Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Robert Maynard]

Here it is:


This statement is simply false.

Instad, several games have struggled or even failed after introducing a PvP switch or separate PvP modes, particularly when this fragmented the player community, leading to a lack of active players.

Some examples :

• New World: Originally designed as a PvP-heavy game, Amazon shifted to optional PvP modes to attract a broader audience. This change led to PvP server fragmentation, and many PvP focused players were left unsatisfied. The game experienced a dwindling player base as a result.
• WildStar: was known for challenging PvP and raid content. However, separating PvP and PvE modes, along with high difficulty for endgame activities, divided the community, causing the active player base to shrink. It eventually shut down in 2018.struggle to maintain an engaging experience due to a lack of active players.
• Lineage 2: as time went on, it introduced options to limit PvP, such as flagging and less PvP-oriented servers, aiming to attract a broader user base. This alienated many veteran players and reduced the appeal of open PvP, which had been a key feature for fans, contributing to a gradual erosion of the player base.
• Darkfall Online: Known for its hardcore PvP and full-loot mechanics, Darkfall attempted to make PvP optional and introduced servers with less intense rules. Many original players abandoned the game, feeling it was losing its core identity. Combined with other management and support issues, this contributed to the game’s eventual closure.
• Rend: This survival game initially focused on faction-based PvP, but after introducing PvE-only servers and optional modes, the community split. PvP players lost interest, feeling the game was losing its competitive roots. Server populations dropped quickly, and the game eventually suffered a steep decline, leading to its closure.

Many games, on the other hand, owe their popularity to the inclusion of seamless PvP or mixed PvPvE with weighted rewards:

• EVE Online: player-driven economy, political intrigue, and epic battles made EVE legendary for its community and immersive PvP driven gameplay. Removing any PvP restrictions attracted hardcore players and gave the game its reputation for high-stakes, player-led wars.
• Rust: Originally a survival game with both PvP and PvE elements, Rust has since evolved into a full PvP experience with no safe zones.
  The shift to unrestricted PvP intensified its survival aspect and led to its popularity among players who enjoy competitive and challenging environments.
  This no-holds-barred PvP approach made Rust stand out in the survival genre and became central to its identity, drawing in a loyal player base that enjoys the game’s unforgiving nature
• Albion Online: was initially a hybrid game with PvE and PvP elements, but it solidified its PvP appeal by making certain areas high-risk PvP zones with full-loot mechanics. While there are safer zones for beginners, the high-reward, full-PvP areas attract players looking for a more competitive experience. This decision attracted more PvP-focused players and boosted the game’s popularity, creating an economy and community heavily driven by the PvP risk/reward system.
• Black Desert Online: While BDO has a flagging system, in certain regions, especially in high-level zones, PvP is heavily integrated and players can be attacked at any time. The unrestricted PvP in specific high-level areas (with high level loot) encouraged more hardcore competition, resulting in BDO gaining a reputation for intense, large-scale PvP battles and attracting players who enjoy open-world PvP without restrictions.
• Dark Age of Camelot (DAoC): DAoC was one of the earliest MMOs to focus on full PvP in its RvR system, which encouraged large-scale PvP battles between factions. The game didn’t offer a PvE-only option, which made the PvP focus an integral part of its appeal. This RvR design was unique at the time and helped DAoC stand out, attracting players interested in large-scale faction warfare, and is still remembered as a classic for PvP-focused players.
• Escape from Tarkov: Known for its hardcore PvP gameplay, Tarkov acks PvE-only options, which makes every match high-stakes as players risk losing all their gear. This full-PvP approach creates a tense, high-stakes environment that attracted a loyal player base looking for a more immersive and risky experience. The game has thrived, particularly among competitive players, due to the lack of PvE-only modes.

Not a quote from any post of mine then.

 

[Darrack]

I think we all need to take a breather, step back and face the fact Open only is never going to happen, we need to move on,

O7

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Not a quote from any post of mine then.

So true! Wrong tag LOL! That original post was sent from my cellphone, and getting older definitely doesn’t make typing any easier! Haha Sorry buddy <3

 

[Miscellaneous]

LOL! Yeah, great idea. I think we're all for open mode as it should be

 

[Doctor Dread]

I think we all need to take a breather, step back and face the fact Open only is never going to happen, we need to move on,

O7

And the funny thing is: they wasted soooo much energy & effort - and they still do - for an unobtainable goal. Not realizing that the leniency of FD for this thread is merely boosting hype for PP2.0... which will end soon.

Without even touching the true possible, realistic aim - revamped CQC, meaningful, with player's own ships, wings & battles etc.

 

[Asharyn]

It really isn't, I'm sorry but if Fdev were going to make it Open only they had the opportunity, they clearly arnt going to, ship sailed, burned and sunk.

O7

I disagree, they said they're monitoring feedback. Plenty of people have said "they aren't going to do X" and have been wrong. But that doesn't really have to do with weither or not FDev should do X.

 

[Asharyn]

And then i will have to repeat - you dont seem to understand why the modes are the core feature of ED and what is their role (no, it's not to punish players)

So again, there is no such thing as an open-only activity in a game that do not filter activities by modes.
Especially when they seem to want to have PP20 as a feature that attracts as much players as possible.
Why would they work out a major game feature, then limit who will be able to partake? it makes no sense and they obviously know this.

Yeah, I'm saying they SHOULD filter this particular activity by mode. I'm not saying they have before. This isn't to punish players as you seem to think, but to fit into the current design of powerplay.

 

[Darrack]

I disagree, they said they're monitoring feedback

Tell you what then, the day Fdev make PP2 Open Only i will give you 1 billion credits and in true Gary Linekar style i will self destruct my starter Sidewinder outside Jameson in nothing more than my undercrackers.

O7

 

[Doctor Dread]

I disagree, they said they're monitoring feedback. Plenty of people have said "they aren't going to do X" and have been wrong. But that doesn't really have to do with weither or not FDev should do X.

So there is hope, right?
That FD will destroy the foundation of Elite for your whims? So you and a handful of your crew mates will have moar victims?

Do you honestly believe so?

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

Tell you what then, the day Fdev make PP2 Open Only i will give you 1 billion credits and in true Gary Linekar style i will self destruct my starter Sidewinder outside Jameson in nothing more than my undercrackers.

O7

We can team up and do it together when I eat my shorts about the "rare goods nerf".

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

So you and a handful of your crew mates will have moar victims?

I genuinely don't see where this projection is coming from. Not every poster discussing this that disagrees with you is a 'ganker/Real life kitten puncher', this would be like me assuming every one who disagress wtih me on this point is a sad middle to late aged paunchy balding man obsessed with wireframe cobras that is still bitter they didn't get the offline mode single-player game they were promised at kickstarter, and is desperate to ensure that the multiplayer component of this game is made to suffer for it.

Without even touching the true possible, realistic aim - revamped CQC, meaningful, with player's own ships, wings & battles etc.

Here's the question though: what is 'meaningful' PvP to yourself?

 

[Asharyn]

Tell you what then, the day Fdev make PP2 Open Only i will give you 1 billion credits and in true Gary Linekar style i will self destruct my starter Sidewinder outside Jameson in nothing more than my undercrackers.

O7

That's a bit dramatic. I'm not saying they won't make it open only, and I'm not saying they will. I'm only saying I think they should and it would make the game better.

So there is hope, right?
That FD will destroy the foundation of Elite for your whims? So you and a handful of your crew mates will have moar victims?

Do you honestly believe so?

Do I don't think it would be a good idea to destroy the foundation of Elite, I just think they should make powerplay open only. There are many people who also understand this.
I don't go out ganking people if that's what you're suggesting. But it seems quite obvious to be that a shared galaxy should be shared and the powers shouldn't be affected by people who are segregating themselves to avoid conflict.

 

[Rebel Yell]

They might: introduce open only powers, or make some systems/areas or POIs open only.

@Darrack YAWN

 

[Robert Maynard]

They might: introduce open only powers, or make some systems/areas or POIs open only.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, one option that would be likely to meet with little or no opposition would be to create a new bubble, permit locked to Open only, and either pre-seed it with Factions and Powers or leave it empty for players to colonise. That way players who seek an Open only experience could have it without adversely affecting other players.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

As mentioned earlier in the thread, one option that would be likely to meet with little or no opposition would be to create a new bubble, permit locked to Open only, and either pre-seed it with Factions and Powers or leave it empty for players to colonise. That way players who seek an Open only experience could have it without adversely affecting other players.

Honestly Bob, I don't know if that would be the outcome because as I'm sure you recall, when CQC came out, there was a minor uproar that you had to PvP to get the Systems Permit, which died down quickly only because folk found out how worthless it was.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Honestly Bob, I don't know if that would be the outcome because as I'm sure you recall, when CQC came out, there was a minor uproar that you had to PvP to get the Systems Permit, which died down quickly only because folk found out how worthless it was.

If some players lost it over a restriction placed on a tiny* number of currently unpopulated systems, when a possible alternative would be to either lose the ability to affect what is currently pan-modal content in Solo and Private Groups or be penalised for engaging in particular pan-modal game features in modes other than Open, then that's on them. That they would likely, as with the CQC permit, eventually realise that it wasn't a particular issue for them would be expected. Noting that for some any change at all is unwelcome and for others nothing the game offers is sufficient.

In terms of facilitating an Open only gameplay option for players so inclined by adding something to the game and not removing anything substantial from those who would not engage in it it would be worth the "risk" of a few players complaining, IMO at least.

*: in terms of the 400 billion systems in the game galaxy.

 

[Northpin]

This isn't to punish players as you seem to think, but to fit into the current design of powerplay.

Yet it is a punishment for any player that has little to no desire to play in open
And no, the current design of powerplay fits into the general design of Elite which is a PVE game that allows PVP (without forcing anyone to play in a mode or another)

 

[Darkfyre99]

Again, the 'solo/PG grinders' definitetly was not a 'myth' having been present throughout the early rigmarole and massively invested in Powerplay, however I suspect that many migrated from Powerplay at some point to chase whatever next shiny-key zero-brain engagement grind FDEV dangled in front of them was, but their presence was what killed the mechanic for a lot of folk in my circles (and in more than a good 7 dozen cases, love for the game itself), really stifling the 'teamplay' element of what is supposed to be a PvP/TvT game mechanic.

I’m not disputing that there are players operating in Solo/PG for various reasons. What I am disputing is that:

• Their numbers are in any way significant
  [*]

That Open is significantly more dangerous than other modes

My reason for not wanting Open Only, or weighted Open for that matter, is simply that some players, in particular the usual suspects, are not fun to play with. I play games to have fun, not be annoyed the incredibly irritating unsportsmanlike behavior of the usual suspects and their ilk.

If they’re naturally inclined to play in Open, but are flying in Solo/PG for some ephemeral advantage, I consider that a good thing. Given this game’s networking architecture, I don’t trust them to weaponize instancing, on top of the usual “ain’t no such rule” shenanigans, bullying, seal clubbing, exploits, and outright cheating that were rampant in MMOs I’ve played in the past. They represent a drop in the bucket compared to the overall Playerbase, but their toxic presence has always resulted in a massive drop in player retention.

Yes, there is the potential for player opposition in Open, but that risk is tiny unless you go looking for trouble. Furthermore, that risk is more than mitigated by the advantage that having a massive number of potential players to form a PUG with. The same shields that enable a player to survive a mistake while taking risks to fly quickly in Open also make the rare player opposition attempt survivable… as long as they don’t actively cooperate with their own destruction.

It's kind of ironic... as always, we're hearing two narratives about Open: one that it's so incredibly dangerous that there's no choice but to play in Solo/PG, the other that that danger is greatly exaggerated as long as you make suitable precautions and avoid obvious hot spots. I'd expect the former narrative from those who have zero interest in PvP. Not so much from PowerPlayers.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

I’m not disputing that there are players operating in Solo/PG for various reasons. What I am disputing is that:

• Their numbers are in any way significant
  [*]

That Open is significantly more dangerous than other modes

My reason for not wanting Open Only, or weighted Open for that matter, is simply that some players, in particular the usual suspects, are not fun to play with. I play games to have fun, not be annoyed the incredibly irritating unsportsmanlike behavior of the usual suspects and their ilk.

If they’re naturally inclined to play in Open, but are flying in Solo/PG for some ephemeral advantage, I consider that a good thing. Given this game’s networking architecture, I don’t trust them to weaponize instancing, on top of the usual “ain’t no such rule” shenanigans, bullying, seal clubbing, exploits, and outright cheating that were rampant in MMOs I’ve played in the past. They represent a drop in the bucket compared to the overall Playerbase, but their toxic presence has always resulted in a massive drop in player retention.

Yes, there is the potential for player opposition in Open, but that risk is tiny unless you go looking for trouble. Furthermore, that risk is more than mitigated by the advantage that having a massive number of potential players to form a PUG with. The same shields that enable a player to survive a mistake while taking risks to fly quickly in Open also make the rare player opposition attempt survivable… as long as they don’t actively cooperate with their own destruction.

It's kind of ironic... as always, we're hearing two narratives about Open: one that it's so incredibly dangerous that there's no choice but to play in Solo/PG, the other that that danger is greatly exaggerated as long as you make suitable precautions and avoid obvious hot spots. I'd expect the former narrative from those who have zero interest in PvP. Not so much from PowerPlayers.

If there’s risk involved (and there is, particularly if you’re planning to sell exploration data at Jameson Memorial) the reward should be proportional, whether in credits, merits, or influence. Every player should have the choice to opt for a bonus in Open or to switch Solo/PG for more relaxed gameplay (and sell exploration data to Jameson Memorial without issues LOL).

 

[Robert Maynard]

If there’s risk involved (and there is, particularly if you’re planning to sell exploration data at Jameson Memorial) the reward should be proportional, whether in credits, merits, or influence. Every player should have the choice to opt for a bonus in Open or to switch Solo/PG for more relaxed gameplay (and sell exploration data to Jameson Memorial without issues LOL).

Given that a player can arrive in any dock in a mode other than Open then switch to Open to get the bonus, it does not seem that such a bonus would actually reward any added risk.