The only aspect of this game that is intrinsic is flight, and the way you travel. Trade is not intrinsic. Exploration, isn't intrinsic. Etc. something being intrinsic or not is irrelevant to the discussion of balance for the game and it's activities.
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Regarding balance, choosing to engage in PvP is a bit like ones ship build and weapons outfit - it may result in getting destroyed. That's not a balance issue - it's a player choice.
The point, is that the optionality of something in this game does not indicate it's value to the game and therefore not a good basis for arguing for or against further investment into it by Fdev
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - same goes for it's value as perceived by each player.
So then it would follow that something merely being a part of the game warrants it's continued investment and improvement by Fdev .
You say optional extra, I say intrinsic feature that required a great deal of effort to avoid.
Open was (and might still be) the most popular mode by a wide margin and I imagine most people playing MMOs, even first person fantasy space flight ones, were expecting to encounter other players. In a game where one can harm those they encounter, it's pretty difficult to cleanly separate PvP from the Open experience.
Ah, that kind of backwards.
Yes, players tend to be risk adverse and intolerant of even the vaguest possibility of failure...which is surely why that whole 'cutthroat galaxy' thing is a farce.
My first trip to Hutton orbital cost ~10% of my CMDR's net worth in wear & tear and was almost the same as a rebuy. That said repair costs being more than replacement wasn't implausible, and if undesirable could have been addressed without making it completely irrelevant by cutting costs by an order of magnitude.
It's not mode agnostic, because of the latter. If it were, it wouldn't be more efficient to contribute influence, merits, bounties, or bonds from populated systems while in modes other than Open.
TTKs increasing (which happened naturally/gradually at first through inevitable demographic changes, but skyrocketed after the introduction of Engineering) and and the log out timer not scaling proportionally undermined Open. Expansion of the block functionality with increased weights against instancing undermined Open. Introduction of PP as a competitive mode with perverse incentives to avoid direct confrontations undermined Open. Run away credit inflation depreciating the value of cargo, most especially of rares, virtually killed 'real' piracy, which undermined Open. Etcetera and so forth.
Edit: Can't forget that massive Engineering grind wall that, despite credit inflation, moved the limiting factor required to engage with other CMDRs on semi-even footing from the time needed to acquire some basic skills to the time required to acquire several hundred G5 rolls...and this was even worse in the pre-3.0 system.
I still believe the balance of the statements in the advertising is far more suggestive of the idea that there is meaningful PvP (among a whole slew of other potential that is now lost ) to be had than otherwise.
Last edited:
Try to make money with PVP? Would be rather hard, eh?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Sandro previously indicated that allocation of Dev time and expense related to how much the player-base engaged with a particular feature.
And as we've seen that's the incorrect approach, since engagement with a feature is dictated, to a degree that cannot be ignored, by its quality. When a features quality is improved the engagement with that will increase. So the features that need the most improvement are the ones that are least engaged with.
when the mining and exploration improvement updates were introduced, the game saw increased engagement with those features. Same goes with pp2.0. engagement comes behind dev investment, operating vice versa is illogical.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It takes one mouse click at the start of the game session to avoid (in the same instance) PvP entirely - that's not "a great deal of effort".
Indeed.
Quite.
It is in terms of player action = effect on feature. That some choose to play in a way that means that they may be impeded by other players is their choice.
Which speaks more to Frontier's position on player choice (as to when to leave the game) than to a desire to make players stick around for PvP engagements.
The block feature was introduced unasked before the game launched - as Frontier knew it would be needed - it's as much a part of open as menu exit and the ability to shoot at anything one instances with is. There's also the fact that until the fold-down of Horizons into the base game only about half of players had access to Engineers.
The massive increase in disparity between optimised combat ships and stock non-combat ships that Engineering delivered likely did not help how Open is perceived.
It was never there to lose - as no player has ever needed to play with other players to play the game.
What self defeatism ? or I'm not allowed to play til I get guid ??
I don't care for it, my mind is not wired to blow up commanders if I actually find any for being in my space ? Quite irrational to be truthful at least to me.
I have played the game for 9 years quite happily without the need for it .
Open isn't a magical place where we meet everyone .
PvP in my opinion is inconsequential doesn't increase your standing in game or your influence there is no objective in game need for it.
Any losses in PP or BGS means you and your team didn't fill as many buckets as the other team . You don't need to know who they are you've just got to work smarter.
They may be half way round the world and playing when you are at work school or sleeping . Just stating that they are in solo or PG doesn't mean it's true , I mean technically we are taking you on your word that you play in open like you take me playing in open .
Möbius has no PvP in it's PG proves in numbers that PvP isn't a thing needed to play and enjoy the game and that's been going since Elite started .
DB wanted a cooperative galaxy right at the begining well before Sandro comments .
My own thoughts PvP has only carried on because of the broken C&P where the PvPer carries less risk.
Your argument was a series of propositions that you shot down with justification of your own incompetence in the game. Literal self defeatism.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While player engagement has increased after the introduction of new or updated features that the whole of the player-base may engage in, the same cannot necessarily be expected of a feature that would require PvP - as it's quite clear that not all players engage in PvP (and Frontier have indicated that they were at one time "well aware" that the majority of players don't engage in PvP). That'd likely be a harder sell to those who allocate Dev effort.
"While player engagement has increased after the introduction of new or updated features that the whole of the player-base may engage in, the same cannot necessarily be expected of a feature that would require exploration- as it's quite clear that not all players engage in exploration (and Frontier have indicated that they were at one time "well aware" that the majority of players don't engage in exploration). That'd likely be a harder sell to those who allocate Dev effort"
"While player engagement has increased after the introduction of new or updated features that the whole of the player-base may engage in, the same cannot necessarily be expected of a feature that would require on foot gameplay - as it's quite clear that not all players engage in on foot gameplay (and Frontier have indicated that they were at one time "well aware" that the majority of players don't engage in on foot gameplay). That'd likely be a harder sell to those who allocate Dev effort"
Nothing about your argument only applies to PvP. All features of the game deserve to be improved, because regardless of if the majority does something or not, the fact that improvement of features improves the game for some players and a potential group of players to return or engage with it anew, is justification enough.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The only game feature that was developed specifically for PvP was CQC/Arena - sold as a stand alone game foe about a year then removed.
PvP is not a game feature, it's an optional side-activity that may be engaged in while engaging in an actual game feature.
All activities besides flying a spaceship, are optional side activities that may or may not be engaged in. Optionality isn't an argument for whether or not improvement is justified.
Incompetence? No a PvP player in a sidewinder killing me would be my incompetence and I would probably laugh and ask for a copy of the video so I can show my mates , but not really care as I have credits and inf is easily built up quickly
Being killed by a PvPer with mates in a G5 FDLs or whatever the current meta isnt incompetence but again I wouldn't care, I may jump out I may try and waste time by letting them chase me .
It's really that inconsequential in game.
Your assumption is like many of your responses, I am right and everyone else is wrong and that open is a magical place where everyone sees everyone and people you don't see are obviously cheating or hiding or whatever other reason you think of.
I will carry on playing in open ( if you believe me or not ) and enjoy my gameplay of not blowing up people because .... I'm not sure really because they happen to be iny special instance " how dare they " in mock outrage .
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Optionality of PvP may result in insufficient players expected to be likely to engage in some new feature that requires it for it to be sanctioned for development.
Yeah this is a lot of conjecture by you. I've never said any of the words you're putting in my mouth. Better luck next time.
Hence why my position is adjustment of an already existing feature, powerplay.