In terms of weighting your actions for your powers standing, yes, because as you say in your example, you're still 'running the risk' of bumping into a potential nae'r do well and having to adjust your build and tactics (which you often talk about) accordingly, rather than pointing your ship at the station and engaging Supercruise assist.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
In the old days, I've lost count of the number of times I've turned round and slapped a interdicting player HARD enough with my Adder to make them think twice about doing it again.Your seriously not trying to tell me your T7/T9/T8 is going to take out my Vette?
O7
Its not always about 'destroying' your opponent, or them destroying you.
Sidebar, one of the weirdest interactions I've had in this game was with a Corvette player, static in a CZ pledged to a rival power.
Apparently 4 players in Eagles armed with torps and reverberating cascade were low-skill 'griefing them'.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While mode shared game features can indeed be competitive, that competition does not require any player to play among other players to affect it, by design.
Other players have a say in whether they are to be "content" for other players in this game - and any role that requires other players is vulnerable to those other players choosing not to play among those who need them.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not at all - it is as simple as the desire of any player to be able to attack any other player for any or no reason does not over-ride each player's choice of who to play among.
When the game has very clearly been sold to all with a shared galaxy and optional multi-player, no-one is entitled to tell others how to play the game.
Maybe that's because PvP isn't as popular as some seem to think it is among the player-base.
1. In the example highlighted though, it does as both players are sharing the same instance for the interdiction to have to take place. Again, you attributing the slur of 'ganker' to the one initiating it shows your biases, a bias which has no place or relevance in discussing a Powerplay related interaction (which is what this thread is talking about).
2. If we were getting all coffee-shop psychology, I'd suggest its more a case of FOMO that drives it than anything else, like we saw with the debacle surrounding Squadron Only content in the form of Fleet Carriers.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If someone chooses to play in Open then interdiction is fair game - it's part and parcel of choosing to play in Open - and it's not what this discussion is about.
This discussion revolves around players not being available to interdict while affecting mode shared game features and that that is in some way unfair in terms of how some players want to play the game, that's when the choice of each player may over-ride the desire of any player that might want to interdict them.
Even before the change from Squadron to personal Fleet Carriers, when asked "what would happen to the Carrier everyone but the Squadron Leader left a Squadron", Frontier's response was that it would remain as a Squadron asset - and as every player can create a Squadron it would have resulted in individual players having a Carrier after being helped to get it by other players. Noting that Carriers arrived after a bit of an update drought - and not all players were interested in being forced to join a Squadron to enjoy the new content. Also noting that in June 2014 Newsletter #29, when talking about the withdrawl from sale of the Lifetime Expansion Pass, Frontier mentioned the following:
So players had been awaiting for the last item for about six years by that point.Elite: Dangerous Newsletter #29 said:
Last edited:
This statement is false, or at the very least, there’s no data to support it.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The claim clearly includes the word "maybe", which suggests a possibility rather than stating a fact.
Frontier have previously indicated that they are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP and more recently that "a lot" of players don't get involved in combat "at all".
.... and they have the data.
The problem there, much like with their vague statement regarding open is what defines a player who 'gets involved with pvp' 'at all' in such a statement.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed. I expect that Frontier have their own method of how to assess it from their game analytics, not that they share it or the data.
I remember a couple of statements from the old days (2015-2017) using terms like many but not majority.
Also not getting involved doesn't mean disliking the risk of Open.
It does sometimes feel like the conversation veers away from constructive discussion of issues and potential solutions, though.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
This one was fairly unambiguous:
On PvP vs PvE
We listen to both sides. While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP. A few changes here are more focused on one or the other (torpedoes have no real place in PvE at the moment for starters), but overall I think they promote variety of loadouts in both styles of play, and will make both more fun. On a personal note: I play more or less entirely in PvE, so if anything my bias in favour of that.
Not necessarily, noting that the risk from other players in Open is zero in the vast majority of the systems in the galaxy.
When some participants seek to remove game content from players who choose not to play with them, or attempt to force players to play with them, or penalise those who choose not to play in Open, it's not particularly constructive - noting that there is at least one potential solution that would give those seeking an Open only experience what they claim to want, without adversely affecting how any other player affects the mode shared game features.
Last edited:
Here’s the thing:
I’d agree with you if Frontier was the one that hosted instances.
But Frontier isn’t the one doing the hosting. Players are, and that opens a very wide door for “ain’t no such rule” abuse.
Right now, almost everyone in Open are acting in a sportsmanlike manner. In the scenario I described above, especially among PowerPlayers, I could choose to engage the opposition confident that it’ll be a fun encounter for both of us. Neither one of us is likeky to act like effluence from the southern end of a northern facing bull to keep from losing.
That won’t be the case when you weigh the influence of Open… especially if it turns out that PowerPlayers, despite statements to the contrary, genuinely are in Solo/PG for the sake of what is, in my experience and opinion, a rather ethereal advantage.
At best, instancing really is that bad for this kind of confrontational PvP, so nothing will really change, and those demanding the change will continue to be frustrated by everyone “cheating” by playing in their “private” Opens. There will, of course, be a handful of players doing just that, but most players won’t be plagued by long transitions caused by an overworked matchmaking service having to deal with players “poisoning the well” to keep others from instancing with them. Furthermore, meadow-muffin like behavior will continue to be rare.
At worst, if PowerPlayers genuinely are significantly more likely to choose Solo/PG for that illusionary advantage, then we’ll see the same kinds of behavior in I’ve seen in other MMOs, which will make for a miserable experience for everyone. I’m personally getting rather sick and tired of the longer transition times I’ve been encountering during my local prime time already, and they’re the exception, not the norm.
And personally? I’ve already dropped the interdiction module from my multi-role ship, because quite frankly the opportunity cost, merit wise, is simply too high, let alone the risk/reward ratio. I get more merits letting a unaligned pirate interdict me, and I’m not about to deviate from my flight path chase down an opposing Power, whether they are an NPC or a player.
Which is fortunate for other players. Because I have yet to see a single player even twitch when I scan them in Supercruise. And the few times we’ve been going to the same destination, I’ll still beat them there, despite them having a head start and me slowing down to scan them. Talk about cooperating with your potential killer…
...and having to check bandwith spikes / contacts every time you wake.
Ok, that was nearly 10 years ago, LOL.
Not really relevant anymore, IMHO.
Risk is about probability, which is never zero as long as you’re in Open, and it involves various factors like:
- Your carrier has been tracked by a bookmark.
- Your friend list includes opposing powers, pirates, or PvPers.
- You’re operating in the Bubble.
- You’re participating in a CG.
- You’re in a popular distant location.
- Fate has you cross paths with other CMDRs in your long route to Colonia
- ....and so on
We’re aiming to add game content and make certain existing elements more significant. The solution doesn’t have to be Open Only, though it’s the simplest to implement from FDev’s perspective.
Balancing, by its nature, isn’t about penalizing anyone.
What it really seems like, when the issue is acknowledged even by CMDRs and aligns with industry-standard game design patterns, is that there’s a reluctance to address balancing because it challenges certain advantages.
That’s why balancing appears to be met with resistance.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It's what we have unless and until Frontier provide more up to date information, which Zac sort of did in the Frontier Unlocked stream when talking about the reasoning behind the Type-8 being the second new ship this year, i.e. the Python MkII was created because "a lot" of players engage in combat, and the Type-8 was created because "a lot" of players don't engage in combat "at all".
The basis of the game design that seems to cause issues for some players is over twelve years old - and as the three game mode / shared galaxy exists now as it did then, just because information is old does not automatically mean that it is no longer relevant.
For as long the game has been on sale there has been no requirement on any player to engage in PvP to affect any mode shared game feature - so the game will have attracted players with little or no interest in PvP as well as players who are interested in PvP. That being the case, while it is possible that the relative proportions of the player-base who engage in PvP and who don't may have changed, it hasn't changed how players can choose to play the game.
Probability, as mentioned in a previous reply, is only part of risk - the other part is severity of outcome.
Noting that all that players in combat ships lose on destruction is the rebuy, and that as pledged players increase their rank the rebuy will reduce to zero, the risk to those players engaged in combat will tend to zero over time.
Open only would represent a removal of the ability to affect shared content from players in Solo and Private groups - which adds nothing for those players, who bought the game on exactly the same terms as players who enjoy PvP.
An odd statement when the usual "balancing" proposals variously include removing the ability to affect content from modes other than Open, penalising players who don't play in Open by reducing their effects on mode shared game features...
For some the mode shared galaxy represents an issue. For some it's a feature.
.... and Frontier rather obviously does not need to follow industry tropes when it comes to their multi-player game. Noting that resistance to being either penalised for not engaging in PvP or being forced to play among those who would force players to engage in PvP is to be expected in a game where PvP is the optional extra and experiencing and affecting the shared galaxy is something that every player does.
Here’s an example using triathlon, which has different modes with varying rewards, risks, and rules:
Your very first button is 'Open Play', the standard by design, followed by facilitated modes.
- Standard Triathlon (traditional race, like ED "Open" )
All participants race together on a public course, competing directly with one another. There’s a higher risk of collisions and a greater level of difficulty.
The rewards tend to be higher, as the top competitors are usually here, and there’s prestige in competing publicly. - Individual Time Trial Triathlon (similar to PG)
Participants race alone against the clock, without the risk of collisions or interference from other athletes. It’s a quieter, more controlled race focused on individual skill, with a lower risk of injury.
Although it lacks the prestige of the Open race, it still offers proportional rewards and incentives for those who want a more private experience. - Virtual or Indoor Triathlon (similar to Solo)
Participants complete the event on stationary equipment or simulators, such as treadmills and stationary bikes. There’s no risk of interaction with other athletes, and the environment is safe and controlled.
While the rewards may be lower, this mode is accessible and safe for those who prefer to avoid the risks and logistical challenges of the other modes.
Your very first button is 'Open Play', the standard by design, followed by facilitated modes.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Many RL sports have leagues, ranks, etc.. This video game chooses not to.
The order of the game modes on the launcher is alphabetical too.
Designers moved away from alphabetical ordering for buttons and options long ago, shifting instead to arrangements based on usage frequency, importance, or logical flow. This change stems from a core principle in UX design: guiding users intuitively toward the most common or essential actions.
Historically, this approach can be traced back to early studies in human-computer interaction from the 80s 90s, which showed that users prefer quick access to primary actions over alphabetical sorting.
For instance (to many to list'em all), Apple Human Interface Guidelines and Microsoft’s Windows User Experience Guidelines emphasize arranging elements by importance or expected use rather than alphabetically.
Alphabetical order is typically reserved for less common use cases, such as long lists (e.g., countries), where users anticipate an alphabetical structure.
Today, primary actions like "Open Play" are placed at the forefront, as these are the most expected paths for users.