Why I and many others will rarely play open

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.
This. Forcing open will lead to restrictive firewalls. Unless ED changes the netcode to a server-centric model (not going to happen), forcing open is not an option.

What about xbox and playstation players though? They'd suddenly need to pay a subscription to play which would be another no-go.
 
.... 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, that would be another interesting outcome of the experiment: how many use it to create a safe-space again, and who are those that get blocked the most.

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.

Ah, I've misunderstood your proposal, sorry. Wouldn't make much sense in my eyes, then. The experiment premise is to have equal grounds.
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Yes, that would be another interesting outcome of the experiment: how many use it to create a safe-space again, and who are those that get block the most.
I expect that Frontier already know who get blocked the most - and, given the complaints about "people blocking affects my instancing", I doubt that many would be pleased with the outcome.

Then there's weaponised pad blocking to consider - activity at a system's stations could be denied by doing nothing other than sitting on the landing pads - and there would likely be plenty of disgruntled players, annoyed about the fact that the trial was even taking place, willing to sit on pads doing nothing at all.

Then there's the fact that console players without premium platform access would not be able to play - as they cannot play in either of the multi-player game modes.

I'd be very surprised if Frontier even entertained the possibility of such a trial though - as they consciously designed their game quite differently.
Ah, I've misunderstood your proposal, sorry. Wouldn't make much sense in my eyes, then. The experiment premise is to have equal grounds.
We already have "equal grounds" when affecting game features through PvE actions - it's PvP that's the entirely optional aspect that some players choose to engage in, and some players eschew completely. The game accommodates both types of player. What players can't do is force other players to play with them when affecting the game - and the discussion on that has been going for as long as the game design has been published.
 
What about xbox and playstation players though? They'd suddenly need to pay a subscription to play which would be another no-go.

Yeah, that's unfortunate, but not different to the beta/alpha situation, isn't it? I would not see it as some radical permanent change over-night, just as an experiment, possibly PC-only.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Yeah, that's unfortunate, but not different to the beta/alpha situation, isn't it? I would not see it as some radical permanent change over-night, just as an experiment, possibly PC-only.
Quite different - beta and alpha don't stop the live game running.
 
We already have "equal grounds" when affecting game features through PvE actions - it's PvP that's the entirely optional aspect that some players choose to engage in, and some players eschew completely. The game accommodates both types of player. What players can't do is force other players to play with them when affecting the game - and the discussion on that has been going for as long as the game design has been published.

PvP players apparently have a different opinion, which is that IF others are forced to play with them when affecting the game, the outcome would be a better game for (almost) everybody. The discussion is going on for so long, because all we can do is speculating, because it was never experienced. That's why I said it would be an interesting experiment. Without trying it, both sides can only speculate. This is not wrong per se, but rather fruitless, because there will never be knowledge without trying it, or at least without falsifying certain hypotheses.
 
Quite different - beta and alpha don't stop the live game running.

Which is why I first thought your proposal is a good alternative: do like beta and alpha, only not for the next update, but for the experiment. Copy over CMDR data, run life instance as usual, but have an "alternate universe" server to test the premise of open-only.
 
Which is why I first thought your proposal is a good alternative: do like beta and alpha, only not for the next update, but for the experiment. Copy over CMDR data, run life instance as usual, but have an "alternate universe" server to test the premise of open-only.
It would still lead to skewed results as those that want to play in peace without negative effects by the doings of other players unto them won't take part in this experiment.

Open only won't work, regardless of how you'd spin or try to introduce it. You'd alienate too many players. Forced PvP in an open world/sandbox will always be a niche, especially if there is the threat of losing progress.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
PvP players apparently have a different opinion, which is that IF others are forced to play with them when affecting the game, the outcome would be a better game for (almost) everybody.
Their differing opinion is well known and has been since the first backers realised that players would not need to play with them to affect the game, however, unfortunately for them, Frontier sold a game with entirely optional PvP to all players and players who enjoy that optional activity can't force other players to play with them.
The discussion is going on for so long, because all we can do is speculating, because it was never experienced.
Frontier know what happened in Alpha, noting that the Mobius PvE Private Group formed before game launch and Frontier had to increase the limit on PC PG membership a couple of times when the PG hit the limit (the PG limit is now 20,000 players on PC, 1,000 players on consoles).
That's why I said it would be an interesting experiment. Without trying it, both sides can only speculate. This is not wrong per se, but rather fruitless, because there will never be knowledge without trying it, or at least without falsifying certain hypotheses.
It might be an interesting experiment for those who seek to PvP-gate existing content to Open or hope that somehow Solo and Private Groups would be removed - not so much for those who don't enjoy PvP. I suspect that the hoped for experiment will remain as elusive as PvP-gated content though.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Which is why I first thought your proposal is a good alternative: do like beta and alpha, only not for the next update, but for the experiment. Copy over CMDR data, run life instance as usual, but have an "alternate universe" server to test the premise of open-only.
Who would play "for real" in a second non-canon galaxy state, where all progress would be wiped at the end of the trial (as it would have diverged from the canon galaxy state during the trial period)?
 
It would still lead to skewed results as those that want to play in peace without negative effects by the doings of other players unto them won't take part in this experiment.

Open only won't work, regardless of how you'd spin or try to introduce it. You'd alienate too many players. Forced PvP in an open world/sandbox will always be a niche, especially if there is the threat of losing progress.

But those who do not participate would also not affect the state for those that do, right? Isn't that one of the hypotheses, that BGS and PP is skewed by all modes affecting it?
The numbers of those that shun the experiment would also show something: that there is not that big a PvP or open-only community as sometimes proclaimed.
 
Who would play "for real" in a second non-canon galaxy state, where all progress would be wiped at the end of the trial (as it would have diverged from the canon galaxy state during the trial period)?
Good point. I can see that the prospect of progress got wiped eventually would change "players" to "testers", just as with beta/alphas. However, those who would want to see such a system to prove their point would certainly take part, I'd say. If anything, this would even shy away the usual murder hobos that are just out for salt-mining. And who knows, perhaps some of those furiously opposing the idea would take a look just to see what kind of wreck it is? Perhaps only to see that it isn't?
My point is: nobody can say for sure if it works out or not without trying it, if only in the form of an experiment. Some may say they can, but I don't believe them.
 
I have to admit we seem to have different experiences - maybe a platform thing I don't know

Could well be, I for sure see more FCs than players and wonder if on PC the system is full of players. Or could be your reputation if youre the same ObiW thats Elite in CQC :)

It's a nice distraction though every now and then

I play Open for the chance of pirates, RPers and the forlorn hope that someone will want an SLF battle or an SRV race, derby or battle or something that I see on YT all the time that looks amazing and just never seems to happen on XB, even PVPers in silent running DBXs that just made me laugh and never expected that to happen. I just have to put up with the Alpha strike gankers who interrupt my game for no benefit to me, or them as they cant seem to finish the job anwyay. Dunno about PS but they seem a chilled out helpful crowd.

But I can talk to gankers on here, always ask them for builds and 99% of the time they happy to post Coriolis of offensive and defensive ships, just wish in game theyd offer more of an experience and Id play along, its why Im in Open, for the experience not to be content for a mere 'lol' in chat which seems to be the aim if not the result. Then I might just build a PVP ship. I always intended to just got no need and too much to do right now and Im never near the PVP events at the right time even the weekly starter ones I intend to go to I just never make it.

I get chased out of Open far more by FCs blue tunnelling me to death especially at CGs, any attempt at entering SC is almost always pointless, the initial jump-in is fine but dropping and re-entering is goodbye game, hello Home Screen and reload from scratch.

But I will never look down on anyone and will always defend anyone who chooses PG or Solo for whatever reason, I want them in my favourite game ED, paying for their game and encouraging Frontier to keep going. I like the ganker evasions school and used to promote that where possible as encourages people into Open, more encouragement and less scorning and victim blaming is what Open needs. And sometimes more block for the griefers as Frontier seem too slow to act or realise how toxic they are to the much wider community.
 
Quite different - beta and alpha don't stop the live game running.

Quite different, and you should see how the general Console player feels about that exclusivity to affect the main game with First Foot etc right now.

Open only would only work with some sort of PVP optional flag, so youd see them but not be able to interdict or shoot them at all and would still have Cross play and pay to play problems for Consoles anyway. Better that each person has the choice to do what they want as it is now as long as the game keeps running. imo

Although a separate griefer or blocked server would be interesting, due to the amounts of the same people being blocked repeatedly by many players in a forced Open, what would Open be like then I wonder?...like all the PGs added together maybe?
 
Open only would only work with some sort of PVP optional flag, so youd see them but not be able to interdict or shoot them at all and would still have Cross play and pay to play problems for Consoles anyway. Better that each person has the choice to do what they want as it is now as long as the game keeps running. imo
That would honestly be a terrible solution - better that a separate "PvE Open" be created where, as now, the players interested in PvP can "interact" with any other player they see - having a visible target that is "untouchable" would be opening a can of worms of a magnitude never seen before on the forum!

The most interesting observation I have made is that when suggesting that PvE players get their own brand of Open, is that there are many 'alleged PvP' players decrying the idea as it would 'split the player base even further' - which is odd as the majority of those playing solely PvE are unlikely to be bothering with open anyway 🤷‍♂️
 
Top Bottom