Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Jockey79]

I don't want to derail the topic because I've become overtime more of a bgs player and lately have joined PP to do bgs necessarities related to that, but I really can't wrap my head around people wanting constantly (for both sheer PP fortif/undermine etc or bgs fav/unfav governments) this option of remaining in solo or pg and constantly use the "ganker excuses" and "I just wanna chill" arguments.

Whether it would be PP or BGS, I'd love to see some kind of effort bonus system for people playing in Open. It's not about "ganking" being the problem - on an Open player point of view, mind you - it's the implication of playing in Open means playing sub optimally for those tasks: when I do open I have to take into consideration quite a lot of factors and how I'd operate, choose and build several ships with Open in mind, consider risk intake and do I need to be in a wing. How do I adjust to a rebuy or even, is it worth heading on over to finding foes or interrogate unidentified cmdrs and their goals meaning not clocking in bgs/pp effort. I know, shocker. Finding people and surveying their activities, engaging in dialogue is also actually a thing, not just ganking.

SPEED when operating in Open is a necessity but for more reasons than solo/pg.

In solo/pg, there is nothing to effectively stop you or slow you down significantly. The risks are virtually none. You can min-max builds with all the factors that would be coming from Open and be more effective time wise throughout a tick or a cycle. Case in point someone mentioned being in a cutter with minimal shields to protect just from mailslot/landing oopsies more than just straightline boosting away possibly from a npc interdicting you.

I'd love to see a simple, per tick/cycle system where as long as you stay in Open for that duration your efforts are getting a bonus exclusive from that mode. You switch once to solo/pg mode within that tick or cycle and revert back to Open, the bonus until said cycle or tick has expired be calculated as solo/pg.

With the engineering love up and running now, I hope that ppl that has a "cba extra engineering" go out the door. I know I will, I made several Open emphasized ships but stopped midway of my projected builds because of the grueling amounts of time burnt into gathering mats. When you're a bgs/PP (or as myself in example now both), time every day every week is of importance; going out for engineering means less done.

If Open doesn't get some form of bonus system on top of the engineering relief that could incite at least some of you if it's been your roadblock to try, then indeed a serious consideration into turning NPC's in solo/pg actually not just "a nuisance" is a viable option.

Oh and at least, it would possibly limit the effectiveness of some people having their little swarm of botting unicorns. Or maybe for the defiant ones to see them in Open and hopefully see some actions taken against them account wise.

The reward for your effort in Open Mode is the social interactions you receive.

Not everyone plays the game for social interactions. The original game was single-player-only, and that's what a lot of the backers wanted. An updated version of the single-player game. Frontier advertised single-player originally and then dropped it in the 11th hour and those players have had to settle for Solo Mode.

I've been attacked for no reason or gain to that person in Open Mode, so it is a perfectly valid reason for anyone to want to avoid Open Mode. Wether you like the reason or not, it is still valid.

I'd like to see a real Open PvE mode added, as currently it is an unfair advantage that PvP'ers get 2 modes and PvE players get only 1

o7

 

[Jockey79]

PG by there very nature means I only allow people I know in my PG and no nonconsensual PVP is allowed . Mobius is slightly different as its multiple PG's that are generally of like-minded people who don't want PvP. Some idiot will slip through once in a blue moon because it's Mobius.... But it doesn't happen very often as there are checks done before you get in.
In my 9 yes of playing have never had nonconsensual PVP in my PG and or anytime in the Mobius PG's .
I have dabbled with PVP when playing in open ( whilst being a member of Mobius ).

I also have my own PG of real-life friends. It still doesn't change the fact you can be killed in a PG by another player.
Whether it is on purpose or not, is also beside the point.

And there was a stint of unwanted PvP in Mobius so often the devs had to step in and threaten to ban people from the game.
So you got lucky and didn't receive unwanted PvP - but not everyone else was so lucky.

Nothing stops any Mobius member from doing PvP, I've done PvP - in Open Mode. So I'm not sure what your point is there?

 

[angusmadmac1]

I also have my own PG of real-life friends. It still doesn't change the fact you can be killed in a PG by another player.
Whether it is on purpose or not, is also beside the point.

And there was a stint of unwanted PvP in Mobius so often the devs had to step in and threaten to ban people from the game.
So you got lucky and didn't receive unwanted PvP - but not everyone else was so lucky.

Nothing stops any Mobius member from doing PvP, I've done PvP - in Open Mode. So I'm not sure what your point is there?

Rule one :- PvP is not allowed in Mobius PG you can't even do it in a combat zone .
The rules you agree to that's what stops you .
Any member of Mobius can do PvP but not in the Mobius Private group .
The last friendly reminder for no PVP in Mobius was 2017 ??
But this thread is about open only PP2 so will let the thread carry on it's due course

 

[Rubbernuke]

AFK ships shouldn't work anyway. Regardless of the activity.
That shows a much wider issue with the game, not just PP.

Its acute (and fixed with V2 hopefully) given that old school expansion CZs are used.

Just to clarify; normally I would actually agree with you. I wouldn't usually support this line of reasoning and in any other game, I wouldn't.
A person's internet access is their own responsibility. And sometimes it just sucks to live in rural areas.

However, did you forget David Braben played Elite: Dangerous using a laptop and mobile phone's internet connection? (10 years ago now)
The whole point was anyone could play, even those with bad connections could still play the game and have access to the entire game.
Frontier went out of their way to prove they'd made a game that could use even a really bad connection - so my friend bought it on the strength of that.
Locking content away (or tilting the rewards away) from a mode he is forced to play after them saying he can play it - well that's when I have to change my stance.

[The link to the article quoting DB; https://www.pcgamer.com/elite-dangerous-boss-says-online-only-is-the-right-decision/ )

The problem for me is time moves on- after ten years of being on (very) slow ADSL I recently got fibre. The game is not the game of 10 years ago either, and while I want everything to be as connected as possible sometimes thats just not possible. For example Mac was dropped, consoles depreciated, (for some) P2W now, system requirements changed.

But saying that this a design issue, you can go multiple ways and have bits for everyone- the hurdle is ensuring that modes don't compromise the game. Over the years myself and others have pretty much talked about everything that could possibly be done, its now down to FD to try and square the circle.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The reward for your effort in Open Mode is the social interactions you receive.

For the wider game yes. For Powerplay its a way to directly oppose rivals in directly competitive co-op.

 

[Lu-v H8-2020]

The reward for your effort in Open Mode is the social interactions you receive.

Not everyone plays the game for social interactions. The original game was single-player-only, and that's what a lot of the backers wanted. An updated version of the single-player game. Frontier advertised single-player originally and then dropped it in the 11th hour and those players have had to settle for Solo Mode.

I've been attacked for no reason or gain to that person in Open Mode, so it is a perfectly valid reason for anyone to want to avoid Open Mode. Wether you like the reason or not, it is still valid.

I'd like to see a real Open PvE mode added, as currently it is an unfair advantage that PvP'ers get 2 modes and PvE players get only 1

o7

It's not disliking someone's choice to solo or pg, it's disliking that open is effectively not on par to anyone else doing their activities in the more "isolated" modes. That's why I was implying a bonus to Open PP/bgs effects. But then people would have their block list in Open. Then it would require a 4th mode "Open PP/BGS" where blocking doesn't work. Sadly I'm afraid that's a thing that would never happen, or at least a trigger for PP/BGS pledged players that disables block list but probably wouldn't happen either.

 

[SergMx]

I know you’re joking, but there’s a lot of truth to that statement. As I understand it, a lot of PvPers have the opposition on their friends list, for exactly that reason.

Not really. I have gankers in my friends. I had to add them to be able to fight them, otherwise we couldn't get into the same instant.

 

[Jockey79]

Rule one :- PvP is not allowed in Mobius PG you can't even do it in a combat zone .
The rules you agree to that's what stops you .
Any member of Mobius can do PvP but not in the Mobius Private group .
The last friendly reminder for no PVP in Mobius was 2017 ??
But this thread is about open only PP2 so will let the thread carry on it's due course

None of that changes the simple fact, PvP is enabled in PG's - even Mobius. As the game does not have a PvE mode.
(technically PvP is enabled in Solo - let that one sink in a minute)
So even doing PP in Mobius is not a guarantee you will not face PvP. The risk is still there.
As was proven by those who went on murder hobo sprees in the group.

So as long as there isn't a true PvE mode, then Open Mode doesn't need any additional bonuses as PGs are just as dangerous as Open.

 

[Darrack]

For the wider game yes. For Powerplay its a way to directly oppose rivals in directly competitive co-op.

I thought it was about supporting your chosen Power by various means including stealth hauling

O7

 

[Jockey79]

Its acute (and fixed with V2 hopefully) given that old school expansion CZs are used.

It is still an issue. It is against the ToS to be using 3rd party software (AI / Bots) to automate gameplay.
So if people are cheating, they need to be banned from the game. And as you seem to know who they are, I hope you've reported them.

The problem for me is time moves on- after ten years of being on (very) slow ADSL I recently got fibre. The game is not the game of 10 years ago either, and while I want everything to be as connected as possible sometimes thats just not possible. For example Mac was dropped, consoles depreciated, (for some) P2W now, system requirements changed.

The core of the game is still the same, even after 10 years. The mode system, the combat system, and the flight mechanics. All the same. It is still the base game of 10 years ago, with stuff added to it.

Technology may have moved on (for most people, not all) it doesn't change the fact the game was advertised as all the content is available to all the players in all the modes.

But saying that this a design issue, you can go multiple ways and have bits for everyone- the hurdle is ensuring that modes don't compromise the game. Over the years myself and others have pretty much talked about everything that could possibly be done, its now down to FD to try and square the circle.

It is down to FD. And every time FD have added something new to the game, there have been calls to lock it to Open Mode or give Open Mode perks - and it has never happened. So I hope you don't have high expectations. (I don't have high expectations for them getting PP2.0 right)

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sadly I'm afraid that's a thing that would never happen, or at least a trigger for PP/BGS pledged players that disables block list but probably wouldn't happen either.

It seems less likely as, after Sandro published the two Powerplay Flash Topics in May 2018 (where he was at pains to repeatedly remind participants in those threads that Powerplay was the only game feature even being considered for Open only / Open bonus), Frontier re-stated very clearly on a stream what the BGS is and who it is for:

Source: https://youtu.be/VCy1ZYjLvdQ?t=858
Followed up by a stream recap thread:

BGS (Background Simulation) Changes

The Background Simulation (BGS) is a representation of how the actions of all players, no matter on which platform or mode, impact the galaxy. The factions that inhabit these system battle for influence over the population and control of the starports, installations and outposts. Player actions can push these factions into various states; such as economy, security, health and influence. With concerted effort players can help grow a faction's economy, destroy its security status, or help win a war.

... and players cannot pledge to the BGS, only Powerplay.

 

[Jockey79]

It's not disliking someone's choice to solo or pg, it's disliking that open is effectively not on par to anyone else doing their activities in the more "isolated" modes. That's why I was implying a bonus to Open PP/bgs effects. But then people would have their block list in Open. Then it would require a 4th mode "Open PP/BGS" where blocking doesn't work. Sadly I'm afraid that's a thing that would never happen, or at least a trigger for PP/BGS pledged players that disables block list but probably wouldn't happen either.

The bonus for Open Mode is the wider variety of social interactions people receive, as opposed to the more limited interactions of a PG or none at all in Solo.
If people find the additional interactions of other players detrimental to their game time, then perhaps people shouldn't choose Open Mode. But either way, Open is its own reward.

After all, PvP'ers used to keep saying "it's called Elite Dangerous not Elite Truck Simulator" - so there's the reward for Open, that heart-pumping thrill of not knowing what will happen.

 

[Jockey79]

It seems less likely as, after Sandro published the two Powerplay Flash Topics in May 2018 (where he was at pains to repeatedly remind participants in those threads that Powerplay was the only game feature even being considered for Open only / Open bonus), Frontier re-stated very clearly on a stream what the BGS is and who it is for:

Source: https://youtu.be/VCy1ZYjLvdQ?t=858
Followed up by a stream recap thread:


... and players cannot pledge to the BGS, only Powerplay.

Great Quote, adding to the Wall

 

[Darkfyre99]

Are you referring to my mention of the Pilots' Federations and behaviour unbefitting a pilot with 'elite' status, when you reference 'No True Scottsman' or perhaps my mention of the warrior cast, using the comms as a weapon? I genuinely can't find how it might apply, but would be grateful of your clarification, if indeed it does.

I love to role-play the call to act on the behalf of what the Pilots Federation stands for, but don't see that accusing gankers of not behaving in accordance with this as leaning into 'Not a true Scotts man' in the slightest, (I groked the context better when pondering 'Not a...' rather than 'No true' I think the latter requires a heavy Scotts accent to really make the senses as intended.

Just looking to understand your context.

It was more the implications that “real” PvPers won’t engage in underhanded, bullying, or other types of unfun behavior, and thus need to be called something else. The fact of the matter is, every play style has its jerks, cheaters, bullies, Ozymandias wannabes, griefers, try-hards, and other types of players who are simply not fun to play with.

The “problem” with PvP is that that it can’t be ignored like non-PvP disruptive behaviors typically can. So it’s attractive to certain types of players who enjoy messing with others. Other types of players who aren’t fun to play with seek to avoid PvP at all costs.

The kind of gameplay PvPers like @Rubbernuke envision happening if PowerPlay 2.0 is Open Only (or at least weighted in favor of Open) is the kind of gameplay that, in theory, should be fun. In my experience, this type of gameplay requires a game developed from first principles for it to work, and even then it almost always fails. Players who engage in toxic behavior inevitably seem to drive off all but the most hardcore players, and that results in a dead server, or even a dead game. There are exceptions, like EVE online, but the odds are stacked against them.

Elite Dangerous already has the the wrong networking architecture for this to work. It also has the wrong instancing rules. I don’t see any of that working in PowerPlay 2.0 unless Frontier is willing to fund significant funds into purchasing or renting servers to host instances, rewrites their networking code to support client/server and their matchmaking rules to match. And it still wouldn’t address the main problem: some players are simply not fun to play with.

Frontier’s solution to this problem to allow the players to decide, on a session by session basis, who they want to play with. This kind of voluntary separation, no PvP switch required, has resulted in something I never expected to find, after 30+ years of online gaming: a mixed PvP/PvE environment that’s fun enough for a significant majority of players to voluntarily choose to play in.

There’s a variety of reasons for this, but the main reason in my opinion is this: the types of players who are most likely to be unfun to play with won’t play in Open. The non-PvP-inclined cohort won’t play in Open because they have no interest in PvP, period. The PvP-inclined cohort, deprived of access to the first cohort and faced with an Open population who are savvy enough not to be easy kills, aren’t able to have what they consider to be fun, and leave for greener pastures

 

[Jockey79]

It was more the implications that “real” PvPers won’t engage in underhanded, bullying, or other types of unfun behavior, and thus need to be called something else. The fact of the matter is, every play style has its jerks, cheaters, bullies, Ozymandias wannabes, griefers, try-hards, and other types of players who are simply not fun to play with.

The “problem” with PvP is that that it can’t be ignored like non-PvP disruptive behaviors typically can. So it’s attractive to certain types of players who enjoy messing with others. Other types of players who aren’t fun to play with seek to avoid PvP at all costs.

The kind of gameplay PvPers like @Rubbernuke envision happening if PowerPlay 2.0 is Open Only (or at least weighted in favor of Open) is the kind of gameplay that, in theory, should be fun. In my experience, this type of gameplay requires a game developed from first principles for it to work, and even then it almost always fails. Players who engage in toxic behavior inevitably seem to drive off all but the most hardcore players, and that results in a dead server, or even a dead game. There are exceptions, like EVE online, but the odds are stacked against them.

Elite Dangerous already has the the wrong networking architecture for this to work. It also has the wrong instancing rules. I don’t see any of that working in PowerPlay 2.0 unless Frontier is willing to fund significant funds into purchasing or renting servers to host instances, rewrites their networking code to support client/server and their matchmaking rules to match. And it still wouldn’t address the main problem: some players are simply not fun to play with.

Frontier’s solution to this problem to allow the players to decide, on a session by session basis, who they want to play with. This kind of voluntary separation, no PvP switch required, has resulted in something I never expected to find, after 30+ years of online gaming: a mixed PvP/PvE environment that’s fun enough for a significant majority of players to voluntarily choose to play in.

There’s a variety of reasons for this, but the main reason in my opinion is this: the types of players who are most likely to be unfun to play with won’t play in Open. The non-PvP-inclined cohort won’t play in Open because they have no interest in PvP, period. The PvP-inclined cohort, deprived of access to the first cohort and faced with an Open population who are savvy enough not to be easy kills, aren’t able to have what they consider to be fun, and leave for greener pastures

Great write-up.

Eve Online has suffered a player drop due to toxic "PvP'ers" and had to rework their in-game police [Concord], due to people's bad behaviour.

I quit EVE when it was fashionable for morons to jump into 1.0 space, tank Concord and sit outside stations blasting new players and the Devs showed little to no interest in fixing the issue. And of course, they learnt the hard way that PvP'ers are a fleeting bunch, and it's the PvE players that stick around for the long haul. So they fixed the issue and now offer a free-to-play model. But the damage was done and those who did it moved on.

Wargaming.net made PvP-only games, I love Word of Tanks and World of Warships - imagine my surprise when they added NPC's to the game. Because of the toxic trolls and falling populations, they actually added NPC matches so we didn't have to put up with it in our PvP game. (this speaks volumes).

So even in dedicated PvP games, cheating, trolling and nasty behaviour is a major problem - and they wonder why some of us have dug in and do not want Open Mode to dominate here. I'd be happy if they removed it altogether so it stops all this nonsense tbh.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It was more the implications that “real” PvPers won’t engage in underhanded, bullying, or other types of unfun behavior, and thus need to be called something else. The fact of the matter is, every play style has its jerks, cheaters, bullies, Ozymandias wannabes, griefers, try-hards, and other types of players who are simply not fun to play with.

The “problem” with PvP is that that it can’t be ignored like non-PvP disruptive behaviors typically can. So it’s attractive to certain types of players who enjoy messing with others. Other types of players who aren’t fun to play with seek to avoid PvP at all costs.

The kind of gameplay PvPers like @Rubbernuke envision happening if PowerPlay 2.0 is Open Only (or at least weighted in favor of Open) is the kind of gameplay that, in theory, should be fun. In my experience, this type of gameplay requires a game developed from first principles for it to work, and even then it almost always fails. Players who engage in toxic behavior inevitably seem to drive off all but the most hardcore players, and that results in a dead server, or even a dead game. There are exceptions, like EVE online, but the odds are stacked against them.

Elite Dangerous already has the the wrong networking architecture for this to work. It also has the wrong instancing rules. I don’t see any of that working in PowerPlay 2.0 unless Frontier is willing to fund significant funds into purchasing or renting servers to host instances, rewrites their networking code to support client/server and their matchmaking rules to match. And it still wouldn’t address the main problem: some players are simply not fun to play with.

Frontier’s solution to this problem to allow the players to decide, on a session by session basis, who they want to play with. This kind of voluntary separation, no PvP switch required, has resulted in something I never expected to find, after 30+ years of online gaming: a mixed PvP/PvE environment that’s fun enough for a significant majority of players to voluntarily choose to play in.

There’s a variety of reasons for this, but the main reason in my opinion is this: the types of players who are most likely to be unfun to play with won’t play in Open. The non-PvP-inclined cohort won’t play in Open because they have no interest in PvP, period. The PvP-inclined cohort, deprived of access to the first cohort and faced with an Open population who are savvy enough not to be easy kills, aren’t able to have what they consider to be fun, and leave for greener pastures

Like I said earlier, Powerplay has to at least satisfy a strategic layer and minute by minute flying 'layer' for it to fulfill its brief. As Sandro observed, its allowing players to directly oppose others, rather than have to go by tiresome abstractions that remove players from the immediacy of the feature.

I don't really get what you mean by unfun PvP people, when destruction is a valid goal to drive strategy, and, aside from foul language in chat (which should be blockable) is the worst you can do. Its ironic that the most 'toxic' people on the forum loved the idea of a strategic game where PvP mattered. It gave context to something that lacked a reason elsewhere- they wanted to be the hauler evading, the hunter attacking or overwatch defending.

Issues such as pad blocking and other exploits can be addressed with good design. For example you can use hidden trader mechanics for cargo hauling- which gives you an infinite amount of areas to transfer cargo unique to each player.

And while the networking is not the best, its good enough for what is required: opportunistic encounters.

 

[Lu-v H8-2020]

It seems less likely as, after Sandro published the two Powerplay Flash Topics in May 2018 (where he was at pains to repeatedly remind participants in those threads that Powerplay was the only game feature even being considered for Open only / Open bonus), Frontier re-stated very clearly on a stream what the BGS is and who it is for:

Source: https://youtu.be/VCy1ZYjLvdQ?t=858
Followed up by a stream recap thread:


... and players cannot pledge to the BGS, only Powerplay.

Indeed but they can make an allegiance to a faction

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed but they can make an allegiance to a faction

The best a CMDR can achieve with a Faction is Allied.

A Squadron affiliated with a Faction may be one of an untold number of Squadrons affiliated with that Faction.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It is still an issue. It is against the ToS to be using 3rd party software (AI / Bots) to automate gameplay.
So if people are cheating, they need to be banned from the game. And as you seem to know who they are, I hope you've reported them.

From the videos its a group of four turreted t-10s shooting healing beams at each other. The automation is holding down the trigger IIRC. Since new CZs have an 'end' state, its impossible to feed the ships fodder (unlike the old CZs with unending spawns).

The core of the game is still the same, even after 10 years. The mode system, the combat system, and the flight mechanics. All the same. It is still the base game of 10 years ago, with stuff added to it.

True, but as we discussed earlier Powerplay straddles the weak point in everything, and the devs have struggled to try and escape.

Technology may have moved on (for most people, not all) it doesn't change the fact the game was advertised as all the content is available to all the players in all the modes.

Depends what makes them money in the end- they may feel after U19 goes live more change is required- they themselves acknowledged Powerplay has many deep rooted problems that can't be solved in one go.

It is down to FD. And every time FD have added something new to the game, there have been calls to lock it to Open Mode or give Open Mode perks - and it has never happened. So I hope you don't have high expectations. (I don't have high expectations for them getting PP2.0 right)

I've never supported any call for the wider game to be locked to Open & I only called for V1 to go that way because it made sense given its design and limitations. As for V2, I don't think it will go fully open, but I do think FD will tinker with open itself. FD won't get V2 right, but the difference with 2015 is that they have put aside time after release for changes so that gives me hope.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I thought it was about supporting your chosen Power by various means including stealth hauling

O7

Way ahead of you:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/crazy-idea-no-fortifying-but-spinning-plates-style-undermining-via-spies.428302/