As it stands, the modes are indeed unbalanced. However, there are several game design patterns that can help address this issue. Simply stating that any risk/reward system wouldn’t work isn’t entirely fair. Why not focus on discussing how it could be implemented in the most effective way? For example, a more robust crime and punishment system, combined with improved rewards, might make Open play more appealing even for those who typically play in Solo.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
Which just illustrates how uneven it is. How many G5 NPCs are there in Powerplay again?
Its not a matter of feeling, it is reality- at least in V1.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Maybe from the perspective of those who don't accept that the game we all bought means that PvP is an optional extra that no player requires to engage in.
There may be, indeed.
First define "fair" in the context of the desire to reward some / punish others for engaging (or not) in PvP.
It's not up to those who only stand to lose out to develop the proposal for those seeking change.
If you think so, then again feel free to use it.
This is Open/Solo/PG game, pick whatever you like or think is the best for your goals. Do not entice for or devaluate any.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It demonstrates that some players reduce the risk to themselves to a minimum then try to use the challenge that their ships pose to justify increasing the challenge for all players.
Frontier set the challenge of the game taking into account the player-base as a whole - noting that half of players are at or below median skill.
A 'Participation Trophy or Bonus' for merely logging into Open is hopefully not on the table. You should actually have to do 'something' in Open to get the any rewards. Example: Attacking a Titan via a bombing run is dangerous in Solo, PG or Open. Lots of Cmdr's do not succeed on their first attack run. But if and only if a Cmdr succeeds in doing 2million of damage to the Titan they get rewarded with a bonus for that activity whether it is one attack run or 10. And this reward applies to Solo/PG/Open the same. I personally hope that is what Fdev did for pp2.0 as the risk in gathering mats at a Titan or making attack runs is the same in Open/PG/Solo. PP2.0 should not be different no matter the activity. I hope that is what Fdev is planning, imagine the PP2.0 npc police literally being the goids or ships as hard/tanky to deal with
It should be interesting to see what Fdev does and if it works the way they intended, and how the playerbase reacts. But zero 'extra' bonus or Open Only activities. If the Thargoid war is the example, Fdev have their template for it, and it is challenging, and fun, and rewarding
It should be interesting to see what Fdev does and if it works the way they intended, and how the playerbase reacts. But zero 'extra' bonus or Open Only activities. If the Thargoid war is the example, Fdev have their template for it, and it is challenging, and fun, and rewarding
Why would people who don't think it needs changing discuss how to implement the changes they don't want? If players who want that get together to discuss, then good for them, but this thread isn't about that is it, it's about whether PP 2.0 will or should be Open Only.
Refusing PvP and refuse balancing of risk/rewards are very different topics
"Fair" refers to a balanced system where players who choose to engage in PvP face appropriate risks and rewards, while those who prefer not to engage are not unfairly punished or forced into it without options. Fairness could mean:
- PvP players: They should feel that their risk-taking is rewarded appropriately...whether through access to higher profits, merits, influence or other incentives that make PvP worth the danger.
- PvE players: They should have meaningful ways to avoid PvP if that's not their playstyle, without being excessively penalized for their choice. This could be through safe zones, in-game law enforcement, or trade-offs in rewards that make sense for choosing a lower-risk path.
Right, because the best changes always happen when we ignore the people most affected. What could possibly go wrong?
<3Which goes against your assumption
The issue is there are no rules that define an objectives based feature like powerplay when there either has to be hard rules (one mode only) or that rewards / perks even out modes themselves. Just saying 'open is its own reward' is folly, given thats really describing PG where you have all the upsides of Open without any drawbacks. You don't choose your enemies in Open, and as such should have some weighting.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which all presupposes that PvP is something that deserves to be specifically rewarded. Opinions vary on that.
Those proposing PvP-gating of existing game content have been ignoring those most affected for as long as they have been making the proposals. That they disregard those adversely affected so easily means that their desires can be equally easily disregarded.Right, because the best changes always happen when we ignore the people most affected. What could possibly go wrong?
Actually a 'fair fight' between Pvp'ers will probably be the worst possible ways to help your power. A one on one pvp fight with two meta FDL's or PMK2's all G5'd results in a long and to me boring fight that is a slug fest that could take 20-30mins for the victor to emerge. A single G5'd Pvp'er against a wing of 4 G5'd Pvp'ers is not a 'fair fight' and the wing of four really had zero risk
edited: spelling
edited: spelling
Yes this is why we are discussing at page 98 XD
A Cz is harder vs Bot+Players or vs Bots only ?
Actually, there’s no gate being imposed. If they added a multiplier for playing in open, it wouldn’t block anyone from accessing content. The multiplier would just be a reward for taking on the added risk of PvP, while players in solo or PG group modes would still have access to everything. They just wouldn’t get the bonus for added risks.
No one would really notice, and it wouldn’t force anyone to change their playstyle or limit access to any content.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The debate regarding the modes has been ongoing for nearly a decade - another hundred pages of posts is a drop in the bucket.
It very much depends on the number of players on each side, their ships, loadouts, etc.. Noting that there is no guarantee of player opposition anywhere in the galaxy.
A blanket bonus for simply playing in Open would be a "participation award", i.e. not for actually facing any added risk, and would be functionally equivalent to a penalty to players in Solo and Private Groups.
That would depend on whether the participation award for playing in Open was sufficient to encourage players to play in Open and make use of the block feature to remove all opposing players from their game.
Last edited:
In opposite perspective, it's like pretending you earn "partecipation awards" in solo/PG instead of merits and influence. That's not balancing risk/rewards in any sense.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Given that the game is driven through PvE actions all players face the same challenge from the game itself. That some choose to play among players who may shoot at them is their own choice, a bit like their choice of ship, choice of loadout, choice of engineering, etc.. Many player choices affect their game experience, noting that choice of game mode is the first choice that all players make at the beginning of each session.
If there were a risk/reward system then the player in the stock Sidewinder would make bank for their activities....
If true, we would have a single game mode.
Winning a competition between factions/powers relies on actions/time rateo which cannot be the same when the opposing faction/power tries to stop you.
Saying my choice to play in open should penalize how my efforts are evaluated is not fair as long the universe is shared.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If the game were PvP focused then I would expect that it it would only have had one game mode, but it's not so it doesn't.
None of any competition through mode-shared PvE game features requires players to instance together to compete.
It is up to each player to decide whether engaging in mode shared game features suits their personal choice of play-style - noting that they can't force any other players to play the way they want them to. When no game features require any player to engage in PvP those who choose to add it to their game do so because they want to, not because it is rewarded.
And the emerging answers are saying that Open Only would gate content while weighting seems to be a better compromise
I was beginning to think I was the only person here who still read System Chat..