The only decision that player did wrong initially IMO was following Common Forum Wisdom(tm). The fact they felt the game should change, rather than follow all the good advice players were willing to give them, on the other hand…
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
The only decision that player did wrong initially IMO was following Common Forum Wisdom(tm). The fact they felt the game should change, rather than follow all the good advice players were willing to give them, on the other hand…
As do I (well, maybe not 400+ games), my point was more relating to the industry as a whole vs. our own individual tastes.
Elite is industry leading, not a clone; something most game designers can only dream of achieving.
As for what the academics say about it all, well job creation springs to mind here, similar to human resources types.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed, yet some insist that a game that dares to be different should be reworked to conform to existing precedents and tropes from other games.
I think some just love to collect things up an put them into boxes, put labels on them, where others love to create, understand and inspire; Gameology vs gameonomy perhaps?
Depends, if its a better system or feature, why not?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If it were unanimously agreed to be a better system or feature - certainly. Noting that unanimity among the player-base is a vanishingly rare commodity.
By what metric would you take measure an industry leading design? How would you be able to tell if the feature that you are adding is going to be perceived as better by the key members of your player base? First I suppose, you would need to discern who are the key players, key to your goal of course as different groups would suit different future projections for the project.
It could be that by letting one subset of users favoured style take hold, you would cause an initial boost, but ultimately kill off the game. Where as nurturing another subset may generate a long term stability that can be accounted for over a much longer time period.
Better will always remain subjective, no matter how objectively it is stated.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Noting that Ultima Online was apparently haemorrhaging players before they introduced Trammel as an alternative to Felucca.
I mean dev wise.
Key members? Who are they?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Ah, OK. In which case those guiding the game's direction will very likely consider how such changes might affect different subsets of the player-base before committing any Dev time to them.
If you will kindly re-read my post, I am suggesting that this is entirely subjective and depends upon context, as too does the notion of what is better. The bottom line is, as is unfortunately so often the case, the accountants. Now to what standard they are accounting is a question that we might very well ask.
Addendum: The point being exactly that, it depends on which keys you choose as to which future you create.
Last edited:
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
there are games where this may be true.... but not Elite. Developers have specifically told players to block players who they do not want to play with........ imo the block player feature was a "cheap" way to get around the fact that private groups have a forced number limit (as they initially got so big it broke the game) but that FD always stated players could play in one of a number of different open modes with different rule sets.
instead of multiple open modes we got small private groups and then the block feature. that is my take anyway.... however categorically in Elite cheating or violating the TOS is not the only legitimate use of the block ****
**** for the record my block has a grand total of zero players on it.
Good point about Ultima Online. The introduction of Trammel stopped the immediate player loss by creating a safer PvE zone, but it also divided the player base and weakened the core risk/reward dynamic that made the game unique.
Felucca became underpopulated, and the tension that defined Ultima Online faded, leading to a long-term decline. While it solved a short-term problem, the split diluted the game's identity, and with the rise of modern MMOs like World of Warcraft, UO struggled to retain its relevance.
On the flip side, look at Final Fantasy XIV: the game was a disaster at launch, but Square Enix listened to player feedback, innovated, and relaunched the game as A Realm Reborn. This saved the game and turned it into one of the most successful MMOs today. The key difference is that Ultima Online once thrived but ultimately faded, while Final Fantasy XIV continues to grow and succeed because it adapted when it mattered most
FDev never exactly stated their point of view and intent of the Open mode, or did they? That probably leaves them some huge space for maneuvers in future.
Not to argue, just to explain better my point of view: existence of Solo and PG itself for me personally is a clear indication that PG is not limitation of any kind of initially Open mode, but Open is extension (to some extent) of PG mode. By other words to call it Open was not fair, but this is not the only thing that feels unfair there.
Again, personally I would not expect to see Open as fair and involving PvP kingdom in any foreseen future, should FDev even consider to invest effort in that direction. Just too many things have to be fixed for that, IMHO.
Indeed it is contextual, however you do also have objective metrics to guide your initial thoughts- of which then you choose who to listen to. The problem is sometimes you listen to the wrong people. For example long ago shield balance was shrieked into the floor because 'the wrong people' said sensible changes (because frankly they knew combat inside out).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Noting that this game's population arrived pre-split, in terms of we have always had three game modes to choose from where to experience and affect the game, it may be that Frontier's design is actually inspired - as there's no PvP server to lose players from and no forced PvP for those disinterested in it.
Which sounds to be based on opt-in PvP rather than forced PvP simply for playing among players - I can see why that would work - it's rather reminiscent of this game's design in that players need to choose to play in Open where they may be engaged in PvP by other players, but there's no requirement for them to do so and no penalty for not doing so.
Its more along the lines of making Open coherent for feature like Powerplay. IMO Open for the wider game is perfect, but its poor for PP because its strengths for unfocussed play become weaknesses in objectives based features. For example blocking- in PP its an objective to kill others but how is that valid when you can click them away? IMO it should be that instances should shuffle (to separate out players after an attack) but blocking pledges (in PP ) should be disabled.