Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - and it has changed over time in some ways, notably not in others....
No player needs to engage in PvP - so their conscious choice to play in Open is in and of itself an acceptance that others may impede them. That some of those players then claim that their choice is "unfair" is obvious, but not very accurate -
Depending on context what constitutes "fair" may change.
Noted. Also noting that others propose / demand that players in Solo and Private Groups should not be able to affect mode shared game features at all.
That's simply one more "it's a matter of opinion" cases - noting that Frontier chose to introduce the block feature before launch and have only strengthened it and made it easier to use over the last ten years.
LOL XD But consider that, when you haul in open, may be a fast Adder is far way better choice than a shieldless T9 (again efficiency decreased because facing risk put a CMDR in a position where compromise is needed)That's not hauling, its shopping!
O7
That's not hauling, its shopping!
O7
There is only one hauler in the game and it is the Cutter.
And no, T-9 is not a hauler, it's deathtrap
Who in their right mind will use a shieldless T-9 in Open?
I wouldnt use one in Solo either (note that i did that, but it eventually ended bad)
Don't be dissin' my Adder. I didn't choose the adder lyfe, it chose me.That's not hauling, its shopping!
O7
But all joking aside, this is what I'm talking about in relation to how concessions need to be made for an open environment. I'm having to fly something shielded, fast and evasive, in case I come across someone who wants to prevent me from completing my trade run.
Pretty pointless. Maybe it will, and I hope it among many other CMDRs.
The definition of fairness requires equal rules and equal opportunities. If, in chess, my opponent were allowed to make an extra move on the same board, it would clearly be unfair.
This 5000 year old design rule still apply to every modern game.
Just remember that we have Solo/PG with same restriction as "block" without disrupting anyone gameplay (my wingmate see you and I won't...this type of things).
So blocking in Open is a terrible idea and should be fixed ASAP.
A big button with "bring me to PG/Solo" will do the job and "report" button will do the rest.
Because you should have heard the screams of burning CMDRs inside their ships...What says i didn't
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
As no player needs to play in Open to play the game it is inherently fair. That some players make choices that may subject them to entirely optional gameplay and therefore reduce how much they achieve in a given time is their choice and their choice alone - the game allows players to play in Open but does not force any player to do so.
Noting that in chess every player is playing the same game with the same tools available to them at the start of each match it is not a good comparison to this game where different ships are outfitted for different roles and where playing among human opponents is an optional extra.
Just as players can't dictate how others should play the game, neither can players dictate in which circumstances the block feature should be used - Frontier leave it up to each player to decide for themself, just like each player decides on which game mode to play in each session when deciding from which game mode to experience and affect the game in.
She's literally stripped down to the barebones, running on an overcharged 2D powerplant (I think), able to carry 8t of Onionhead (I even dropped the fuel tank down to a 2t one to maximise the weight) and still carries enough weapons I can duke it out with Elite NPCs (up to Anaconda sized) with relative comfort.
The idea that "no player needs to play in Open" does not inherently make the game fair, fairness is not a transitive property.
Just because players can choose different modes doesn’t mean that each mode is balanced equally.
The fact that players can choose to play in Open doesn’t inherently make it a fair or balanced choice. In game design, fair choice implies that each option offers a meaningful trade-off. When Open mode inherently carries higher risks, but without proportional rewards, it becomes a choice with unbalanced downsides.
Your argument that ED differs from chess due to varied ship roles and optional PvP overlooks the principle we’re discussing: fairness in gameplay options.
While ships in ED may be outfitted for different roles, fairness doesn’t hinge on identical starting conditions but rather on balanced options with comparable risk-reward structures. In chess, each player has equal access to moves and pieces, ensuring that strategy, not unequal advantages, determines the outcome. Similarly, in ED, fairness would mean that each gameplay mode (Open, Solo, and Private) presents balanced opportunities and rewards.
When Open mode introduces the risk of human PvP opponents, it creates a layer of unpredictability and challenge not present in Solo or Private. To maintain fairness across these modes, the game should provide rewards in Open that reflect this increased risk.
While it's true that players can't dictate how others play, tools like the block feature and mode selection impact the broader multiplayer experience in ED. The key issue isn’t individual choice, but the effects those choices have on a shared universe. Blocking or playing in Solo/Private allows players to avoid Open’s shared challenges while still impacting the game's economic, political, or factional state.
Frontier may indeed allow players to choose modes or use the block feature, but balancing these options fairly is essential for a shared world game. When players can shape the galaxy while bypassing Open’s risks, it creates an imbalance.
Ideally, the structure should ensure that choices like blocking or mode-switching reflect natural consequences, so gameplay choices preserve, not bypass, the sense of shared risk and reward that defines Open play.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In a game where PvP is an optional extra that no player needs to engage in when affecting any pan-modal game feature, there's no particular need for the game modes to be balanced in terms of potential outcomes due to the potential presence of other players in two of the three game modes - as every player can choose to play in any of them at any time - it's up to each player (and not dictated by other players) which game mode to play in.The idea that "no player needs to play in Open" does not inherently make the game fair, fairness is not a transitive property.
Just because players can choose different modes doesn’t mean that each mode is balanced equally.
The fact that players can choose to play in Open doesn’t inherently make it a fair or balanced choice. In game design, fair choice implies that each option offers a meaningful trade-off. When Open mode inherently carries higher risks, but without proportional rewards, it becomes a choice with unbalanced downsides.
Your argument that ED differs from chess due to varied ship roles and optional PvP overlooks the principle we’re discussing: fairness in gameplay options.
While ships in ED may be outfitted for different roles, fairness doesn’t hinge on identical starting conditions but rather on balanced options with comparable risk-reward structures. In chess, each player has equal access to moves and pieces, ensuring that strategy, not unequal advantages, determines the outcome. Similarly, in ED, fairness would mean that each gameplay mode (Open, Solo, and Private) presents balanced opportunities and rewards.
When Open mode introduces the risk of human PvP opponents, it creates a layer of unpredictability and challenge not present in Solo or Private. To maintain fairness across these modes, the game should provide rewards in Open that reflect this increased risk.
That some want to receive an extra reward simply for playing on one of the two multi-player modes is obvious - and is a fallback from the "remove content from players in Solo and Private Groups" proposals, turning it into a "penalise players in Solo and Private Groups for not presenting themself to be shot at" proposal.
The block feature exists because players can affect other players, whether by comms, interdiction, combat, etc.. The shared world game that we all play does not require players to engage in combat with other players, or even play among other players - so that the block feature prevents particular players instancing together in either of the multi-player game modes is consistent with the optionality of other players.
In ED, Open mode isn't just “optional PvP”; it's a gameplay choice with increased risk due to potential player interactions.
Fair balancing doesn’t “penalize” Solo or Private, it simply recognizes that those who accept greater risks in Open should see proportionate rewards.
This isn’t about taking content away from Solo/PG but about aligning reward with risk, a standard in any balanced game design.
If Solo and Private face no PvP risks, their rewards should naturally reflect that difference.
The block feature is indeed there to manage unwanted interactions, but using it to avoid encounters in Open changes the experience from a shared-risk environment to one without consequences.
Open mode is intended as a dynamic, multiplayer space where players' choices and presence carry weight.
Blocking to avoid PvP while still impacting the game world undermines that balance.
The optionality of combat or interaction doesn’t mean consequences vanish; it means players choose how to handle them.
Blocking, when overused, bypasses this shared risk principle in Open, creating a mode that’s no longer balanced or fair for all players who engage with its inherent risks.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It is indeed a choice.
In a game not centred around PvP, not engaging in PvP should not be penalised.
Given that the block feature has existed for as long as the game has been released, and that menu exit (possibly subject to a short delay) is (according to Frontier) permissible at any time, it seems that what Open "is" isn't what some hope it is, and has never been.
The problem there, is that by engaging in Powerplay you are engaging in PvP.
The absence of PvP as a primary focus doesn’t imply that fairness in game design isn’t important.
Fairness comes from balancing risk and reward across different modes. Open mode carries higher risks due to potential player interactions, and this doesn’t require PvP to be the game’s main feature for that risk to warrant balanced rewards.
Many games where PvP isn’t central like EVE or Dark Souls, still reward players who engage in higher-stakes environments to ensure that those risks have purpose.
While the block feature and menu exit are there for player convenience, abusing them to avoid PvP disrupts fair play. Behavior that in other games, like LoL or WoW , would be reportable. These tools aren’t meant to bypass legitimate risk in Open mode.
Using them this way undermines the mode’s intended balance and affects other players' experiences.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In which case no penalty should even be considered - unless the suggestion is that because there's no requirement to engage in in-the-same-instance (ITSI) PvP in Powerplay players who choose not to engage in ITSI-PvP should be penalised for not engaging in ISTI-PvP in a game feature that does not require any player to engage in ITSI-PvP?
I like arena shooters! Don't like PvP in open world games, but i do enjoy a good arena, from the good old days of Quake 3 and UT to their modern equivalents. My kids still kick my rear end though.
3DOF arena games are something that are lacking though. Was there a really good and popular one since the days of Descent and Forsaken?
You are voluntarily subjecting yourself to those so called "greater risks", playing the game in a less optimal way.
That doesnt mean that players choosing other modes should be penalized
If you feel you are not competitive, play coop in a PG with your mates and achieve maximum efficiency, other than that enjoy what open has to offer along likeminded commanders without lookin to penalize other modes.
And again, the "greater risk in open" is a fallacy since there are plenty of ways to ensure there are close to zero risks playing in open, ways that people will abuse if open play get bonuses over the other modes (from ungankable ships, to odd timezones, to block lists, to custom firewall rules and what not)
No, PowerPlay, like any other feature except CQC, relies on filling PVE buckets.
IF PP merits would have been achieved by direct PVP only, you would be right. But it's not