Would this make you play Open more?

[Vasco Sapien]

I would like to know the official numbers of Open Vs solo/PG players.
Somestimes these threads make it sound like Open is avoided by most players.

Does anyone have any actual official numbers?

 

[Sylveria]

I would like to know the official numbers of Open Vs solo/PG players.
Somestimes these threads make it sound like Open is avoided by most players.

Does anyone have any actual official numbers?

Frontier does.

Good luck getting them to release accurate numbers, however.

There's two things that could happen, if they did:
1) They release accurate numbers that reflect demographic information that limit their design focus/direction of the game
2) They release numbers that reflect the way they want the direction of the game to go, regardless of what demographic information reflects.

So they choose to remain silent- which is the smartest choice, and let the playerbase speculate and argue among themselves.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

Frontier does.

Exactly, yet the cut of the jib with these kind of threads usually read that hardly anyone plays open.
Yet no one has any real idea except Fdev.

 

[Ziraben]

Here's how a typical pirate interception is looking like. It happened to my T-10 Defender recently. Did I mention the pink hat while being so excited about this sort of "play"?

Very nearly the same thing happened to me recently, in Open. I'd stacked a passle of Data Delivery missions on top of/along the way to drop off some passengers. At every approach to a station I faced an interdiction attempt, actually 2-3 attempts at each of my last 3 stops...this one had made me skip past my dropout and I'd tried an emergency drop, which wound up being slow enough to not be an 'emergency' drop so had a standard, short cooldown. While I was waiting out my FSD and orienting back toward the station, I heard a ship drop to my starboard, then another. The only 'comms' contact I had was weapons fire and I was blown up in about 4s. I was very upset, needless to say. I rage quit. Stepped outside, synthesized some Vitamin D, etc.
I still don't know for certain whether it was a player or NPC, though I suspect Live vs Memorex™...Steven something Three Dee. But why? I mean, sure, I knew there was a possibility of hostile forces being sent against me, the mission descriptions said so. That's why so many interdict tries, surely. But why no comms? no demands for loot? no nothing but shoot!? That never happened to me in Solo, just sayin...14 passengers died ON MY WATCH!


So to try and stay on point, no these changes wouldn't be enough to raise my desire to play in Open. They're good ideas, don't get me wrong. What would definitely make Open more likely for me would be a flag (NOT/Willing), which CMDRs could toggle their willingness to engage in PvP play, in Open (because it doesn't really exist anywhere else, does it?). Firing on another player would automagically toggle your flag to Willing. Firing on a player who was flagged NOT would act as an invitation. IF said player responded by firing back then the engagement would ensue and not be remarkable. If said player responded by ignoring the attacker, or by simply not returning fire, AND the attacker continued the unwanted aggression, then the attacker would erupt into the most glorious pyrotechnic display Man can conjure in the reaches of Space, and hope he had enough for a rebuy + should suffer 3x distance to prison ships under C&P.

I also think the system security forces ideas discussed here are worthy. And necessary.
Seems to me, the problem with Open is, they let other people in, just like every church I've ever been to.
And sadly, most of the people you meet in Open are the type of people who give People a bad name. KWIM? (Know What I Mean?)

Can't believe I've wasted most of a morning reading this thread when I could've been mining asteroids or some other 'productive' activity. 8(

 

[Sylveria]

Exactly, yet the cut of the jib with these kind of threads usually read that hardly anyone plays open.
Yet no one has any real idea except Fdev.

I honestly wouldn't trust their "numbers" one way or another at this point.

I think they've decided which way they want things to go, the only "debate" for them is how they'll handle backlash once they implement changes to this game.

They're going to go the easy, cheap and simple route of turning this game into a gladiatorial arena so they don't have to focus on improving elements of the game itself. All they'll have to do is provide a new CG every now and then to change it up, throw a few new ships on occasion, etc. And some people are going to eat it up.

 

[wrmiller]

I honestly wouldn't trust their "numbers" one way or another at this point.

I think they've decided which way they want things to go, the only "debate" for them is how they'll handle backlash once they implement changes to this game.

They're going to go the easy, cheap and simple route of turning this game into a gladiatorial arena so they don't have to focus on improving elements of the game itself. All they'll have to do is provide a new CG every now and then to change it up, throw a few new ships on occasion, etc. And some people are going to eat it up.

I came to a similar conclusion a while back, but then thought I might be going a little too hard on FD. Now I'm not so sure.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

I honestly wouldn't trust their "numbers" one way or another at this point.

I think they've decided which way they want things to go, the only "debate" for them is how they'll handle backlash once they implement changes to this game.

They're going to go the easy, cheap and simple route of turning this game into a gladiatorial arena so they don't have to focus on improving elements of the game itself. All they'll have to do is provide a new CG every now and then to change it up, throw a few new ships on occasion, etc. And some people are going to eat it up.

Well.. for now im still on Fdevs side. Im not going to be pessimistic just yet.
Ive said before that 2019 (Past the Beyond fix and improve phase) will be make or break for me.
Either the game gets back to moving forward in leaps and bounds or it doesnt.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Only thing that would ever convince me to play in open would be a PvP flag system that I would NEVER EVER turn on...i.e. a big middle finger to PvPers "I am NOT your content". Hell in TES OL I was something like lvl 13 and a level 700 asked for a duel , needless to say I wanted to type a certain message back but refrained and ignored the colossal doofuss.

 

[Imo]

Such a flag would not be useful for me. Yes, I like a decent, fair fight. My T-10 stood well in 1v1 often. But I do not want to be caught by wings of overpowered griefers. Not sure which type of flag I should set for that.

 

[Garris]

Too much opt in, in the game. Security systems mean something absolutely OP. I like being hunted. Its content for all. Game is pretty samey otherwise

 

[Watchdog]

That would be the result of the changes I proposed (I hope), but more believable in the context of Elite If you select "High Security Only" in your navigation options you will never be routed to low sec and you will avoid PvP while still staying in Open. If you wish to avoid PvP AND go to low sec systems then you can do this in PG or Solo, but you will still encounter tough opponents in the form of engineered NPC's who can actually fight. The difference in gameplay style should be minimal between all modes in this case - High Sec is safe, Medium Sec less so, Low Sec is dangerous and Anarchy is crazy.

No, that wouldn't be the same result at at all.

PvP toggle =/= locking PvE only players out of content.

I won't touch any PvP with a ten-foot pole. You cannot make me accept being your content.

Besides, your suggestion is Bubble-centered. I am an explorer and, well, you know, there is a whole galaxy out there. I cannot stay in safe systems. Your suggestion proposes that I am forced to become your content on my way out and, even worse, on my way back, loaded with exploration data.

My Diamondback Explorer is kitted exclusively for exploration. I stand no chance in PvP, not even for long enough to escape. Any PvP dedicated ship would basically oneshot me in the Anarchy and Low Security systems that you propose to be a dedicated PvP arena and that I cannot avoid going through. The result would be a boost to your bragging "rights" and a loss of weeks or months of gameplay for me. I am not interested in this deal.

There is nothing you can suggest that would persuade me to become your content. Not even if you take content away from me. The proposed changes to Power Play simply mean I am never going to be able to try it in the future, even if only to get some modules.

Take away enough content from me and lock it behind PvP and the only thing you shall achieve is me finding another game and you won't get a chance to destroy my ship anyway.

 

[Viking84]

There is nothing you can suggest that would persuade me to become your content. Not even if you take content away from me. The proposed changes to Power Play simply mean I am never going to be able to try it in the future, even if only to get some modules.

Fair feedback I would never advocate removing Solo or PG though, hence the suggestion that the dangers of low sec / anarchy systems be ramped up also for those modes. As for exploration, the chances of meeting someone on return would be near to zero, but regardless going into Solo would be sensible for those cases

For the record, I'm a 100% PvE player myself, only shot at a commander that shot at me, and only then to help myself escape So this suggestion was aimed at PvE players who would like to spend more time in Open but aren't keen on being content for other players all the time

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Spoiler

This is an idea I have presented before, but I believe it is relevant given all the PvP / PvE discussions lately:


Theory:
The main reason for the PvP hatred is that it doesn't happen by choice. Being blown out of the sky for no reason can happen anywhere, any time, with little to no consequence for the attacker. For PvE'ers that aren't specialised in combat, or even good combat pilots that haven't spent a large amount of time engineering, there is very little to do about this other than escaping (which still wastes time and is annoying compared to not being attacked) or moving to PG or Solo.


Solution:
Ensure that the different system security states actually mean something, AND give incentives for moving into more dangerous areas of space.

1. System Security. The security response in a high security system should be near instant and overwhelming. The defending ship should only have to be able to survive say 15 seconds before the attacker is swarmed by god-like system security ships and nuked to oblivion. Scale this progressively down to where low sec is more or less like medium sec is now, and anarchy is just that, anarchy.

2. Security State. Make the system security state obvious. Make a tutorial that explains to new players that they should remain in high sec systems, plot routes through high sec systems, and only take missions to high sec systems if they wish to remain safe.

3. Rewards. Make rewards for taking missions going to low sec or anarchy systems considerably higher (twice?) what you would get for a similar mission in high sec. Same for CG's - higher risk = higher reward. Ensure that this is true also in Solo by populating low sec systems with aggressive highly engineered pirates, bounty hunters and psychos.

4. Locations. Spread the system security states out according to some logic. Make some areas of the bubble dangerous, others safer, create crime hotspots, maybe connected to large material deposits (gold rush style).



Summary:
In short, make PvP a player choice even in Open. Stray out of high sec and you risk getting shot at. For me this would mean that instead of getting killed and thinking "what an ing *** he was" I'd think "damn, I should have stayed in high sec because I suck". It would be my choice to risk leaving high sec for a higher reward or a lucrative CG.

Would this entice anyone else back into Open? Edit: Assuming of course that you are interested in player to player interactions at all - if not then there is no reason to not be in Solo

Late to the party, but frankly I don't care.

There is a reason why PvP and PvE are segregated - the goals of each mindset are completely different, and at odds with each other.

The high-sec / low sec has been done already (EVE) and frankly - it doens't wash with the PVE players. They simply do not wish to engage, EVER. in the potential of PvP ... Periiod. All the great games out there deliberately split the game modes because they know this - either the game is PvE, or it's PvP, or in the instance they're trying to cater to both (WoW / DAoC / etc) the software house offers the choice, but keeps the modes very much apart with zero chance of accident.

As admirable as your suggestion is, it has been heard before, and will not, ever, work .. and sadly for me - end of discussion.

 

[JetsonRING]

Easy way to get more SOLO players into OPEN is to make all of the rewards so attractive they cannot stay away. Triple all rewards, materials, mission payouts, bounties, everything for any player in OPEN that is ranked lower than ELITE in combat and you will have your 50,000 new OPEN players. ftfy.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Easy way to get more SOLO players into OPEN is to make all of the rewards so attractive they cannot stay away. Triple all rewards, materials, mission payouts, bounties, everything for any player in OPEN that is ranked lower than ELITE in combat and you will have your 50,000 new OPEN players. ftfy.

Again, you miss the point of a PvE player. It's not about the 'rewards'.

A PvE player has a completely different mindset to that of a PvP player, so trying to force mixing is doomed to failure.

Some people simply do not want to play with PvP players. Period.

Frontier has to decide which group they wish to cater towards, and stop trying to please everyone - Either Elite is a PvP game, or it's not. Stop dithering about. (And if it's 'both' then give an open-PvE mode and stop abusing the goodwill of Mobius [the player] to maintain a PvE group for them! )

 

[Rojo Habe]

This is an idea I have presented before, but I believe it is relevant given all the PvP / PvE discussions lately:


Theory:
The main reason for the PvP hatred is that it doesn't happen by choice. Being blown out of the sky for no reason can happen anywhere, any time, with little to no consequence for the attacker. For PvE'ers that aren't specialised in combat, or even good combat pilots that haven't spent a large amount of time engineering, there is very little to do about this other than escaping (which still wastes time and is annoying compared to not being attacked) or moving to PG or Solo.


Solution:
Ensure that the different system security states actually mean something, AND give incentives for moving into more dangerous areas of space.

1. System Security. The security response in a high security system should be near instant and overwhelming. The defending ship should only have to be able to survive say 15 seconds before the attacker is swarmed by god-like system security ships and nuked to oblivion. Scale this progressively down to where low sec is more or less like medium sec is now, and anarchy is just that, anarchy.

2. Security State. Make the system security state obvious. Make a tutorial that explains to new players that they should remain in high sec systems, plot routes through high sec systems, and only take missions to high sec systems if they wish to remain safe.

3. Rewards. Make rewards for taking missions going to low sec or anarchy systems considerably higher (twice?) what you would get for a similar mission in high sec. Same for CG's - higher risk = higher reward. Ensure that this is true also in Solo by populating low sec systems with aggressive highly engineered pirates, bounty hunters and psychos.

4. Locations. Spread the system security states out according to some logic. Make some areas of the bubble dangerous, others safer, create crime hotspots, maybe connected to large material deposits (gold rush style).



Summary:
In short, make PvP a player choice even in Open. Stray out of high sec and you risk getting shot at. For me this would mean that instead of getting killed and thinking "what an ing *** he was" I'd think "damn, I should have stayed in high sec because I suck". It would be my choice to risk leaving high sec for a higher reward or a lucrative CG.

Would this entice anyone else back into Open? Edit: Assuming of course that you are interested in player to player interactions at all - if not then there is no reason to not be in Solo

OK I admit, I TLDR'd the entire thread but I wanted to respond to the OP.

Open/Solo considerations aside, I fervently hoped that this was what was coming with the Crime & Punishment overhaul. Insead we got hot ships, murder bounties for accidentally clipping someone and allowing someone else to finish them off, and all manner of weirdness. All the tools for a proper crime and punishment system were already in place if they'd only exercised some common sense and used exactly what you're suggesting (which isn't new, by the way - it just tends to get ignored) as a foundation to build on.

 

[Watchdog]

Easy way to get more SOLO players into OPEN is to make all of the rewards so attractive they cannot stay away. Triple all rewards, materials, mission payouts, bounties, everything for any player in OPEN that is ranked lower than ELITE in combat and you will have your 50,000 new OPEN players. ftfy.

Nope. As Liqua posted above me, you still miss the point.

The point is, many people simply refuse to participate in any sort of PvP whatsoever. We are not interested in any PvP. There is nothing you can offer to us to persuade us to become your targets.

It won't work, unless you also remove any sort of PvP from Open, then I would be happy to fly in such a mode.

 

[Roybe]

Again, you miss the point of a PvE player. It's not about the 'rewards'.

A PvE player has a completely different mindset to that of a PvP player, so trying to force mixing is doomed to failure.

Some people simply do not want to play with PvP players. Period.

Frontier has to decide which group they wish to cater towards, and stop trying to please everyone - Either Elite is a PvP game, or it's not. Stop dithering about. (And if it's 'both' then give an open-PvE mode and stop abusing the goodwill of Mobius [the player] to maintain a PvE group for them! )

All of this, right here. Every bit of it. One way or the other.

 

[Captain Willard]

Open players probably never will get it. Open adds zero content to the game that solo and pg players are looking for.

 

[Angelpichu]

You don't even need to have a separate mode for Open to work, really. Just implement a PvP flag system that disables other players from damaging you with weapons fire and ramming, with collision disabled near things like stations (passing through other CMDR ships in a ghost like fashion).

Before you decapitate me for this post, hear me out: The PvP flag would affect matchmaking and which instances you join. Turn on PvP flag, and the next time you change instance (jump, supercruise, etc), you will be matched with PvP enabled players. Turn it off (with a delay after the last time you were damaged by another CMDR to avoid unsportsmanlike fleeing to PvE when losing) and the next time you reinstance, you'll match with PvE players. Have PvE mode act the same as now, normal baseline rewards, but have PvP increase rewards, rep, and influence due to risk, or reduce rebuy cost. Also, let us rebuy downed crew members with our ship so we don't have to worry so much about losing our Elite trained crew members.