Open-Only in PP2.0

I'm just going to leave this here for people to comment on, since FDev have invited discussion and (potentially? Maybe?) left open the question of whether PP could be Open-Only in 2.0.
Some questions to answer:
  • How could OOPP improve or harm the functionality presented thus far?
  • Are there areas of PP2.0 that could be vulnerable to fifth-column activities that OOPP could help remedy?
  • Given what the designers have said, would it enhance their vision of PP2.0, or degrade it?
  • The all-important question, would it drive players away from PP, or draw them in?
 
Last edited:
The all-important question, would it drive players away from PP, or draw them in?
My group (and admittedly there is only 20ish of us) would pack in PP altogether if it went Open only, we have no interest in PvP.
Judging by the livestream im more confident now that it want be Open only in fact i think PP2 is going to be far more interesting especially for those solo nights.
Seems there will be much more to do for the solo, casual player.

O7
 
Carrier groups surrounded by powerplay ships that can be used for undermining, station guns there are weak/can be disabled - 24/7 AFK healie wings in PG, bye bye stronghold, very exciting gameplay.
Glaring collusion exploit due to PvP counting for undermining - kill alts in PG.
Unless these are tackled via mechanics design choices or forcing exploiters into open then it's a race for the bottom, least scrupulous wins. Not unlike PP1.0. And you can't escape the results because they're plastered all over the stations.
 
I do not want open only. However my PP 1.0 was limited to the PP modules, which were not even talked about today unless I missed it. There was so much info to absorb. Anyway Open Only would be a hard NO for me. But a weighting for Open vs PG vs Solo I am ok with. My %'s would be Open 75 %, Private Group 66% and Solo 100%.

@Paul_Crowther : Is the below possible?
If would be nice if Fdev could do a poll in game in Elite on PP 2.0, and each Cmdr account in Ody only gets one vote. FDev wants player feedback on Open Only, I do not see any way to do that outside of the game, so in game it is. Good thing I have a main account and a few alts to vote with. If the Open Only crowd want to buy up hundreds, no millions of alt accounts and single handedly give Fdev all the $$$ they need to continue development and go Open Only with new Alt cmdr's voting Open Only, that would be ok I guess. Of course it won't happen but unless we ask
 
Unless you have a ship that can know where everyone is your rarely if ever gonna meet other players. At max we have about 12-14k players in at a time and billions of systems.

It's only around the high traffic zones do you meet players so the requirement to try to get people into a Open Only idea is completely rubbish. If they implemented that then it would fail more faster than "Age of sigmar" 😉
 
Unless you have a ship that can know where everyone is your rarely if ever gonna meet other players. At max we have about 12-14k players in at a time and billions of systems.

It's only around the high traffic zones do you meet players so the requirement to try to get people into a Open Only idea is completely rubbish. If they implemented that then it would fail more faster than "Age of sigmar" 😉
This is not strictly true, though. In PP you have always had areas like control systems, capitals (for inbound at least) and systems for expansion that focus players. What was described in the stream takes Sandros uncapped UM idea and mixes it with an ongoing tug of war where its very obvious where others are fighting.

What this means is that there will be strategic areas that have to be defended, because if they are lost or downgraded you lose other systems that depend on it for support.

From what was said last night its obvious FD are aware Open is required to make at least some of the ideas work (count the amount of times other players are mentioned, especially regards attacking FCs and UM generally) and are seeing where the line gets drawn.
 
I think we need more info regarding the rewards in 2.0, is it modules again or something similar that solo/Pg players will want access to or something inconsequential that can be ignored?
Should I sign my Alt up now for Cytoscramblers or are they about to get transferred to the Tech Broker?
This is a very good question that I was hoping would be answered, and was not. A big reason Aisling has so many players is because her module is, let's face it, overpowered. It would be nice if they could detach those modules from PowerPlay, or maybe balance them so they're equally useful. Personally I'd rather people don't get involved unless they actually care about the effects their efforts have.
 
My attitude to game mode is that PowerPlay is an inherently collaborative, and competitive, system. You would almost expect it to be Open-Only because that would make sense. The only reason the game as a whole isn't is because gankers are such a huge problem. The question is whether those who just want to kill haulers would overpower those who would defend us.

From my perspective, there have been many occasions where there have been expansions among powers whose main forces play in Open, where that hasn't happened. Where either we've had sufficient PVP forces to repel gankers (if there were any) or where they just didn't show up. They could. But overwhelmingly, it tends to be people who care about PowerPlay, who are pledged to a power and in those squadrons. But still, that's as things stand, that doesn't guarantee that's what would happen in 2.0.

I guess I should lay out the actual advantages of Open for non-PVPers, because I've already seen people assume PVPers are the only ones who use it.
  1. Open is great for working with others on PvE activities. You can find someone who you don't know and make a friend working together to do something. I think that's neat.
  2. Opposition is fun. The past few days I've been doing BGS wars and sometimes we'd butt heads with opposition who want to do the same CZs we are. I'm not one for PVP but I enjoy that. I have a choice to either try to take them on myself or call for backup and wait for help. I find that a very satisfying dynamic, it makes things more interesting than just a grindfest.
  3. As a hauler, I like the adrenaline rush of evasion. I'm in an unshielded T9, I am made of paper, so it's thrilling to face a gauntlet, as long as there's a decent chance of success.
My overall point is that although I can do the grind, I prefer when it's not a grind, when there are things happening. It's not just numbers going up, it's actual human opposition. I think that's worth a great deal.

As for 2.0 specifically, the vision presented thus far seems to imply active human opposition. That's what gets the designers excited, and so it should! If it's just a progress bar and people grinding for it, that isn't very interesting. People won't come back for that. But if you can get a sense of community, and not just that but multiple communities butting heads, I think that's an infinitely more exciting system.

I don't know if OOPP is the way to get that to happen, but I do want FDev to give serious thought about how to disincentivise people working (and especially hauling) entirely on their own, with no interaction with others. Because it just ends up a grindfest, and Elite Dangerous has too much of that already.
 
Last edited:
I think the question needs to be asked of those that are so against OOPP why? What is it that is so abhorrent?

I suspect it may be the fear that they will simply become seals to club; punching bags for sweaty gankers. If that's the case then as long as FDev provides suitable tools to give those who don't want to fight a reasonable chance to evade attackers would that be OK? I already suspect that might be the "feature" of these new variants; an SCO-style experimental cloaking system maybe or something else defense-focused that could give more casual players a fighting chance to engage in the PP game without having to necessarily fight. Cat and mouse is valid game play in my opinion as long as the mouse has a real chance of getting away.

If the motivation for the No Open side turns out to be just I-want-to-have-reward-with-no-risk-and-no-effort then, well, I don't really consider that point of view to be valid as it is simply contrary to what PP is.
 
Unless you have a ship that can know where everyone is your rarely if ever gonna meet other players.
For the game as a whole, yes. But for PowerPlay (1.0 at least), power HQs will always be busy as that's where all fortifications either come from or go to.

For half the powers, they travel to the HQ, pick up fortification goods and transport it to their control systems. For the other half of the powers, they travel to their control systems, pick up fortification goods and then transport that to the HQ.

Open Only in PP1.0 will make PvP quite normal in HQs, and will have a far heavier impact on the inbound fortification powers, as they are carrying expensive items in the choke point. E.g., if you want to hamstring Mahon fortifications, you only have to target 1 system (Gateway) 99, whereas hamstringing Winters fortification requires you to target all 89 control systems.
 
Open Only in PP1.0 will make PvP quite normal in HQs, and will have a far heavier impact on the inbound fortification powers, as they are carrying expensive items in the choke point. E.g., if you want to hamstring Mahon fortifications, you only have to target 1 system (Gateway) 99, whereas hamstringing Winters fortification requires you to target all 89 control systems.
Interesting. Do the PP 2.0 details shared so far change the above at all then?
 
Interesting. Do the PP 2.0 details shared so far change the above at all then?
From what I gather:

The structure is different- PPV2 is heavily decentralised in that everything is outbound and local.

PP V2 is set up in that systems can be expanded into but has to be done in a strategic manner since each expansion relies on others to remain solvent. This will make certain systems very vulnerable and desirable to attack, and that it appears the UM aspect is akin to Sandros old uncapped UM proposal where 100% fortification is no shield. Strongholds will also have weak points (the FCs too).

So you have an ongoing tug of war where if you fail you are forced out of that system, and that if other systems depend on the one lost they then become vulnerable too.
 
...So you have an ongoing tug of war where if you fail you are forced out of that system, and that if other systems depend on the one lost they then become vulnerable too.
PP 2.0 sounds more interesting the more I learn about it. Not sure what I think of the PP2.0 mode(s) discussion(s) yet. And where do the PP modules fit into all this? They were not talked about at all yesterday. Just regular Cmdr's doing merit deliveries trying to get their Prizmo's or Cyto's mixed with PP 2.0 could be chaos or crazy tense fun.

edited: I cant spell and need more coffee. And thx for the reply Rubbernuke
 
PP 2.0 sounds more interesting the more I learn about it. Not sure what I think of the PP2.0 mode(s) discussion(s) yet. And where do the PP modules fit into all this? They were not talked about at all yesterday. Just regular Cmdr's doing merit deliveries trying to get their Prizmo's or Cyto's mixed with PP 2.0 could be choas or crazy tense fun.
At a guess (and this is a guess) I think all PP modules are unlocked with each tier- so tier 1 unlocks say, Mahons Retributor, tier 2, Pack Hounds, and so on. I say this as really there has been no mention of anything going to tech brokers, and they are potent rewards for loyalty- esp. given that V2 seems to be 5C proof (in that no move is intrinsically bad).
 
Such a simple topic. Why some make it complex?

If you are influencing the Open galaxy while playing Solo, you are cheating.
If you are influencing the Open galaxy while playing in a Private Group, you are cheating.

It's like wearing the invisibility cloak from Harry Potter and going around doing things that affect the whole galaxy without being noticed. How can some of you even dare to defend this? This is just wrong!

Why everybody says that it's going to make Solo players sad when this small portion of solo players is already making many more open players sad? Is it right that many more suffer so just a few can play in a wicked way? This ain't USA!

I don't care about the past, the Kickstarter or whatever. The only thing that lives from the past is a museum. The only thing that goes backward is a crab. It's time to look forward. To a truly social experience, deep and truly fun.

"Oh but the griefers" Screw them! Crime and Punishment will solve this problem. We got PowerPlay 2.0, we can get Crime and Punishment too.

Elite Dangerous deserves to be a game full of LIFE and not just ghosts!
 
Back
Top Bottom