Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Jockey79]

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.

The tri-mode structure isn't unique, Warframe has the same system - albeit Solo / Group / Open PvE and separate PvP arena modes
And despite a certain crowd, yet again stamping their feet and making demands that everyone be forced into Open PvP - DE has largely ignored them and their game has steadily grown over time. They did once talk about removing PvP altogether, as the PvP'ers did nothing but complain - that was so funny.

Again, WOW scaled down PvP - so I wouldn't call it an improvement, making it an optional extra with a carrot to tempt people to try it.

EVE is a very isolated example, due to how it time dilates combat. When you can click fire on a weapon, then go out for a 3-course meal, have a few pints and come home to see your weapons finally start shooting - I wouldn't call that a good example of PvP (I know, extreme example, but you get my point I hope). Though I do enjoy mining in EVE, I find it very relaxing.

And all of your examples of "rewards risk" also fail to mention only the victims are the ones at risk. The people who attack In those games do so only if they have a guaranteed victory. So again, we are back to an unbalanced system where the only person who has any risk is the victims - which is why all those games still have large communities that do not engage in PvP if they can help it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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.

Its the only window into interest we have, really.

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.

Fair enough, but you'll be able to see how popular powers are over time and who really does the work.

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.

V2 will certainly let you do that- its decentralised enough so you can apply your effort any place you like and not wreck the whole power.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

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

Indeed, it’s what we’re debating, and after 10 years of the same conversation, perhaps that alone should signal the need for a change. Frontier’s stance may not have shifted yet, but player preferences and game dynamics evolve, and holding on to a "no difference" approach indefinitely might not be as progressive as it seems. We’ve seen many games adapt and thrive by rethinking long-held principles, so maybe it's time FD considers that what worked a decade ago isn’t necessarily the best path forward today.

Also, during the recent stream, they mentioned that it won’t be open-only, at least from day one, but they’ll be monitoring the situation closely. So even FD seems to recognize that adjustments may be necessary down the line.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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.

So thats no, then, they are not the same. One mode has easy NPCs and god like players, one mode has unlimited allied gods, one mode has groups of angry gods amid timid NPCs.

Optional or not, one mode stands out as the one where you'll face more danger.....

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

And all of your examples of "rewards risk" also fail to mention only the victims are the ones at risk. The people who attack In those games do so only if they have a guaranteed victory. So again, we are back to an unbalanced system where the only person who has any risk is the victims - which is why all those games still have large communities that do not engage in PvP if they can help it.

The 'Reward Risk' people keep talking about is that going towards the hauling players, not the assailants.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed, it’s what we’re debating, and after 10 years of the same conversation, perhaps that alone should signal the need for a change. Frontier’s stance may not have shifted yet, but player preferences and game dynamics evolve, and holding on to a "no difference" approach indefinitely might not be as progressive as it seems. We’ve seen many games adapt and thrive by rethinking long-held principles, so maybe it's time FD considers that what worked a decade ago isn’t necessarily the best path forward today.

Also, during the recent stream, they mentioned that it won’t be open-only, at least from day one, but they’ll be monitoring the situation closely. So even FD seems to recognize that adjustments may be necessary down the line.

That the debate has been running for nearly twelve years (from the time the first backers realised that others would not have to play with them to affect the game) only means that the game's design is still a problem for some players - not that the design is inherently bad, nor that a different approach is required.

The first public musings by Frontier regarding a potential bonus for Open play were posted over eight years ago, with the later Flash Topics (which included the possibility of Open only as a discussion point, walked back to an Open play bonus in the second thread) over six years ago. We'll see, in time, what timescale Frontier's monitoring of Powerplay 2.0 operates on.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So thats no, then, they are not the same. One mode has easy NPCs and god like players, one mode has unlimited allied gods, one mode has groups of angry gods amid timid NPCs.

Optional or not, one mode stands out as the one where you'll face more danger.....

While it remains optional the additional risk potential that some players choose to add to their gameplay doesn't change the game for anyone else.

 

[Rubbernuke]

While it remains optional the additional risk potential that some players choose to add to their gameplay doesn't change the game for anyone else.

But it does though- Powerplay (unlike the wider game) has strategic gains that actually matter for the feature. Its why all modes need harmonization, or that difficulty is rewarded in some way.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

The tri-mode structure isn't unique, Warframe has the same system - albeit Solo / Group / Open PvE and separate PvP arena modes
And despite a certain crowd, yet again stamping their feet and making demands that everyone be forced into Open PvP - DE has largely ignored them and their game has steadily grown over time. They did once talk about removing PvP altogether, as the PvP'ers did nothing but complain - that was so funny.

Again, WOW scaled down PvP - so I wouldn't call it an improvement, making it an optional extra with a carrot to tempt people to try it.

EVE is a very isolated example, due to how it time dilates combat. When you can click fire on a weapon, then go out for a 3-course meal, have a few pints and come home to see your weapons finally start shooting - I wouldn't call that a good example of PvP (I know, extreme example, but you get my point I hope). Though I do enjoy mining in EVE, I find it very relaxing.

And all of your examples of "rewards risk" also fail to mention only the victims are the ones at risk. The people who attack In those games do so only if they have a guaranteed victory. So again, we are back to an unbalanced system where the only person who has any risk is the victims - which is why all those games still have large communities that do not engage in PvP if they can help it.

First, while Warframe does have a similar tri-mode structure, it’s a fundamentally different type of game. Its core design revolves around fast-paced, instance-based PvE content with separate PvP modes, making direct comparisons with ED is tricky. The open world aspect of ED is far more central to the game’s identity, where the shared galaxy and the encounters with other players play a much more significant role than in Warframe.

As for WoW, I wouldn’t call adding a "carrot" to encourage open-world PvP a step backward. In fact, it’s a clever way to respect player choice while still providing incentives for those willing to take on the additional risks. It acknowledges that different players want different experiences and allows the game to cater to all types while maintaining engagement. Optional doesn’t mean inconsequential.

Regarding EVE, I agree the combat can be slow at times, but it remains one of the best examples of player-driven risk versus reward in an open galaxy. The fact that PvP in EVE can have massive, long-term consequences (ships and assets lost for good) makes every decision matter, even if the mechanics aren’t to everyone’s taste. It shows how a carefully structured risk/reward system can drive an entire game’s economy and social structure.

Finally, about the idea that only the "victims" are at risk in PvP scenarios, it’s an oversimplification. In games where risk is properly balanced, even aggressors face dangers: retaliation, reputation loss, or the mere fact that they don’t always have perfect knowledge of the situation. Part of the thrill of open play in ED is the unpredictability of encounters. If implemented thoughtfully, the system doesn’t need to create a victim-aggressor dichotomy, but instead fosters dynamic, emergent gameplay where every decision has weight.

 

[Jockey79]

Jockey, in the context of the situations I am describing, it very much was the case I can assure you.

I'm not sure if we are having a communication issue, let me try again;

There are videos of Frontier Developments (at the time CEO David Braben and Executive Producer Michael Brookes) staff, on different occasions explaining that, if you are playing the game in Open Mode and someone starts shooting at you (for any reason) and you do not feel like being shot at, you can simply log out, change modes, carry on playing.

So no one is "circumventing" anything, being a "problem" or "hiding" (again, I know you didn't use "hiding", I'm just including it as it was recently used elsewhere). They are doing exactly as the people who made the game told them to do.

So you can organise anything you like with your mates, you can form huge wings of ships whenever you like and travel wherever you like.
But if everyone in the local area sees you and decides to swap modes so they don't have to play with you - that is a perfectly valid choice for them to make.
And all these negative connotations you (and the others) keep attaching to that action are frankly insulting.

No one has to play with anyone else, regardless of what they are doing in the game.

I hope I've explained it better.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

and not wreck the whole power.

Well, i'll do my best not to mess things up, but I do have an oopsie habit!

 

[Rubbernuke]

Well, i'll do my best not to mess things up, but I do have an oopsie habit!

Unlike V1 where it was all down to mathematics and black magic, V2 is literally effort based- if enough effort is spent in one place it will thrive. There are also no bad moves, overhead costs or voting to co-ordinate with.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But it does though- Powerplay (unlike the wider game) has strategic gains that actually matter for the feature.

.... and like all other in-game features it doesn't require any player engaged in it to engage in PvP.

Its why all modes need harmonization, or that difficulty is rewarded in some way.

Whether they do or do not remains a matter of opinion. If difficulty were to be rewarded (other than it already is for the existing more challenging game content) then to do it effectively the fact that one or more opponents might possibly be players rather than NPCs would be just one of many different factors - with all of the ships, loadouts, etc. in the engagement being taken into consideration.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Indeed, it’s what we’re debating, and after 10 years of the same conversation, perhaps that alone should signal the need for a change.

Just because people argue about stuff doesn't mean that things should change just because one side believes it should. People argue about stuff all the time in real life and... i mean, just look at the real world and think about your statement for a few seconds. Think about some of the things people argue endlessly over.

Now, i'm not against some sort of test of the theory in a separate space. FD could split the universe, have an open only universe, and therefore there PP would de facto be open only. Or they could set up a new bubble some distance from the current one, make a powerplay version there, and for that powerplay it can only work in open, or hell, make it so that entering those systems switches you to open.

That way it could be verified how popular open only powerplay would be without affecting anyone else.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Unlike V1 where it was all down to mathematics and black magic, V2 is literally effort based- if enough effort is spent in one place it will thrive. There are also no bad moves, overhead costs or voting to co-ordinate with.

It seems that way, and i do like that aspect.

 

[Rubbernuke]

.... and like all other in-game features it doesn't require any player engaged in it to engage in PvP.

But the absence of effective opposition does affect the strategic outcome.

Whether they do or do not remains a matter of opinion. If difficulty were to be rewarded (other than it already is for the existing more challenging game content) then to do it effectively the fact that one or more opponents might possibly be players rather than NPCs would be just one of many different factors - with all of the ships, loadouts, etc. in the engagement being taken into consideration.

If you want a strategic game to have a consistent outcome it has to harmonise all the effects that shape it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But the absence of effective opposition does affect the strategic outcome.

That's a failing of Powerplay that will hopefully, from what little Frontier have said on the topic, be sorted for Powerplay 2.0.

If you want a strategic game to have a consistent outcome it has to harmonise all the effects that shape it.

Which, in a game where PvP remains an optional extra, would be challenging.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It seems that way, and i do like that aspect.

Its also a load off people who organise powers, since they can now forget about the weekly begging for votes and scramble to oppose 5C / silly expansions.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Its also a load off people who organise powers, since they can now forget about the weekly begging for votes and scramble to oppose 5C / silly expansions.

It remains to be seen how much guidance, if any, those engaged in Powerplay 2.0 need from any of the existing groups of players involved in the old version.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Which, in a game where PvP remains an optional extra, would be challenging.

Which is why you have calls for Open only where it brute force levels as much as possible, weighting that keeps modes but acknowledges the differences or PvE that has enough teeth and responses. Just having much better PvE and removing PG wing bonuses in Powerplay would be enough.