Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
Then you picked a great game for an extremely gentle introduction to the world of mixed PvE/PvP MMOs. A lot of Ultima Online veterans (like me) tend to joke to that we have PTSD from the experience…
(at least I hope most of us are joking…)
It's also why my introduction to these forums was one of annoyance. People kept referring to ED as a MMO.
The website (v1.0) nor the KS advertised it as an MMO. And when I bought the game, it didn't have the MMO tag.
Then Frontier a few weeks after the release decided to update the website and Steam listing with the MMO label - that annoyed me because I knew the type of players it would attract. And it did. /facepalm.
Took longer than expected for them to get bored and for most to go back to their gank squads in EVE (and a few other games), partly due to PP keeping them here.
And I fully expect a resurgence of them when PP2.0 comes out. Looking for unarmed ships forced into Open mode for their combat wings to constantly grieve/ harass and bully.
We'll see how FD work PP2.0. It'll be a massive own goal if they've listened to the Open Only / Open Weighted argument.
Different jobs in different modes does have a lot going for it, if balanced properly. So I hope that's the plan.
It is precisely because it is not that, that when it suddenly becomes that, that it is traumatising; I have spent nights with no sleep, with no exaggeration.
The suspension of disbelief is so good, that when you do abruptly get yanked out of it, it is traumatising.
IMHO this should be take very seriously as an observation.
... Now if you will excuse me, I've just realised that by fitting a 4D long range modded FSD into my krait phantom, I can run with out stripping down the power distributor, and be very close to the thrusters minimum weight; Busy busy!
He says it's 'most important' at 8:08... I've been timestamping 8:00 - 9:20 since I first referenced this video here. People keep accusing me of lying when it's right there... you guys are hilarious.
Someone else brought up the 38:35 part where he mentions giving people a reason to shoot eachother... Although that part further solidifies my point about being built around consensual PvP.
Anyway, as a further idea to allow certain parts of Powerplay to remain doable in solo or groups - I think it would be ok to allow defensive actions to remain cross-mode (fortification hauling for example). However I think if your goal is to perform incursions into hostile territory, the player should have to perform the action in open (so the defenders can stop you). This would distinguish Powerplay from BGS warfare, where groups tend to operate in private modes when attacking another player groups' claimed territory (I know its faction based in name only, no need to go down that rabbit hole).
Last edited:
Ah, I think you may have edited out the part about a certain flexibility with what some call 'the truth', I shall post this none the less as I am responding after pondering from an earlier read:
Translating from the Elite Pilots' Federation verbal tradition of secret training for the focused discerning pilot, concerning psyop missions: ~ "Never underestimate the capacity of the darker natured amongst us, to project either their desired reality or their issues outwards onto those in their vicinity, they will make every attempt to distort your reality to fit their desires, keep in mind at all times that we all cast a shadow."
Listen to CMDR Brabens words here, very carefully:
Last edited:
Of course, the topic here is PowerPlay, and given this is an opt-in part of the game, there isn’t any such thing as griefers in PowerPlay. There will be player-killers, yes, but since both sides current have to opt in twice, that isn’t griefing in my opinion. Especially given what David Braben is talking about in this snippet.
There is the problem of what to do with the players who aren’t fun to play with, who also aren’t griefers: cheaters, weaponized loggers, rules lawyers, colluders, and so on. Frontier’s current solution, that of voluntary association, keeps this kind of activity in Open at a minimum, which makes Open much less frustrating to play in, and allows the fun kind of PvP to thrive.
Why is that? I don't get it.
Wouldn't shooting at a friend work?
A great deal of that comes down to design- for example collusion or logging could be addressed via changes.
I think I twigged as to what you meant when you spoke about the ED server setups not permitting certain things, listening to that early talk from Mr Braben, the design has clearly had this in mind from the very start, dealing with ganking via instance use, kind of cool really. So this would also be an aspect of power play too, by obligation, you could even if there were enough participants, grade server instance by skill level; Complicated stuff though, clearly.
Sure yes this is on Power Play, and the above on ganking, but power play has been developed to channel ganking, that is just plain obvious, concentual PvP says it all.
My mind wanders to another current thread that I'm off to respond too, on an issue with the sudden access that happens to lots of engineers at once, I had this happen at the same time as my first experience of PvN (Player verse noob) and the whole thing really was thoroughly confusing. One thing is for sure, getting PvP to a better place can only make for a better game; PvN included. I am wanting to hi light the transition from noob here, is all, really a tough nut to crack though, and you certainly would not want to break play for PvP'ers.
All very cool, you make some great points on open play, had my first PvP kill the other day, I'd by lying if I fail to mention that I found it immensely satisfying; Thinking of aiming for the role of ganker specialise bounty hunter; Still got a lot of training to do before it is safe for me to take on that venture!
Last edited:
Of course.
It's easy to create increasingly draconian rules to patch all the loopholes that certain types of players find and abuse to gain an ephemeral advantage over those willing to play normally... and then the developers wonder why most of the players who do play normally quit playing the game entirely. The internet is littered with the corpses of mixed PvE/PvP MMOs whose developers thought that this time it'll be different. That this time they've found the magic rule that'll finally fix this problem. Those kinds of rules inevitably hurt those who never needed those rules far more that it actually reduces the kinds of behaviour those rules are intended to address.
The hard part is creating a rule that isn't worse than the problem it's trying to fix in the first place. And that problem is: too many players that quit playing the game, because certain types of players make playing the game miserable through their actions. This problem has existed for over 30 years in the MMO genre, and it existed in its MUD predecessors before that. You're not going find a clever programming solution to what is ultimately a social problem. A social solution, on the other hand? This has, in my opinion, worked wonders for Open in Elite Dangerous.
Yes, it does mean that some players won't play by your own personal house rules. And yes, it means that you won't be rewarded for participating in self imposed challenges. But the important part here is: a significant majority of the players do so anyways, and they don't need to be rewarded to do so. Heck, I use the pilots ejection rules on top of your own open only rules. Do you see me saying I should be rewarded even more because of this? No. Because my reward is a more interesting challenge, one that is badly needed in this game, which makes the game more fun in the long term.
I honestly think the PvP experience you have right now is the best it'll ever be right now. The people who aren't playing by your rules right now? They won't play by them if you coerce them into playing in Open. They'll use every technical loophole they can find to ensure that you still won't be able engage with them on your terms, and they'll do so in such a way that not only frustrate you, but everyone else who is just playing the game to have fun.
There is also a massive flaw in how Elite Dangerous was designed as a multiplayer game, which is why I couldn't believe it when they decided to call it an "MMO".
A single minor change at the user end and suddenly you can fly in Open Mode and never see a single person, so not an "MMO" if you ask me.
Some of the open-only voices here were around when Frontier had to explain to people how to edit a game file so we could connect to other computers. Because when they released the game no one could see anyone else due to a networking config error in their game files.
So those voices know how ridiculous it is to propose changes to the game that would result in people reversing that change (or doing an equivalent that Frontier has no control over) and using Open Mode to get the benefits, all while never being able to see another player. And it is something they cannot stop you from doing, so it would be a complete waste of time.
In essence, Elite Dangerous was built as an online single-player game that allows you to see a limited number of other people and let them play with you.
To suddenly market it as an MMO, considering the bad network model and inherent issues with it was a faux pas at best or a blatant cash grab that's backfired on them at worst.
I'm more than a bit of a computer science nerd and will have to say that I really don't think that the networking model could have been any different, to enable the creation of this magnificent scale model of the Milky Way; That this, by far the crowing achievement of the game. It certainly would not fit on your local machine and give the same PvE experience.
As such I really don't see it as being broken at all, I rather admire it.
Of course, if you try to turn it into a death match arena, it is not going to work; It is not star citizen with only one solar system, I'm glad that it is not, I love the procedural generation, how close it is to the real physics the astronomical modelling is sublime.
I disagree with you on this, one should never underestimate human creativity.
Last edited:
I disagree- you can make robust features that can add to game or at the very least have a hard and fast rule for something. ED and PP in general have several problems that feed off each other or that things are not well defined. Its when there are gaps in design problems start.
For example pad blocking in Powerplay. ED already has an answer to it- hidden trader POIs. Instead of a fixed station you have a unique rendezvous that is PvE, PvP and solves the underlying problem all at once. Collusion in Powerplay- I came up with the 'trust' mechanic which on paper deals with persistent 5C.
Last edited:
LOL, technically, you don’t disagree with me. Where we differ is that in my experience, the human creativity of bad actors has always outperformed the human creativity of a for-profit corporation. Of course, the same can be said of the the human creativity of anyone not burdened by having to make a living off that creativity. That’s why the modding community has always outperformed the original game creators.
I agree with you… to a point. PowerPlay 1.0 is so badly designed, they had to bribe players into interacting with it at all, and many players can’t even be bothered even then. A better design would go a long way towards fixing its problems.
It occurs to me that you really don’t understand what I’m talking about, since this is your first MMO of any kind, let alone a mixed PvP/PvE MMO. ED has given you an unrealistic view of what this type of game is usually like. It’ll take some time, but I’m going to give you one example from other games I’ve played, as it applies to a potential PowerPlay 2.0 scenario.
That may be true, but I can argue back that I don't need to know 'what this type of game is usually like' at all, just how systems need to be to function here in ED, given how the game has gone.
But I'll be interested in your post.
You don't see the flaw, with an "MMO" where you change a single setting and remove 99% of other players?
You may have to explain to me what you think "computer science nerd" means, because I don't think we have the same definition for that phrase.
If they had not slapped the "MMO" tag on Elite Dangerous, or advertised PP the way they did (with Sandro banging the PvP drum of war), then I'd agree that P2P was perfect.
But in order to be what it is advertised to be, or indeed have the competitive player interactions some features say you can have, then a proper server-client model is the way to go. Because right now, if PP2.0 does come with Open Mode only (or weighted) content - it isn't going to stop people from playing the content in a pseudo-Solo Mode. And that shouldn't be possible, in a real "MMO".