Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Robert Maynard]

Instead many of us want to encourage it because our playstyle need other players to actually exist

The play-style of some players is inevitably vulnerable to those players choosing not to play with them through game mode choice, or blocking them individually, in this game. It depends on whether the playstyle on offer is fun for both parties in the interaction rather than just fun for the player that initiates the interaction.

The idea that gamers don't want to socialize may reflect a personal bias rather than the reality of the industry.

No disagreement there - noting that games with PvE servers seem to be rather popular while PvP servers in those same games have at times been removed due to lack of players.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Out of curiosity: Have you played the original game elite, perhaps via Ooelite which is still very much alive with a thriving community?

I'm a little aged so...yes first time on MSX and in the '90 I've got Frontier for PC, and I was in love with that until X series (from Egosoft) came out. Even nowadays when I want a single player experience I prefer the simulation provided by X series.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Claiming that the majority of games are single player is an oversimplification.

Figures prove you massively misled...

Game design is both an art and a science, requiring an analytical and thoughtful approach, not casual conversations. Questions like yours lack the depth needed to engage in this topic seriously, so I prefer not to entertain them any further.

Excellent! Miconceptions do tend to make structuring any serious conversation difficult, I must admit, but it is a burden I must bear when visiting fora.

The idea that gamers don't want to socialize may reflect a personal bias rather than the reality of the industry.

I seriously do not believe that - perhaps your own personal bias is colouring your conception of gaming instead?

 

[Wily Rites]

I'm a little aged so...yes first time on MSX and in the '90 I've got Frontier for PC, and I was in love with that until X series (from Egosoft) came out. Even nowadays when I want a single player experience I prefer the simulation provided by X series.

I'm surprised that you're not a little more understanding of those who seek to continue with the same style of game play in elite dangerous.
I think a lot boils down to how introverted or extroverted folk are, which has nothing to do with how much they enjoy gaming, but will of course very much effect what they want from a server dependant game.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I'm surprised that you're not a little more understanding of those who seek to continue with the same style of game play in elite dangerous.

I was 30 when the original elite was released. It was ground-breaking for its era, with a lot of humour incorporated into its tiny code size!

I think a lot boils down to how introverted or extroverted folk are,

Interesting.. so extroverts like to play with others, while introverts choose otherwise?
Is that what you are suggesting?

which has nothing to do with how much they enjoy gaming,

Indeed

but will of course very much effect what they want from a server dependant game

curious...

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

I'm surprised that you're not a little more understanding of those who seek to continue with the same style of game play in elite dangerous.
I think a lot boils down to how introverted or extroverted folk are, which has nothing to do with how much they enjoy gaming, but will of course very much effect what they want from a server dependant game.

You're confusing personal preferences with the actual design philosophy of server-dependent games like Elite Dangerous. It's not about being introverted or extroverted, it's about understanding that live service games are designed to evolve and adapt, fostering shared experiences, whether competitive or cooperative. Every live service game has its own way of managing PvE and PvP, and it's impossible to satisfy everyone, we all know. It's normal to have civil discussions about this, but clinging to outdated play styles in a game designed for a connected, evolving universe misses the point. Gaming preferences are valid, but refusing to acknowledge the core structure of a live service game is just wishful thinking.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Alliance of Chinese Elite
For the record we're trying to disuede you from ramming your boot further down your throat than it already is.

64 commanders. All nactive. With only 1 system. Very impressive buddy <3

 

[Rat Catcher]

but refusing to acknowledge the core structure of a live service game is just wishful thinking.

Is anyone here actually doing so? (apart from yourself, in the explicit case of ED?)

Frontier have not introduced OOPP 2.0 and have given the stock "Not at Launch" response, which, essentailly, indicates the chance of it occuring, in any reasonable timescale, is low to non-existent.

Myself and others are just enjoying the casual debate over a facet of the game that is very unlikely to be introduced.

 

[Wily Rites]

I was 30 when the original elite was released. It was ground-breaking for its era, with a lot of humour incorporated into its tiny code size!

Interesting.. so extroverts like to play with others, while introverts choose otherwise?
Is that what you are suggesting?

Indeed

curious...

I was 10 when it came out, can remember playing elite after having watched moonraker, I was James Bond destroying vials of toxic agent, they were no longer astroids!

Introverts, I'm one, also like to play with others, I prefer a somewhat more toned down experience to an all restraints dropped social free for all. A bit of decorum if you will. Some likely would go for solo, if the open world is too boisterous, not because they want too, likely more so that they would feel elbowed into it. No doubt that some would just flat out prefer solo mode too though.

I suspect that, like for most things, there is a broad spectrum that spans from the lone solo player who enjoys the game for what it is and appreciates the dynamic system that is being effected by their behaviour, right up to the MMO social climbers who wants nothing more than to become famous in the online world that they enjoy, and have an army of minions within it.

Frankly it is astonishing that such an online game exists, but then elite never fails to amaze me and it has always been groundbreaking, as you have already mentioned.

 

[Wily Rites]

You're confusing personal preferences with the actual design philosophy of server-dependent games like Elite Dangerous. It's not about being introverted or extroverted, it's about understanding that live service games are designed to evolve and adapt, fostering shared experiences, whether competitive or cooperative. Every live service game has its own way of managing PvE and PvP, and it's impossible to satisfy everyone, we all know. It's normal to have civil discussions about this, but clinging to outdated play styles in a game designed for a connected, evolving universe misses the point. Gaming preferences are valid, but refusing to acknowledge the core structure of a live service game is just wishful thinking.

I think that you are wrong, and that elite is ground breaking.

 

[anShpan]

Should we define first what do we exactly talking about:
1. Multiplayer in general.
2. Cooperative multiplayer.
3. Competitive multiplayer.
I personally do believe that ED is already very good at 1 and relatively good at 2. PP2.0 looks even more promising for that.
IMHO, completely sucks at 3, and I do not see how PP2.0 can fix that.
In future players interested in 2 will demand more flexibility and features while 3 is hardly possible without more clearly defined rules and mechanisms to keep players obey those rules.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Is anyone here actually doing so? (apart from yourself, in the explicit case of ED?)

Frontier have not introduced OOPP 2.0 and have given the stock "Not at Launch" response, which, essentailly, indicates the chance of it occuring, in any reasonable timescale, is low to non-existent.

Myself and others are just enjoying the casual debate over a facet of the game that is very unlikely to be introduced.

I’ve never said or implied that I’m an ‘open only’ purist. What I’ve pointed out so far is that, given the efficiency in Open is lower compared to Solo/PG, there should be a balancing of risk/reward weighting in Open. This is to avoid forcing a common activity to be limited to Open for fairness or Solo for efficiency. That’s all.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Introverts, I'm one, also like to play with others, I prefer a somewhat more toned down experience to an all restraints dropped social free for all.

I enjoy playing with other players (and am not particularly introverted...) but am at an age where I won't play with others that do not have a common interest and outlook, I've 'grown up' as a gamer, possibly.

I suspect that, like for most things, there is a broad spectrum that spans from the lone solo player who enjoys the game for what it is and appreciates the dynamic system that is being effected by their behaviour, right up to the MMO social climbers who wants nothing more than to become famous in the online world that they enjoy, and have an army of minions within it.

I used to play Unreal Tournament (1999 edition) on a server with 2.5 mill active players. Held a place in the top 100 on that server for a year, so not averse to PvP, just tired of it.

Frankly it is astonishing that such an online game exists, but then elite never fails to amaze me and it has always been groundbreaking, as you have already mentioned.

ED is a curious game, and what it is has been interpreted in differing ways by players with their own interest put forward.
Having 3 modes is a stroke of genius by FD, permitting each player to choose, at any particular time, how they wish to play this MMO.

 

[Rat Catcher]

What I’ve pointed out so far is that, given the efficiency in Open is lower compared to Solo/PG, there should be a balancing of risk/reward weighting in Open.

Is it actually less efficient?
Or just perceived to be so?

I spent most of my time playing in open, in CGs, until I was finally dispatched by any PvP player who needed their giggles... I never, ever, made a loss in open, hauling, despite supposed blockades. Open was that dangerous... There were allegedly many more players in those days too.

Yes, a player may encounter a hostile situation, but it isn't assured, is it?

 

[Wily Rites]

I enjoy playing with other players (and am not particularly introverted...) but am at an age where I won't play with others that do not have a common interest and outlook, I've 'grown up' as a gamer, possibly.

I used to play Unreal Tournament (1999 edition) on a server with 2.5 mill active players. Held a place in the top 100 on that server for a year, so not averse to PvP, just tired of it.

ED is a curious game, and what it is has been interpreted in differing ways by players with their own interest put forward.
Having 3 modes is a stroke of genius by FD, permitting each player to choose, at any particular time, how they wish to play this MMO.

You raise a superb point, that we evolve in our play styles too; Nice. Could not agree more that the elite set up really is a stroke of genius, in a league of its own, but that has always been the way of elites game play, in my opinion anyhow.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Is it actually less efficient?
Or just perceived to be so?

I spent most of my time playing in open, in CGs, until I was finally dispatched by any PvP player who needed their giggles... I never, ever, made a loss in open, hauling, despite supposed blockades. Open was that dangerous... There were allegedly many more players in those days too.

Yes, a player may encounter a hostile situation, but it isn't assured, is it?

As outlined by Williams, Nesbitt, Eidels, and Elliott, experts in cognitive psychology and game design research, in their Game Studies article, balancing risk and reward is critical for keeping players engaged. Their research shows that higher risks (risk, by definition, is a possibility) should be met with higher rewards, encouraging players to embrace challenges. This principle applies to Open Play in ED, where the potential for danger, even if not guaranteed, should be rewarded accordingly. (full stop )

Game Studies - Balancing Risk and Reward to Develop an Optimal Hot-Hand Game

 

[Rat Catcher]

As outlined by Williams, Nesbitt, Eidels, and Elliott, experts in cognitive psychology and game design research, in their Game Studies article, balancing risk and reward is critical for keeping players engaged. Their research shows that higher risks (risk, by definition, is a possibility) should be met with higher rewards, encouraging players to embrace challenges. This principle applies to Open Play in ED, where the potential for danger, even if not guaranteed, should be rewarded accordingly. (full stop )

Game Studies - Balancing Risk and Reward to Develop an Optimal Hot-Hand Game

I love experts...

The same principal applied to all modes though, not just open... (possible danger exists to the unprepared player in all modes, and is rewarded accordingly - just to clarify)
Next please...

 

[enonymous]

The same principal applied to all modes though, not just open...

The funny thing: It's the exact opposite in pretty much every other aspect of the game.

I take a wing massacre mission. It pays 25 million credits.

You take the same mission and share it with 3 others. You have people watching your back. You'll go through the ships more quickly. The mission pays 100 million (split 4 ways)

None of us are facing "danger", but I'm taking more risk than your team. My reward is lower. The really fun part about it? I'd bet the people arguing about risk/reward would also argue that I deserve lower pay for the same work.

 

[Wily Rites]

As outlined by Williams, Nesbitt, Eidels, and Elliott, experts in cognitive psychology and game design research, in their Game Studies article, balancing risk and reward is critical for keeping players engaged. Their research shows that higher risks (risk, by definition, is a possibility) should be met with higher rewards, encouraging players to embrace challenges. This principle applies to Open Play in ED, where the potential for danger, even if not guaranteed, should be rewarded accordingly. (full stop )

Game Studies - Balancing Risk and Reward to Develop an Optimal Hot-Hand Game

I read a similar paper on this subject, pretty much tossed it aside as being extremely naive, written about 15 years ago when ganking first emerged as an online phenomenon, they were attempting to justify it.

How do you classify the difference between a mouse pressing its nose against a buzzer to get a hit of cocaine and a human getting a dopamine hit of excitement on finding a system in game with just the right combination of planets and their orbits and proximity, the geographical conditions combined with the correct lighting, to get a perfect screen shot or shoot some breathtaking imagery? Both are being rewarded by an artificial system, a game. However, the reward and its trigger are clearly very different.

Now for some, blowing up other people's ships is rewarding too, giving a dopamine hit to them, where others find this down right disturbing; What is a reward within a game, and what kind of behaviours are to be rewarded?

To my mind, the argument that folk can cheat in solo mode or private group modes only stands as an argument to defend one power base that is established in open mode from another power base in open mode, who are abusing the edges of the game, by entering into a closed mode in an organised way to take advantage of it. One person doing this as a normal player using the mode, is just not going to happen.

Penalising the folk in both private groups and solo mode, for the behaviour of the more machiavellian folk from open mode, would be a grave mistake, in my opinion.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

I love experts...

The same principal applied to all modes though, not just open... (possible danger exists to the unprepared player in all modes, and is rewarded accordingly - just to clarify)
Next please...

Rewards scales with risk in game design, not with skills. In a gambling games more money you bet, more rewards you get (if you succeed). If a bad player decides to take the risk anyway do not expect additional rewards