To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?

[Old Duck]

Another option is to create a group of systems to mirror the starter systems, but on the other end of the spectrum ("ender" systems). Permit lock them to anyone not in Open, making them the Cyrodiil of the Bubble.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Another option is to create a group of systems to mirror the starter systems, but on the other end of the spectrum ("ender" systems). Permit lock them to anyone not in Open, making them the Cyrodiil of the Bubble.

Open only "bubbles" (i.e. one per platform) have been suggested before (I've proposed it in the past) - and were rejected by some players who want it all, not just some.

 

[Old Duck]

Open only "bubbles" (i.e. one per platform) have been suggested before (I've proposed it in the past) - and were rejected by some players who want it all, not just some.

I wonder if those same players are fuming because they can't access the starter systems (without wiping their save)....

Good on you, however, for being open (pun not intended) to the idea!

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Open only "bubbles" (i.e. one per platform) have been suggested before (I've proposed it in the past) - and were rejected by some players who want it all, not just some.

I can see the logic that such a bubble would be the open-only "tick in the box" and rule out things like open-only <feature> happening subsequently (precisely the things those players actually want). But on the other hand, if FDev did it and the sky didn't fall down, and it was a popular, they might gain confidence to consider other instances of mode-specific gameplay. I confess based on experience I'd be in the former, pessimist, camp. And I think that's the reason people object, not "bUt i wan gaNk EVywheRe". But FDev make their own decisions, and we take or leave what we get.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I can see the logic that such a bubble would be the open-only "tick in the box" and rule out things like open-only <feature> happening subsequently (precisely the things those players actually want). But on the other hand, if FDev did it and the sky didn't fall down, and it was a popular, they might gain confidence to consider other instances of mode-specific gameplay. I confess based on experience I'd be in the former, pessimist, camp. And I think that's the reason people object, not "bUt i wan gaNk EVywheRe". But FDev make their own decisions, and we take or leave what we get.

Which reads as a "the perfect is the enemy of the good" stance - as I doubt that Frontier would remove existing pan-modal game features from a significant portion of the player-base.

Those holding out for Open only would very likely be faced with a "well, if that's on the table then split the galaxy in two - give the Open only players their own galaxy to affect and leave the existing tri-modal shared galaxy for the rest of us" from those who are able share their galaxy with those they can't shoot at. Much has been made of the shared galaxy in this game - however Open only proponents don't actually want to share it with players who can choose not to play their way.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Which reads as a "the perfect is the enemy of the good" stance - as I doubt that Frontier would remove existing pan-modal game features from a significant portion of the player-base.

Those holding out for Open only would very likely be faced with a "well, if that's on the table then split the galaxy in two - give the Open only players their own galaxy to affect and leave the existing tri-modal shared galaxy for the rest of us" from those who are able share their galaxy with those they can't shoot at. Much has been made of the shared galaxy in this game - however Open only proponents don't actually want to share it with players who can choose not to play their way.

I think your emphasis and framing are misplaced - those proponents are happy to share it, just in open. On the other hand those determined to conduct actions in a competitive feature in closed modes might be seen as refusing to share a level playing field with those that refuse to use closed modes (and vice versa, I suppose). The fundamental problem regards balance, where competitive advantage can be gained by choice of mode, and the meta funnels people, often likely against their preference, into a particular choice that narrows gameplay options. That in my assessment the majority in powerplay (my pet example) still reject that choice is interesting and suggestive re: true preferences.

Perfect is enemy of the yeah-whatever-I'm-FDev might be closer to the mark but I take your point.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think your emphasis and framing are misplaced - those proponents are happy to share it, just in open. On the other hand those determined to conduct actions in a competitive feature in closed modes might be seen as refusing to share a level playing field with those that refuse to use closed modes (and vice versa, I suppose).

They may be happy to share it with players who play their way - however their way includes out-of-game rules, i.e. <feature x> should be carried out in Open - and those who don't play their way are looked down upon from some pretty tall equines, then they make proposals to remove the ability to affect game features from those who don't play in the same game mode - seeking to completely exclude them from that gameplay (unless they play in Open rather than their preferred game mode, of course). What is claimed as being "happy to share" boils down to "being happy to share with players who either already, or are forced to, play the same way - and those who don't should not be able to affect <insert one or more game features here>".

No-one who bought the game needs to acknowledge or abide by their out-of-game rules.

If one or more existing game features were to be made Open only then there would be less game to play for those who choose not to play in Open - so those players seeking to retain the ability to affect those game features would be likely to propose that Frontier give the Open only proponents their own galaxy to affect, leaving the existing tri-modal shared galaxy unchanged.

Obviously this would likely reduce the number of players who would be affected by those who chose to play in the Open only galaxy - but the Open only proponents would be guaranteed that only they could affect the galaxy they chose to play in, a galaxy that they don't want to share with those who don't play the same way they choose to.

The fundamental problem regards balance, where competitive advantage can be gained by choice of mode, and the meta funnels people, often likely against their preference, into a particular choice that narrows gameplay options. That in my assessment the majority in powerplay (my pet example) still reject that choice is interesting and suggestive re: true preferences.

The game is not balanced around an optional play-style preference that no player needs to engage in.

 

[varonica]

Which reads as a "the perfect is the enemy of the good" stance - as I doubt that Frontier would remove existing pan-modal game features from a significant portion of the player-base.

Those holding out for Open only would very likely be faced with a "well, if that's on the table then split the galaxy in two - give the Open only players their own galaxy to affect and leave the existing tri-modal shared galaxy for the rest of us" from those who are able share their galaxy with those they can't shoot at. Much has been made of the shared galaxy in this game - however Open only proponents don't actually want to share it with players who can choose not to play their way.

I can only see that working if the finance to support each galaxy came from the players in each galaxy only, what is likely to happen though is that one galaxy (the tri-modal) would end up providing the finance to support both galaxies.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I can only see that working if the finance to support each galaxy came from the players in each galaxy only, what is likely to happen though is that one galaxy (the tri-modal) would end up providing the finance to support both galaxies.

The BGS, Powerplay, CGs, etc. are affected by player actions - the number of player transactions to process would remain the same whether players all shared a single galaxy or if each transaction also had a "which galaxy to affect" tag - so processing the daily / weekly ticks shouldn't take any longer than it does at the moment. Storage of the galaxy state would double though.

We already effectively have two galaxies running in parallel - the Base / Horizons one and the Odyssey one - the increased time processing the ticks likely comes down to requiring to merge the effects of players in each into the single galaxy.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

They may be happy to share it with players who play their way - however their way includes out-of-game rules, i.e. <feature x> should be carried out in Open - and those who don't play their way are looked down upon from some pretty tall equines, then they make proposals the ability to affect game features from those who don't play in the same game mode - seeking to completely exclude them from that gameplay (unless they play in Open rather than their preferred game mode, of course). What is claimed as being "happy to share" boils down to "being happy to share with players who either already, or are forced to, play the same way - and those who don't should not be able to affect <insert one or more game features here>".

No-one who bought the game needs to acknowledge or abide by their out-of-game rules.

If one or more existing game features were to be made Open only then there would be less game to play for those who choose not to play in Open - so those players seeking to retain the ability to affect those game features would be likely to propose that Frontier give the Open only proponents their own galaxy to affect, leaving the existing tri-modal shared galaxy unchanged.

Obviously this would likely reduce the number of players who would be affected by those who chose to play in the Open only galaxy - but the Open only proponents would be guaranteed that only they could affect the galaxy they chose to play in, a galaxy that they don't want to share with those who don't play the same way they choose to.

Well naturally I think you're being melodramatic, while also assuming that the game is static and will never change (we have seen that major things do), particularly given that impacts on casual players could be avoided or mitigated through basic tweaks. And I think your vision of a split universe is also fanciful. More so than OO <feature> hopes themselves. But - you do suggest within it that there would be pushback to a level that makes the slippery-slope fear around OO features that so often drives the argument against them seem like a phantom. So I'd hope not to see you deploying or supporting the slippery slope fallacy at any point .

The game is not balanced around an optional play-style preference that no player needs to engage in.

And what if the majority of committed participants in the feature wanted it to be? And prospective participants judged by FDev the same?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well naturally I think you're being melodramatic, while also assuming that the game is static and will never change (we have seen that major things do), particularly given that impacts on casual players could be avoided or mitigated through basic tweaks.

Naturally - proponents of contentious change often dismiss concerns raised by those opposed to the change, seemingly in the hope that it bolsters their case - that hasn't changed in the over nine years that the Open only discussion has been ongoing.

And I think your vision of a split universe is also fanciful. More so than OO <feature> hopes themselves. But - you do suggest within it that there would be pushback to a level that makes the slippery-slope fear around OO features that so often drives the argument against them seem like a phantom. So I'd hope not to see you deploying or supporting the slippery slope fallacy at any point .

Given how few players actually seem to engage in PvP (see INARA stats earlier in the thread), restricting one or more existing pan-modal features to Open only seems to be rather more fanciful.

I don't think that proposing to split the galaxy in the event that Open only is under serious consideration is quite as fanciful as some seem to think - as Frontier have the whole player-base to consider, not just the few who engage in PvP, in a game sold to all where PvP is optional.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy if proven wrong, i.e. afterwards. It seems clear that some players want the whole game to be made Open only to suit their play-style preference with little or no regard for how that would affect the gameplay of players adversely affected by the changes.

And what if the majority of committed participants in the feature wanted it to be? And prospective participants judged by FDev the same?

What proportion of those owning the game do those "committed participants" represent? They bought the game on the same terms as everyone else and have no special privileges to enable them to deny access to the game feature to other players.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

They may be happy to share it with players who play their way - however their way includes out-of-game rules, i.e. <feature x> should be carried out in Open

This rather depends on whether you're talking about arranged duels or genuine organic PvP.

For example, imagine if CZ spec ops had heal beams which they'd use whenever you attacked one of them. I doubt that would be seen as being fun. However if it was a political assassination mission and you had to tailor your build and plan an attack around this to get a quick kill, that might be a different story.

Honestly, it's extremely rare to the point of being nearly unheard of when someone escapes a gank using in game means and that resulting in complaints from the attacker. I'm sure you can find an example, but the result is going to be near universal derision.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This rather depends on whether you're talking about arranged duels or genuine organic PvP.

For example, imagine if CZ spec ops had heal beams which they'd use whenever you attacked one of them. I doubt that would be seen as being fun. However if it was a political assassination mission and you had to tailor your build and plan an attack around this to get a quick kill, that might be a different story.

Honestly, it's extremely rare to the point of being nearly unheard of when someone escapes a gank using in game means and that resulting in complaints from the attacker. I'm sure you can find an example, but the result is going to be near universal derision.

What was being referred to is from which game mode players can affect game features, not engaging in PvP.

 

[ethelred]

Open or solo is moot if we don't get new content.

 

[The Horr0r]

I always played in open and ate some rebuys before I figured out how to be careful and evade. Now I can fly any ship anywhere with high confidence.
If someone thinks the galaxy is full of gankers, they need to get out more. It's boring (and dishonorable) to engage unprepared players.
To die in Elite, one has to make a series of colossal mistakes. Be in the mindset of learning your mistakes (ask someone if you're unsure), have a rebuy and you'll be fine.
Would have to rename the game, remove the Elite part and also the Dangerous part.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Be in the mindset of learning your mistakes (ask someone if you're unsure), have a rebuy and you'll be fine.

That presupposes that the player is in any way interested in PvP, being engaged in PvP, or tolerating those who initiate the ganker mini-game. To some it's a tediously predictable waste of limited game time.

 

[The Horr0r]

That presupposes that the player is in any way interested in PvP, being engaged in PvP, or tolerating those who initiate the ganker mini-game. To some it's a tediously predictable waste of limited game time.

You could say that about any feature of the game that impedes your earning potential (or whatever goals you seek). NPC mercenaries, supercruise times, engineering requirements.
Message me if you want help shaking off aggressors. If not of course that's okay, too. I advocate for and encourage open play.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You could say that about any feature of the game that impedes your earning potential (or whatever goals you seek). NPC mercenaries, supercruise times, engineering requirements.

One could - however those game aspects are common to all game modes whereas other players are an optional extra in this game - as no player requires to play in Open to play the game (and some players cannot play in either of the multi-player game modes, i.e. console players without premium platform access).

 

[ethelred]

That presupposes that the player is in any way interested in PvP, being engaged in PvP, or tolerating those who initiate the ganker mini-game. To some it's a tediously predictable waste of limited game time.

Quite, bit don't conflate the arguements of "open only" and tri-modal and then choosing open.

If you don't want any direct PvP then don't choose open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Quite, bit don't conflate the arguements of "open only" and tri-modal and then choosing open.

Open only seeks to restrict the ability to affect access to one or more game features to those who play in Open - seeking to force those who wish to continue to engage in those features to play in Open - essentially a removal of the choice currently available to players regarding which game mode to play in when affecting pan-modal game features.

If you don't want any direct PvP then don't choose open.

Indeed - and the whole game is currently available to those who choose not to play in Open - however that would not be the case if any new or existing game features were to be made Open only.