Why I and many others will rarely play open

[Deleted member 182079]

To balance this properly you would have to also tweak economic aspects of the BGS and the mission server so that danger is rewarded economically. I think it's mostly all in there, but there are others much more expert than me to be sure. For example I would love it if the trade routes to the anarchy systems were by far the most profitable!

Yes absolutely. I think they could do this easily enough by moving some levers around (that's the professional term I believe!) but the reality probably is that the entire BGS is one single formula that they're too afraid to touch, and if you change 1 value somewhere, 256 values elsewhere become affected. Or something like that.

 

[Darth Ender]

Locking the canonical galaxy to Open only would not "give everyone what they want" - as all players bought a game where they enjoy the privilege to experience and affect the shared galaxy regardless of whether, or not, they ever choose to play in Open or even can play in Open (console players without premium platform access cannot play in either of the multi-player game modes but do, like all other players, affect the galaxy). It would certainly be supported by a subset of the player-base just as it would be opposed by another subset.

splitting the compromised vision into two much more optimal visions is far better than giving nobody what they want to appeal to a mutually exclusive subset of players.

The "open only" version is only more canonical than the other in the sense that "live" mysteries and such will only take place on it, and the actions of players can potentially impact the narrative fdev is going with. There's no way to offer that that doesn't subvert 1 game mode entirely to the other. Otherwise you might as well not change anything.
This would not really be open-only, just the official online version of the game, with ideally, proper networking.

The other game allows the player to choose to follow an fdev narrative that plays out much like how off-line games play out release to release - following roughly the same canonical events as the other game (with updates weekly). But the player in this game cannot impact the bgs of the other and certain hidden things wont exist or exist in different places in this version compared to the other. Consider this the offline version that was promised and never delivered. You still play in an evolving galaxy - but you are free from the manipulation of other players and you are free to discover and experience the events of the game from the beginning (albeit with current ui/gameplay features). Play thru jaques launch - and try and find his location (the way you were supposed to)...or perhaps not find it for months (eventually the game will have npcs find it prior to colonia bubble forming). All the things possible when you aren't tied to the shared online game.

But, this game also allows player mods and player run servers to create their own shared galaxy / story...separate from fdev's. Similar to some community re-hashes of X3 are done. So players who want to be in a shared galaxy but with different rules (such as pve only / etc) can create such a server and play in it. It's just going to be separate from the other game (and separate from eachother unless allowing remote connections).

Neither the "offline" or the "open only" needs to be more canonical than the other, if fdev is crafty enough with their narrative writing - but if the entire premise of threads like this are to dream of ways to make everyone happy, i dont see how it can be done within a single shared game. Since anything that circumvents other players in a game that is supposed to feedback from player actions and have persistent effects to the shared game can't exist without significant compromises to that vision.

So in my above imaginary scenario, there are lots of players able to get what they want out of the game. and maybe a few who are confused (wrong).

As opposed to nobody getting what they want in the current version except those who dont really care about anything going on in the game or those that play so infrequently that none of the compromises matter.

 

[Robert Maynard]

splitting the compromised vision into two much more optimal visions is far better than giving nobody what they want to appeal to a mutually exclusive subset of players.

That opinion isn't shared by all.

The "open only" version is only more canonical than the other in the sense that "live" mysteries and such will only take place on it, and the actions of players can potentially impact the narrative fdev is going with.

Which is what we have at the moment with the mode shared galaxy, apart from the Open only bit, of course - and all players both affect and experience it - with no players (other than those deemed to have warranted punitive action by Frontier, i.e. shadowbanned whereby they don't affect the galaxy or meet other players) excluded.

There's no way to offer that that doesn't subvert 1 game mode entirely to the other.

.... in which case....

Otherwise you might as well not change anything.

Indeed.

This would not really be open-only, just the official online version of the game, with ideally, proper networking.

We already have one official online version of the game - shared by the three game modes and three platforms - the game cannot be played offline....

 

[Darth Ender]

That opinion isn't shared by all.

Which is what we have at the moment with the mode shared galaxy, apart from the Open only bit, of course - and all players both affect and experience it - with no players (other than those deemed to have warranted punitive action by Frontier, i.e. shadowbanned whereby they don't affect the galaxy or meet other players) excluded.

.... in which case....

Indeed.

We already have one official online version of the game - shared by the three game modes and three platforms - the game cannot be played offline....

Dur. Nobody is arguing that reality doesn't exist as it exists. That's why we call these things ideas/suggestions .... because they are things that dont exist that would change that reality.

If you're happy with how things currently are, then there's no point in making a thread and starting a discussion about it.

we all know fdev isn't going to change anything related to the game involving the modes and how they behave. That's why all of these kinds of threads are pointless mental vomit. They only exist to impotently vent frustrations stemming from the fact that this game is compromised by it's own stubbornness to admit that it can't deliver what it originally hoped it could because you can't deliver an ideal mmo experience without sacrificing solo gameplay experience and vice versa. We know that's the case because we have eyes and brains - and that Fdev knows that's the case because that's why they had an offline version in the kickstarter. So instead of an awesome lambo or capable truck or jeep, we have a toyota camry. It does it's job usually good enough to keep most people from really getting upset, but is instantly forgettable in a parking lot and will never win any awards for best in anything.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Dur. Nobody is arguing that reality doesn't exist as it exists. That's why we call these things ideas/suggestions .... because they are things that dont exist that would change that reality.

Indeed.

If you're happy with how things currently are, then there's no point in making a thread and starting a discussion about it.

Not entirely, but broadly satisfied.

we all know fdev isn't going to change anything related to the game involving the modes and how they behave. That's why all of these kinds of threads are pointless mental vomit. They only exist to impotently vent frustrations stemming from the fact that this game is compromised by it's own stubbornness to admit that it can't deliver what it originally hoped it could because you can't deliver an ideal mmo experience without sacrificing solo gameplay experience and vice versa. We know that's the case because we have eyes and brains - and that Fdev knows that's the case because that's why they had an offline version in the kickstarter.

The offline mode was added to the scope of the Kickstarter pitch about halfway through following requests from some backers and well after the three online modes sharing the single galaxy state - meaning that other players, and therefore PvP, were always going to be an optional in this game, by design. It seems that they weren't seeking to follow the tropes of other MMO.

 

[Darth Ender]

Indeed.

Not entirely, but broadly satisfied.

The offline mode was added to the scope of the Kickstarter pitch about halfway through following requests from some backers and well after the three online modes sharing the single galaxy state - meaning that other players, and therefore PvP, were always going to be an optional in this game, by design. It seems that they weren't seeking to follow the tropes of other MMO.

The vast majority of the crying on the forum is not pvp players upset that they aren't getting their trope fully satisfied. It's the pve players, not happy with the compromises they have to face given the needs to be connected that the massively online aspect of the game requires.

Giving them what they really want would lower the dissatisfaction level considerably. It just isn't possible to do that while remaining connected to the rest of the game without harming the gameplay of the players who dont want what they want.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The vast majority of the crying on the forum is not pvp players upset that they aren't getting their trope fully satisfied. It's the pve players, not happy with the compromises they have to face given the needs to be connected that the massively online aspect of the game requires.

Not in my experience - to me there seem to be significantly more complaints about the fact that they have to share the galaxy with players they can't shoot at than complaints about the need for an online connection.

Giving them what they really want would lower the dissatisfaction level considerably. It just isn't possible to do that while remaining connected to the rest of the game without harming the gameplay of the players who dont want what they want.

What do who want?

 

[Brrokk]

The vast majority of the crying on the forum is not pvp players upset that they aren't getting their trope fully satisfied. It's the pve players, not happy with the compromises they have to face ...

Actually I think the reverse is true. Open-only or Open-bonus threads vastly outnumber griefer-exploded-me threads. (Although maybe this thread could just about be taken as the latter sort).

 

[Darth Ender]

Not in my experience - to me there seem to be significantly more complaints about the fact that they have to share the galaxy with players they can't shoot at than complaints about the need for an online connection.

I see a lot of suggestion threads regarding players who mistakenly think that "open-only" == entirely new networking stack that will enforce a shared interaction between all players impacting a shared game state. Not so much a bunch of threads moaning about how their game is ruined by the existence of other modes.

What do who want?

The pve-only players.

 

[Aaron T]

I love PVP in some games, and PVE in every game, but the loudest players in every gaming forum where there is PVP are from PVP only players, and I will not resort to insults like one did who was quoted just 2 and 3 posts above this reply. They use terms like crying, scared, care bears, killing anything that moves, not wanting a brand new noob to be able to learn the ropes because they want to kill them, always insulting and screaming on the forums, cursing, insulting others in chat, and they wonder why no one wants to be free victims for their PVP only play in open.

 

[Amanojaku]

Right there is why FD need to stomp hard on gankers. They tried once and we got the laughable notoriety system which is now rendered completely irrelevant by carriers.

CMDR Harry Potter killing Salome was arguably the most press ED ever got in the gaming world. I saw podcasts and several content creators talk about how it made them want to play ED again.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about CMDR Harry Potter, the first Distant Worlds expedition and Salome's demise was the best thing that ever happened to ED.

If Fdev wanted to do something about ganking they would have done it then, when it affected the lore itself. But they didn't because the infamous act made the game explode in popularity.

 

[Brrokk]

CMDR Harry Potter killing Salome was arguably the most press ED ever got in the gaming world. I saw podcasts and several content creators talk about how it made them want to play ED again.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about CMDR Harry Potter, the first Distant Worlds expedition and Salome's demise was the best thing that ever happened to ED.

If Fdev wanted to do something about ganking they would have done it then, when it affected the lore itself. But they didn't because the infamous act made the game explode in popularity.

Yes, I always suspected that they really intended that outcome and the resulting publicity. It was extreme incompetence if they didn't! That's not what I meant by the ganking that needs to be stepped on though; I have seal-clubbing and the resulting reputational damage in mind.

 

[Darth Ender]

Actually I think the reverse is true. Open-only or Open-bonus threads vastly outnumber griefer-exploded-me threads. (Although maybe this thread could just about be taken as the latter sort).

Whether the thread starts out as open-only / open-bonus / open-pve etc doesn't really matter as it will attract posts from both sides. What you dont get very often though is complaining / whining threads about playing the game in a way it was not designed for coming from pvp players. There's no pvp threads posting about how they were playing in solo and trucked around thousands of tons of diamonds over the course of a few days in heavily populated systems and never even lost their shields if interfered with at all and how this ruins their game.

There's always going to be more suggestion threads than complaint threads and a lot of those suggestions are misguided attempts to make open mode more balanced. But the complaint threads are indicative of an issue that matters significantly more to one way of playing than the other. That goes beyond just pvp vs pve and into hardcore vs causal.

We give up a lot (the ability to cater to any of the various gameplay styles and tropes) by not splitting the game up for what gain? What benefit do we have pulling players who want vastly different games from eachother together? All i see is constant frustration on the forum and nothing innovating out of the game since launch (and that was mostly just the technical achievements of the galaxy generation and VR)

 

[Amanojaku]

Yes, I always suspected that they really intended that outcome and the resulting publicity. It was extreme incompetence if they didn't! That's not what I meant by the ganking that needs to be stepped on though; I have seal-clubbing and the resulting reputational damage in mind.

Well, from what I know SDC (Smiling Dog Crew, Harry Potter's squadron) was a notorious gank crew, but they laid low for months and pretended to "clean up their act". They petitioned to be part of the event and got in on good behavior. Whoever let that petition through was pretty naive imo, but supposedly that's how they got in.

And I agree that seal clubbing is just... Wrong. But my point was the player vs player interactions stir up interest, even through controversy, to the wider gamer base. Fdev loves PvP and threads like this. It's been on top of the thread list for days.

 

[The Roofus]

Even as a filthy suboptimal casual I’m still swimming in credits, rebuys ain’t nothing... I just don’t like people real or virtual most of the time.

I wish real life had a solo mode...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Whether the thread starts out as open-only / open-bonus / open-pve etc doesn't really matter as it will attract posts from both sides. What you dont get very often though is complaining / whining threads about playing the game in a way it was not designed for coming from pvp players.

We very often get threads from PvP players bemoaning the fact that they can't attack all opposition in Faction gameplay - they seem to be trying to play the game in a manner that it was not designed for (as there's no requirement for any opposition to play in Open). Same goes for Powerplay.

There's no pvp threads posting about how they were playing in solo and trucked around thousands of tons of diamonds over the course of a few days in heavily populated systems and never even lost their shields if interfered with at all and how this ruins their game.

Which indicates that those players enjoy the game as it is, doesn't it?

There's always going to be more suggestion threads than complaint threads and a lot of those suggestions are misguided attempts to make open mode more balanced. But the complaint threads are indicative of an issue that matters significantly more to one way of playing than the other. That goes beyond just pvp vs pve and into hardcore vs causal.

The game was designed around one way of playing and not the other - the latter exists simply because players can shoot at anything they instance with, but players don't need to play with players who want to shoot at them.

We give up a lot (the ability to cater to any of the various gameplay styles and tropes) by not splitting the game up for what gain?

We give up nothing - we had the choice to buy the game are offering or not.

What benefit do we have pulling players who want vastly different games from eachother together?

The PvE players bought a game with an evolving galaxy and no requirement to play among other players or engage in itsi-PvP. The PvP players bought a game where they can't force any other player to play with them when participating in any game feature (except CQC, of course).

All i see is constant frustration on the forum and nothing innovating out of the game since launch (and that was mostly just the technical achievements of the galaxy generation and VR)

Many players have ideas as to how the game could be improved, for them - not all players want the same things though.

 

[CMDR Buy Arx]

Regardless of what anyone thinks about CMDR Harry Potter, the first Distant Worlds expedition and Salome's demise was the best thing that ever happened to ED.

Which is a pretty damning indictment of the state of this game specifically and the gaming "journalism" world in general.

"Uni drop-out ganks middle-aged role-players in electronic fantasy world" isn't the top headline I'd like to be remembered for.

 

[Screemonster]

Which is a pretty damning indictment of the state of this game specifically and the gaming "journalism" world in general.

"Uni drop-out ganks middle-aged role-players in electronic fantasy world" isn't the top headline I'd like to be remembered for.

In what way is it damning?

Just because you don't like football doesn't make it a "damning indictment of the state of journalism" when the world cup makes headlines.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And I agree that seal clubbing is just... Wrong. But my point was the player vs player interactions stir up interest, even through controversy, to the wider gamer base. Fdev loves PvP and threads like this. It's been on top of the thread list for days.

The most recent player/player interaction that was reported in the games press was an embarassment and at least one of the perpetrators was shadowbanned for it.

 

[Achtung-Goomba]

I wish real life had a solo mode...

Me too friend, me too! And I work in hospitality