Well in Powerplay terms its a better risk / reward for actually doing something with others, without having to inflate merits directly. Given that (like the BGS) numbers matter it makes sense the wing multiplier is tuned accordingly.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If PvP is so lacking in popularity that it needs a bribe to thrive is it worth pursuing at all?
Maybe to some who consider that players who don't engage in PvP need to be penalised for not doing so.
So game modes aren't equal! Open has handicaps, similar to how golf uses handicaps (weighting) to level the playing field when competing for the same prize. It's a well-tested game design feature, as it has worked in golf for over a hundred years
PvP vs PvE, over and over again... Open vs Solo.
PP is just an excuse.
Move all this to Hotel California, please.
PP is just an excuse.
Move all this to Hotel California, please.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Noting that in golf a handicap is the player's skill expressed as a number - and exists to make the game more equitable for players of different skill levels playing together, i.e. it makes the game more challenging as a player becomes more skilled. If those who consider themselves skilled players are happy to take an effective penalty to make gameplay more equitable then that'd be an interesting outcome....So game modes aren't equal! Open has handicaps, similar to how golf uses handicaps (weighting) to level the playing field when competing for the same prize. It's a well-tested game design feature, as it has worked in golf for over a hundred years
Yes but notice that the handicap here belongs to the golf course, not he player skills, and should be weighted accordingly. To reduce the handicap bonus a player could change game mode.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The game is not the same as golf then - in which case the golf handicap equivalence claim does not hold up.
At the very least, it's contradictory... I don't understand why those who claim to 'play for fun, not to win' are so invested in keeping an unfair advantage. If you really don't care about the competitive outcome, why are you so concerned with opposing those who do? This isn't meant as a provocation, it's a genuine question.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It may be inaccurate to assume that players with no interest in direct PvP are not playing "to win" in relation to mode shared game features that don't require PvP. Regarding perceived advantage - no player needs to choose to play in Open so those who do are knowingly choosing to play in a game mode where other players may shoot at them. They don't require to but choose to. To then claim that it's "unfair" that other players aren't required to make the same choices is noted but ultimately of no moment.
One can be interested in asynchronous indirect competition, and its outcomes, through any of the mode shared game features without being in any way interested in in-the-same-instance PvP of the shooty kind.
It's part of the game we all bought - the game where all players affect and experience the shared galaxy and where PvP is an optional extra.
That some can't understand and / or accept that competition need not be direct is not a game problem nor the problem of those players who don't enjoy direct competition.
Noting that when the planned "Offline" mode (that was added to the original Kickstarter pitch about half way through, long after the three game modes sharing a single galaxy state) was sadly cancelled about two weeks before the game launched, one of the reasons that Frontier gave for the cancellation was that Offline mode would not offer the game experience they wanted each player to have, i.e. it would not have allowed players to experience and affect the shared galaxy. Also noting that current game advertising mentions that "every player’s story influences the unique connected gaming experience and handcrafted evolving narrative. Governments fall, battles are lost and won, and humanity’s frontier is reshaped, all by players’ actions." and goes on to say "Experience the connected galaxy alone in Solo mode or with players across the world in Open Play, where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy." - so clearly the current desired game experience is the same as it was at the outset, i.e. all players both experience and affect the game, regardless of game mode.
Given all of that, a reciprocal question is appropriate: why do some players who enjoy PvP seem to think that players who don't engage in PvP should not be allowed to affect (or should be penalised heavily for affecting from Solo and Private Groups) the mode shared galaxy in a game where PvP is not a requirement of any in-game feature and where other players are an optional extra?
Last edited:
So game modes aren't equal! Open has handicaps, similar to how golf uses handicaps (weighting) to level the playing field when competing for the same prize. It's a well-tested game design feature, as it has worked in golf for over a hundred years
Solo is the hardest mode. Can't wing up in solo. You can tear through a High CZ in a wing of 4 in a few mins. Solo takes a lot more time.
Since we are talking about the effect on PP, people in Open and PGs can move those numbers much faster than someone in solo can.
Ergo Solo should get a bonus!
Ta da!
Though this might sound like a witty comeback, it's actually true.
Last edited:
I don't understand why those who claim to want interactions with other players (and the "extra challenge" that comes with it), complain about it and want extra payment for having the very thing they want in the first place.
Maybe solo is the only mode that does not make sense to even exist
It really doesn't make sense. Just have PG and don't invite anyone
I enjoy the added challenge and the balanced outcomes it should bring, but it seems like you all are looking for an unfair advantage and trying to justify it in every possible way. Interesting but not very productive.
The only way I can think of for the course to automatically "level" itself without applying some sort of weighting factor would be to actually tune the difficulty of NPC opponents and have that tuning apply across all modes.
Nothing as crass as "points scored in open are worth more" or anything like that.
Take, for instance, 1.0 powerplay expansions. They're basically just a race to grind merits at 10 points per kill in endless conflict zones. A pair of players going AFK in PG with healbeams pointed at each other and the rest of their hardpoints as fire-at-will turrets can rack up a lot of points - the method isn't viable in open, because as soon as someone finds them they're going to come back (or wing in some friends) with phasing or reverbs and just delete them. Simple weighting of the points in pg versus open wouldn't fix the problem of AFK builds like this either- the weighting would have to be insanely skewed to overcome the sheer volume they can put out. Even people flying in solo can do so risk-free with boats that are optimised for chewing through NPC eagles as quickly as possible, which is a very different build to what you'd bring if you were facing other players.
If you want an even playing field, players in all modes need to face equal risk - either from players, or from ramping up the NPCs.
Now, if there was to be some sort of open weighting in an opposed action (like expansion CZs - and who knows if they'll even be a thing?) then what if it was just something as subtle as... a tip of the scales of the NPC spawns? If one side is performing more actions in open than the other side, then the field could be tilted in their favour slightly by spawning slightly more and stronger NPCs into their team - their opponents can keep grinding in solo/private if they want, but they'll eventually start to see fewer eagles and more pythons spawning in the zones.
And of course, in 1.0 expansions, all that matters is the number of kills, it doesn't matter how tough those kills are so having to chew through an anaconda for every 10 points instead of slapping an eagle or viper out of the air will slow you down. But you can still play, and still fight.
I'd be interested to see how these new scenarios shape up.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
A Private Group with one member is effectively Solo, and every player can create a Private Group of their own, so it would be capricious to remove Solo. Not that it would be likely to be removed after the response Frontier received after cancelling Offline mode.
Indeed you all are.
Looking for unfair advantage you have in your G5 muderboats against everyone else with different builds.
And you try to justify it in every possible way.
Not interesting, even less productive. You will never have it.
you know you can make a g5 murderboat too right, or at least a G5 impossible-to-murder boat
2.0 isn't even going to have the constant merit-hauling every week
Of course I know. It's the easiest gameplay you can have.
And it's boring and dull.
No one is forced to play this game your way. That's how ED was made. You simply have to deal with it, instead of crying in more than a hundred pages here to FDevs to make it so - for your small crew.