Why I and many others will rarely play open

That would honestly be a terrible solution - ...- having a visible target that is "untouchable" would be opening a can of worms of a magnitude never seen before on the forum!

I know :)

But its the only logical solution to Open Only in a PVP optional game...that or block would go through the roof, so just putting it out there as the consequence for calling for Open Only. Probably best just left as it is hey and let other players do what they want in their own game?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
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 🤷‍♂️
I've noticed the same - it's as if the fact that Open has an unlimited population is considered to be somewhat of a lure to bring those seeking to play among other players into the only such mode in the game even if they don't want to engage in PvP, which would no longer hold true if another Open mode were created.

Regarding splitting the player-base - the player-base arrived in the game pre-split, as the game has always offered three game modes that share the single galaxy state.
 
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 :)



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.
That's all fair enough - apart from the CQC bit no idea who that is - my in-game CMDR name is in my sig and a little different to my handle here :) I only made it to 10% Mostly Helpless because CQC isn't really my cup of tea, it being so separate from the main game, and the arcadey bits like power ups etc. don't really fit well into Elite imo.

All in all, I'm fairly in the live-and-let-live camp, with the following stances

  • pick the mode you prefer to play in
  • having different modes to choose from is a good thing
  • it's a game, I can't take any drama about what happens in it all that seriously, probably helped by the fact that I don't have a real desire to always 'win' or be the 'best'.
  • certain aspects like PP would benefit from being restricted to Open only, but I don't have much skin in that part of the game so I don't feel too strongly about it either way
  • those who argue for Open Only need to give it a rest - it's a stupid, unworkable idea, it's not going to ever happen, going on about it will not change that
  • as a mostly PvE player, PvP (including co-op) is at best a very optional extra, doesn't affect my main game at all and I almost feel a bit sorry (genuinely) for those players who have chosen to engage in it exclusively - because I don't think Elite and its network infrastructure, let alone in-game structures allow for a meaningful, fair and competitive MP environment; it requires self regulation as the game won't do it for them, and I can only see frustration and disappointment down that road so I won't ever head in that direction too seriously myself. Fair play to those who make it work as it requires a fair few compromises and jumping-through-hoops.
  • I don't mind gankers, au contraire they offer a good challenge to test both my own skills and my ship builds, and are a nice change from overly simple and too easy NPCs
 
Last edited:
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.

Trying to come to a conclusion regarding player preferences based on numbers of people that ignore an experiment is rather silly. Other than maybe determining an overall number of players that don't know, care, or have any desire to participate in the experiment.

Edit: But your experiment approach is typical for "researchers" to get the desired statistical results they are looking for. "9/10 players that participated in the study agree with our idea".
 
Last edited:
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 🤷‍♂️

I would welcome such a "one PG" approach. Preferably with in-game features that prohibit PK, e.g. not being able to do damage to other player objects. It would get rid of the need to enforce PG conventions on that matter.
 
I would welcome such a "one PG" approach. Preferably with in-game features that prohibit PK, e.g. not being able to do damage to other player objects. It would get rid of the need to enforce PG conventions on that matter.
The crazy thing is that I, personally, enjoy the choice we have - but can see the 'need' for an alternative (without the current size restricted PGs) for those who really do wish for a full PvE game - but have no idea of the 'how' it could be implemented effectively.
 
I can’t keep up with this thread while I’m at work, which is a shame because these are always fun and take on a life of their own!

If nothing else constructive comes out of this though, as a classic Solo-carebear-wannabe-forum-not-dad I’ve been inspired to Open-proof some of my fleet and try to be a bit more, ahem, open in my game sessions. I’m about to rank up in Imperial space and unlock a swanky speedyboi Courier which I’ll use to transfer some of my nimble Adder modules over (thanks @Bigmaec for the build advice!), and my Cargoconda is getting refitted with three large torpedo pylons which I’m hoping to get a bit of practice with to give any less-than-competent gankers a nasty surprise... if nothing else it’ll be a fun ride to a few rebuy screens and give me something to do with the pile of space-bucks I’m sitting on 😂
 
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 🤷‍♂️
Yes, I think having Open-PvE would unsplit the player base. Those who enjoy Open would still be there. Those who are split up into the various Mobius groups would all be together.
 
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?

I agree the flag idea can work but I'm not fond of it. Only because it breaks my personal "immersion" concept. (why does an evil pirate obey my flag?)

My preference is a restructured Open with regions of space with high, medium, and low security. Rapid and significant crime consequences in high security areas. Scary dangerous missions into areas of low security. What about exploration in deep space? Deep space FCs could have a security rating, effecting local proximity, big consequences for crime, making some FCs safe havens for exploration ships. Probably tons of problems with my concept which is why FD didn't do it.
 
I agree the flag idea can work but I'm not fond of it. Only because it breaks my personal "immersion" concept. (why does an evil pirate obey my flag?)

My preference is a restructured Open with regions of space with high, medium, and low security. Rapid and significant crime consequences in high security areas. Scary dangerous missions into areas of low security. What about exploration in deep space? Deep space FCs could have a security rating, effecting local proximity, big consequences for crime, making some FCs safe havens for exploration ships. Probably tons of problems with my concept which is why FD didn't do it.
I've been campaigning for this for a long time, it's mostly a question of rebalancing using existing game elements - just using ATR with zero response time in high sec system would make a big difference.
 
These threads never have anything constructive to contribute because fdev is never going to do anything to change what they did.

This game has players playing together that have no business playing together. It should have been at least 2 separate games at launch, but Fdev in their infinite wisdom decided to put all of us in the same game.

1. a game that's canonical that is effectively open-only (though, i doubt it would be too much to wish for real networking and not stupid p2p)
2. a separate semi-canonical version of the game allowing mods and player run servers controlled by the community. (however, no additional player assets can be added so as not to compete with the shop)

That would give everyone what they want. It would also keep fdev more honest in providing a good game as they would be competing with themselves via the community efforts for players.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
That would give everyone what they want.
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.
 
Last edited:
I've been campaigning for this for a long time, it's mostly a question of rebalancing using existing game elements - just using ATR with zero response time in high sec system would make a big difference.
It would also give certain systems/regions in the bubble a bit more individual 'flair'. As it is the only difference is whether SysSec shows up at all vs various intervals of several minutes. Doesn't really make an anarchy system feel all that dangerous at all.
 
It would also give certain systems/regions in the bubble a bit more individual 'flair'. As it is the only difference is whether SysSec shows up at all vs various intervals of several minutes. Doesn't really make an anarchy system feel all that dangerous at all.
This and another of my accounts headed straight for one particular Anarchy system on leaving the beginner systems - It was a safer place to be than a couple of the nearby 'more attractive' options - odd really ;)
 
It would also give certain systems/regions in the bubble a bit more individual 'flair'. As it is the only difference is whether SysSec shows up at all vs various intervals of several minutes. Doesn't really make an anarchy system feel all that dangerous at all.
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!
 
This game has players playing together that have no business playing together.
Strong statement that I can't disagree with more. Everybody is welcome to play the game how they wish in whatever mode they wish. Players have choices that they can make. They are allowed to make them. And they are allowed to make bad choices.

That would give everyone what they want.
No, The active playerbase isn't large enough to populate multiple versions of the game. Player-run servers would divide-up the player base even more.
Also it appears you are assuming players either play exclusively in Open, PG, or Solo. Which is not the case at all. Your idea forces a cmdr into a fixed play mode.
I certainly don't want this.
 
I can’t keep up with this thread while I’m at work, which is a shame because these are always fun and take on a life of their own!

If nothing else constructive comes out of this though, as a classic Solo-carebear-wannabe-forum-not-dad I’ve been inspired to Open-proof some of my fleet and try to be a bit more, ahem, open in my game sessions. I’m about to rank up in Imperial space and unlock a swanky speedyboi Courier which I’ll use to transfer some of my nimble Adder modules over (thanks @Bigmaec for the build advice!), and my Cargoconda is getting refitted with three large torpedo pylons which I’m hoping to get a bit of practice with to give any less-than-competent gankers a nasty surprise... if nothing else it’ll be a fun ride to a few rebuy screens and give me something to do with the pile of space-bucks I’m sitting on 😂
isn't that great! you can on your own, decide to do this, no one is forcing you to do it.

Best of luck with your new endeavour! and when you are in control and prepared, the experience can be quite different. I remember the first time I encountred another player in Open, that invited my Anaconda for a pew-pew encounter... I submitted, turned around, shot a few shots at the FDL, tried to ram him, and then i charged my FSD to highwake. I was on a mission to scan a start 250 000 LS away.. so he chased me for a while to catch up with me.... this was before I learned how bad tracking someone jumping form system to system is not a thing, so I actually feared he could come chasing after me for quite some time. I had played for a year to meet anyone else except my friends in the game at this point! I really loved that Anaconda back then...
 
Top Bottom