Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Mr Jack Burton]

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.

The design should look like that:

1. You get a mission/commodity in Open.
2. That mission/commodity is flagged for Open Only.
3. If you log Solo/PG anytime and that item is still present the commodity is lost and mission failed.

Done.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The design should look like that:

1. You get a mission/commodity in Open.
2. That mission/commodity is flagged for Open Only.
3. If you log Solo/PG anytime and that item is still present the commodity is lost and mission failed.

Done.

Exploration data sale is not limited to missions.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Exploration data sale is not limited to missions.

Same as above. If you plan to sell your exploration data, choose carefully in which mode you collect them. On the other hand if you are in deep space playing open or solo has no differences.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Same as above. If you plan to sell your exploration data, choose carefully in which mode you collect them. On the other hand if you are in deep space playing open or solo has no differences.

Which would mean that explorers would not be able to take high resolution screenshots of their discoveries - as that is limited to modes other than Open.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Which would mean that explorers would not be able to take high resolution screenshots of their discoveries - as that is limited to modes other than Open.

May be we should ask for adeguate tools for Open screenshots, if we have many cmdrs relying on it. But it does not relate to PP/BGS Open-Solo/PG weighting

 

[Robert Maynard]

May be we should ask for adeguate tools for Open screenshots, if we have many cmdrs relying on it. But it does not relate to PP/BGS Open-Solo/PG weighting

The ability to take high res screenshots in Open was removed as it could be weaponised (by directing the output to a very slow drive, USB 1.0 for example).

Mode weighting of in-game actions does not relate to this game - as it is a PvE* game with entirely optional PvP (that is not a requirement of any in-game feature).

*: where PvE actions affect mode shared game features, possibly resulting in indirect asynchronous competition between players, otherwise known as "playing the game".

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

The ability to take high res screenshots in Open was removed as it could be weaponised (by directing the output to a very slow drive, USB 1.0 for example).

Anyway not related to the topic.

Mode weighting of in-game actions does not relate to this game - as it is a PvE* game with entirely optional PvP (that is not a requirement of any game feature).

Any product changes and improves over time.

*: where PvE actions affect mode shared game features, possibly resulting in indirect asynchronous competition between players, otherwise known as "playing the game".

Balancing risk/rewards let the player choose the preferred mode with balanced rewards.

WIN/WIN

 

[Robert Maynard]

Any product changes and improves over time.

Indeed - in some ways certainly, and notably not in some other ways.

Balancing risk/rewards let the player choose the preferred mode with balanced rewards.

WIN/WIN

If that were to be the case then players in G5 murderboats would receive a reward commensurate to the risk they face from non-combat ships, which is to say none.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

If that were to be the case then players in G5 murderboats would receive a reward commensurate to the risk they face from non-combat ships, which is to say none.

Being prepared for the risk doesn’t eliminate the risk itself.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Being prepared for the risk doesn’t eliminate the risk itself.

It may not eliminate risk however it mitigates it to the maximum degree.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

It may not eliminate risk however it mitigates it to the maximum degree.

Yup. But consider:

Given that preparation requires time
Given that preparation requires knowledge
Given that preparations requires skills

A "G5 murderboat" (which is a "Normal Engineered Ship" anyone can build) can be countered anytime by another "Normal Engineered Ship" . So the risk is the same.
In Solo/PG you can have a "Normal Engineered Ship" that outtakes any NPC with less preparation and can be outfitted to bring more cargo and travel potentially more distance in less time selling goods and data easily in places not so easy to approach (without preparation) in Open

Also, remember that preparation is key for traders, explorers, and miners operating in Open, where outfitting and skills play a crucial role in managing the heightened risks of their work.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yup. But consider:

Given that preparation requires time
Given that preparation requires knowledge
Given that preparations requires skills

Time, certainly - however in a game where total game time runs into the thousands of hours, it's negligible - and there is no knowledge or skill required when following the latest meta build guide....

A "G5 murderboat" (which is a "Normal Engineered Ship" anyone can build) can be countered anytime by another "Normal Engineered Ship" . So the risk is the same.
In Solo/PG you can have a "Normal Engineered Ship" that outtakes any NPC with less preparation and can be outfitted to bring more cargo and travel potentially more distance in less time selling goods and data easily in places not so easy to approach (without preparation) in Open

Also, remember that preparation is key for traders, explorers, and miners operating in Open, where outfitting and skills play a crucial role in managing the heightened risks of their work.

It is indeed a normal engineered ship - with one purpose, i.e. combat, and does not need to make any concessions to other roles - and the risk is indeed the same, i.e. near zero (given the complaints about the length of time fights between players wanting to engage in combat take, along with the apparent simplicity of bugging out).

If such a bonus were to be awarded in Open then I'd expect that another meta build would emerge for the combat disinterested - of the sort that some of those tend to complain about as they don't stand much chance of destroying them.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

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.

Again, the numbers were significant and impactful. Its what killed Powerplay for a lot of folk (until as I say, these folk either left the game or moved onto the next jingle-jangle keys from FDEV), as instead of having a wing that in those early months might have comprised of 4 players working cooperatively (1 hauling in a Cutters built for open, 3 in Interceptor/Pre-emptive Interdictors, or as we called it at the time, the ALD Standard) dragging 538t of tokens, you would find more and more, 4 players in their own individual instances flying unopposed in unshielded cutters carrying 3,176 fortifying/prep tokens. Thats a considerable advantage,with associated additional benefits such as being 'unopposed' by the lobotomised AI, meaning no wastage of time, a situation which simply put is uncontenstable as an Open mode player engaging in Powerplay.

You keep mentioning that 'you wont find trouble unless you're actively looking for it', but by pledging to Powerplay, thats what you are doing, throwing your hat into a PvP/TvT mechanic, in which even if you escape destruction, merely having to have interacted with the opposition player (which lets be honest, is the only 'threat' left in this game in its power creep, lobotomised AI current form), is causing a detraction from your efficiency curve which your opponents can exploit. Using an example from another game (not to be taken at its most literal note, this is just as an other example): If I and a mate setup an anti-tank gun along the route from the oppositions spawn point to the combat zone in WWII Online, even if we're not 'killing' the other player, we're inconveniencing them to either stop and engage us, or delay their arrival at the front by forcing them to drive a more circuitous route, giving my team the advantage of theirs not having armour as readily available. The same worked with PP and interdictions (and thats before we dive into how it forces players in CZs to either leave (either due to reluctance to engage, or leaving to repair after a fight) or potentially risk losing their merits/bonds.

I wouldn't say that in relation to how Open mode is viewed is ironic, more unsurprising, as the state of Open has always been a schrodingers-playbox in the eyes of the Forum consensus: A desolate hellscape where 'gankers' with a plethora of mental issues will literally kick your front door down and stab your wife in the eye with a screwdriver IRL for just clicking the mode button when the forum argument needed it, to 'barely an inconvenience' when arguing against discussions regarding uplifts for playing powerplay within the mode. Again, though, thats not what Powerplayers are saying. Review the example I gave in the 1st paragraph. Even boiling it down to a simplistic hauling example (as the problem extends out into the other gameloops as well), a situation where both parties are hauling, the open-mode cutters are going to be carrying at best 538t to the Solo-ists 794, a 256t advantage, such numbers in a game loop focused on rewarding efficiency is uncompetable against.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Time, certainly - however in a game where total game time runs into the thousands of hours, it's negligible - and there is no knowledge or skill required when following the latest meta build guide....

Sure and anyone can build his own or rely on metas.
When fighting similar level builds anyway skills will make the diffrence

It is indeed a normal engineered ship - with one purpose, i.e. combat, and does not need to make any concessions to other roles - and the risk is indeed the same, i.e. near zero (given the complaints about the length of time fights between players wanting to engage in combat take, along with the apparent simplicity of bugging out).

Anyone can have the same builds if the goal is to fight'em.
Or you can have an hauler build that let you flee safe every time (and maybe less cargo space)

Either options requires:

Investing in time
Investing in knowledge
Investing in skills

If such a bonus were to be awarded in Open then I'd expect that another meta build would emerge for the combat disinterested - of the sort that some of those tend to complain about as they don't stand much chance of destroying them.

That's an unfounded assumption.
No ship is truly invincible in Open. Each build has strengths and weaknesses, and context plays a far bigger role than any supposed unbeatable 'meta'.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Time, certainly - however in a game where total game time runs into the thousands of hours, it's negligible - and there is no knowledge or skill required when following the latest meta build guide....

It is indeed a normal engineered ship - with one purpose, i.e. combat, and does not need to make any concessions to other roles - and the risk is indeed the same, i.e. near zero (given the complaints about the length of time fights between players wanting to engage in combat take, along with the apparent simplicity of bugging out).

If such a bonus were to be awarded in Open then I'd expect that another meta build would emerge for the combat disinterested - of the sort that some of those tend to complain about as they don't stand much chance of destroying them.

A lot of the problem I think is a player mindset issue. Elite players generally (particularly in the forums) are about what they as Individuals get as a reward for conducting a gameplay loop so find the concept of Group play like powerplay an alien concept.

 

[Robert Maynard]

A lot of the problem I think is a player mindset issue. Elite players generally (particularly in the forums) are about what they as Individuals get as a reward for conducting a gameplay loop so find the concept of Group play like powerplay an alien concept.

Which, given that other players are an optional extra in the game, is perhaps unsurprising. Noting that while Powerplay can be played as a group of players it's not limited to groups of players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That's an unfounded assumption.
No ship is truly invincible in Open. Each build has strengths and weaknesses, and context plays a far bigger role than any supposed unbeatable 'meta'.

In the unlikely event of a bonus for Open play being implemented, I expect that there are players who would be quite happy to develop a build that approaches that goal and share it for the greater good....

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Which, given that other players are an optional extra in the game, is perhaps unsurprising. Noting that while Powerplay can be played as a group of players it's not limited to groups of players.

I'm going to have to call you out on your nonsensical, circular word salad here, because by pledging to the power, you are now playing with a group of players against another group.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

In the unlikely event of a bonus for Open play being implemented

Last word from FDev was 'we'll be monitoring,' so who knows? Maybe someone will notice the latter part of a trending thread with nearly 200 pages of passionate debate soon enough.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm going to have to call you out on your nonsensical, circular word salad here, because by pledging to the power, you are now playing with a group of players against another group.

Only in a very loose definition of "with" - as a pledged player may never instance with another player pledged to the same Power or even be aware of any of the groups of players that coalesce around each Power, much less communicate with them / listen to what they have to say.

Some players certainly do approach it as a group feature with all that that entails. No player needs to.