Modes Hey, anybody remember when we were asking for an official PvE mode?

[Siobhan]

Yet somehow the risks of exploiters router fiddling was a valid excuse to oppose OOPP.

They are nothing to do with each other. OOPP is just an excuse to try to push non PvP players out of the game, while router fiddling is cheating to make it look like your opponent is CLing.

They are both bad for the game, but that's the limit of similarity.

The risk of router fiddling is a reason not to enforce the more draconian CL "punishments" that many PvPers want. It is not an excuse to prevent OOPP. OOPP is itself a good enough reason to oppose OOPP.

 

[Iskariot]

This DW2 drama blow-up is exactly why.

Just look at how many highly-populated threads are ongoing about the topic right now.

Dear Frontier: as I see things, this is no longer a question of "if" a PvE mode is necessary. The question is "when", and the time has been "now" for well over a year at the very latest.

Viewing this debacle is adding to my growing list of reasons to not be playing the game.

If they do not use Private group, then I consider the drama to be their own choice.
And that is coming from someone who hates PvP, and multiplayer in general.

 

[Sylveria]

Right, which is why locks are sold as "locks" and not "guaranteed no burglars devices".

If Frontier were to introduce a "no direct damage" version of Open, that was very clear that it didn't attempt to prevent all ways another player could cause you to explode, just the really obvious ones ... I'd have no objection to that, though I wouldn't use it personally.

That's pretty much what most are asking for. They're not expecting that other things absolutely "won't" occur on occasion. Those situations can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

But I don't think most of the people saying "we need an Open PvE mode" want one that only keeps them safe from a few obvious types of attack. The current Open mode already does that 99%+ of the time simply by making the chances that you're in the same instance as someone who wants to kill you basically nil outside a few hotspots. I only play in Open ... the last time I had a (non-arranged) PvP encounter was six months ago (they demanded cargo, I gave them some, they let me go) ... the last time someone actually tried to kill me was 18 months ago. I don't think many people would play "Open PvE" if they went to a hotspot and there were still plenty of ways for other players to kill them ... and if they did, there would definitely be players who tried, because you get more salt from an Open PvE kill than from an Open PvP kill. So is it actually solving the problem people have?

This is all pretty subjective to interpretation. There's always "less or more" some of or the other. Just as in Mobius PvE where you have some who play occasionally in Open, as well because they like being able to engage in PvP from time to time. The #1 issue is no direct player damage, period.

Is it going to solve the problem people actually have? Indeed it will. Will there be other extenuating circumstances? Of course, just as there are in Open currently.

Does it excuse the fact that they haven't even tried to implement such a mode? Not at all.

 

[Screemonster]

The one thing I'd miss if open-PvE was a mode would be the reactions today. Went to Cubeo to farm wake scans, and did it in my sidewinder. It's amazing how insanely suspicious people were getting at this tiny little ship flying in circles around the station. I saw a guy leave and went to follow him so I could scan his wake when he jumped, and he went full-evasive. I was seeing people hit silent running, others popping hardpoints and stopping to scan me.

Something about a CMDR in a sidewinder outside the starter systems apparently puts people on-edge.

 

[Goose4291]

They are nothing to do with each other. OOPP is just an excuse to try to push non PvP players out of the game, while router fiddling is cheating to make it look like your opponent is CLing.

They are both bad for the game, but that's the limit of similarity.

The risk of router fiddling is a reason not to enforce the more draconian CL "punishments" that many PvPers want. It is not an excuse to prevent OOPP. OOPP is itself a good enough reason to oppose OOPP.

Ah right, so I completely misunderstood all the posts that read as variations of 'Open Only Powerplay doesnt stop people fiddling with their routers to prevent matchmaking, so theres no point doing it.'

 

[Darkfyre99]

Ah right, so I completely misunderstood all the posts that read as variations of 'Open Only Powerplay doesnt stop people fiddling with their routers to prevent matchmaking, so theres no point doing it.'

No, you're conflating two separate issues.

1) Fifth Column Activity - A group of cheaters are exploiting a rules loophole to ruin Powerplay for everyone else. PPOO is an extremely poor solution to this problem, because these cheaters will still continue to cheat, thanks to how instancing "works" in this game, at the cost of driving away a substantial portion of the current PowerPlayerbase. The solution to Fifth Column activity is not PPOO, but changing the rules of the game to close that loophole.

2) Making PvP relevant in Powerplay - Due to how instancing "works" in this game, PvP will never be an effective strategy to advance your Power. You cannot blockade a system when you won't get instanced with 99% of the players who are in Open. It is, and will continue to be, a fun but inefficient sideshow... not that there's anything wrong with that. Unless Frontier puts some serious development time into both PvP-Powerplay and changes their networking solution to a client/server setup, PvP in Powerplay is already as good as it's ever going to be in this game. PPOO won't change a thing, besides driving away a substantial portion of the PowerPlayerbase.

 

[Goose4291]

No, you're conflating two separate issues.

1) Fifth Column Activity - A group of cheaters are exploiting a rules loophole to ruin Powerplay for everyone else. PPOO is an extremely poor solution to this problem, because these cheaters will still continue to cheat, thanks to how instancing "works" in this game, at the cost of driving away a substantial portion of the current PowerPlayerbase. The solution to Fifth Column activity is not PPOO, but changing the rules of the game to close that loophole.

2) Making PvP relevant in Powerplay - Due to how instancing "works" in this game, PvP will never be an effective strategy to advance your Power. You cannot blockade a system when you won't get instanced with 99% of the players who are in Open. It is, and will continue to be, a fun but inefficient sideshow... not that there's anything wrong with that. Unless Frontier puts some serious development time into both PvP-Powerplay and changes their networking solution to a client/server setup, PvP in Powerplay is already as good as it's ever going to be in this game. PPOO won't change a thing, besides driving away a substantial portion of the PowerPlayerbase.

Except I'm not conflating anything Darkyfyre.

Notice how my post (or if you recall, the ones I was referencing) didn't contain any mention of 5th Columning, or Blockading?

 

[V'larr]

For some reason I thought this was about private servers, not extra modes.

^{I mean it's there in the title....}

__

"OPEN PVE" is essentially an oxymoron, is what you're missing.

A disingenuity of your own creation, and even at that, doesn't actually fit the definition of "oxymoron".

__

So even if the "causing ship damage" problem could be solved, the "you can still be instanced with people you don't want to share an instance with" problem isn't going to be solved by anything called "Open X" that doesn't have a curated membership list.

One could use the Ignore function for this. Besides, that's small fish compared to simply having the "PvE" option up-front and available at the launch screen.

__

Except they dont. Even if they did, FDev would need to at the very least bring more staff onboard, lest it affected the timescales of the sacred 'ten year plan'. And we wouldnt want that now, would we?

I've heard that Ed's demonstrated the 'no damage flag' on-stream (to prevent trolls disrupting things, I'd presume), so the means exist. I'm of the firm belief they would not need to bring more staff on board, and even if they did, the relative cost to players would be miniscule. Not to mention somebody providing admin services has practically nothing to do with coding & engineering new things into the game.

__

If they do not use Private group, then I consider the drama to be their own choice.
And that is coming from someone who hates PvP, and multiplayer in general.

That's ignoring a fair number of things there.

There is no other option besides Private Group. Organizing everybody that wishes to just come join the expedition on their own individual whims into a single private group where every single person has to be manually approved is, putting things lightly, a massive headache.

Some people got forced into Open against their will because of server load instancing problems.

Others were fooled into thinking that the DW2 expedition was moving into open, again, because of these aforementioned problems.

None of this nonsense would have been a problem had there simply been an up-front PvE mode option on the launch screen.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Except I'm not conflating anything Darkyfyre.

Notice how my post (or if you recall, the ones I was referencing) didn't contain any mention of 5th Columning, or Blockading?

Ah, so you were deliberately constructing a strawman. Thanks for clearing that up. My apologies for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Again, the argument against PPOO is that it fails to address the issues that it purportedly addresses, while simultaneously driving away a substantial portion of the PowerPlayerbase. The reason for this is quite simple: the design of Powerplay, combined with this game's networking solution, are working against PPOO as a "solution" to these problems.

Due to Powerplay being designed as a PvE competition, PvP will always be an inefficient strategy for advancing your power. PvP is not done to further a Power's goal, or even to significantly hinder another Power. It is done because the player enjoys that kind of thing, and will remain that way unless Frontier devotes development resources into making PvP competitive to PvE in Powerplay. Which is unlikely to happen, given the enormous backlog of features Frontier wants to add to the game for everyone's enjoyment.

This problem is compounded by Frontier's decision to go with a peer-to-peer networking solution. Thanks to how instancing "works," you are not likely to be instanced with players if you have poor latency to them. Until someone invents FTL communciations, the primary factor of latency will always be distance. Other factors may affect this as well, but the biggest hurdle for a player who wants to prevent another player from accomplishing their PvE goals via PvP will always be distance. This further dilutes the efforts of a player seeking to use PvP to hinder another Power's agenda.

To reduce this problem to 'Open Only Powerplay doesnt stop people fiddling with their routers to prevent matchmaking, so theres no point doing it.' not only greatly exaggerates one minor argument against one particular problem Powerplay has, but it does so in a manner that insults those players who have zero interest in PvP, and are playing in other modes due to that disinterest, by lumping them together with players who are cheating by exploiting a loophole in the rules that Frontier still hasn't fixed.

 

[Rubbernuke]

]Due to Powerplay being designed as a PvE competition, PvP will always be an inefficient strategy for advancing your power. PvP is not done to further a Power's goal, or even to significantly hinder another Power. It is done because the player enjoys that kind of thing, and will remain that way unless Frontier devotes development resources into making PvP competitive to PvE in Powerplay. Which is unlikely to happen, given the enormous backlog of features Frontier wants to add to the game for everyone's enjoyment.

Powerplay is fundamentally about consensual player versus player conflict. We think that pretty much all of the systems and rules would benefit from being played out in Open only, as it would dramatically increase the chance of meeting other pledged players and being able to directly affect the outcomes of power struggles.

Guess who said that? Unless the new designer of FD comes along to correct us on that quote, thats what FD thought and still do.

This problem is compounded by Frontier's decision to go with a peer-to-peer networking solution. Thanks to how instancing "works," you are not likely to be instanced with players if you have poor latency to them. Until someone invents FTL communciations, the primary factor of latency will always be distance. Other factors may affect this as well, but the biggest hurdle for a player who wants to prevent another player from accomplishing their PvE goals via PvP will always be distance. This further dilutes the efforts of a player seeking to use PvP to hinder another Power's agenda.

But, you will have a chance to come across someone- the new systems (if implemented as suggested) came in PP would be reduced down to a small number of areas. For example, powers rarely have more than one expansion, but, if that power wants that expansion they have to be there to get it. FD would need to amend the block feature (to stop players simply blocking anyone and everyone who shot at them) but the changes force players together. Fortifying is the same, if everyone is inbound then you better be sure your capital is safe. In the new rules, if you went nuts in a rivals capital and expansion that would be a significant problem- all thanks to everyone being in the same mode.

To reduce this problem to 'Open Only Powerplay doesnt stop people fiddling with their routers to prevent matchmaking, so theres no point doing it.' not only greatly exaggerates one minor argument against one particular problem Powerplay has, but it does so in a manner that insults those players who have zero interest in PvP, and are playing in other modes due to that disinterest, by lumping them together with players who are cheating by exploiting a loophole in the rules that Frontier still hasn't fixed.

The Open aspect is one part of four measures to reduce 5C. It won't do it on its own, but it will help. Open PP acts as a minor filter, and also makes pledging >0% chance of being attacked. And that is still more than the 0% you have in solo or PG.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Guess who said that? Unless the new designer of FD comes along to correct us on that quote, thats what FD thought and still do.

Given that the Dev who said it (and gave a description of "what Powerplay is" that obviously conflicts with the pan-modal implementation of same) during the Flash Topics that formed part of an investigation into possible changes for Powerplay has since moved to a different project, I do wonder if the E: D Developers "still do" - given the walk back to the two year old "what about an Open Play Bonus for Powerplay?" proposal - then silence?

While the BGS has recently been re-stated as a feature for all players, regardless of platform or game mode (as it has always been) - which is consistent with Sandro's repeated statements regarding Powerplay being the only feature being considered for either Open Only or for a Mode Bonus - the door would not seem to have closed on OOPP / OPBfPP. We'll see, in time, what Frontier decide to do.

One potential sticking point for OOPP would be that, while console players have had access to Powerplay from any mode since the game launched on their console, continued access to the feature, in the event that Powerplay was made Open Only, would require premium platform access to be paid (as console players without it can only play in Solo) - effectively removing access to that feature from some players.

 

[Mouse]

Given that the Dev who said it (and gave a description of "what Powerplay is" that obviously conflicts with the pan-modal implementation of same) during the Flash Topics that formed part of an investigation into possible changes for Powerplay has since moved to a different project, I do wonder if the E: D Developers "still do" - given the walk back to the two year old "what about an Open Play Bonus for Powerplay?" proposal - then silence?

While the BGS has recently been re-stated as a feature for all players, regardless of platform or game mode (as it has always been) - which is consistent with Sandro's repeated statements regarding Powerplay being the only feature being considered for either Open Only or for a Mode Bonus - the door would not seem to have closed on OOPP / OPBfPP. We'll see, in time, what Frontier decide to do.

One potential sticking point for OOPP would be that, while console players have had access to Powerplay from any mode since the game launched on their console, continued access to the feature, in the event that Powerplay was made Open Only, would require premium platform access to be paid (as console players without it can only play in Solo) - effectively removing access to that feature from some players.

And they still wouldn't have "fixed" the problem to the Proponent's satisfaction because there would still be THREE different "Opens" that PP was in that people couldn't see who was doing what... just like the complaints against those of us in PG's and Solo. So all that would happen would be some lose the ability to participate and everything else would still be the same...

And yet people still crow for it. What will they crow for next if FDev gives in to their demands? That Power Play be PC only and screw even more players out of playing it all together?

 

[Rubbernuke]

One potential sticking point for OOPP would be that, while console players have had access to Powerplay from any mode since the game launched on their console, continued access to the feature, in the event that Powerplay was made Open Only, would require premium platform access to be paid (as console players without it can only play in Solo) - effectively removing access to that feature from some players.

Unless its changed, that is platform specific- PS4 Fortnite does not require a sub to play online while X Box does. In any case, console games require subs to access online content.

Given that the Dev who said it (and gave a description of "what Powerplay is" that obviously conflicts with the pan-modal implementation of same) during the Flash Topics that formed part of an investigation into possible changes for Powerplay has since moved to a different project, I do wonder if the E: D Developers "still do" - given the walk back to the two year old "what about an Open Play Bonus for Powerplay?" proposal - then silence?

Really FD need to reiterate what the 2019 plans for PP (if any) are.

 

[Rubbernuke]

And they still wouldn't have "fixed" the problem to the Proponent's satisfaction because there would still be THREE different "Opens" that PP was in that people couldn't see who was doing what... just like the complaints against those of us in PG's and Solo. So all that would happen would be some lose the ability to participate and everything else would still be the same...

And yet people still crow for it. What will they crow for next if FDev gives in to their demands? That Power Play be PC only and screw even more players out of playing it all together?

Three is better than nine, and from what I see there are players for powers across all platforms to oppose each other directly.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Unless its changed, that is platform specific- PS4 Fortnite does not require a sub to play online while X Box does. In any case, console games require subs to access online content.

As far as I am aware, both XB1 and PS4 CMDRs require to have premium platform access to play in either of the multiplayer game modes in this game - however all players experience and affect the BGS (and Powerplay).

Really FD need to reiterate what the 2019 plans for PP (if any) are.

Indeed.

 

[Screemonster]

Really FD need to reiterate what the 2019 plans for PP (if any) are.

Might actually get me interested in it again. The last flash topic had some great ideas and suggestions in there about changing the rules of the game, things like the ethos override, adjusting PP so it didn't have such an impact on regular minor faction supporters outside of control systems and so on, but they were completely buried under the OOPP stuff.
Really it should have been done as two separate threads for "discuss OOPP" and "discuss everything else".

 

[Jockey79]

Unless its changed, that is platform specific- PS4 Fortnite does not require a sub to play online while X Box does. In any case, console games require subs to access online content.

Well Elite: Dangerous does require PS Plus for anything other than Solo Mode (which is still connected to the multiplayer BGS)
https://support.frontier.co.uk/kb/faq.php?id=365

So asking for content to be mode locked to open would take content away from other players for no actual gain.

Really FD need to reiterate what the 2019 plans for PP (if any) are.

You quoted it yourself, "consensual PvP". That has always been the plan, PvP that people can opt into or out of.

Mode locking it removes consent.
As people would not just be forced into PP PvP, but the Open Mode generic PvP at the same time.

Now if there was an Open PvE Mode, and PP would flag people for PvP and only other PP people could PvP with them, then that would be another matter.

Three is better than nine, and from what I see there are players for powers across all platforms to oppose each other directly.

In your opinion 3 may be better than 9, but in my opinion the number of modes doesn't matter in a P2P network model that is also heavily instanced.
There is far too much that can influence the matchmaking and completely undermine what you think you can do.

Also, "what I see" is irrelevant, other console users have also stated that they fly about unopposed. Just because it's busy when you're online, doesn't mean it's always busy.
Anyone playing outside of prime time will get a free run to do whatever, including doing PP stuff without any opposition.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Guess who said that? Unless the new designer of FD comes along to correct us on that quote, thats what FD thought and still do.

And I consider that to be revisionist history on the part of Sandro, who has also moved on to another project. I see zero evidence that Powerplay was designed, in any way, for PvP.

Until the actual design of Powerplay changes, I see no reason not to invoke death of the author... or in this case, transfer of the Dev.

But, you will have a chance to come across someone- the new systems (if implemented as suggested) came in PP would be reduced down to a small number of areas. For example, powers rarely have more than one expansion, but, if that power wants that expansion they have to be there to get it. FD would need to amend the block feature (to stop players simply blocking anyone and everyone who shot at them) but the changes force players together. Fortifying is the same, if everyone is inbound then you better be sure your capital is safe. In the new rules, if you went nuts in a rivals capital and expansion that would be a significant problem- all thanks to everyone being in the same mode.

But people won’t be in the same “mode,” and unless Frontier changes their networking solution, they never will be. Geography, internet provider, hardware at both ends as well as between them, and even someone at home watching Netflix, can all affect instancing.

The kind of game you’re describing requires a different networking solution than peer-to-peer.

The Open aspect is one part of four measures to reduce 5C. It won't do it on its own, but it will help. Open PP acts as a minor filter, and also makes pledging >0% chance of being attacked. And that is still more than the 0% you have in solo or PG.

A vanishingly low probability might as well be zero. You need better odds than that to justify a major change like that, especially if you’re going to drive away a substantial fraction of your playerbase.

 

[Riverside]

As far as I am aware, both XB1 and PS4 CMDRs require to have premium platform access to play in either of the multiplayer game modes in this game - however all players experience and affect the BGS (and Powerplay).



Indeed.

I don't see the OOPP console issue as any more than a change to minimum requirements. I appreciate it is still an issue, but in the same camp as Apple OS support or a general PC minimum spec increase, both of which have already happened. So as with an Apple user still having access to the game they bought (but on different hardware/software) making PPOO is 'just' a change to what's included in the phrase 'some gameplay elements require premium membership'.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Powerplay is fundamentally about consensual player versus player conflict. We think that pretty much all of the systems and rules would benefit from being played out in Open only, as it would dramatically increase the chance of meeting other pledged players and being able to directly affect the outcomes of power struggles.

Let's not overlook details.