The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Rat Catcher]

Your proposal was completely redundant and will appeal to almost no one that spends half a second considering what it would and would not change.

Indeed, about as unbiased as the usual content of this topic.

A subset of players don't enjoy the designed activies anywhere near as much as they could because of overly loose constraints that result in the most abstract and PvP avoidant option being mechanically the best option.

Were those constraints not in the game they bought?

And all suggestions are immediately rejected.

True enough...

I don't believe there is any changing of Frontier's road maps to account for player desires, popular or otherwise.

I believe you are 100% correct in that observation

The only motive Frontier has is profit and to maximize profits they are going to consult accountants and statistical trends, not any degree of player praise or complaint. The only meaningful opinions, from a business perspective, are reflected in sales.

Once again, a very astute observation, and certainly one I'd expect from a thinking person.

Yet, for years, the same requests, or suggestions, or whatever are presented by a few, seemingly with total disregard to the valid points you illustrated.

But, the eternal debate is fun, and permits totally ridiculous suggestions, accusations and righteous indignation by participants, in varying degrees.
The horse is long dead, after all.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I'm sure they do.

This would be a problem for some, but generally a lesser problem than the alternatives. The overriding issue for most Open-only types is the perceived interference of those who can 'hide' in or escape to other modes. Forcing the entirety of the current population into Open, were the underlying mechanism of the game able to support this, might be seen as the ideal solution, but the next best solution wouldn't be a self-imposed exile to a PvP subset of the same game where the interference of those in other modes is still there...it would be a separate game where there are no other modes.



The nature of BGS and PP conflicts tends to create choke points where relatively few CMDR could have the experience they're looking for, if the only way to oppose one's foes was to meet they where they are (and the only way to avoid them was to not be around when they were). Most of us rarely encounter other CMDRs outside of hotspots as it is and many of those encounters are functionally the same window dressing that NPCs are, partially due to the chilling effect of knowing that most of those encounters can be opted out of at any time, making many engagements even more of a waste of time.

If my suspicions are correct, the population would be so low as to hardly come into consideration with regards to choke points or interference.

The galaxy is big, there are 11? powers and a bazillion factions and thousands of systems. There would have to be a sizable population for choke points to be choke points across a decent portion of the gameplay area.

As for interference, its not like its going to matter with the number of players partaking in such things, filling the buckets will be a lot harder without all the hardcore PvEers filling them. I suspect after some time those players might start wishing for more people filling buckets regardless of mode.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Constraints define a game. Anyone desiring any change is going to want to modify, remove, or impose constraints.

Constraints do indeed define a game - and in this game players are not constrained to play among other players to affect the game's mode shared game features.

Not perhaps. Obviously and inevitably.

Quite.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

The game has changed fundamentally several times.

We probably have different understanding of what "fundamental" means. Last time I logged in, it was still a game that, amongst other things, lets me fly my space ship in a simulated 1:1 representation of the galaxy with a background simulation that's shaped by all players in all modes. That hasn't changed since the game's inception. I'd call that the fundament of the game.

 

[Morbad]

Were those constraints not in the game they bought?

Frequently they were, but the game has evolved, for better or for worse, and the topic of Open incentives and limitations has been brought up, occasionally even implemented (in a very limited fashion), by Frontier. It's been years since those ideas were floated, but hope dies hard.

But yes, some people want changes.

If my suspicions are correct, the population would be so low as to hardly come into consideration with regards to choke points or interference.

The galaxy is big, there are 11? powers and a bazillion factions and thousands of systems. There would have to be a sizable population for choke points to be choke points across a decent portion of the gameplay area.

I suspect that the various player groups supporting any given power or faction would focus on certain fronts to concentrate their limited influence on filling the requisite buckets, which would naturally cause chokepoints to form. As long as the same information available that the game currently provides, and concentration of player activity would become visible and would attract opposition. The noise from other modes would be gone; any activity would something that could be directly opposed.

The size of the galaxy, or even the bubble, doesn't really present an obstacle. Most people would be choosing this mode to fight over stuff, not quietly go their own way and be amicable neighbors. They are going to gravitate toward each other and conflict would be inevitable. It wouldn't take that many people to support this gameplay. Other mechanisms could further encourage direct confrontation, simply by acknowledging that CMDRs are greater threats, and higher value targets, than NPCs.

As for interference, its not like its going to matter with the number of players partaking in such things, filling the buckets will be a lot harder without all the hardcore PvEers filling them. I suspect after some time those players might start wishing for more people filling buckets regardless of mode.

I would expect the influence and merit requirements for an Open-only subset of the game to be tuned to the active population of players, assuming it wasn't deliberately designed to fail. Regardless, an actual Open-only system wouldn't allow bucket filling from other modes as that would negate the gameplay the constraint enabled.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I would expect the influence and merit requirements for an Open-only subset of the game to be tuned to the active population of players, assuming it wasn't deliberately designed to fail. Regardless, an actual Open-only system wouldn't allow bucket filling from other modes as that would negate the gameplay the constraint enabled.

Quite possibly, if it were to happen, as otherwise it would be stupid.

However, FD never seemed to adjust PP based on number of participating players before.

 

[Rat Catcher]

But yes, some people want changes.

SOP for most games, judging by other fora.
The norm appears to be change to benefit whoever raised a suggestion in some way, or to disadvantage others.

Currently (and historically) FD are resisting the blandishments of players wishing to change to their advantage - but only they know their future plans...

 

[Darrack]

No we don't.

At the risk of getting into a pantomime routine can you tell me an MMO that introduced PvP changes that did not adversely effect PVE (Raiding)?
Because i can certainly give you examples from WOW, ESO, etc.

O7

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Have you tried the base infiltration missions where there are restrictions such as no kills or alarms set off when doing what the mission requires you to do?

Maybe such missions could be PP undermining missions.

Thinking back to when I was doing undermining; All power data is alarmed so turning the alarms off is standard practice.
No kills... Power guards (in spangly blue, red, green or orange costumes) are worth merits when shot...
For thiese reasons I tended to look for systems in negative BGS states and take power up or scavenge missions.
Park up the Scorpion at the edge of the landing pad and use it as a shooting range.

 

[Morbad]

At the risk of getting into a pantomime routine can you tell me an MMO that introduced PvP changes that did not adversely effect PVE (Raiding)?
Because i can certainly give you examples from WOW, ESO, etc.

O7

Shadowbane, Jumpgate, LoTRO though the latter artificially segregated PvP.

I've never played WoW or ESO, but your personal assessment of whatever PvP changes you believe adversely affected PvE content does not in any way imply that PvP balance changes must do so. What you know about this is impossible to falsify and thus impossible to demonstrate. A million examples, even if we completely agreed on them, would still only need a single example to the contrary to demonstrate that PvP changes do not need to negatively impact PvE gameplay.

Regardless, I'm not fond of games that don't look at overarching balance holistically. As far as I am concerned, NPCs and PCs should all be playing by the same underlying rules, while the mechanisms underpinning the setting should be self-balancing. Very few games live up to this, but not because of any PvP/PvE dichotomy.

As far as I am concerned, if a game needs separate PvP and PvE rules, something is seriously wrong with the PvE aspects of the game. As one might imagine, I am not a fan of most themepark MMOs (which are mostly only MMOs as a pretext to be online only and extract a subscription fee or microtransactions).

 

[Agony_Aunt]

At the risk of getting into a pantomime routine can you tell me an MMO that introduced PvP changes that did not adversely effect PVE (Raiding)?
Because i can certainly give you examples from WOW, ESO, etc.

O7

I've got an anti-one from ED itself. When they nerfed missiles and torps because of PvPers using them to shoot into stations and other shenanigans. Missiles and torps were in a good place for PvE, until the PvPers ruined it for the rest of us. Admittedly, FD could have handled the situation differently, better, but the result is the result we got, and now missiles are very situationally useful and torps barely worth considering outside some very niche uses.

 

[Darrack]

Shadowbane, Jumpgate, LoTRO though the latter artificially segregated PvP.

I've never played WoW or ESO, but your personal assessment of whatever PvP changes you believe adversely affected PvE content does not in any way imply that PvP balance changes must do so. What you know about this is impossible to falsify and thus impossible to demonstrate. A million examples, even if we completely agreed on them, would still only need a single example to the contrary to demonstrate that PvP changes do not need to negatively impact PvE gameplay.

Regardless, I'm not fond of games that don't look at overarching balance holistically. As far as I am concerned, NPCs and PCs should all be playing by the same underlying rules, while the mechanisms underpinning the setting should be self-balancing. Very few games live up to this, but not because of any PvP/PvE dichotomy.

As far as I am concerned, if a game needs separate PvP and PvE rules, something is seriously wrong with the PvE aspects of the game. As one might imagine, I am not a fan of most themepark MMOs (which are mostly only MMOs as a pretext to be online only and extract a subscription fee or microtransactions).

If the two modes (PVP and PVE) are together it never works.

Example: WOW at the beginning was never intended as PvP, yes you could do it but skills/talents etc were solely designed for PVE where class designers were free to base skills on the way they wanted a character to 'feel' and its role within the game.
Go back to the first great MMO, Everquest, designed around the holy principles of group/raid PVE, the Tank was hard as nails, the healer could just spam and the wizzys had nukes that were just ridiculous.
WOW designers bought into this because they intended the game to be a PVE dungeon/raid game so Priests were top healers, warriors damage, Pallys meat shields etc.
Now take that into PvP, how is a Priest going to kill a Tank? Spam it to death with some rubbish excuse for an offensive spell?
The biggy was Soul Link on Warlocks (my class), we were designed to do crowd control, SL kept us alive by transferring damage to our pet, PvP wise we were unkillable.

At the start it was Open world (opt in toggle) PVP, it was fun but eventually all you had was a million undead rogues since nowt could touch them.
PvPers complained, whined and in came the nerf bats.
All those really decent skills that could save a raid were gone, deemed OP by the PvP community.
Eventually they ruined what class mechanics existed.

WOW had to reset, it made battle grounds but the damage was already done.
They made pure PvP servers with new rulesets but they were Ghost towns.

ESO a game where i was full time PvPer, kept it separate in a large Open battle zone but they couldn't sort out how some of the spell system worked (in PVE classes overlapped spells to create powerful attacks) so that got nerfed.
Eventually they cut staff so both modes sort of melted into each other with future 'balancing' and skill progression watered down so as not to effect PvP.
This made what extra PVE content they made difficult.

Another example where i was mainly a PvPer was GW2, some AOE spells were really cool in PVE but in battlegrounds 'ball groups' had multiple classes spamming these spells and just running around near unkillable, it was a joke.
Shoot me because i was one of those that worked out exact timings of multiple players casting said spells to get maximum effect, you want to win right?
Nerf bat time, spells ruined for any PVE.

If you want PvP the game has to be based on that from the start, weapons balanced, skills with counter skills, a level playing field.
Those games are almost always FPS.
PVP balancing in PVE always restricts freedom and fun to play how you want, don't be fooled by ESOs and class any weapon advertising, in PvP there's a meta and its boring.
But if you want to reach the top spots that's how its done.

O7

 

[Morbad]

If the two modes (PVP and PVE) are together it never works.

Except when it does.

If you want PvP the game has to be based on that from the start, weapons balanced, skills with counter skills, a level playing field.
Those games are almost always FPS.

If a game is balanced in a way that makes sense, I'm inclined to think it's probably automatically well balanced for PvP. Take most strategy or simulation games as examples. One doesn't need to balance them for PvP to make PvP work because the mechanisms and units featured are typically balanced against each other, irrespective of who is controlling them. NPCs can be made to cheat if required to make them a challenge, or can be handicapped in situations where a computer is superhumanly capable, but such biases can just be omitted when the opponents are other players.

Some games present deliberately, arbitarily, lopsided scenarios and get away with the resulting ridiculousness because they are PvE. No doubt it's easier to balance things when they don't need to make any sense, but that's not the only way balance can be achieved.

For example, I had a lot of fun with Cyberpunk 2077, but the game's climactic battle would have been dramatically better if Adam Smasher wasn't just a moronic bullet/blade sponge with a thousand times my character's health. Indeed, had there been a 'PvP'-like balance going on (where he was playing by the same rules as V), it would have forced CDPR to get very creative with Smasher's behavior.

If we extend things beyond video games, I remember seeing multiple PC party wipes in tabletop AD&D from facing the original incarnation of Lolth (from the old Q1 module that I adapted to my 2e game)...whose avatar had inferior statistics and hitpoints to half of the individual members of each of these parties. In later incarnations beings of such stature were inflated to comical extremes, so they could go toe-to-toe and blow-for-blow, with little real concern for tactics. Operating under the earlier constraints made Lolth and other beings like her seem more formidable, and generally led to more enjoyable encounters.

Many of my younger players, who cut their RPG teeth on video games, are shocked by basic dynamism. They expect a BBEG to be a static threat holed up in some dungeon waiting to die...and are wholly unprepared when the quest's dragon antagonist, who is on paper as smart as their wizard and older than all of them combined, notices the hunting in the area isn't as good as it once was and goes to investigate...culminating in the whole party being incinerated in their beds at the tavern 30 miles (90 minutes as the dragon flies) from the dungeon the players expected the 'raid' to take place in.

I suppose I've always seen PvP balance as the default, because well before I had any PvP video games, or the internet, I was thinking in terms of every intelligent NPC foe being the hero of it's own story and being played as competent individuals who weren't concerned in the slightest with entertaining their would-be murderers, but rather with murdering them first. I've always appreciated video games that felt like they took similar approaches, even if they had to fake things a bit due to the technical limitations of the day.

Correspondingly, I have become increasingly intolerant of gaming experiences that don't present believable opposition. Computers are multiple orders of magnitude more powerful than they were a few decades ago, but NPC AI has barely advanced and themepark MMOs in particular have major adversaries with behavioral scripts that probably wouldn't tax a Commodore 64, or a human with a sheet of paper and a slide rule. Foes in these games are given a fixed script to follow formulaically, then as many hit points as needed to drag out the experience to the intended degree. They're games within games that do nothing to immerse me in the stories being told. Seeing such balance presented as some kind of ideal seems more than a little ridiculous to me.

If these PvE MMO raid bosses were believable characters, their spies would find out about the raid two hours before it started and they'd ambush small groups of it's participants while they were checking the mail, idling in front of the auction house, or inside other quests, loot all their equipment (and actively use the best stuff) then render the corpses unfit for resurrection. Of course, they aren't supposed to be believable characters, they are just the loot pinata at the end of a theme park ride.

PVP balancing in PVE always restricts freedom and fun to play how you want

That's the same hasty generalization.

There are very few things framed in such absolute terms that I can agree with, though in this case, I'd still disagree, even if this were phrased as a more general sentiment.

I don't doubt your experiences or even particularly your assessment of the titles mentioned (though again, I tend to think the balance was illusory from the get go if it couldn't be extended to PvP, without change), but I don't think they are particularly good examples, let alone inviolable archetypes dictating how all MMOs must be.

 

[Darrack]

Except when it does.

Which game?

If a game is balanced in a way that makes sense, I'm inclined to think it's probably automatically well balanced for PvP. Take most strategy or simulation games as examples. One doesn't need to balance them for PvP to make PvP work because the mechanisms and units featured are typically balanced against each other, irrespective of who is controlling them. NPCs can be made to cheat if required to make them a challenge, or can be handicapped in situations where a computer is superhumanly capable, but such biases can just be omitted when the opponents are other players.

Some games present deliberately, arbitarily, lopsided scenarios and get away with the resulting ridiculousness because they are PvE. No doubt it's easier to balance things when they don't need to make any sense, but that's not the only way balance can be achieved.

For example, I had a lot of fun with Cyberpunk 2077, but the game's climactic battle would have been dramatically better if Adam Smasher wasn't just a moronic bullet/blade sponge with a thousand times my character's health. Indeed, had there been a 'PvP'-like balance going on (where he was playing by the same rules as V), it would have forced CDPR to get very creative with Smasher's behavior.

If we extend things beyond video games, I remember seeing multiple PC party wipes in tabletop AD&D from facing the original incarnation of Lolth (from the old Q1 module that I adapted to my 2e game)...whose avatar had inferior statistics and hitpoints to half of the individual members of each of these parties. In later incarnations beings of such stature were inflated to comical extremes, so they could go toe-to-toe and blow-for-blow, with little real concern for tactics. Operating under the earlier constraints made Lolth and other beings like her seem more formidable, and generally led to more enjoyable encounters.

Many of my younger players, who cut their RPG teeth on video games, are shocked by basic dynamism. They expect a BBEG to be a static threat holed up in some dungeon waiting to die...and are wholly unprepared when the quest's dragon antagonist, who is on paper as smart as their wizard and older than all of them combined, notices the hunting in the area isn't as good as it once was and goes to investigate...culminating in the whole party being incinerated in their beds at the tavern 30 miles (90 minutes as the dragon flies) from the dungeon the players expected the 'raid' to take place in.

I suppose I've always seen PvP balance as the default, because well before I had any PvP video games, or the internet, I was thinking in terms of every intelligent NPC foe being the hero of it's own story and being played as competent individuals who weren't concerned in the slightest with entertaining their would-be murderers, but rather with murdering them first. I've always appreciated video games that felt like they took similar approaches, even if they had to fake things a bit due to the technical limitations of the day.

Correspondingly, I have become increasingly intolerant of gaming experiences that don't present believable opposition. Computers are multiple orders of magnitude more powerful than they were a few decades ago, but NPC AI has barely advanced and themepark MMOs in particular have major adversaries with behavioral scripts that probably wouldn't tax a Commodore 64, or a human with a sheet of paper and a slide rule. Foes in these games are given a fixed script to follow formulaically, then as many hit points as needed to drag out the experience to the intended degree. They're games within games that do nothing to immerse me in the stories being told. Seeing such balance presented as some kind of ideal seems more than a little ridiculous to me.

If these PvE MMO raid bosses were believable characters, their spies would find out about the raid two hours before it started and they'd ambush small groups of it's participants while they were checking the mail, idling in front of the auction house, or inside other quests, loot all their equipment (and actively use the best stuff) then render the corpses unfit for resurrection. Of course, they aren't supposed to be believable characters, they are just the loot pinata at the end of a theme park ride.

Not sure where to start with all of this as most has nowt to do with PVE PVP balance.
Original MMOs were designed as PVE, PvP was an add on which then became a genre.
I raided Time etc etc in EQ, end game PVE stuff in WOW whilst still being an active PvPer in WOW, i saw the changes, most of us did, that's why many left.

I'm, old i played D&D and am a huge WH40K player but all this makes no difference whatsoever, Elite is not balanced for PvP, never will be without a huge rebalance.

That's the same hasty generalization.

Its Fact

O7

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Which game?

Not sure where to start with all of this as most has nowt to do with PVE PVP balance.
Original MMOs were designed as PVE, PvP was an add on which then became a genre.
I raided Time etc etc in EQ, end game PVE stuff in WOW whilst still being an active PvPer in WOW, i saw the changes, most of us did, that's why many left.

I'm, old i played D&D and am a huge WH40K player but all this makes no difference whatsoever, Elite is not balanced for PvP, never will be without a huge rebalance.


Its Fact

O7

The issue is your comparing ability based MMO mechanics with Elite, which is closer to an FPS in terms of balance than something like Wow. The reason being is that balancing the guns is the biggest point of balance. Balancing the ships defensive capability is more about how they perform against their peers.

But you don't have separate dps/tank/healing roles that all do fundamentally different things. Every ship has defensive characteristics, offensive characteristics, and healies should be deleted from the game.

 

[Morbad]

Which game?

Jumpgate.

Original MMOs were designed as PVE, PvP was an add on which then became a genre.

I'm pretty sure PvP was part of very early MMOs like Meridian 59 and UO. And there have been plenty of MMOs where PvP wasn't an add-on, just the inevitable result of player controlled entities being able to encounter each other and there being no arbitrary barriers to it.

I raided Time etc etc in EQ, end game PVE stuff in WOW whilst still being an active PvPer in WOW, i saw the changes, most of us did, that's why many left.

I don't doubt you, but your examples, from which you're drawing sweeping conclusions, are not the only examples.

I'm, old i played D&D and am a huge WH40K player but all this makes no difference whatsoever, Elite is not balanced for PvP, never will be without a huge rebalance.

Those table top experiences didn't mandate this artificial PvP/PvE dichotomy and are my benchmark for what PvP and PvE should be. Players and their characters are part of the environment; separating the 'E' and making it some other is mostly a bit of laziness or an unfortunate technical necessity, not something, IMO, to aspire to.

As far as Elite: Dangerous goes I think its fairly well balanced. PvP (and PvE for that matter) is not as accessible or as diverse as it once was, and the game doesn't really incentivize it, but it's not especially imbalanced. Everyone has similar opportunities to acquire the in-game tools needed to directly oppose other CMDRs. The game also goes to great lengths to balance varied control configurations and has extremely agressive latency compensation that, at the cost of making some encounters borderline asyncronous, prevents any real advantage or disadvantage from networking variance. There are certainly some in-game assets that are not competitive, but outside AX combat, the game doesn't force anyone to use these. The same stuff that works well against CMDR also works well against human NPCs, the sole exception being in terms of endurance and that isn't a problem with PvP, that's a problem with the game expecting NPCs to be killed by the hundreds.

Its Fact

Fact is what can be proven and asserting the unprovable (anything that cannot be adequately tested), or readily disprovable (any absolute for which there is even a single counter example), as fact is nonsense.