I expect it will be guidance identifying and monitoring critical strongholds to maintain along with doing the same for rivals to attack, given focused effort of many will yield the best results.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Open only would fundamentally change the game for those who don't enjoy PvP in a game where, given the game's design, no-one who acquired the game even needs to tolerate much less participate in PvP to play the game. That some players don't seem to have a problem doing so is noted, just as they seem to disregard the downsides for players who don't share their up-to-now entirely optional play-style.
Wing bonuses remain a bonus for co-operative play, regardless of which game feature the wing is engaged in - and as Powerplay 2.0 very much seems to be "simply play the game while pledged" to call for their removal would be to penalise any player seeking co-operative play in a Private Group.
The challenge posed by NPCs should indeed be increased - to a level suitable to actually pose a suitable challenge to players in all ships and loadouts.
I understand your point, and it's true that just because people argue about something, it doesn’t mean change is always warranted. However, from a commercial perspective, it’s not just about what one segment of players is asking for. Frontier, like any other game developer, is always considering ways to keep their game relevant and engaging, and the idea of incentivizing open play could be part of a broader marketing and retention strategy.
In many ways, this is a necessity for the longevity of a game like ED. If you look at case studies from other long-running MMOs, such as EVE Online, they’ve consistently found ways to keep their player base invested through meaningful choices, player-driven economies, and incentivized risk-taking in PvP environments
Frontier has already mentioned they are open to monitoring the situation post PP2 launch, and this kind of retrospective analysis isn’t just for appeasing certain players. It’s a smart move from a marketing perspective, ensuring that ED remains an active and evolving (and profitable LOL) game with a dedicated player base.
Ultimately, my interest here is not just in advocating for my own preferences, but in discussing what could give the game a long life, just like other successful MMOs have managed to do.
And its this sort of thing, as well as the variety of play options open, that will most likely get people playing PP2, way more than any changes to modes would... in my opinion, of course.
The moderator here is that Powerplay is an explicitly competitive game- PG is really solo x however many allied people are there with you. As such the wing bonus is excessive and fueled AFK farming for years (as an example). Other players in Open (where the bonus would be active) then have x4 the push but can be disrupted.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
As it has always been - explicitly competitive PvE (with optional PvP for those who want to add it to their game [but can't make any other players engage in it]).
What the issue will be is that PvP areas and tasks do exist in V2, what FD will be looking at is if they are avoided or gamed in solo or PG if NPCs don't do the job.
But other than that, mechanically its shaping up well.
And.......PvP is the only real danger players face in achieving that PvE- we will have to see what V2 players face. Opting out of facing greater odds will aid you strategically.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If those who prefer PvP engage in Powerplay from a mode other than Open then yes - they aren't sticking with their preferred play-style. If those who do not prefer PvP engage in Powerplay from a mode other than Open then they are sticking with their preferred play-style. The desires of those who prefer PvP have no bearing on those who don't enjoy PvP.
In that case, FD would have to decide that making it open only would be good for their strategy, so this brings us back to the fact that for 10 years FD have not made that decision. They must have their reasons for it, even if some might consider it to be wrong.
We can also look at some MMOs and see how separating out PvP worked for them. It made the PvEers happier and in the end the PvP servers either continued happily separate or they died due to lack of players. As has often been noted, PvEers do not need PvPers, but many PvPers need PvEers. This is why when the topic of separate galaxies for PvP or PP often receive push back from PvPers, because its the last thing they want.
However, if there is a theory that something would be good for the game, it can be tested, but tested in a way that doesn't affect the majority of players. Hence separate bubble or separate galaxy.
Of course they are going to monitor how PP2 goes, that goes without saying. They also said open only for PP2 "not at launch", and i think you've been around for long enough to know that's usually FD speak for "never".
We all want what's best for the longevity of ED, we just disagree on what will do that. Personally I wish FD had never done PP, it was a huge waste of time and effort, it doesn't make sense lorewise or gameplay wise, and revamping it is just a desperate attempt to try and make it work, and more effort. If only that effort had gone into other things that the community would enjoy!
Same goes for CQC. Maybe FD could have redeemed it somewhat with more effort, but i think it was for the best they didn't waste more effort on it.
They do?
Or you mean there are areas and tasks that can be either PvP or PvE?
I haven't seen anything so far that indicates there will be PvP only stuff.
It’s like a car race where some drivers get a perfectly smooth track (solo/PG), while others in open play are dodging potholes, oil slicks, and rogue traffic. Sure, the open players are the ones at risk of getting rammed off the road. Meanwhile, the solo racers just cruise along without a care. If players are going to race on the same track, at least let’s balance the terrain.
Honestly, I don’t get the fear
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Those who enjoy the frisson of PvP don't get to decide how others should play the game, noting that the PvE challenge posed by NPCs is the same in all game modes.
Those who can't accept that no-one needs to play with them to play and affect the game often mischaracterise the choice of those who they can't shoot at as "fear", maybe due to some odd impression that they are being "brave" for choosing to play a video game in a particular game mode among players who may shoot at them. For some, PvP simply represents a tedious and predictable waste of their game time - noting that this is not the case for all players.
I mean is its mixed, but it depends on how well NPCs substitute players to be effective. For example emphasis was placed on FC group sabotage, if NPCs are weak here its going to be farmed and annoying if someone is sat in the FC Powerplay Pub (PPP) who can do nothing. On stream IIRC the devs talked about seeing lasers go off and going to investigate...
So play your game, with less risks and less rewards. Or choose the dangerous path with greater rewards. My feeling is that you want the raw advantage of Solo/PG...How greater open rewards would affect your gameplay ?
But then again why should players who face no opposition (or virtually none) dictate things either? Facing more challenges should reward more.
Yes, currently all equally useless in PP.
And those who don't engage with players who have the same capabilities as them are rewarded the same? Optional or not, it is different and does impact on strategic gains or losses.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Every player bought a game where every player affects the game but where no player needs to play with other players - that some still can't accept that after nearly ten years is obvious. That some players want a special bonus for even the potential of engaging or being engaged in PvP is also obvious - and has been for a long time. That any bonus for Open play would be functionally identical to a penalty on those playing in the other modes is not lost on players who don't enjoy PvP.
It depends on where on the "worth less to worthless" scale any non-Open penalty would make player effects in Solo and Private Groups.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... because all players acquired a PvE game with entirely optional PvP, even if they don't really accept it.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Whether or not to play among players may well have similar consequences to ones effectiveness as ones choice of ship or loadout. That some choose the option of playing among other players who may be hostile, may be in a ship that might pose a threat, may attack, etc., means that they may be impeded by other players who have made the same choice - the choice is no less optional.