Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Robert Maynard]

ED, like any other game, follows the same engagement and commercial rules. Its primary goal, as with any multiplayer title, is to keep its player base active and engaged over the long term. Regardless of its unique tri-modal structure, the game still needs to balance the experience for all types of players and ensure there are incentives to choose certain modes of play.

It’s not about blindly following the tropes of other games, but about recognizing that risk and reward are fundamental in any game system that aims to sustain competition and interest. PvP flagging in WoW or the wars in EVE are not just isolated mechanics, they are part of a broader system that rewards risk and gives players reasons to engage in more complex or dangerous activities. ED is not immune to these dynamics: even here, open competition needs to be incentivized to maintain balance and variety in the gameplay experience.

Opinions vary in relation to any perceived need to incentivise one game mode over the others in a game where other players, and therefore PvP, are entirely optional extras. Noting that every single player acquired the game based on the tri-modal / mode shared galaxy design, even if some players don't like it. To change that design would not be without risk.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

When players are told not to complain when others make their ship go "kaboom" as it is within the rules of the game, it follows that players should not complain about others playing the game by the actual rules of the game rather than their own out-of-game rules that no player needs to take into consideration.

None of that has anything to do with what I just wrote.

 

[Robert Maynard]

None of that has anything to do with what I just wrote.

What did what was written have to do with the actual rules of the game?

 

[Jockey79]

The problem I think a lot of folk are potentially overlooking in this very impassioned continuous argument is that in a peversely ironic way, the migration to Solo/PG modes as a way to circumvent interacting with player opposition (be that Powerplay pledged players, a rival BGS supporter in a Combat Zone, or people who might be opposing you in a CG), is that to stay competitive Open Players feel compelled (or forced) to go to those modes. In its clearest example, there's no way I, in a player ship built for hauling in open, can really compete with someone rolling in a type 9 in Solo carrying out the same activities.

It's not a "problem" and no one is "circumventing" anything. And it's about time accusations like this were stopped.
I just had to post these pictures in response to an accusation of "hiding".

The Kickstarter page;

The current Steam Store page

It is an advertised feature, we can choose where to play and whom to play with on a session-by-session basis.
It's a personal choice everyone can make, and they do not need a reason to log out and swap modes.
No one is "hiding", "circumventing" or causing a "problem" - it's the basic game design, being used as intended.

And if you feel someone in another mode is out hauling you, why are you in the mode you are?
You get something out of being in Open Mode is the answer, whereas I do not get anything out of Open Mode.
To me, Open Mode devalues the game and my time.

It also leads to less 'player interaction'. Watching Powerplay 1.0 discord/teamspeak/reddit engagement and player interactions (i.e. convoy organising and their top cover, kill teams being thrown together to deal with a threat in-house or organising an attack wing to engage in undermining/the PP CZs in another parties turf) slowly wither and die as a player who enjoys the social cooperative (yet competitive) element of multiplayer games, was a disappointing moment (though nowhere near as toxic as when BGS groups began their migrations 3 or 4 months after game launch, and continue to be from my understanding). It is not one that I want to see repeated with PP 2.0

I get more player interactions in several of the PGs I'm connected to than I ever have in Open mode while flying cargo - where I've only ever been shot at randomly by human players. And being shot at randomly in a hauler isn't an "interaction", its a duck hunt. And I'm not being someone else's duck.

(even without sound, I can "hear" this gif, lmao)

 

[Rubbernuke]

When players are told not to complain when others make their ship go "kaboom" as it is within the rules of the game, it follows that players should not complain about others playing the game by the actual rules of the game rather than their own out-of-game rules that no player needs to take into consideration.

There is nothing against the rules about ship destruction- its a fail state of an event.

Out of interest, what are these 'actual rules'?

 

[St0rmFury]

Omg, Donald is wearing... pants.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There is nothing against the rules about ship destruction- its a fail state of an event.

Out of interest, what are these 'actual rules'?

That as there is nothing against the rules about affecting mode shared game features from any game mode - that's "by design" (from Frontier's perspective) rather than "a problem" (from the perspective of those who don't accept that others don't need to play with them to affect the game)..

Put differently:

• players can choose to shoot at anything they instance with;
• players can choose which game mode to play the game from;
• players can affect all in-game features from their chosen game mode;
• players can choose to leave the game at any time (possibly subject to a delay);
• players can choose to block any other player.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Opinions vary in relation to any perceived need to incentivise one game mode over the others in a game where other players, and therefore PvP, are entirely optional extras. Noting that every single player acquired the game based on the tri-modal / mode shared galaxy design, even if some players don't like it. To change that design would not be without risk.

The tri-modal structure allows players to choose their preferred experience, but that doesn’t mean the modes should offer the same level of rewards and risk. When choosing solo or private group, players are opting for safety. There should be a tangible incentive to choose open play, where the risks are inherently higher.

This way, players in every mode would feel like they’re not sacrificing anything by sticking to their preference. Additionally, it extends the endgame by offering different paths of progression and could attract new players or bring back those who have left.

 

[Jockey79]

This is very common in multiplayer game development:

• World of Warcraft - Warmode you get 10-30% more XP
• EVE Online - Low Security Space Incentives - low sec and null sec offer more rewards
• The Division 2 - Dark Zone - better loot
• Destiny 2 - Trials of Osiris & Iron Banner - better rewards
• Black Desert Online - Node Wars and Sieges - better rewards

All of which have problems with griefing for a start. You also failed to mention;

World of Warcraft removed Open World PvP altogether and converted the servers to PvE, due to the player's bad behaviour.
EVE Online had major issues with griefing and had to start banning accounts because of people camping starter systems
Division 2 still has issues with gear balance and exploiting in Dark Zones, so made PvE accessible gear on par with DZ gear

And I don't play the last 2 so I cannot comment, but I do know Black Desert Online you can level a character by loading their backpack up and set an auto walk route, then go to bed and leave them afk walking for 8 hours - so I doubt any PvP is actually balanced as you can afk level up.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The tri-modal structure allows players to choose their preferred experience, but that doesn’t mean the modes should offer the same level of rewards and risk. When choosing solo or private group, players are opting for safety. There should be a tangible incentive to choose open play, where the risks are inherently higher.

There is no "danger" to be "safe" from in a game with an immortal space pixie as an avatar and an unlimited supply of free ships, played in the comfort of ones gaming environment.

That the challenge that (only some, depending on where encountered players sit on the player skill distribution, what ship they are flying and whether or not they choose to attack) players may represent is there for those who want it - but the rewards for PvE activities remain the same over each game mode.

This way, players in every mode would feel like they’re not sacrificing anything by sticking to their preference. Additionally, it extends the endgame by offering different paths of progression and could attract new players or bring back those who have left.

Whether offering a bonus for playing in a game mode where other players can be blocked at will and where no player is guaranteed to instance with any other player playing in it in the same location would attract new players or bring back those who have moved on would remain to be seen.

 

[Jockey79]

Omg, Donald is wearing... pants.

I didn't notice that

Cracking spot there

 

[Rubbernuke]

That the challenge that (only some, depending on where encountered players sit on the player skill distribution, what ship they are flying and whether or not they choose to attack) players may represent is there for those who want it - but the rewards for PvE activities remain the same over each game mode.

Not really- Powerplay (and not the wider game here) has strategic and personal rewards. Unless there are PvE ways to moderate those strategic PvE gains, PvP (i.e. other players) is the next consideration. For example how would a power in V2 oppose an expansion attempt to form an exploited system if they themselves cannot directly expand themselves in solo?

'Danger' in Powerplay is not keeping your power solvent in the time allowed, as well as denying a rival an objective.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

It's not a "problem" and no one is "circumventing" anything. And it's about time accusations like this were stopped.
I just had to post these pictures in response to an accusation of "hiding".

Jockey, in the context of the situations I am describing, it very much was the case I can assure you. I was involved in many of the BGS wars, Opposing CGs and early (first six months or so) of PP group activities, wherein discussions about how to proceed when encountering an opponent would (paraphrasing) quickly boil down to 'go to solo or PG for our risky activities, so we don't have to interact with our opponents', usually followed by the same people shaking their fists about their opponents doing the same.

The problem for me as a player of multiplayer games is that then dries up the need to coordinate, work together or interact with other players in your own faction, which is why in my opinion PP went from being a large vibrant community to the shadow of its former self that it is now.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

There is no "danger" to be "safe" from in a game with an immortal space pixie as an avatar and an unlimited supply of free ships, played in the comfort of ones gaming environment.

That the challenge that (only some, depending on where encountered players sit on the player skill distribution, what ship they are flying and whether or not they choose to attack) players may represent is there for those who want it - but the rewards for PvE activities remain the same over each game mode.

Whether offering a bonus for playing in a game mode where other players can be blocked at will and where no player is guaranteed to instance with any other player playing in it in the same location would attract new players or bring back those who have moved on would remain to be seen.

It’s true that Elite Dangerous offers a relatively "safe" environment in terms of PvE, but open play presents risks beyond just player interactions. For example, engaging in CZs or HAZs or even hauling in open is inherently riskier than in solo or private group. You’re not only facing tough NPCs, but also the possibility of being attacked by players, which adds an extra layer of danger.

So, the safety in solo or private groups is real, because you remove that additional variable

As for the weighting system, it’s a concept that is separate from instancing efficiency. It’s not about guaranteeing that players will always meet others in open, but about acknowledging that when they do, the risks are greater and should be rewarded accordingly.

Incentivizing open play through a multiplier doesn’t undermine the tri-modal system, it just provides a better balance of risk versus reward.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Jockey, in the context of the situations I am describing, it very much was the case I can assure you. I was involved in many of the BGS wars, Opposing CGs and early (first six months or so) of PP group activities, wherein discussions about how to proceed when encountering an opponent would (paraphrasing) quickly boil down to 'go to solo or PG for our risky activities, so we don't have to interact with our opponents', usually followed by the same people shaking their fists about their opponents doing the same.

The problem for me as a player of multiplayer games is that then dries up the need to coordinate, work together or interact with other players in your own faction, which is why in my opinion PP went from being a large vibrant community to the shadow of its former self that it is now.

You need consistent rules to form a consistent game. If there are too many caveats imposed onto a fixed objective its going to be hard to enjoy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You need consistent rules to form a consistent game. If there are too many caveats imposed onto a fixed objective its going to be hard to enjoy.

There are consistent rules - that some players don't like them does not make them inconsistent.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Some powers are simply small because they don't appeal to people. If you join Power discords you can get a decent idea yourself, and map power progress to what players are tasked with.


It depends on how you look at it- those who play to push the strategic metagame and those who want rewards. V2 has great rewards (probably the best out of the game and ongoing for 'free') so this line will blur (especially so when any activity counts). Given too that module access is linked to being pledged (as in, buying more) you might have many more players- at least until they reach Tier 11 care package level.




Powerplay also has areas of interest to funnel players- V1 was the control system, capital and expansion. V2 also has them, plus strongholds as well as organically arising pressure point systems coupled with tug of war (and not 100% and done) mechanics. So if we were talking about being spread over the entire galaxy I'd agree, but its not. Established power groups will still push, the only difference is you'll have other non-aligned players elsewhere too.


The polls that asked the question saw that those lost would have been replaced twice over. In the end if its open / weighted or not, the feature has to be consistent otherwise it will end up like V1.

Polls are iffy at times and tend to be self-selecting, as well as bias in the questions and answers presented. That's why FD did away polls on their forums. I won't say the polls weren't indicative, but believing open only by itself would double the number of players based on it would be a bold stretch.

If you join Power discords you can get a decent idea yourself

Hard pass. Been there, done that. You know in real life the worst sort of people are attracted to power? Its the same with game groups, especially those that revolve around power and having no real life outside gaming.

I probably will give PP2 a try. If it allows me to continue more or less playing how i enjoy playing and doesn't hurt my playstyle in any way, i might even stick with it.
If I do get involved in Powerplay, i'll just help the power out how i feel.

 

[Rubbernuke]

There are consistent rules - that some players don't like them does not make them inconsistent.

Would you agree that Powerplay has a consistent opposition across all modes?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

The tri-modal structure allows players to choose their preferred experience, but that doesn’t mean the modes should offer the same level of rewards and risk.

Well, that is in fact what we are debating here. Whether they should or shouldn't, specifically in relation to PP2.

We have very vocal and less vocal people in this thread giving their opinions on the matter. FD also has an opinion on the matter, and, at least for now, their opinion is that there should be no difference.

That could change in the future of course, but it didn't change over the previous 10 years of us arguing about it

 

[Robert Maynard]

Would you agree that Powerplay has a consistent opposition across all modes?

NPC opposition is consistent across all modes (which is not to say much noting inadequacies of existing Powerplay NPCs). Other players are, in this game, entirely optional, which means that the challenge they may (or many not) represent is also entirely optional.