Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Robert Maynard]

The introduction of powerful modifications should have been met with adjustments to NPCs, missions, and scenarios to maintain the challenge, but that didn’t happen as much as it should have.

The issue with rebalancing game content around Engineering was that few players had access to it - as even when Horizons was folded down in to the base game in October 2020 only about half of existing copies of the base-game had corresponding copies of Horizons (nearly four and a half years after Engineering was added in May 2016) - so the game could not reasonably have been rebalanced towards players in Engineered ships as relatively few players could fly them.

 

[Cmdr Nemo]

As a player who has In excess of 9,000 hour's, in "SOLO" / "PRIVATE" and estimating at the most, one percent, via accidentally when doing relogs in "OPEN". I have no, nine, none, nada zero, etc. etc. etc. With PP or PPII being only available in open.

 

[Morbad]

The issues really stem from PvE weakness inherited from the wider game.

Elite: Dangerous has always felt like a game with placeholder NPC/PvE content that was meant to rely first and foremost upon CMDR interactions as the content/gameplay mainstay, then was never given the network model or rule enforcement resources to make that work...leaving us with a decade of placeholders.

I was actually fairly on board with PvP with the 1.0 release. Unfortunately i spent most of the first year exploring instead of taking advantage of exploits or practicing combat or whatever, I was a poor boy. I only just earned my first 70 million or so by the end of that first year (not sure if you know, but exploration payouts were really low for a long time). By the time i started getting into combat, kitting out combat ships, the HP inflation had already started and PvP was developing from fast paced flight by the seat of your pants into a slug fest.

I feel like this is a common experience, but something that is also rather backwards and leaves many players with holes in their piloting abilities (and not just when it comes to combat). Not that any exploiting was needed to get into a combat capable ship early on...barring the short-lived pre-nerf Python the best combat ship until 1.3 was the viper Mk III and after the Vulture price reduction not long after 1.3 dropped, it was fully usable against almost anyone.

Once upon a time a Viper 3 could stand up to a big ship by dint of speed/agility even with way less firepower. Now? I'm not sure a Viper could even take down a big Elite NPC (Python or bigger) from a High CZ.... i'm sure someone could prove me wrong, but i bet it takes time.

The Viper III doesn't have that much trouble against bigger (NPC) ships. It has the lateral thrust to hover over their soft spots, so if you have cascade rails to handle SCB charges, you can core out even high rank NPC Python and Anaconda in fairly rapid succession.

The problem is with ships that are too fast and too small for this to work against, that also get packed with HRPs and engineered defenses in High CZ.

 

[Mrc_NorthEast]

This is why Frontier really need to do a proper balance pass.

Agreed. Engineering is great for variety, but it is OP once above G3 for the current NPC's. The whole game could use a balance pass, but starting with pp2.0 related mechanics is probably a good idea

I do like the ideas about the PP po po being ramped up the more pp work an individual does

 

[Rebel Yell]

As a player who has In excess of 9,000 hour's, in "SOLO" / "PRIVATE" and estimating at the most, one percent, via accidentally when doing relogs in "OPEN". I have no, nine, none, nada zero, etc. etc. etc. With PP or PPII being only available in open.

You can still make it in time to balance those 9k hours and click on OPEN why not

 

[Jockey79]

As a player who has In excess of 9,000 hour's, in "SOLO" / "PRIVATE" and estimating at the most, one percent, via accidentally when doing relogs in "OPEN". I have no, nine, none, nada zero, etc. etc. etc. With PP or PPII being only available in open.

So content can be locked to open providing you're not interested in it then?

You know in the flash topics, after Sandro floated the idea of locked content/ weighted content, it took zero effort for some to start back with all the game content being locked to open mode and Solo/PG just being a static area or removed.

So when some of us say this argument is just the first step into completely ruining the game for everyone who isn't into PvP, and others answer with the "slippery slope fallacy" - remember it's no fallacy, they've already proven that just thinking about locking 1 small thing to open is only the start of their requests to have Solo and PG either removed entirely or so pointless no one plays it anymore.

Give some an inch, they will take a mile.

 

[Viajero]

You know in the flash topics, after Sandro floated the idea of locked content/ weighted content, it took zero effort for some to start back with all the game content being locked to open mode and Solo/PG just being a static area or removed.

So when some of us say this argument is just the first step into completely ruining the game for everyone who isn't into PvP, and others answer with the "slippery slope fallacy" - remember it's no fallacy, they've already proven that just thinking about locking 1 small thing to open is only the start of their requests to have Solo and PG either removed entirely or so pointless no one plays it anymore.

Give some an inch, they will take a mile.

I would not worry too much about those extreme demands. I suspect there is little if not strictly zero chance that FDEV ever decides to remove solo / groups. Which is great.

On the other hand, acknowledging the additional risk that exists in Open and scaling some rewards appropriately in some way, on the other hand, is probably a much more realistic compromise and option that I would not be surprised if FDEV decides to consider at some point. As long as technically feasible.

 

[Jockey79]

I would not worry too much about those extreme demands. I suspect there is little if not strictly zero chance that FDEV ever decides to remove solo / groups. Which is great.

On the other hand, acknowledging the additional risk that exists in Open and scaling some rewards appropriately in some way, on the other hand, is probably a much more realistic compromise and option that I would not be surprised if FDEV decides to consider at some point. As long as technically feasible.

Yeah, FDev has consistently maintained all other features will always be as they are, even when I mentioned folks stamping their feet for the rest of the game going open only in the flash topic, Sandro was fast enough to tell me it's not going to happen.

But then again, before PP was announced they said no game feature would even be considered for a single mode - then suddenly one was considered.
So I wouldn't say zero chance.

As for "added risk" - if it's your choice to add risk to your game (yet we keep being told by PvP'ers how hard it is to find people -Schrödinger's Risk?), then why should others pay for your personal preference of adding risk to your game when you don't have to add it? (one modes buff, is another modes nerf - so yes others are paying, by getting less for doing what you do)

 

[Rat Catcher]

But then again, before PP was announced they said no game feature would even be considered for a single mode - then suddenly one was considered.

It was one way to appease a minority...

Then following with "not at launch" hammered the lid down securely.

 

[Viajero]

Yeah, FDev has consistently maintained all other features will always be as they are, even when I mentioned folks stamping their feet for the rest of the game going open only in the flash topic, Sandro was fast enough to tell me it's not going to happen.

But then again, before PP was announced they said no game feature would even be considered for a single mode - then suddenly one was considered.
So I wouldn't say zero chance.

Yes, I still think there is very little, if not zero, chance that FDEV just eliminates altogether solo or groups . The different modes, all of them optional, is one of the great success factors in Elite I reckon.

As for "added risk" - if it's your choice to add risk to your game (yet we keep being told by PvP'ers how hard it is to find people -Schrödinger's Risk?), then why should others pay for your personal preference of adding risk to your game when you don't have to add it? (one modes buff, is another modes nerf - so yes others are paying, by getting less for doing what you do)

Everything in the game is our choice, for example choosing to add more risk by engaging a hydra instead of much lower risk scouts. I do not think that by choosing to attack scouts and getting less rewards I am paying for your personal preference to attack a hydra instead. So if you get that juicy Hydra reward, you deserve it for choosing to take the added risk. Rewards (including thargoid war progress) scale accordingly with risk as they should with many of those risk choices.

What you describe sounds a bit as if we were asking that someone choosing to take the larger risk of attacking a hydra, and succeeded, had to get as many credits and progress in the thargoid war as destroying a bunch of scouts.

This is not about buffs or nerfs. Much like the added risk of opting to engage a hydra instead of a scout, opting to play in Open has an added (and very significant) risk, and should also scale rewards accordingly somehow even if in targeted aspects. It is about appropriate rewards for risks taken. The main idea is that you should be rewarded according to the risks you choose to take. In the end it is rather an issue about balancing and technical feasibility, which has been discussed aswell in the thread.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

I was actually fairly on board with PvP with the 1.0 release. Unfortunately i spent most of the first year exploring instead of taking advantage of exploits or practicing combat or whatever, I was a poor boy. I only just earned my first 70 million or so by the end of that first year (not sure if you know, but exploration payouts were really low for a long time). By the time i started getting into combat, kitting out combat ships, the HP inflation had already started and PvP was developing from fast paced flight by the seat of your pants into a slug fest.

Once upon a time a Viper 3 could stand up to a big ship by dint of speed/agility even with way less firepower. Now? I'm not sure a Viper could even take down a big Elite NPC (Python or bigger) from a High CZ.... i'm sure someone could prove me wrong, but i bet it takes time.

Back at release I was massively into the BGS stuff once we escaped the pill, and the associated wars... such as was it Potilla where Patreus had that long running war on galnet, generally being mostly in the smaller craft (i.e. Viper Mk II) for a long, long time. My weird hot take on what caused a lot of the issues were (i) the reduction in repair/refuel/rearm costs meaning it was a lot less risky for your bank balance to run out into a CZ in your Anaconda (ii) the reduction in price of the FDL making it a lot more readily accessible.

I do miss the old days of taking out a Anaconda in a 2 or 3 player group using Eagles, but now unless you're engineered also, you're going to get out turned by them and probably won't make a scratch on the blighters.

As for "added risk" - if it's your choice to add risk to your game (yet we keep being told by PvP'ers how hard it is to find people -Schrödinger's Risk?), then why should others pay for your personal preference of adding risk to your game when you don't have to add it? (one modes buff, is another modes nerf - so yes others are paying, by getting less for doing what you do)

I'll just point out that you also regularly apply Schrodinger's Risk (as you call it) when it suits your talking point on the forums. When it is needed, Open is 'empty' and not a serious concern, the next it's home to 4 player FDL wings that are G-5 engineered, who are likely to kick your real life door down and steal your first born child given half a chance.

 

[Cmdr Nemo]

So content can be locked to open providing you're not interested in it then?

You know in the flash topics, after Sandro floated the idea of locked content/ weighted content, it took zero effort for some to start back with all the game content being locked to open mode and Solo/PG just being a static area or removed.

So when some of us say this argument is just the first step into completely ruining the game for everyone who isn't into PvP, and others answer with the "slippery slope fallacy" - remember it's no fallacy, they've already proven that just thinking about locking 1 small thing to open is only the start of their requests to have Solo and PG either removed entirely or so pointless no one plays it anymore.

Give some an inch, they will take a mile.

Personally, to the N-th degree, I'm not a pc tech in any sense of the phrase. All I know how to do is play this game. As I stated, with the couple of time's I accidently logged into open, when doing some relogging. I've spent the rest of my time only in solo or a private mode. Thus I've avoided any and all form's of contact of any kind with human's. I have no interest as to whom is charge of a faction, a system, or the entire bubble. Which if I'm correct, is what PP and the newer PPII is totally about.

For instance, Cmdr. Jameson was sent on an Clandestine assignment by someone in charge at the time. And for what ever reason, it didn't end up conducive to his remaining alive. I believe it was Drew who figured out that not all Thargoid's are evil. And that some are actually OK with human's. However, those in the position yesterday, today and in the assumable future; Have determined that the only good Thargoid is a dead Thargoid and thus in our inability to determine good from bad. Kill them all and let God work it out.

Thus to me it make's any and all the various aspect's involved in PP or PPII mooted. When the more things change the more they stay the same. There's lot's of other thing's to do besides worrying about who's in charge. I spend my time doing them.

 

[Jockey79]

I'll just point out that you also regularly apply Schrodinger's Risk (as you call it) when it suits your talking point on the forums. When it is needed, Open is 'empty' and not a serious concern, the next it's home to 4 player FDL wings that are G-5 engineered, who are likely to kick your real life door down and steal your first born child given half a chance.

I'm only going by what people some people keep saying, Power Play (open) is empty and people need to be enticed (or forced) into Open Mode to play it, but also extra rewards are required because of the "added risk" of Open Mode, which is apparently really dangerous while being empty

Perhaps those adamant about forcing others into Open Mode sit down and get their stories straight?
As they are providing the counter-arguments to undermine themselves.

 

[Cmdr Nemo]

You can still make it in time to balance those 9k hours and click on OPEN why not

One could say it's the same reason, one spends thousand of their invested hour's of play time; Out and away from the bubble and those that reside there. Some folks treasure their own company. Not to mention, I dislike getting involved in the seemingly, never ending human vs human pew pew, is to the N-th degree not in any way my forte.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Everything in the game is our choice, for example choosing to add more risk by engaging a hydra instead of much lower risk scouts. I do not think that by choosing to attack scouts and getting less rewards I am paying for your personal preference to attack a hydra instead. So if you get that juicy Hydra reward, you deserve it for choosing to take the added risk. Rewards (including thargoid war progress) scale accordingly with risk as they should with many of those risk choices.

What you describe sounds a bit as if we were asking that someone choosing to take the larger risk of attacking a hydra, and succeeded, had to get as many credits and progress in the thargoid war as destroying a bunch of scouts.

I consider it more analogous to choosing to fight those Hydras without engineering, and then complaining that they get rewarded the same as those with maxed-G5 mods. I choose Open because I enjoy occasionally testing my evasion skills against other players, and the thrill of successfully doing so is my reward.

And the emphasis is on occasionally. Realistically, there’s less than a one in a hundred chance of ever encountering opposition if I stay away from where the PowerPlay PvPers like to gather when the stars align. A realistic reward to offset my actual risk would amount to a 0.3% bonus.

The game should reward actual risk, not hypothetical risk. Give me a bonus for running the gauntlet in a PvP hotspot when PvPers get instanced with me, and then we’ll have some fun.

 

[Viajero]

I consider it more analogous to choosing to fight those Hydras without engineering, and then complaining that they get rewarded the same as those with maxed-G5 mods. I choose Open because I enjoy occasionally testing my evasion skills against other players, and the thrill of successfully doing so is my reward.

Any player can obviously decide to add a challenge of his own to the already existing rules and balance in any game. We are also even free to act foollish on ocassion, both willingly or unwillingly . Nothing wrong with it. The thrill of it is our reward. This already happens in all modes, Solo, Group or Open.

The bottom line is many games are have rules based on progression obtained thanks to rewards that are generally commensurate with the risks the game environment presents by design, irrespective of how many more challenges each player personally decides to include into those.

And the emphasis is on occasionally. Realistically, there’s less than a one in a hundred chance of ever encountering opposition if I stay away from where the PowerPlay PvPers like to gather when the stars align. A realistic reward to offset my actual risk would amount to a 0.3% bonus.

Well, if the risk of playing in Open was actually so low, then we should not be finding that there is so much contrary opinion to those requesting to make it open only (I think all modes should be optional either way).

But more serilously though, yeah, in a game as huge as Elite there are indeed areas and content which would naturally carry more risk than others of course. But I think we all can agree that playing in Open carries a certain level of additional risk. The size, or even location, of such a commensurate reward would eventually be, of course, up to FDEV to define and balance as they see fit if they decide to go that way. It may very well be, for example, that FDEV considers to put in place a system where the commensurate rewards in Open apply only to, say, PP2 progress

The game should reward actual risk, not hypothetical risk. Give me a bonus for running the gauntlet in a PvP hotspot when PvPers get instanced with me, and then we’ll have some fun.

I personally would also welcome specific PvP missions or scenarios like the ones you suggest, as long as they are appropriately rewarded, commensurate to the risks indeed (i.e. an average NPC conflict zone played in Solo or Group probably would not be as risky as a PvP one). Having said that I suspect some players may complain that they can not access that content if it is somehow of a new kind.

As for hypothetical risks, playing in open carries a very real and tangible risk. Not only because players that want to combat you will generally be much better prepared and more efficient than many of the NPC´s that can attack you, but also precisely because of the powerful fact that they would be ubiquitous and fully out of your control regarding the time and place of the encounter, unlike most NPC activity.

The challenge here is double: First in how to strike the right balance for the reward. Let´s say on average you get destroyed by enemy combat players in, say, 1 out of 3 times that you get to a particular spot for a particular PP2 action. In Solo or Group that would have never happened but here you lost your ship and/or cargo once in every 3 trips more than players in Solo or Group in the same location. The rewards in Open for those times you survived needs to account for that (be it in credits, PP progress or whatever FDEV may eventually decide). And second, how to prevent that the system becomes too exploitable. This second challenge, of a technical nature rather than game design, I suspect, is the main one.

 

[Doctor Dread]

On the other hand, acknowledging the additional risk that exists in Open and scaling some rewards appropriately in some way, on the other hand, is probably a much more realistic compromise and option that I would not be surprised if FDEV decides to consider at some point. As long as technically feasible.

I would applaud that decision, only if they acknowledge the people who do have additional risks - traders, couriers and such.
And penalize rewards & contributions for people who here push hard for Open Only - G5 murderboat campers - with literally ZERO risk for themselves.

 

[Viajero]

I would applaud that decision, only if they acknowledge the people who do have additional risks - traders, couriers and such.
And penalize rewards & contributions for people who here push hard for Open Only - G5 murderboat campers - with literally ZERO risk for themselves.

Everyone, including those you describe have also a risk of encountering other, equally or even better armed, enemy combat players and getting as destroyed as traders.

The (admittedly challenging) goal for FDEV here, should they decide to go that route, is to balance the rewards due to the added risk appropriately for everyone: better rewards for traders when they succeed in a delivery, and for combat players when they survive a confrontation with enemy combat players.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Well, if the risk of playing in Open was actually so low, then we should not be finding that there is so much contrary opinion to those requesting to make it open only. I think we all can agree that playing in open carries additional risk. The size of such a commensurate reward would eventually be, of course, up to FDEV to define and balance as they see fit if they decide to go that way.

Speaking personally, my opposition to Open Only isn't the risk factor. Increasing the Open population by roughly 33% isn't likely to radically change my odds, when the primary determanent of those odds is the fact that this game has the wrong networking architecture and matchmaking rules for this type of PvP gameplay.

My concern is how Open Only would affect the fun factor. I play games to have fun, and currently those playing in Open are fun to play with.

With Open being voluntary, the population in Open is, for the most part, the kind of people who are fun to play with, even if they're playing in opposition to me. All of us in Open are generally playing by the same set of unwritten rules that make make even oppositional PvP fun to participate in. The people who are not fun to play with either play in Solo/PG due to some false notion of efficiency, or most likely of all have quit playing entirely, because the current Open population isn't easy to kill, and thus they can't maintain the illusion that they're highly skilled PvPers.

I'd much rather play with a large PowerPlay population, where everyone in Open is there voluntarily and are playing by the same unwritten rules which makes the game fun to play, rather than a much smaller Open Only population, where most players don't play by those unwritten rules, due to actual efficiency.

 

[Viajero]

Speaking personally, my opposition to Open Only isn't the risk factor. Increasing the Open population by roughly 33% isn't likely to radically change my odds, when the primary determanent of those odds is the fact that this game as the wrong networking architecture and matchmaking rules for this type of PvP gameplay.

My concern is how Open Only would affect the fun factor. I play games to have fun, and currently those playing in Open are fun to play with.

With Open being voluntary, the population in Open is, for the most part, the kind of people who are fun to play with, even if they're playing in opposition to me. All of us in Open are generally playing by the same set of unwritten rules that make make even oppositional PvP fun to participate in. The people who are not fun to play with either play in Solo/PG due to some false notion of efficiency, or most likely of all have quit playing entirely, because the current Open population isn't easy to kill, and thus they can't maintain the illusion that they're highly skilled PvPers.

I'd much rather play with a large PowerPlay population, where everyone in Open is there voluntarily and are playing by the same unwritten rules which the game fun to play, rather than a much smaller Open Only population, where most players don't play by those unwritten rules, due to actual efficiency.

For the record, I am also opposed to Open Only, including being opposed to PP2 open only. I think all modes should remain optional. But some of the rewards in Open should probably be scaled up in some way commensurate to the additional risk.

Personally I think limiting this to PP2 progress would be a great compromise, and a manageable test bed for FDEV for balance.