Open-Only in PP2.0?

[SergMx]

That's "competitive" PvP which is been practiced because there's lack of 24/7 "contestualised" (or "organic") PvP... there are much more players interested in "contestualised" PvP than "competitive", some of them are interested in both because of the learning curve acceleration which "competitive" PvP provides.

I don't really understand you, Elite is a game of Pilot Federation commanders. We're mercenaries. It's made so we can switch factions, sides almost every day.
One day an Imperial, tomorrow a Fed.
Today explorer, tomorrow merchant, AX fighter, bounty hunter. I want to play single player, I want to play open game. Complete freedom of choice.

 

[ꝁestrel]

In which Open? Odyssey or Horizons?

Odyssey. The spirit of open-only Power Play is that if you want to defend your system against CMDRs then you can blow them up. Allowing them to switch to Horizons subverts that so Horizons players would be denied access from Power Play 2.0.

It's been obvious for years that, for some players, Open only Powerplay would only represent the first step in making the whole game Open only - which would result in the PvE gameplay in Solo and Private Groups losing all meaning in terms of the (currently) mode shared galaxy.

There are people who would prefer an open-only Elite Dangerous. I don't think it's implicit that open-only Power Play leads to that though.

From what I've seen (and I could be wrong) the majority open-only advocates just want something to fight over. Elite has never really supported a PvP driven territory control system. Back when Power Play 1.0 was released I joined a large player group that was going to pledge for Sirius. We were all really excited to clash with other CMDRs and have a big tug-of-war over territory.

We all ended up quitting when we realized most actions were happening in Solo/Group. There was no reason whatsoever for our group to exist because there was no reason to group up.

noting that all players have been awaiting the major feature rework for quite some time not just those who enjoy PvP.

I think it's possible to make an open-only Power Play that both PvPrs and PvErs can enjoy. The problem is it would require FDev to solve Elite's solo mode problem. And sadly I don't think that problem is ever going to be solved. Hence why I think open-only Power Play is a bad idea despite how awesome Elite would be if it was done right.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Lucky you that you have the resources to always be in control of everything.
Powerplay factions have hundreds of potential systems to defend. So it's hard to consolidate everything to that degree.

It’s more like, “Lucky me, I’m far more interested in attacking the Feds than I am defending territory.”

People I don't know are potential allies or bystanders, and in big conflicts many groups you don't know so well can be working with you. Their alt accounts may not be in their squadron, etc. Best not to make enemies you don't need or lose friends you could have had.

I agree. In my opinion, the key to BGS success isn’t spending all your time grinding influence. It’s shaping the system and faction states so that bystanders will do the “grinding” for you. In my experience, most “PvP based BGSers” don’t seem to realize that. You’re one of the few that do.

I tend to judge PvP blockades on how effective they are against me and my fellow operatives. From which I judge that they often are.

Out of idle curiosity, how do you define effective? How frequently is often?

But that relies on me being in open and not fiddling instancing. And instancing is said to be worse since Odyssey.

In my experience, instancing has always been bad. Outside of my local prime time, I might as well be playing solo. Even during my local prime time, encountering someone is rare, and someone hostile even rarer. I’ve run multiple tests, at CGs, in PowerPlay control systems, and at Deciat and Shinrarta Dezra, and gotten consistent results: most players (about 70%) play in Open, it’s just that the the matchmaking system by default favors quality of connection over quantity of players.

This is a consequence of peer-to-peer networking, as opposed to client/server.

 

[angusmadmac1]

Deleted

 

[Robert Maynard]

Odyssey. The spirit of open-only Power Play is that if you want to defend your system against CMDRs then you can blow them up. Allowing them to switch to Horizons subverts that so Horizons players would be denied access from Power Play 2.0.

Which would make no sense, in terms of player access, as Powerplay is a base game feature - part of the game that everyone backed or bought - not part of the Odyssey DLC.

From what I've seen (and I could be wrong) the majority open-only advocates just want something to fight over. Elite has never really supported a PvP driven territory control system. Back when Power Play 1.0 was released I joined a large player group that was going to pledge for Sirius. We were all really excited to clash with other CMDRs and have a big tug-of-war over territory.

Which could be achieved in ways other than changing how players in each game mode affect game features.

We all ended up quitting when we realized most actions were happening in Solo/Group. There was no reason whatsoever for our group to exist because there was no reason to group up.

That's the risk taken when ones play-style depends on others to show up.

I think it's possible to make an open-only Power Play that both PvPrs and PvErs can enjoy. The problem is it would require FDev to solve Elite's solo mode problem. And sadly I don't think that problem is ever going to be solved. Hence why I think open-only Power Play is a bad idea despite how awesome Elite would be if it was done right.

Whether Solo (and the often omitted Private Groups) represent a problem to be solved or a valued game feature rather depends on the viewpoint of the player making the observation - we rather obviously don't all want the same things.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I agree. In my opinion, the key to BGS success isn’t spending all your time grinding influence. It’s shaping the system and faction states so that bystanders will do the “grinding” for you. In my experience, most “PvP based BGSers” don’t seem to realize that. You’re one of the few that do.

It's something you can do if there's the footfall for it (high pop, close to popular systems, etc.). Generally the only people going through the systems I work are there for the same reasons, just different sides.

Out of idle curiosity, how do you define effective? How frequently is often?

Effective means people give up and either log off or do something else somewhere else. Working a secondary target because your primary is out of bounds for an hour is a loss. Often enough to be a thing. Really don't have numbers I'm afraid . And it depends what's going on in a given phase of time.

In my experience, instancing has always been bad. Outside of my local prime time, I might as well be playing solo. Even during my local prime time, encountering someone is rare, and someone hostile even rarer. I’ve run multiple tests, at CGs, in PowerPlay control systems, and at Deciat and Shinrarta Dezra, and gotten consistent results: most players (about 70%) play in Open, it’s just that the the matchmaking system by default favors quality of connection over quantity of players.

This is a consequence of peer-to-peer networking, as opposed to client/server.

Can believe that, but it's so hard to know. Nevertheless if you face an enemy for a long time and get to know their timezones - let's say you face two enemy groups, but only ever see one of them, despite other parameters incl timezone active being the same, you can start to form a hunch about their respective mode choice tendencies, for instance.

 

[ꝁestrel]

Which would make no sense, in terms of player access, as Powerplay is a base game feature - part of the game that everyone backed or bought - not part of the Odyssey DLC.

They can make it make sense. Such as providing a different Power Play simulation for Horizons. Aren't the market systems different for Horizons as well? Same idea.

Which could be achieved in ways other than changing how players in each game mode affect game features.

Yep totally agreed.

That's the risk taken when ones play-style depends on others to show up.

Showing up isn't the problem. They did show up. They were just invisible.

Whether Solo (and the often omitted Private Groups) represent a problem to be solved or a valued game feature rather depends on the viewpoint of the player making the observation - we rather obviously don't all want the same things.

I don't think this is a subjective point. It's just mired in a bunch of petty arguments people have had over the years.

Solo mode still requires an internet connection to play. Which means the only reason to go into solo mode or private group is to avoid being inconvenienced by other players. In the most extreme cases that means avoiding trolls/griefers that block station ports (among many other things) and in less extreme cases just avoid being attacked by players.

All I'm saying is that Solo/Group modes wouldn't even need to exist if someone could play in Open and still be able to travel around unbothered. If that were true then open-only Power Play wouldn't even be an issue worth discussing (obviously). But... for that to be true FDev would need to solve a lot of complicated problems. Hence the "solo mode problem" and hence why I think simply making open-only Power Play doesn't solve anything.

Elite would be such a better game if all CMDRs were roaming around in open without having to worry about gankers/trolls.

 

[Robert Maynard]

They can make it make sense. Such as providing a different Power Play simulation for Horizons. Aren't the market systems different for Horizons as well? Same idea.

Nope - Horizons (Live) shares exactly the same galaxy sim as Odyssey. Horizons (Legacy) does not share the live galaxy.

I don't think this is a subjective point. It's just mired in a bunch of petty arguments people have had over the years.

Solo mode still requires an internet connection to play. Which means the only reason to go into solo mode or private group is to avoid being inconvenienced by other players. In the most extreme cases that means avoiding trolls/griefers that block station ports (among many other things) and in less extreme cases just avoid being attacked by players.

All I'm saying is that Solo/Group modes wouldn't even need to exist if someone could play in Open and still be able to travel around unbothered. If that were true then open-only Power Play wouldn't even be an issue worth discussing (obviously). But... for that to be true FDev would need to solve a lot of complicated problems. Hence the "solo mode problem" and hence why I think simply making open-only Power Play doesn't solve anything.

It's entirely subjective: one either accepts that no-one needs to play with them to affect the shared galaxy or one does not.

Whether (or not) to play among other players is the very first game decision that each player makes at the beginning of each game session and precedes and may over-ride any other player's desire to play with them.

Put differently, in this game other players are an optional extra and the galaxy is experienced and affected by all players. Noting that some players can't accept that.

Remembering the furore at the time of the cancellation of the Offline mode (which was added to the Kickstarter pitch around a month in to the two month duration) two weeks before launch, with Frontier's stated reasoning being that an Offline mode would not offer the desired game experience (with the desired game experience being that all players experience and affect the shared galaxy, whether or not they play among other players) I doubt that Frontier want to revisit that by messing with Solo.

Edit:

Elite would be such a better game if all CMDRs were roaming around in open without having to worry about gankers/trolls.

No disagreement there, however there's still no non-capricious requirement to remove Solo and Private Groups....

 

[Darrack]

Elite would be such a better game if all CMDRs were roaming around in open without having to worry about gankers/trolls.

We already have that, its called Mobius.

O7

 

[ꝁestrel]

Nope - Horizons (Live) shares exactly the same galaxy sim as Odyssey. Horizons (Legacy) does not share the live galaxy.

Bruh

Ok fair enough. Either way IMO they can just split the simulations since it's technically something they can do. Again this isn't a hill I'm willing to die on since I think open-only Power Play would be a mess unless they fix a bunch of other stuff too.

It's entirely subjective: one either accepts that no-one needs to play with them to affect the shared galaxy or one does not.

Whether (or not) to play among other players is the very first game decision that each player makes at the beginning of each game session and precedes and may over-ride any other player's desire to play with them.

Put differently, in this game other players are an optional extra and the galaxy is experienced and affected by all players. Noting that some players can't accept that.

Remembering the furore at the time of the cancellation of the Offline mode (which was added to the Kickstarter pitch around a month in to the two month duration) two weeks before launch, with Frontier's stated reasoning being that an Offline mode would not offer the desired game experience (with the desired game experience being that all players experience and affect the shared galaxy, whether or not they play among other players) I doubt that Frontier want to revisit that by messing with Solo.

Didn't know about the Offline mode debacle. Interesting.

The objective truth I'm talking about is that people play in Solo/Group to avoid being ganked. If they could play in Open and not have to worry about ganks then Solo would be a lot less common. And we'd have more chances of having cool interactions with other players. We may start going around in circles now though so I'll just say let's agree to disagree!

 

[Robert Maynard]

The objective truth I'm talking about is that people play in Solo/Group to avoid being ganked.

That's certainly one reason, but not the only reason.

... and each player's reason for not playing among other players does not need to be justified in any way, i.e. the reason does not need to be "approved" by other players.

 

[Darkfyre99]

It's something you can do if there's the footfall for it (high pop, close to popular systems, etc.). Generally the only people going through the systems I work are there for the same reasons, just different sides.

It's amazing how traffic can change when you create a proverbial "gold rush" in a system, and then release that information on 3rd party sites. Sometimes I don't even have to release the information myself.

Effective means people give up and either log off or do something else somewhere else. Working a secondary target because your primary is out of bounds for an hour is a loss. Often enough to be a thing. Really don't have numbers I'm afraid . And it depends what's going on in a given phase of time.

To me, effective means that what you prevent (as you say, diverting to other targets isn't enough) is more than what you can accomplish during the same period of time. But in my experience, effectiveness tends to be the enemy of fun. If everyone involved is having fun in the end, then that's a win in my book. Effectiveness should take second place.

Can believe that, but it's so hard to know. Nevertheless if you face an enemy for a long time and get to know their timezones - let's say you face two enemy groups, but only ever see one of them, despite other parameters incl timezone active being the same, you can start to form a hunch about their respective mode choice tendencies, for instance.

Or that the lag due to geography is too high to get instanced together naturally. Or that matchmaking has them grouping together, and there isn't enough capacity on the hosting peer to create room for non-friends. Or that your friends list is keeping them out. Or someone's ISP throttles down peer-to-peer connections, which prevents matchmaking. There's a ton of reasons why matchmaking between strangers fail.

 

[Darkfyre99]

The objective truth I'm talking about is that people play in Solo/Group to avoid being ganked. If they could play in Open and not have to worry about ganks then Solo would be a lot less common. And we'd have more chances of having cool interactions with other players. We may start going around in circles now though so I'll just say let's agree to disagree!

One of the major reasons players state as preference for playing in Solo is that the technical experience of playing in Open is unappealing: high lag, long delays in instancing, the downgrade of their computer's performance when they're hosting the instance, and other side effects of peer-to-peer networking. Another major reason is some players simply don't want to have interactions with other players, cool or otherwise.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

To me, effective means that what you prevent (as you say, diverting to other targets isn't enough) is more than what you can accomplish during the same period of time. But in my experience, effectiveness tends to be the enemy of fun. If everyone involved is having fun in the end, then that's a win in my book. Effectiveness should take second place.

It's a false economy as well when everyone quits from boredom or burns out. Similarly that's why I don't get the occasional calls you hear of "well if they're all in solo except their PvPers then we should too!". Literally if you do that I will quit, and so will half the team.

 

[SergMx]

One of the major reasons players state as preference for playing in Solo is that the technical experience of playing in Open is unappealing: high lag, long delays in instancing, the downgrade of their computer's performance when they're hosting the instance, and other side effects of peer-to-peer networking. Another major reason is some players simply don't want to have interactions with other players, cool or otherwise.

If the main reason to play single player is technical, then discussing this topic is pointless.

 

[Darkfyre99]

If the main reason to play single player is technical, then discussing this topic is pointless.

The main reason why most players play in modes other than Open is that they’re not having fun in Open. Why they’re not having fun will vary, including but not limited to technical reasons, they have no interest in the multi-player aspects of the game at all, and yes “griefers.”

The reason why this topic comes up again and again is that a certain segment of the playerbase cannot tell the difference between the technical limitations and side-effects of this game’s peer-to-peer networking solution, and the belief that players are hiding from their 1337 PVP S|{1L5.

In all seriousness, as far as PowerPlay is concerned, either the PowerPlay Community is much less likely to play in Open than the general population and are lying about their preferred mode (highly unlikely IMO) or instancing is just that bad. If it’s the latter, ir is a poor fit for the type of gameplay they desire, and giving them what they want will do far more harm than good.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

One of the major reasons players state as preference for playing in Solo is that the technical experience of playing in Open is unappealing: high lag, long delays in instancing, the downgrade of their computer's performance when they're hosting the instance, and other side effects of peer-to-peer networking. Another major reason is some players simply don't want to have interactions with other players, cool or otherwise.

The behaviour of Titan heat vents and Spire nerve clusters springs instantly to mind on this point...

 

[SergMx]

The behaviour of Titan heat vents and Spire nerve clusters springs instantly to mind on this point...

I don't know about the spires, but Titan's is simple. You just need to make the algorithm a little more complex and then there will be no hangs and too fast defeat of the center.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The behaviour of Titan heat vents and Spire nerve clusters springs instantly to mind on this point...

The "clutter" of NPCs in station instances that have been going for some time too - they tend to get blocked with NPCs attempting to leave, IME.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

In all seriousness, as far as PowerPlay is concerned, either the PowerPlay Community is much less likely to play in Open than the general population and are lying about their preferred mode (highly unlikely IMO) or instancing is just that bad. If it’s the latter, ir is a poor fit for the type of gameplay they desire, and giving them what they want will do far more harm than good.

There are differences between the power communities' stated attitude toward open play, however. Some powers are almost entirely in solo (e.g. the hand-puppeteers behind a certain power, because they don't want to be identified using cheap tactics that they know are treacherous, which is a shame for the few true backers of the power), other powers you see some in open because there are just so many of them. Grom state that PG/solo are fine, although some of them indicate they're often in open, just that Russian instancing is hard.

People object because they know people in certain groups will be in solo/PG, based on weakness of stated ethos about it, or actual accounts from people within the power, combined with their own observation of them simply not appearing while doing so much. And some leverage it as a tactic when they're under pressure. So precisely when it matters most (lots of traffic and high stakes, and then suddenly that traffic becomes invisible because the stakes get too high, but the merits keep flowing).