Believe me, I'd love for a new thing to be added without "taking something away", literally anything to give people a reason to fight each other besides being wandering murderhoboes, but every time the subject comes up it always turns into "YOU HAVE CQC THAT'S THE THING FOR YOU BE HAPPY WITH IT"
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
No objection to the addition of content (that does not affect any player who does not engage in it) that could only be affected by PvP interactions. The objections start when the proposal is to effectively remove content from players in Solo and Private Groups by PvP-gating it to Open.
Which is likely based on a comment made by DBOBE during the Engineers launch stream in May 2016 (just after advising us that an Open PvE mode would be too much work).
You can already shoot other people for any in-game reason or out-of-game reason you like. And yes, you even had an additional mode added (CQC/Arena) just for PvP
You do not need the Devs to add or change game content for PvP. PvP has already had far too much attention since the game's launch.
It's about time something was added for PvE players. A multiplayer PvE only mode would be nice.
The problem is this gets stretched to anything Open, including bonuses. Given Open in Powerplay has a skill (since you face other players with the same full choice of ships, weapons and random tactics) and strategic aspect to it at the very least V2 needs to address this.
I mean, I had a ten page argument regards simply removing the wing bonus in PG in isolation (so the wing bonus only applies in PP in Open) which is ridiculous.
In a PP context when people talk about Open being its own reward, my view is that PG and playing with non hostile players is the reward for that mode since its literally the Open PvE element of PP. The wing bonus in Open PP then makes sense, since you have hostile players to contend with.
You obviously didn't get a hint for CQC.
It's right here:
FD knows that, given that choice, you'll take murderboats and seek the weaker. Fat soft traders, unarmed explorers - who all equipped their ships for that role. And spoil their gameplay.
"Hence, for pure PvP combat, do it on this leveled field of CQC. It's only fair.", FD said. That was the hint.
There is nothing stopping you changing your ship, flying somewhere else, teaming up and using smarts to survive. Thats the part @Screemonster is (iMO) talking about- that its you using what you have to survive in a mode (and feature if Powerplay).
ED was set up to be you v an uncaring galaxy, not a 1:1 PvP game. Thats why CQC did not resonate.
bruh if you saw any of the organised PvP spots (that, by the way, a bunch of pve players deliberately set out to ruin by flipping the government away from anarchy just to mess with the rockfights) you'd know that people are fine with equal fights, it's that the ships available in CQC are terrible. Nobody likes the fighters, or the selection of weapons available that also bear no resemblance to the ones in the main game. CQC is a completely different experience that doesn't remotely match up to main game pvp.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not "stretched", noting that any bonus simply for playing in Open is functionally identical to a penalty to those not playing in Open, for no other reason than they don't present themself to be shot at by those who want to force players into engaging in an optional aspect of the game in a game where other players are an optional extra.
If some way could be found to assess (actually) confrontational PvP interactions, and incorporate that assessment as one of a number of factors taken into a risk / reward calculation for particular game features then there'd likely be less push back than there is towards the overly simplistic "Open deserves a bonus" approach.
Perhaps not surprising when the Wing bonus was consciously implemented in both multi-player game modes to reward co-operative play, not as a "Open is special" bonus.
Start from "other players are, and always have been optional, and no player needs to play among hostile players to affect any in-game feature" and go from there. As mentioned before, it's a matter of perspective. That the game does not try to bribe players into playing in a way that they don't want to is more to be praised than complained about. YMMV.
Last edited:
Trouble is, Solo is not Open- it is missing other players who equal your potential abilities. As such its not identical which in PP terms means an easier time at a gameplay level flying about and strategic gain (maximum efficiency).
While I would like such a system, its pretty binary between modes where the danger lies and how modes are used. The more complex a system is the less chance it can be done.
In the wider game I agree with you- however Powerplay inverts that by injecting explicit rivalries where groups without peer adversaries is an overwhelming advantage.
As I've stated elsewhere, games offer rewards for taking on more difficulty- its just how games work.
Powerplay has shown that unless other players do the opposing PP breaks with PG and solo since the game itself (via PvE) does not do the work other players do.
Plus you are not forced to go into a mode (currently)- but when you do for a contextualized conflict you should get a bonus.
From my (as powerplayer) point of view... the point is that CQC is decontestualised, and same applies for PvP tournaments and organised events. These all help to somehow improve awareness and accelerate the progression on the learning curve... but bottom line they're not even a "palliative" due to such decontestualisation. When PvP comes out to be part of players' driven confrontation (BGS or PP) the "flavour" is indeed totally different.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The game difficulty does not need to be designed around skilled players in combat ships.
.... and some players face no appreciable risk when interacting with other players - so it seems to be that there's a desire to reward "risk for thee but not for me" type behaviour.
The wider game is no different from Powerplay in that other players are entirely optional in both.
Except in this game other players are optional therefore the challenge they pose is also optional, noting that rewards are offered for PvE activities that can be engaged in in any game mode. Put differently: players don't get to set the difficulty or rewards for players who can choose not to instance with them.
Players can't be forced to play in a game mode.
The game needs to be designed around capable opposition. But regardless Open will always be harder given its hostile NPCs + hostile players.
There is nothing stopping them changing ship, teaming up, going somewhere else either. Powerplay contextualises violence, you can't talk about risk in it like the wider game because its not the same.
The wider game has no explicit context or consequences (even probably Thargoids given how far away the bulk of combat is and the lack of repercussions).
Yes- optional and more difficult, just as its optional not to have them and remove that difficulty.
It should not be players that dictate how easy the strategic gains they make are to achieve though. The modes work on a personal level but again Powerplay has personal (the flying about) as well as strategic (gaining, losing, attacking systems to gain Galactic Standing ranks) considerations.
Currently- we don't know what FD want or will conclude when U19s assessment period concludes. We also don't know what considerations they have regards mode equality either in a PP context.
Personally I don't care if people earn the same credits in PG or solo as they can in open. I've always been on team "I'd rather people play in solo than log out the instant they see a hollow triangle" when it comes to piracy.
I don't even care if people rank up their solo progress or merits or whatever in solo mode. The only real point of contention when it comes to any of this open-only or open weighted whatever, be it the bgs or powerplay or anything else, is the part where the person in solo is able to affect other people while adamantly insisting upon their apparently-constitutional right to not be affected by other people.
Let's take the thread a while ago where I was advocating for people to not lose their stuff on death, like exploration data or whatever, since that's one of the biggest points of contention about explorers getting blown out of the sky - someone remarked that part of the reason they don't want explorers protected is because it'd allow them to stockpile data for BGS purposes at no risk, and that person wanted the ability to deny that or at least drive people away from the systems he was operating in. I didn't really have an answer to that until last night when it suddenly struck me - what if the data was forcibly cashed in on the rebuy screen? Anyone who's just exploring for credits or plodding about on their own would still receive the personal reward on the spot, including first discovery tags, so no real loss right? Unless, of course, you are seeking to specifically and deliberately influence the BGS.
I don't particularly care if people want to get their powerplay modules by overforting the nearest control system to 3000% or doing 750 merits of undermining then leaving, and neither does anyone else particularly. It's the parts where people are actively pushing to change who controls a system that people care about and honestly I seriously doubt that the majority of non-powerplayers fall into that category.
I don't even care if people rank up their solo progress or merits or whatever in solo mode. The only real point of contention when it comes to any of this open-only or open weighted whatever, be it the bgs or powerplay or anything else, is the part where the person in solo is able to affect other people while adamantly insisting upon their apparently-constitutional right to not be affected by other people.
Let's take the thread a while ago where I was advocating for people to not lose their stuff on death, like exploration data or whatever, since that's one of the biggest points of contention about explorers getting blown out of the sky - someone remarked that part of the reason they don't want explorers protected is because it'd allow them to stockpile data for BGS purposes at no risk, and that person wanted the ability to deny that or at least drive people away from the systems he was operating in. I didn't really have an answer to that until last night when it suddenly struck me - what if the data was forcibly cashed in on the rebuy screen? Anyone who's just exploring for credits or plodding about on their own would still receive the personal reward on the spot, including first discovery tags, so no real loss right? Unless, of course, you are seeking to specifically and deliberately influence the BGS.
I don't particularly care if people want to get their powerplay modules by overforting the nearest control system to 3000% or doing 750 merits of undermining then leaving, and neither does anyone else particularly. It's the parts where people are actively pushing to change who controls a system that people care about and honestly I seriously doubt that the majority of non-powerplayers fall into that category.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It seems that the fact that we all bought a game which still advertises itself as "In an age of galactic superpowers and interstellar war, each player’s unique journey influences the connected gaming experience."(with no mention whatsoever of any requirement to play in a specific game mode to affect the game) still isn't accepted by some. The fact that players in Open also affect the shared galaxy and by doing so may affect players in the other game modes is often missed out as "inconvenient" to the discussion. Likely omitted because some of those Open proponents consider it their (and theirs alone) right to affect the game and those who don't follow their out-of-game rule set shouldn't be allowed to..
That someone's preference for PvP, or lack thereof, enters the discussion at all when talking about affecting pan-modal game features in a game where other players have always been optional and the galaxy has always been shared suggests that some players simply don't accept the game they bought - a game where PvP is not a dominant aspect of any in-game feature.
It's also worth noting that any assurances made by Open only proponents that "it's just Powerplay, it's not for anything else" ring very hollow when the BGS features in these discussions so often.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed it does, however the challenge posed by players remains entirely optional.
The discussion was about risk - with the point that some players face (very, very nearly) none being ignored as inconvenient.
By design - players are an optional extra in this game after all.
It's for Frontier to decide how challenging the game is, taking into account the player-base as a whole (and assessing how many are likely to engage in particular content based on the challenge it poses) - PvP has never been a necessary part of that consideration.
No player can be forced to play the game at all, so no player can be forced to play in Open.
Indeed. That's just "collateral damage" in case they (module shoppers) are caught in the crossfire.
But [unfortunately] reality is different... most of the "enemies" we randomly meet and engage belong to this cathegory so, from a pure statistical point, they're frequently choosing open-play vs. so called "hard-core" powerplayers who are instead rarely seen around
(that's more a matter of numbers than a strict game-mode thing).Optional but harder- and that by going around it gives you a guaranteed advantage (at least in V1).
Powerplay increases risk by having home systems, territory and other areas of action. As such its a higher risk for combative powers. Players do not have set behavior or tactics either where you can anticipate what they do.
Optional but harder when encountered, far beyond PP NPCs.
FD need to consider strategic risk for Powerplay just as much as player risk (which already has modes).
We simply don't know. FD have always started with Open Only in every design revision and worked backwards.
Oh matey, let me give some wise QoL advice to you... ignore every post where the words "optional" and "forced" are used.
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
The reason it, or something like it, can work is that most powerplayers instinctively understand this should probably be done in open (hence all the out-of-game open-only rulesets become viable - the culture already exists). And at the same time, even in open and with uninhibited instancing, it should be possible to choose activities in PP that take you away from choke points and contribute with equal weight to those taking part in more PvP-exposed activities. In other words, everyone can be catered for. Some may grumble, but they're unlikely to quit en masse, FDev could believe.I can imagine assuming there is open only aspect to pp 2.0, that alot of cmdrs won't like it.
Conversely alot will. Its not a question of who's right or wrong. Or if the game was designed or fundamentally changed, to allow it.
It a question IF it's a good idea or not.
There's the rub.
Personally I think it's a fab idea and will be beneficial in the long run.
But once again I imagine alot disagree.
Depends on which side of the fence your on.
Pvp is optional, consensual, and atm not imposed to gameplay loops.
Guess we'll just have to wait n see how it pans out.
