Why I and many others will rarely play open

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Almost too easy a solution isn't it. Probably why it isn't a thing.
I suspect that it is the way it is for one of two reasons:
1) alphabetical ordering of options, i.e. Open, Private Groups, Solo, (ignoring Arena), Training;
2) Frontier would quite like players to choose Open even if they don't force anyone to.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
3.5 seems reasonable, 4 is dubious. FD themselves has on times acknowledged part of game design is considering when mode parity is beneficial and when it's not. I see no real reason why that discussion should be stiffled.

Beyond the obvious reason that you have an opinion on the matter and want to silence other thoughts. But that's be rather petty.
3.5 is somewhat the same as 4, i.e. don't complain that one can't shoot at players engaging in pan-modal game features.
4 is only dubious for those who insist that others are available to shoot at in opposition when engaging in pan-modal game features.

While Frontier put a proposal for Open only / Open bonus Powerplay in an investigative (clearly stated not to be a fait accompli) thread some time ago, they also stated that Powerplay was the only feature for which such a change would be appropriate - then went on to remind us, later the same year, that the BGS is for every player in the Background Simulation and Scenarios stream (and recap thread).

The discussion is not stifled - however it's not uncontested - proponents and opponents regularly cross (s)words on the matter.
 
Unless most people play in Open because it is the first button on the screen.

Not to mention that most people might also be a misnomer and/or manipulative, as it usually leads people to believe it means the majority, which again for many it means more than 50%. Which is true when only 2 categories are accounted. When there are 3 or more, things can get fuzzy.

I mean, it could simply be that Open get 40%, PG get 30% and Solo gets 30% of the player base.
Which could be presented as most people play in open (taking into account each mode individually) or most people prefer to avoid Open, playing in Solo or PG.
And both statements are correct.
IIRC fdev said it was more of a difference than that.
 

Deleted member 182079

D
I suspect that it is the way it is for one of two reasons:
1) alphabetical ordering of options, i.e. Open, Private Groups, Solo, (ignoring Arena), Training;
2) Frontier would quite like players to choose Open even if they don't force anyone to.
For me personally it doesn't really matter as Open is already my preferred choice, but if it was Solo it is mildly inconvenient to have to click <right> twice before selecting the mode (if you played with a pad like I do). Again, not a big deal, but would be a nice little QoL feature nevertheless. The game remembers all sorts of other settings so why not this one - although it's probably true that FDev want to funnel players into Open as a default game mode.
 
That view is why ED will never be a really interesting game in the long run - or just for space truckers. That player driven market in EVE creates so much emergent game play, which doesn't have to be implemented, it just happens to be, because there is this market.

Well, and inflation or deflation is not a general trend - some sectors experience inflation, some don't, and some even have deflationary tendencies. That is normal and dependent on supply and demand. CCP has a couple of economists observing the market - and they might advice the developers in case it would get out of hand - what basically means to balance sinks with sources. Like changing blue prints or creating demand for certain things or changing the availability of certain asteroids to balance material supply and so on.
Every time I read "emergent" gameplay I want to throw up. Let's face it - it's been used abundandly to annoy others and by now I just cant take it serious at face value. Or in other words - I have no interest in emergent gameplay in ED.
 
The problem with that is for many players it'll just be one more extra (and annoying) click that they will still not read.

I see this day-to-day at work as well - I issue solid guidance and there's always a handful of people who don't follow it and make mistakes. Usually the same people who don't learn from their mistakes either unfortunately.
Fair enough - no system is fool proof :)
 
Unless most people play in Open because it is the first button on the screen.

Not to mention that most people might also be a misnomer and/or manipulative, as it usually leads people to believe it means the majority, which again for many it means more than 50%. Which is true when only 2 categories are accounted. When there are 3 or more, things can get fuzzy.

I mean, it could simply be that Open get 40%, PG get 30% and Solo gets 30% of the player base.
Which could be presented as most people play in open (taking into account each mode individually) or most people prefer to avoid Open, playing in Solo or PG.
And both statements are correct.
Because it's not like we choose one mode and are not allowed to play any other mode I find statements about majority of players playing Open rather confusing.
I mean, what does that mean exactly? That at certain given time there's more players in Open than in other modes (let's say that PG and Solo are just two versions of one Not-Open mode). Or maybe that most players choose Open most of the time?
If that's the case and according to Fdev data lots of people choose Open most of the time (and what that means? That they never choose any other mode, or choose Open 55% of the time?), does this include every player that played the game from the beginning, even if they logged once into the game, chose Open and never came back?
Anyway, the fact that we're allowed to choose when we want to play in Open muddles the picture, because someone can spend 95% of their time in Open, being far from other players and switch to Solo only when they are back in the Bubble - or, in other words, choose Solo only when there's more risk of actually encountering players.
 
Every time I read "emergent" gameplay I want to throw up. Let's face it - it's been used abundandly to annoy others and by now I just cant take it serious at face value. Or in other words - I have no interest in emergent gameplay in ED.
It is originally not intended game play, which emerges out of the options given, without that what is emerging is one of those options. In EVE for example it was at first settling in wormhole systems - those were never meant to be a permanent home for player corporations. Or recently player-owned stations (citadels, engineering complexes, mining complexes) - meant as purpose based local player owned facilities - they are that, but what emerged as well are trading chains with big outposts near all the major trading hubs and some even near minor trading hubs.

Or take transport - everyone can own freighters and haul stuff by him/herself, but enterprises emerged which do mass transports in freighters (red frog freight, pushX) - you can find them on the web, they act like real companies. I personally like market pvp - specializing in a niche market which I can control, punch dents into the charts after my liking, make it harder for the concurrence to sell their wares and more expensive for them, to buy the resources they need for their production. This is all not intended or would have had to be implemented - this is emergent game play born out of the creativity of players and player organizations. ED will never get there, because Mr. Braden isn't for such structures - missing out on all the game play options, emerging from providing those tools and structures.

But it's not just limited to economy - there are systematic ganker organizations as well - who want to force miners to pay a fee for being able to mine without being ganked. This started out as a small local operation but grew into a big alliance of many corporations with quite different purposes. Emergent game play as well in the ganking area. Or many years back "brave newbies" - started out as a corporation in Hek with the goal to use mass amounts of newbies to bring down big ships and live from the loot - they grew into some big organization as well. This is all emergent game play - if the tools and structures and the economy is there to let them emerge.
 
Last edited:
There's only very few incidents where I got chain interdicted (I remember 3 or 4, over the course of several years - most players give up after giving them the slip a couple of times) - what I'll do then depends on whether I want anything else done (like finish a mission, hand in bonds, etc.) or whether I don't and can entertain them for a while (and myself of course otherwise I wouldn't do it).

Really? Most of the time I get interdicted its near the station and its chained, possibly because Im the only idiot in Open. Worst was 5 times in a row starting 0.2LS from the station, obv couldnt accelerate too fast due to gravity well, ended up 15LS from the station so I was going backwards. 5 chains later I still had 2 rings of shields. Give up if you cant kill me youre obviously not winning is my mindset. I thought they got a 30s penalty for interdicting but have had instantaneous chain? And get rid of the me moving backwards, at least pull them into my instance moving forwards.

Chain interdictions usually happen near the station, so you cant avoid it if you want to get to the station, you cant fly in opposite direction and due to gravity you cant get any speed up anyway.

Another time in the Asp they used FSD reset weapons so I just FA off and watch the pretty lasers fly by - bar that initial hit they never hit again - give up and let me get on my way, you aint winning, stop letting your ego demand you must kill me when you obviously cant is my mindset

If I'm busy, and someone keeps interdicting me, I low/high wake, switch modes, go to my destination, switch back (sometimes if I want the potential challenge of a port blockage I switch back within 0.1Ls of my destination, so I arrive there in Open)

Im always busy, as in better things to do do in game, so I used to low wake all the time and only change if chained. Then Id low wake, immediately drop out of SC and take the damage and switch to Solo just to get to the station, then often plain forget Im in solo or cba with the reload screens or in the middle of my game again so I just stay in solo for that session.

Since I got torpedoed in the T9 and lost 3 rings of Prismatics and 35% hull in one strike I now often hi-wake in that ship specifically. (was a torp and frag mamba and still couldnt kill me, lame)

ObiW:

If I for some reason get caught in my large ship and am unable to escape then I'll face the rebuy like a grown-up, and say GG to them (in my mind only ofc) for their ability to stop me despite the odds in my favour. Credit where credit's due

Only happened to me once in my Python, again near the station but needed a wing to do it. I was only docking to order my DBX over to go exploring so had 20 minutes to kill. Bought a stock Sidey and took it out for some fun and to waste 20 minutes. 10 minutes later Im still chasing the gankers round the station with them keeping the station between us and boosting any time I got close or changed direction. Cowards got blocked, the only 2 people I have so far blocked in ED, screw them, dont need them in my game, utter idiots.

Other time the opposite, guy in a silent running DBX pulled me in my FDL on way to Lori's. We stared at each other for 30s or so then they hit me with Plasma. So I hit them with Rails immediately, I think they werent expecting it. Then we battled for a few mins but I kept losing them, the police jumped in and seemed to be battling something couple clicks away so I left them to it. Few mins later I see them approaching in SC again, I said in chat 'Not right now' and they replied 'OK' and veered off. To me thats where credit and kudos were due. Added to friends list. And I didnt class them as a ganker, a DBX pulling an FDL is in my book not a ganker, they gave me a chance and were 'rewarded' and got their fun out of it

Only other time Ive lost my FDL (twice) was when a friend was getting into PVP and asked for practice, first time rammed me when I had no shields and second time forgot we were supposed to stop at 10% hull but i didnt remind them, the onus was on them to remember to keep an eye on my hull if agreed to, a lesson they needed to learn for PVP I thought.

What always happens though is what I could've done differently to not get into that situation; and if the lessons learned pay off next time that's quite a satisfying feeling, as my pilot abilities have grown that little bit more again.

Nothing different to getting interdicted by NPC is what Ive learned. Except coz of engineering players have it easier to interdict than NPCs, everything else is exactly the same, same process submit, drop heatsink fly away, nothing different at all. Practice on NPCs and players wont be a problem at all.

I only use block (and report) if I come across cheaters, pad blockers, and those who leave their verbal garbage in syschat (racism, and the like). For anything else I just don't feel the need for it.

Each to their own, I blocked 2 players in example above and have 2 more blocked that were already blocked (presumably from GTA) so didnt unblock them. If they were racist etc in GTA they probably same in this game too, no second chances. I prefer to report racism etc to XB who will take action not that Ive seen it in ED. Seen plenty of idiot chat at CGs though, just embarrassing especially when new players around.

Just make it remember the option you selected last time you logged in

I often finish a session in CQC and want to get back into game when I know there wont be any CQC at this time or want to do something in game instead right now so that would mean me relogging just to change modes. Relogging in XB is a PITA and not a quick affair.
 
It is originally not intended game play, which emerges out of the options given, without that what is emerging is one of those options. In EVE for example it was at first settling in wormhole systems - those were never meant to be a permanent home for player corporations. Or recently player-owned stations (citadels, engineering complexes, mining complexes) - meant as purpose based local player owned facilities - they are that, but what emerged as well are trading chains with big outposts near all the major trading hubs and some even near minor trading hubs.

Or take transport - everyone can own freighters and haul stuff by him/herself, but enterprises emerged which do mass transports in freighters (red frog freight, pushX) - you can find them on the web, they act like real companies. I personally like market pvp - specializing in a niche market which I can control, punch dents into the charts after my liking, make it harder for the concurrence to sell their wares and more expensive for them, to buy the resources they need for their production. This is all not intended or would have had to be implemented - this is emergent game play born out of the creativity of players and player organizations. ED will never get there, because Mr. Braden isn't for such structures - missing out on all the game play options, emerging from providing those tools and structures.
I know what it is. It's the rocket jump or the sticky grenade hop. It's using player created items to overcome distances, heights, obstacles. It's using revive animation to fake teabagging when no crouch animation is available. It's players creatively using game mechanics to do something "impossible". Often it is fun, requiring skill to pull of and sometimes it's used to grief . I detest the latter.
 
personally like market pvp - specializing in a niche market which I can control, punch dents into the charts after my liking, make it harder for the concurrence to sell their wares and more expensive for them, to buy the resources they need for their production. This is all not intended or would have had to be implemented - this is emergent game play born out of the creativity of players and player organizations. ED will never get there, because Mr. Braden isn't for such structures - missing out on all the game play options, emerging from providing those tools and structures.

Im missing something here. I often see players complain that Inara prices are out of date or they got there and price had plummeted (well d'oh yeah coz you werent the only person using Inara) but whats the difference between that 'market PVP' and Eve?

Anyone who attempts to produce something "fool-proof" soon realises that there are fools out there that weren't considered....

Otherwise known as 'When will my module arrive?', 'Its in the CG text just read it!'
 
For this situations I've build a special taxi. An imperial courier. While boosting it makes 880 m/s and it can still jump 40 ly.

It doesn't help when I want to fly to most of the ingeniers, but for Prof Palin, CG-systems or Shinrarta, it works. Just accept the interdiction, boost two or three times and you are out of range bevor the griefer has taken out his or her weapons
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I recall them saying, vast majority.
Here's Sandro on the stream when he made the statement:
Source: https://youtu.be/52kOyADxK5E?t=3105


The takeaway seems to be "more players play in Open than the other modes, by a significant margin", "but there are significant portions that play in Solo, significant portions that play in Private Groups" and, perhaps quite significantly, "that shouldn't be taken as 'so we're going to do Open only Powerplay', that is absolutely furthest from our minds". Whether, or not, the Open population is significantly greater than the combined populations of Solo and Private Groups was left unstated.

One Dev has also indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - which might also indicate a significant majority.
 
Last edited:
Having shunned ED in its early days due to the bad press it got regarding gankers, I entered the game only later in the Horizon days. Therefore I don't know if there ever was a phase with open-only. If there was not, it would be an interesting social experiment to lock the game temporarily to open-only. Let's say for a month.

How many players would leave? How many would "return" to see if it made it better? Would people change their play-styles? Would it make PP and social interaction any better?

I know for myself that I would take the opportunity to see how open-only feels, tastes and smells. But only knowing that my wallet is already so fat that some rebuys of say a road-runner iCourier wouldn't even scratch it.
 
Unless most people play in Open because it is the first button on the screen.

Not to mention that most people might also be a misnomer and/or manipulative, as it usually leads people to believe it means the majority, which again for many it means more than 50%. Which is true when only 2 categories are accounted. When there are 3 or more, things can get fuzzy.

I mean, it could simply be that Open get 40%, PG get 30% and Solo gets 30% of the player base.
Which could be presented as most people play in open (taking into account each mode individually) or most people prefer to avoid Open, playing in Solo or PG.
And both statements are correct.
That's as I remember it. I don't recall the exact words (they could be still around somewhere) but there followed a long discussion about whether FD meant that more than 50% play in Open or just that more played Open than any other mode. FD steadfastly avoided clarifying and the thread went on for many pages; it was long because there was wishful thinking on both "sides". It ended up with a learned discussion about whether "majority" always means "more than 50%" in English. The forum at its finest.

Even it we knew for sure what FD intended I think we'd have to say that the information was out of date. Two notable changes since are the end of board-flipping, which tended to mix up people's mode choices, and the introduction of squadrons, many of which formed their own PGs to improve instancing.
 
I know what it is. It's the rocket jump or the sticky grenade hop. It's using player created items to overcome distances, heights, obstacles. It's using revive animation to fake teabagging when no crouch animation is available. It's players creatively using game mechanics to do something "impossible". Often it is fun, requiring skill to pull of and sometimes it's used to grief . I detest the latter.
it's nothing of that - read my post again please.
 
Back
Top Bottom