didn't pledge for engineers or guardian content either
And there will never be reliable statistics except those that FD offers, I concede that.

 

[leeG]

Back when programs were delivered via floppy disks and CD media, there were a lot of nuisance DRM locks. Could this be what is referred to?

If true, then the one million pounds David Braben aised for the ED DRM-free version was... what? An innocent mistake?
View attachment 171728

Steam scores perfectly fit the definition of business goodwill. With very few exceptions, you will not find substantial sales of any game with recent scores as low as Horizons.

 

[Mohrgan]

The reaction of what 4-6 people who like to reply to me? I've seen it stated many times that the forums are not representative of the player base at large. And I'd agree with that based on the % of people here who whine about their own mistakes costing them.

See it how you like. I can't convince you of anything. I'm just pointing out what you will face suggesting changes that take options and features away from players who see things differently to you.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Games change Robert.

Indeed they do, in some ways, in others not so much.

You didn't pledge for engineers or guardian content either

Well, technically my pledge includes all updates - so it could be considered that I did in one way - not that their addition was known in any way back during the Kickstarter. They are a benefit (depending on ones opinion) enjoyed by players in all game modes though.

And there will never be reliable statistics except those that FD offers, I concede that.

Indeed.

 

[Stelar 7]

Steam scores perfectly fit the definition of business goodwill. With very few exceptions, you will not find substantial sales of any game with recent scores as low as Horizons.

Given the substantial sales of Horizons, that's patently false.

 

[Mohrgan]

Im aware I'm not going to convince the same people who I'm typically responding to. You're not the target audience, because your mind isn't going to change.

I surely can say the same about you, and those who opine for open stuffs. All you see are nails? Why, because you invested too heavily in hammers.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Almost there
The 'problem' is introduced in your proposition as it doesn't currently exist. In our current game the solo player has already addressed the wish to play 'alone' by choosing solo, they will never meet another player even if they made their home base Deciat (or Borann currently) and played during 'peak hours' because that is precisely what they chose.

We all build to our requirements, sometimes with compromises, as we must.

Am I not being clear or what? I very clearly state that it is indeed solved by the game as it stands. I'm saying it should be solved by the player via gameplay tools and mechanics, rather than modes. I really don't know how many more times or ways I can state this, it's a key aspect to my position. I'm not almost anywhere, I'm staying on my position, as I have been.

The second part is to show that I have to make decisions with my build to achieve what I want, and I'm saying so should everyone else. Why? Because it adds depth to the game, and even if I never see a single person from solo who would still play in an open only version, added depth to gameplay mechanics still provides me value even if only idirectly

That isn't, and can't be, playing alone. Its playing evasively with others, which is not the same thing.

The paranoia of having to avoid other humans hunting them is actively unpleasant to people. Several have told me so here and in other games like Worlds Adrift where they didn't have a pve option consistently.

So we have a design choice, enable people to select their involvement, or not.

You are in the not camp. You say you want tools, but you want people using them to have restricted access to the game, because their playstyle is incompatible with yours.

Since they won't play with you under their model or yours there is no advantage to you to have that system unless you see excluding that kind of player from your game as a positive.

That's tribalism over good business sense and Frontier should reject your idea on that alone.

I don't want anyone to have restricted access. I want the game to provide tools do what you want, but also for your decisions to come with consequences, be it ship capability, crime and punishment, etc. Your attributing things to me I've not stated.

I don't care if "they" play with me or not. I care if the games design uses shortcuts over interesting design. Interesting design provides me value and increases game depth. Shortcuts devalue the experience. Its why things like balance between the activities is just as important.

Like ive said at least 40 times by now. The game should provide everyone tools to play how they wish but within the actual sandbox. Not outside of it.

I choose not to play in open. Your quote above is quite clear, play open or not at all. I asked you earlier in this thread how many players are you willing to throw under the bus. Never got an answer.

Here’s a real player data point for you. I don’t play open and I don’t do combat, at all. Hard points are for mining tools. I play the exploration loop and the trade/mining loop. Wasn’t considering even buying this game until it was pointed out to me there was a single player mode. Been playing for over three years and having a ball. Elite trade and Elite exploration, 21 ship fleet and 5.7 Bcr in the bank.

Your way isn’t the only way to play. It’s just your way. Frontier has fulfilled its contract with me and provided three modes of playing in common universe. I play solo and occasionally PG with family and friends. Open never, but it’s optional. As advertised.

As you clearly understand from your statement above, when you log into Elite, you consent to three modes of play all having equal influence on the shared galaxy. If you didn’t read the box and now having buyers remorse, that’s on you.

Ive not said you must play my way. I've said that the game should provide the tools to play how you wish in the sandbox. Not out of it. If those tools are inadequate, it's an opportunity for further development, new features and tools. Mode switch circumvents that entire process, shallowing the experience.

I've never in my entire life seen so many people personally offended that I have the audacity to make a game suggestion. It's truly funny.

Nope - I don't, however, subscribe to the "they must play with me" mantra.

As was your choice to do.

He also made clear, through the design that he approved for this version of the game that started his career, that PvP is optional.

Indeed - that much is clear. It is also clear that such an approach does not have anything like unanimous support.

Nothing in this game has unanimous support excpet maybe more ships.

I'm using his words as an example of why the idea that game development need not look at how the game steers the player and how paths of least resistance do dictate player behavior.

The game would be better off providing the tools to play how you want not through modes, but through the sandbox. Via ship choice, travel paths, and would then necessitate further development of mechanics like stealth and evasion, security, c&p, etc. And that further development, now being required, would provide increased depth and value to me and everyone, regardless of if I ever see you or not.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If true, then the one million pounds David Braben aised for the ED DRM-free version was... what? An innocent mistake?
View attachment 171728

Restricting access to an online game to owners of the game by means of logging in to an online account may be considered by some to be DRM.

 

[Rubbernuke]

A wide majority (according to whom and what method was used to verify that only players participated) of a tiny fraction of the player-base.

You can count the amount of active (i.e. people who engage in Powerplay for the feature and not the module) at well under 1000.

OAs poll had over 7000 respondents. 50% or so wanted the changes (with 25% wanting weighted). Thats about 3500 players alone (around 5000 if you count those who want change)- many, many more than play currently.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

I surely can say the same about you, and those who opine for open stuffs. All you see are nails? Why, because you invested too heavily in hammers.

The idea that I'm trying to be a hammer for every problem totally ignores the scope of all my other replies to you, and the rest of these Yahoo's lol

 

[Bigmaec]

You can count the amount of active (i.e. people who engage in Powerplay for the feature and not the module) at well under 1000.

OAs poll had over 7000 respondents. 50% or so wanted the changes (with 25% wanting weighted). Thats about 3500 players- many, many more than play currently.

You mixed up the quoting.

Also why bother answering to Robert, he is as bad as the open only everything trolls.
Totally incapable of accepting compromises.

Why I fell for the bait I don't know

 

[Robert Maynard]

Nothing in this game has unanimous support excpet maybe more ships.

If one dug around hard enough I strongly suspect that not even that would be unnanimous.

I'm using his words as an example of why the idea that game development need not look at how the game steers the player and how paths of least resistance do dictate player behavior.

It's an example - however what he approved when he approved the tri-modal game design speaks louder.

The game would be better off providing the tools to play how you want not through modes, but through the sandbox. Via ship choice, travel paths, and would then necessitate further development of mechanics like stealth and evasion, security, c&p, etc. And that further development, now being required, would provide increased depth and value to me and everyone, regardless of if I ever see you or not.

What the game "would be better off providing" remains a matter of opinion - some consider that the addition of an Open-PvE mode would be a significant QoL improvement for players who eschew PvP. Claiming that "everyone" would be provided with increased depth and value makes a huge assumption - and all it takes is for one player not to agree for that definitive statement to be proved incorrect - especially when talking about a hypothetical situation where the game had been changed in a manner that lacks clarity in the details. What is clear is that not all players would agree that being forced to play among other players constitutes an improvement to their game, even if it would improve the game for some players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Totally incapable of accepting compromises.

I've yet to see a compromise offered - given that the Open only [insert existing feature here] proposals take content away from players in Solo and Private Groups and offer nothing in return.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I've yet to see a compromise offered - given that the Open only [insert existing feature here] proposals take content away from players in Solo and Private Groups and offers nothing in return.

Like this one?

Powerplay proposal: split tasks to suit each mode, elaborates on Sandros last ideas

Please be aware this suggestion has been superseded by more recent ones like this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal-strong-anti-5c-mode-specific-plus-other-tweaks.552045/ For reference: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal.426940/#post6696898...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Robert Maynard]

Like this one?

Powerplay proposal: split tasks to suit each mode, elaborates on Sandros last ideas

Please be aware this suggestion has been superseded by more recent ones like this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal-strong-anti-5c-mode-specific-plus-other-tweaks.552045/ For reference: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal.426940/#post6696898...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Which still places restrictions on what can be done in Solo and Private Groups.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Am I not being clear or what? I very clearly state that it is indeed solved by the game as it stands. I'm saying it should be solved by the player via gameplay tools and mechanics, rather than modes. I really don't know how many more times or ways I can state this, it's a key aspect to my position. I'm not almost anywhere, I'm staying on my position, as I have been.

The second part is to show that I have to make decisions with my build to achieve what I want, and I'm saying so should everyone else. Why? Because it adds depth to the game, and even if I never see a single person from solo who would still play in an open only version, added depth to gameplay mechanics still provides me value even if only idirectly

I don't want anyone to have restricted access. I want the game to provide tools do what you want, but also for your decisions to come with consequences, be it ship capability, crime and punishment, etc. Your attributing things to me I've not stated.

I don't care if "they" play with me or not. I care if the games design uses shortcuts over interesting design. Interesting design provides me value and increases game depth. Shortcuts devalue the experience. Its why things like balance between the activities is just as important.

Like ive said at least 40 times by now. The game should provide everyone tools to play how they wish but within the actual sandbox. Not outside of it.

You can already build with very great variability about whatever you want, regardless of mode. It is just that PVE allows different designs than PvP, ie. minmaxing cargo ship to carry cargo is feasible. Basically all you are offering is same old "git gud" stuff, but camouflaged with nice words. Or "do not go to certain places if you don't want to meet emergent content providers".

 

[Mohrgan]

The idea that I'm trying to be a hammer for every problem totally ignores the scope of all my other replies to you, and the rest of these Yahoo's lol

Na, it doesn't.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Which still places restrictions on what can be done in Solo and Private Groups.

No it does not- because the gameplay (i.e. what you are physically doing) is exactly the same.

You are still moving cargo, shooting things.

The difference is that one role is moving it in one mode only- when you transport cargo or merits from one location to another in Open. You still have moving cargo via missions in Solo and PG. Nothing is gated in this respect.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Am I not being clear or what? I very clearly state that it is indeed solved by the game as it stands. I'm saying it should be solved by the player via gameplay tools and mechanics, rather than modes. I really don't know how many more times or ways I can state this, it's a key aspect to my position. I'm not almost anywhere, I'm staying on my position, as I have been.

Oh dear...
Currently a player can choose to ignore you , me, and everyone else - Yes, you acknowledge that - well done!

The rest of your post is essentially admitting that your proposal cannot provide equivalent gameplay for any other than the current open player and is a waste of time... (I have paraphrased the essential content to a few words)

 

[Ganogati]

PS Steam reviews do not rate on a scale of one to ten. They are Recommended or Not Recommended. Horizons recent average is mosly Not Reommended.

Which is even worse- it's 1 or 10. Considering Sandbox games, especially space sandbox games, are a niche to begin with, you basically have a ton of reviews saying "No, I do not like space sandboxes" amongst the "I like space sandboxes but this game is poop". That's what makes Steam reviews so worthless.

This review, by a guy who really isn't into ED but wants to give it a fair shake, covers this topic really well. Starts at the 3:55 marker.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa0b2Kd2xhU