Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Given that PSVR for the Playstation 4 version of the game (launched in 2017) was stated to be "not at launch"...."At launch"
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
Again its a myth, there is no risk, i had this argument before with one of the player groups opposing Utopia, they gave me crap for hauling merits in my Cutter in Mobius.
So for a whole week i did the same job in Open, even gave them the name of my ship, i never saw any of them.
Currently im hauling Rares to outlaying Utopian systems in a 64T Mando from 160LY out, the chances of you ever seeing me, let alone stopping me are so remote its up there with Leicester winning the Premier League.
All this Open is harder, more dangerous stuff is smoke and mirrors for a different agenda.
Sure if you go to the main systems you will get intercepted by griefers, i wonder why they all congregate around there?
Maybe because the Bubble (let alone Galaxy) is so big they just cant find any targets.
O7
If they have zero interest in PvP, they can stick to trading, mining, and other activities in high-security systems. But if they want to engage in Conflict Zones, influence the BGS or Power Play, or venture into lower-security systems, they should be prepared to take on the risk. This isn’t Viva Piñata, after all!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
What players should or should not do is up to each player - it is not for players to dictate how other players should play the game.If they have zero interest in PvP, they can stick to trading, mining, and other activities in high-security systems. But if they want to engage in Conflict Zones, influence the BGS or Power Play, or venture into lower-security systems, they should be prepared to take on the risk. This isn’t Viva Piñata, after all!
I understand your experience, and I’m not saying that every flight in Open is filled with danger in every system. You’re right that the galaxy is vast, and the chances of being intercepted are low in many areas. But the point isn’t about a constant frequency of encounters or a guaranteed risk, it’s about the unpredictability that Open introduces. You never truly know if you’ll be spotted, especially when entering more populated areas or engaging in activities that draw other players.
In Open, there’s an implicit challenge: the risk isn’t constant, but when it does appear, it’s real, and that adds a layer of immersion that Mobius simply can’t replicate. As for "griefers", I’d say again that term can be a bit one-sided. Not every player attacking another is out to ruin the experience, some have more or less legitimate reasons within the game’s framework for engaging in combat. This uncertainty and the possibility of PvP are what make Open distinct
Eheh, that’s a bit generic! like saying 'Peace is good, War is bad!' Of course, everyone can play how they like, but if we're all in Open, we’re knowingly embracing a world where PvP can happen, right? After all, it’s not called Elite: Safe Space
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While that may not be the intent, it may well be the outcome for those disinterested in combat in general and PvP in particular.
Suggesting that there are "legitimate reasons" for engaging a player in PvP while ignoring their legitimate choice that all players can make to play in other game modes while affecting mode shared game features is "a bit one-sided".
No Mobius removes the people i don't want to interact with, what it does is make my gaming time far more enjoyable.
I agree with much of what you say as it pretty much enforces the sentiment that Open is not special, its not more dangerous and all this talk of an Open bonus is just nonsense.
O7
All this " Open Only will benefit PP2.0" is disingenuous.
It all comes down to this:
It all comes down to this:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not at all. While some players want to play the game one way and would like others to be forced to play the same way that is not the way that the game has been designed, and no player needs to play the game the way that any other player wants them to.Eheh, that’s a bit generic! like saying 'Peace is good, War is bad!' Of course, everyone can play how they like, but if we're all in Open, we’re knowingly embracing a world where PvP can happen, right? After all, it’s not called Elite: Safe Space
The reason behind the name of the game is something of a meme now - and it has nothing to do with "danger".
When it comes to competitive activities, like the BGS, Power Play, trading with pirates around, or operating in enemy systems with player factions, it does become riskier. Otherwise, no one would bother with PG/Solo.
CMDRs choose those modes specifically to avoid the risk of PvP, whether from 'gankers' or from players with legitimate reasons to engage.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which is unsurprising in a game where other players are an optional extra, which means that any player activity that relies on other players as targets is vulnerable to those other players not choosing to play with the players that need them.
Haha, fair point on the name, it has taken on a life of its own LOL But I’d say the core design of Open is still about unpredictability and the risk of PvP. It’s not about forcing anyone to play a certain way, but if we're all in Open, there’s an understanding that interactions, friendly or otherwise, are part of the experience.
And that’s exactly the design flaw we’re all pointing out! Relying on player interactions while making other players an 'optional extra' creates a contradiction, especially for activities like Power Play and BGS, where the intended dynamics can fall apart without a balanced risk/reward structure.
In Open, the risk of PvP adds weight to actions like trading, fortifying, or undermining enemy factions, something you don’t face in Solo or PG. When players can choose these safer modes without any tradeoff, it creates an imbalance, undermining the competitive aspects of the game. A true risk/reward system would make Open more meaningful for these activities.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
For the game as it is, certainly but not without some limits, noting the existence of the block feature and menu exit (which may require a short delay).
For a hypothetical "open is the only game mode and it has a pvp-flag" version of the game not at all - as the PvP flag would be what dictated the limits to the interactions that players could force on other players.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It's a feature, not a flaw. A feature that likely aided the game pitch to achieve its Kickstarter target.
Not true, many like me avoid it because there is no genuine PvP, im a very experienced PvPer in other games but Elite does not offer a fair fight.
Lets not get started on hacking.
Guarantee you i will never get interdicted in my Vette unless its a wing (even then good luck!).
Would you rather me play in Open and Block everyone who just annoys me? Folks moan about that so what i do (like many thousands) is just to be less selfish and play in a mode where i can meet folks who are not trying to blow me up because of 'reasons'.
O7
It’s like adding a PvP flag to Call of Duty’s DMZ mode… you can’t put a flag on a core mechanic! The whole point of Open is that PvP and unpredictable interactions are baked into the experience. If someone wants a safer experience, there's already Solo or PG for that.
If these modes are to stay, then a weighting system should be considered; if they’re removed, the high-security system needs a serious overhaul to ensure balanced risk and protection.
Just like 'Clippy' in Microsoft Office was a feature