Why I and many others will rarely play open

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.
 
Uh huh


Which does not really contradict my make-up example.
Open=40%, PG=30%, Solo=30%

Open versus other modes are majority (open vs solo=true and open vs pg = true), by a significant margin (an increase of 33% is a significant margin, 30% > 40%)

FD never published real numbers and they seem to be carefully making statements that can be both true and ambiguous at the same time.
 
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.
ok "majority by a significant margin" - I read that as "vast majority" - it is somewhat the same IMO.
 
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.
Interesting comment.
From my perspective? If the game did not permit me to choose how I wished to play - with or without random strangers, or just with friends, I would just stop playing - easy.

Much of my play is deliberately spent without other players 'keeping me company', why would I wish to change that?
 
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.

Yeap, both changes you mention could significantly alter the early 2018 numbers.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
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.
There hasn't been an Open only phase since well before launch, as I remember it early Alpha only had what is now Open.

How would alienating two "significant portions", in the words of one Dev, of the player-base be beneficial to the player-base as a whole?

A fairer proposal, i.e. fairer to those who have zero interest in engaging in PvP, might be to run a trial with a new "locked-in" version of Open added to the game mode options available in the launcher - and see how many players would give up mode switching to play in it.
 
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.
ED is a P2P, so any 'forced' Open-only experiment will mostly just result in people who don't like that to run an app in the background that blocks incoming/outgoing traffic. There has never been such a phase, and there never will be.

It also doesn't matter much. FD has always been 100% clear the modes are here to stay, so people should just pick whatever they want when they start a session and acknowledge the consequences of that choice. All this minority/majority talk is irrelevant: one could be the only cmdr who ever wants to be in Solo and it'd still be fine.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
ok "majority by a significant margin" - I read that as "vast majority" - it is somewhat the same IMO.
Sandro's wording was delightfully ambiguous in that regard - as, with three options, he may have used "majority" when "plurality" would be the correct word to use, i.e. a majority means greater than 50% whereas a plurality could be as few as one more player than each of the two other modes.

The use of "significant" in relation to Solo and Private Group populations might mean that the gap between Open and the more populous other mode was the same as the population of those two modes - which could mean that Open has about the same number of players in it as the other two game modes combined, e.g. 50% vs 25% + 25%. If Open did have a significant majority over Solo and Private Groups combined then the the relative populations could be 60% vs. 20% + 20%. Without the data, we don't know for sure.
 
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.
it wouldn't be as bad as some think - with lots of players there is safety in numbers. In EVE for example at a certain time large convoys of freighters move to the major trade hub - those convoys are not really organized groups, it just happened to become a thing, because going there in numbers at a time where gankers tend to sleep or work minimizes the risk to get ganked personally - it will hit someone, one or two freighters might go down, but the vast majority in the convoy will get through. The more players there are, the less likely it will be, that it will hit you.
 
How would alienating two "significant portions", in the words of one Dev, of the player-base be beneficial to the player-base as a whole?

I think it would be an interesting social experiment. No doubt FDev wouldn't want to do that due to business strategy, but it would show how a suddenly restrictive access to the universe works out. It would put everyone on equal grounds. At the moment PP is a bit useless, because BGS and such is affected by every mode. You can easily circumvent blockades and such, for example.
IF (a big if) it turns out to make many aspects of the game better due to this equal grounds, it would be beneficial to the player-base as a whole, because speculations about what could be are basically gone.

A fairer proposal, i.e. fairer to those who have zero interest in engaging in PvP, might be to run a trial with a new "locked-in" version of Open added to the game mode options available in the launcher - and see how many players would give up mode switching to play in it.

Yes, this could be an alternative: creating two universes, similar to betas or the recent alpha: one server only is affected by open-only play, one as usual. However, this would mean for FDev to shell out double resources, which come at a cost.
 
it's nothing of that - read my post again please.
Your ideas work in a pvp game - it's more or less useless for the pve player I'd say. It also requires an economy that isn't just facade. Stuff that gets used up actually - stuff that needs to be mined and processed. None of that exists in ED and I don't see it ever will. Maybe in a ED2 where it is a design item right from the start.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
it wouldn't be as bad as some think - with lots of players there is safety in numbers. In EVE for example at a certain time large convoys of freighters move to the major trade hub - those convoys are not really organized groups, it just happened to become a thing, because going there in numbers at a time where gankers tend to sleep or work minimizes the risk to get ganked personally - it will hit someone, one or two freighters might go down, but the vast majority in the convoy will get through. The more players there are, the less likely it will be, that it will hit you.
Playing as a herd member isn't what everyone wants to do though. Providing content for attackers / defenders may be fun for them - less so, I expect, for the ones being fought over - their best outcome is "not dead".
 
Your ideas work in a pvp game - it's more or less useless for the pve player I'd say. It also requires an economy that isn't just facade. Stuff that gets used up actually - stuff that needs to be mined and processed. None of that exists in ED and I don't see it ever will. Maybe in a ED2 where it is a design item right from the start.
Yeah, it never will in ED - I gave examples from EVE's emergent game play - those are not just ideas, but factual game play. I haven't done any pvp game play in EVE in years, as in shooting others. But I am doing market pvp as described and that is a lot of fun - influencing the concurrence in ways, that they do what I expect them to do and control their finances indirectly by my operations - that is certainly not intended game play, but emergent game play - PvE, well I'm not a mission runner, if you think of that, because those are repetitive and not what EVE is all about. Scanning in goon territory can be fun though, because a bunch of people will freak out when a stealthy ship is in their area :)
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I think it would be an interesting social experiment. No doubt FDev wouldn't want to do that due to business strategy, but it would show how a suddenly restrictive access to the universe works out. It would put everyone on equal grounds. At the moment PP is a bit useless, because BGS and such is affected by every mode. You can easily circumvent blockades and such, for example.
IF (a big if) it turns out to make many aspects of the game better due to this equal grounds, it would be beneficial to the player-base as a whole, because speculations about what could be are basically gone.
Better for whom? All players bought a game where other players, and therefore PvP, are an optional extra - only some players want to corral all players into a single PvP-enabled game mode.

The game was not designed around players who prefer PvP, blockading, etc. - PvP is, of course, possible in the game as players can shoot at anything they instance with, however there's no requirement to play among other players to affect game features (except CQC, of course).

.... then there's the block feature to consider - as I doubt that Frontier would remove it from their multi-player game (as they implemented it themselves before the game even launched and have only ever strengthened it and made it easier to use).
Yes, this could be an alternative: creating two universes, similar to betas or the recent alpha: one server only is affected by open-only play, one as usual. However, this would mean for FDev to shell out double resources, which come at a cost.
I wasn't suggesting two galaxy states - that boat sailed long ago when Frontier made it clear that there would be only one that all modes and platforms share.
 
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



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:



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.



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.



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.



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.
I have to admit we seem to have different experiences - maybe a platform thing I don't know - as I said if things get out of hand and/or I'm not in the mood for PvP shenanigans I simply drop into normal space and switch modes.

Outside of CG systems and Deciat, Open to me feels largely the same as Solo anyways (has been like this even more so since FCs arrived), I'm actually glad when I run into some hostile action every now and then; given we can only type (which works across modes so no need to share an instance 'physically', and most people don't really have anything interesting to say to be honest), scan, scoop and shoot when it comes to interaction with others (and the game itself really) any non-hostile interaction is fairly limited in my experience and usually quite dull.

I would say despite playing 99% in Open, the percentage of time spent messing around with gankers let alone other players is probably less than 10-20% of my time as I focus on PvE activities first and foremost. It's a nice distraction though every now and then.
 
Top Bottom