Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Jockey79]

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.

So in ED when I play Solo Mode, I'm not playing a PvE game?
What about in my real-life friends' Private Group where we don't shoot each other?
Mobius Group?

There are also indirect PvP elements, in the invasion events.
Where 2 factions are fighting for control over a node on a planet and the players have to take a side. Whichever side gets the most players' help, wins.
That also changes the face of the galaxy map. Where on more than one occasion I've gone to a node equipped to face one faction (out of habit, not paying attention) and suddenly been faced with the wrong faction for that node/planet. So then I'm ill-equipped to face the enemy.

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.

The step backwards is the fact they disable Open World PvP altogether, in favour of an opt-in system.
And while the instanced PvP fights are still very busy when I toggled my PvP option to on - my entire game session, not a single person engaged me in Open World PvP.

If you don't want to call that going backwards, that's up to you. But it certainly isn't a healthy progression in my book.

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.

And the entire game was built on the exact premise - which you're right, it does it very well.
But Elite Dangerous wasn't built on that premise, it was built so the entire game can be played, Solo.

And no one can call a game "a PvP game" when every single aspect of the game was made to be fully useable when playing alone, or even when playing with a select group of people. So people trying to shoe horn PvP restrictions is ridiculous in my opinion.

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.

So how is it a balanced risk then?

Because I don't see where the risk comes from for a G5 murder boat versus a 500T T9.

The G5 can mooch about in SC as long as it likes, just browsing who is coming and going. If anyone tries to pull it over, it stands a fair chance of winning the mini-game and ignoring whoever that was, if it doesn't win by some remote failure of the cosmos, then whoever did that is looking at an angry G5 - so unless its another G5 murder boat, it's dust. If it is another G5, then a fair fight starts.

Now let's it from the T9's point of view; for one they don't get to sit about in SC browsing the system. As the longer you are in SC, the more chance of being spotted. So right from the start, you are on the run. Now, someone sees you and the minigame starts. But it's not a mini-game is it, its pull willingly or be pulled over because a T9 is not going to win that game - go get a friend in a G5 and you load up a 500T T9 and have a go yourself. You are coming out of SC, like it or not. Now let's see, a T9 has exactly what chance of winning v a G5.... [checks notes].... [does the calculations].... [checks the statistics]... yup, ZERO per cent versus a properly equipped G5.

Hmm, it might be me, but I'm struggling to see the "balance" or the G5 having an equal "risk" factor in their gameplay

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Every player bought a game where every player affects the game but where no player needs to play with other players - that some still can't accept that after nearly ten years is obvious. That some players want a special bonus for even the potential of engaging or being engaged in PvP is also obvious - and has been for a long time. That any bonus for Open play would be functionally identical to a penalty on those playing in the other modes is not lost on players who don't enjoy PvP.

It’s worth remembering tha ED was available on consoles until it was no longer economically viable for Frontier to support it. This shows that, ultimately, decisions about the game are driven by what sustains its longevity and profitability. The idea of more risk equating to greater rewards is not a "special bonus" for PvP but a basic principle of balancing gameplay.

Every player bought a game where every player affects the game but where no player needs to play with other players - that some still can't accept that after nearly ten years is obvious. That some players want a special bonus for even the potential of engaging or being engaged in PvP is also obvious - and has been for a long time. That any bonus for Open play would be functionally identical to a penalty on those playing in the other modes is not lost on players who don't enjoy PvP.

It depends on where on the "worth less to worthless" scale any non-Open penalty would make player effects in Solo and Private Groups.

Your view on this seems to oversimplify the situation. it's not about penalizing solo/PG players, but rather about ensuring that open play doesn’t inherently favor the safer, more efficient option. The current structure actually consolidates the advantage for solo/PG, where players face less risk but still gain the same rewards. Rebalancing is about preserving the game's challenge and appeal over time, not about punishing anyone.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

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.

I totally agree, but in my opinion, it would be far more expensive for Frontier to overhaul the entire PvE system than to simply rebalance the rewards.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It’s worth remembering tha ED was available on consoles until it was no longer economically viable for Frontier to support it. This shows that, ultimately, decisions about the game are driven by what sustains its longevity and profitability. The idea of more risk equating to greater rewards is not a "special bonus" for PvP but a basic principle of balancing gameplay.

Indeed - which might suggest that, given that Frontier have mentioned that they know that "a lot" of players don't get involved in combat "at all" (in a recent Frontier Unlocked regarding the Type-8), they won't go out of their way to disenfranchise those players in pursuit of players who don't actually accept the game for what it is.

Your view on this seems to oversimplify the situation—it's not about penalizing solo/PG players, but rather about ensuring that open play doesn’t inherently favor the safer, more efficient option. The current structure actually consolidates the advantage for solo/PG, where players face less risk but still gain the same rewards. Rebalancing is about preserving the game's challenge and appeal over time, not about punishing anyone.

In the simplest terms, a bonus for one mode is a penalty to the others - so any desire to reward some players at the expense of other players will be seen as a form of punishment for not engaging in an optional extra. Noting that players can be blocked at will in Open all an Open bonus might do is increase the block-lists of some players.

 

[Rubbernuke]

.... because all players acquired a PvE game with entirely optional PvP, even if they don't really accept it.

So does Open pose more challenge or not?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Whether or not to play among players may well have similar consequences to ones effectiveness as ones choice of ship or loadout. That some choose the option of playing among other players who may be hostile, may be in a ship that might pose a threat, may attack, etc., means that they may be impeded by other players who have made the same choice - the choice is no less optional.

In Powerplay that option makes life harder for you, something thats not present in other modes.

 

[Jockey79]

It’s worth remembering tha ED was available on consoles until it was no longer economically viable for Frontier to support it. This shows that, ultimately, decisions about the game are driven by what sustains its longevity and profitability. The idea of more risk equating to greater rewards is not a "special bonus" for PvP but a basic principle of balancing gameplay.

Everquest, still running, story-driven PvE
Everquest 2, still running, story-driven PvE
WoW, removed Open World PvP, focused on story-driven PvE
Warframe, story-driven PvE and considered pulling all PvP out of the game as non-profitable
Star Trek Online, story-driven PvE with decent instanced PvP (doesn't effect the main game at all)

Games with both, live longer with happy PvE players - PvP players are never happy, see the EVE forums, see the SC forums, PvP-centric games are just full of whining.

 

[Rubbernuke]

In the simplest terms, a bonus for one mode is a penalty to the others

In simple terms you face more of the game you get more in return. No NPC in PP (yet) has all weapons, all ships, random tactics or the ability to help each other while facing the same.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Indeed - which might suggest that, given that Frontier have mentioned that they know that "a lot" of players don't get involved in combat "at all" (in a recent Frontier Unlocked regarding the Type-8), they won't go out of their way to disenfranchise those players in pursuit of players who don't actually accept the game for what it is..

Exactly, and that’s why there’s even more opportunity to engage new types of players. At the end of the day, ED is a product. If the combination of solo and open play isn't making the game as profitable as it could be, and solo players are largely unaffected or disengaged, then overhauling PvE mechanics would be far more costly. Focusing on PvP to attract and retain more players makes a lot of sense from a business perspective.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So does Open pose more challenge or not?

Definitely maybe.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Exactly, and that’s why there’s even more opportunity to engage new types of players. At the end of the day, ED is a product. If the combination of solo and open play isn't making the game as profitable as it could be, and solo players are largely unaffected or disengaged, then overhauling PvE mechanics would be far more costly. Focusing on PvP to attract and retain more players makes a lot of sense from a business perspective.

Noting that many games move away from a PvP focus as they get older rather than towards it. EVE Online being an exceptional case.

 

[Darkfyre99]

As many of you know, I play by several optional rules, including the Pilots Ejection Table, that are also more difficult than simply "choosing open," which I consider to be so low risk that it's barely worth worrying about.

Should I get an even greater extra reward for voluntarily making my game even harder than just playing in Open?

 

[Darkfyre99]

It’s worth remembering tha ED was available on consoles until it was no longer economically viable for Frontier to support it. This shows that, ultimately, decisions about the game are driven by what sustains its longevity and profitability. The idea of more risk equating to greater rewards is not a "special bonus" for PvP but a basic principle of balancing gameplay.

You know, it's been my experience that when it comes to open world PvE MMOs, that also happens to include open-PvP, is that the safest, if not only, economicly viable choice for developers is to make the PvP aspects entirely optional, or go broke.

 

[Rubbernuke]

As many of you know, I play by several optional rules, including the Pilots Ejection Table, that are also more difficult than simply "choosing open," which I consider to be so low risk that it's barely worth worrying about.

Should I get an even greater extra reward for voluntarily making my game even harder than just playing in Open?

Last time I checked Ironman is not in game, Open and everything in it, is.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Last time I checked Ironman is not in game, Open and everything in it, is.

Yes, but it's still optional. Nobody has to choose to play in Open unless they consider doing so fun. And that fun should be all the reward they need. If you've got people choosing Open because it's efficient, rather than fun, they'll do other stuff that isn't fun for anyone else to maximize that efficiency.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yes, but it's still optional. Nobody has to choose to play in Open unless they consider doing so fun. And that fun should be all the reward they need. If you've got people choosing Open because it's efficient, rather than fun, they'll do other stuff that isn't fun for anyone else to maximize that efficiency.

But Ironman is not a game feature at all since permanent death does not exist. Open is in game as is the option to use it.

Here we are debating the differences between modes and are they really equal in strategic outcome. Having weighting or removing a wing bonus does not change if you find a mode fun or not, just equalizing the options so that each one is balanced enough to be considered equal.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Yes, but it's still optional. Nobody has to choose to play in Open unless they consider doing so fun. And that fun should be all the reward they need. If you've got people choosing Open because it's efficient, rather than fun, they'll do other stuff that isn't fun for anyone else to maximize that efficiency.

The problem here extends from to be efficient (which is what is needed in a pvp context), you have to conduct your PP activities in either Solo or PG to maintain parity with players who aren't. If you don't (and your rivals do), you can never expect to 'win' with a 1:1 (or probably greater in your favour) ratio of players.

As mentioned before, there is no way playing in Open (with the provisions you need to make for loadouts) whilst hauling, you can compete against unshielded bulk haulers running bare minimum spec ships operating the same route as you, which is where the discussion about weighting rewards (be they factional or individual) or perks (such as reduced rebuy costs while engaged in PP activities) for those that do stems from.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Yes, but it's still optional. Nobody has to choose to play in Open unless they consider doing so fun. And that fun should be all the reward they need. If you've got people choosing Open because it's efficient, rather than fun, they'll do other stuff that isn't fun for anyone else to maximize that efficiency.

Rewards increases side by side with difficulty, it's a very basic principle of game design. Look at Warthunder and how difficulty increases in pve missions, arcade, realistic and simulation along with rewards.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Ah, i see, so no PvP specific stuff.

if NPCs are weak here its going to be farmed and annoying if someone is sat in the FC Powerplay Pub (PPP) who can do nothing.

They can do something. They can also do PP activities to promote their power. I mean, you could use the same argument for any activity where players could be sat ready to defend against an attack. Just because it happens to be a FC doesn't mean anything as long as someone's FC can't be really hurt. Its just another mission.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Since it looks like there's a lot of beating around the bush, here it's my proposal... when PP 2.0 drops, start on this sub a diary-thread for players posting in this and other threads who didn't enjoy open so far, to switch in open only with empty blocklists for a period, like at least three months, but may be better six, (of course not looking to depart for some remote exploration journeys or self-isulating somewhere) doing what they used to do like AX combat, CGs, powerplay etc and reporting any meaningful anectode for the audience.

I'm curious about the outcome...