Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
eye twitchesThere there, its all better now
Here’s the thing from point my of view. Different does not necessarily mean more difficult. It is merely different. There are tactics that work on players that would never work on NPCs, and vice versa. And quite frankly, NPCs are much the more dangerous opponent to me, a non-combat oriented player, because their decision matrix includes the option “fight.” That will never be the case with an antagonistic player… who are also much rarer than NPCs, even in “Opportunistic PvP Hot Spots.”
I play this game, despite its multi-player nature, to have fun. I’d much rather it be a single player game, but like other MMOs I’ve played in the past, it’s the PvE aspects and the setting that are most attractive aspect to me. I’ve played many mixed PvE/PvP open MMOs before, it’s an environment that should be fun IMO, but the unsportsmanlike behavior of a certain demographic of the playerbase rapidly turns the game into a cesspit. Eventually, the devs either give players the option to opt out of PvP, which most choose to do, or the game dies. There are handful of exceptions, of course, but they advertise their cesspits as a feature, not a flaw.
That hasn’t happened to this game, despite Frontier’s extremely hands-off moderation of the game itself. Despite everything about this game that should’ve drove the most player base into Solo/PG, a significant majority of players voluntarily choose Open. Despite everything that should’ve transformed Open into a cesspit, Open remains a fun mode to play in.
I attribute this atypical accomplishment to Frontier’s tri-mode system. This system has maximized the number players who are fun to play with in Open, and minimized the number of players who aren’t. That certain demographic that inevitably transforms a game like this into a cesspit? They require an “audience” to have fun, and that audience will never voluntarily choose Open.
This leaves an Open that doesn’t cater to that demographics’ fantasies that they are big bad PvPers. Open players are, at best, too savvy to be easy kills. At worst, Open players will actually hunt them. Faced with the reality of their status, rather than their fantasy, this demographic quits and looks for greener pasture, the next mixed open PvE/PvP MMO whose development team is sure that this time things will be different.
And yet so many single-player games actually sell cosmetics. For many players, myself included, the only player who matters, who will see and appreciate that cosmetic, are themselves.
Last edited:
AFAIK the decision to move away from a PvP slider was based on several factors:Spot the man who got the Star Citizen reference.
Spot the man who didn't.
In the early days of Store Citizen they said they would add a PvP slider so people could choose their level of PvP engagement. Some people backed the game based on this, thinking the game would allow them a largely PvE experience in an open galaxy. Then CIG walked back on this.
That's why on Spectrum you have threads that are basically the opposite of our Hotel California thread and threads like this. With PvEers asking for either the originally promised PvP slider or private servers (another early thing CIG said players would get), with the PvPers saying "Nah, single shared galaxy was always the vision" and "Git gud" and "It would split the playerbase" etc.
- Unified universe vision: The idea of a single shared galaxy where players' actions affect each other is central to Star Citizen. Splitting players into PvE and PvP zones or servers could diminish that sense of immersion and interactivity.
- Gameplay balance: Allowing players to completely opt out of PvP could have unbalanced the game's economy and interactions, making it feel less risky or exciting.
- Emergent gameplay: PvP, even for players focused on PvE, brings a layer of unpredictability that keeps the universe feeling alive. There are safety systems in place (like UEE-secured zones), but the idea is that even PvE players might encounter threats and challenges from other players, which adds to the immersion.
- Community and playerbase split: CIG has emphasized that dividing the playerbase with sliders or private servers could weaken the shared experience they want to create. Keeping everyone in the same universe fosters a stronger, more unified community.
Notice that points 1 to 4 also apply perfectly to ED
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If the intention was to drive those disinterested in PvP from the game, certainly.
Not in the listed 4 points
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Points 2 & 3, i.e. not allowing players to choose who they play among resulting in forced PvP for those not interested in it, would.
Point 4 - no-one needs to play with others in this game, by design - so the player-base arrived pre-split.
That PvP is re-branded "immersion" in the points is interesting. None of the PvP encounters I've experienced have been in any way "immersive". Immersion is lacking when every player has an immortal space pixie as an avatar with an unlimited supply of free ships and can respawn immediately to carry on doing what they were doing.
Last edited:
I summarized the reasoning behind that design as a choice between two separate universes or a single shared one. As for PvP being "immersion",it’s less about branding and more about the unpredictable nature of player encounters...though, understandably, your experience with PvP may differ.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed. Noting that in this single shared universe PvP is not a requirement of affecting it nor has it ever been.
For those disinterested in combat in general, and PvP in particular, being a ten second (or less) non-challenge for a player (incurring much more than ten seconds of rework to recoup losses) who preferentially selects non-combatant targets at no risk to themself gets boring, fast.
The universe isn't the same when comparing open play versus solo/PG. Players who tackle simple CZs in open face a much tougher, unpredictable challenge with real players, which breaks both immersion and balance. Imagine a soccer match where you could choose to play against ineffective bots or a real team, yet both results count equally towards winning the tournament. That’s the issue. No one is forcing anyone into Open, but the experience and rewards should reflect the added complexity and risks
And that's why this game has three modes. Absolutely equal in their influence on the universe.
That's how it was advertised for sale, and what all of us paid for.
You have your reward in Open in it's "added complexity and risk". THAT is your reward. Enjoy in it. Don't invent reasons of incentives to bring more people to enjoy marvelous interactions with people who force them to tell jokes, or to suffer "the usual kaboom in Shinrartra".
People who enjoy those kind of interactions are already in the Open, they just wish more of it. That's what all this is about.
Last edited:
The issue is (in PP) the influence on players. NPCs do virtually nothing, other players can do everything.
Solo has hardly any credible opposition, PG allows x4 merit gain between wing members, open has other players to attenuate strategic gains.
And what about strategic rewards? Open from a player perspective is certainly more interesting, but what does it gain strategically by being in that mode?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The universe is the same - noting that nearly all of it is devoid of other players, even in Open. That some may choose to play among others is their choice - that others aren't forced to make the same choice may break the impression of "immersion and balance" for those who do is noted - however as this is a game where PvP is an optional extra, it is simply an observation not based on the game's actual rules.
Regarding risk - players in G5 murderboats face next to none in any game mode - so any risk based reward system would reward them less than those who don't choose to fly them.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Open, with all that that entails, may be more interesting for some, certainly. For some others it isn't particularly attractive simply because some of those who choose to play in it are less fun to play among than NPCs.
The issue was in the early days Chris said whatever came into his head that sounded cool and answered yes to everything backers asked for, even if half of what was talked about contradicted the other half. So something had to give, some backers had to be upset. But at least that particular decision took place fairly early on before they even really had any sort of public game for people to play. At least backers in the last 8+ years could go in with their eyes wide open knowing what they are getting into at least on this particular front, a shared universe, where PvP can and will happen and there are no mechanics to avoid PvP encounters.
Conversely, what we have with ED is 10 years with part of the community happily playing with what was delivered and another part wanting it to change. At this point nobody who has already paid for the game can make the decision to not buy the game. We are playing the game we got delivered. Some are happy with this, some not, but we all paid for it.
To change this now, even for a specific game element, will result in people who like the way it is becoming upset and those who want change becoming happy.
Now, we can't know the actual numbers of people who are against or for, and neither does FD. What they need to do is decide is it worth alienating one type of player to make another type happy, and what would the financial impact of that be.
It would be a risk for FD to do it and i suspect they would want strong indicators it would be worth it, especially financially, to go in that direction, even if it were just for a single gameplay element like PP.
Now, let's address this part:
I have to say, its an issue as viewed from the PvP perspective. You're saying its the right decision because it matches your own preferences.
Let's look at those same points from a PvEer perspective.
1) Plenty of interactions and interactivity is fine. Solo players are fine playing solo. PvE players in groups can meet up with the people they want to meet up with and be happy. From the PvE perspective what would make the game better is an Open PvE mode or a PvP toggle for Open, meaning no PvP is possible. (Note, i'm not claiming FD should do this, just giving the PvE perspective).
2) No it hasn't. Everyone can participate in working with ED's economic gameplay however they want. Less risky or exciting? For who exactly? PvEers are fine in PGs/solo (and some in open) just doing their thing. They don't care that PvPers can't get their jollies on if there are less people in Open... and sorry, what risk for the PvPer anyway? Everyone who wants to play in Open is already playing in Open. If anything, due to modes, there is more risk in Open than otherwise because there is a higher chance that someone playing in open is prepared for PvP. Pushing PvEers into open just dilutes the number of PvPers flying around and thereby reduces risk to those wanting PvP. It does give them more targets, which of course, as always, what the argument is really about.
3) Again, not something PvEers care about.
4) I think this can be best stated as "A lot of people suck" and PvEers don't want to have such people in their community, so if those people are excluded/separated in some way, this is a win for the PvEers.
So, as you can see, the validity of those choices are dependent on the lens you view it through, you with your PvP focus, me with my PvE focus. There is no absoloute right or wrong here.
What matters is which direction the devs want to go with their game and who they are willing to please and who they are willing to alienate.
If you feel you will have more strategic rewards by hauling in Solo/Group, feel free to use it.
(sorry if this sounds snarky, not intended as such, honestly - merely stating the fact)
Then you can't argue the modes are equal, can you?
You are arguing they are not, hence I said "If you feel..."
Last edited:
Not the same, but in most cases, they're similar enough to be a disctinction without a difference.
I can count on one hand the number of times I've been in a CZ in Open and actually faced a player "opponent," and still have four fingers left over. And that "opponent" didn't do me the courtesy of immediately pledging to the opposing team, so we could engage in a fun PvP battle. They waited an eternity, until I was actually vulnerable, before pledging and then oppening fire. It was such an obvious "tactic" that it was practically insulting.
I still got away with my combat bonds intact.
But that encounter was not, in any way, my definition of fun. Granted, I don't fight in all that many combat zones to begin with, but I do occasionally like to do the pew pew. At least in PowerPlay, my opposition won't be able to use that particular "tactic" on me.
Personally, I feel like it's more like a soccer match where both sides fight against ineffective bots, except on some rare occasion, a Bane wanna-be shows up to disrupt the game. Which can be fun in small doses if they do so in a sportsmanlike way.
That is, by definition, forcing people into Open. When you devalue the efforts players in other modes, they'll feel compelled to join Open, or quit playing entirely. Those that don't quit wil be in Open unwillingly, and thus they'll seek any way, fair or foul, to recreate the old status quo. And that won't be a fun experience for anyone.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The PvE challenge is equal in Open and Private Groups, where players can wing up. It's arguably more challenging in Solo where players can't wing up.
The PvP challenge of Open is highly variable - and no less optional.