Hope so too.
BTW it was already there many years ago. Back to 90-th if memory serves me good, Legal Authorities were much tougher then Thargoids, and it was extremely hard to impossible to escape from 2+ of those. At least on ZX Spectrum version.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
BTW it was already there many years ago. Back to 90-th if memory serves me good, Legal Authorities were much tougher then Thargoids, and it was extremely hard to impossible to escape from 2+ of those. At least on ZX Spectrum version.
That was a fun thread... But, in general, a bit of an outlier, I'd guess, in that the player had made every possible wrong decision in flying a cow of a ship fitted for maximum hauling, as well as managing to lose the interdiction game against NPCs...
I agree in principle though, there are probably "True Explorers"(drinks) who have close to zero combat skill yet Elite+ in exploration, playing today.
I'm a long way from being an expert pilot and not yet elite in combat, but have to add here that one of the most fun things that I've found in game to do, is to kill pirates with both my hauling ship and my exploration ship, fine-tuning the engineering so that whilst maintaining the ability to perform the task for which they are conceived they are also able to handle an elite ranked NPC pilot who might attack them and live to tell the tail.
I don't think that I'm a bad pilot but this is not that easy to do. Of course they are easy to kill in a fully engineered combat machine, but then what are you doing out in the middle of nowhere with that kind of ship and no reason d'être? Most of the fun is in the adventure, I find, which is in a large part the narrative that I make up for why it is that I am in this crazy world of elite and what it is that I'm trying to achieve.
Another really fun moment was landing my type-9 with 750 tons of beer to support democracy, whilst being chased down by a small gang of fairly highly ranked pirates, level 8's and having to navigate 1.5G of gravity in landing; Just hilarious stuff. But it really requires a finely tuned ship to be able to do it, really really fun game play. Doesn't matter which mode, it's the same in all of them, OK in open some twit might ruin your fun, but for the most part if you get away from the early game key systems, you get away from the toddlers too.
The skill is in the engineering I think, to really get the fun juices out of the play, but then that's just the way that I like to approach the game; There is no rank for the ability to cobble together a fun ship, but perhaps this rank is only measured by the way that we choose to play.
It will be great if Powerplay can make use of the same ships, fingers crossed; I'll have to wait and see.
I don't think that I'm a bad pilot but this is not that easy to do. Of course they are easy to kill in a fully engineered combat machine, but then what are you doing out in the middle of nowhere with that kind of ship and no reason d'être? Most of the fun is in the adventure, I find, which is in a large part the narrative that I make up for why it is that I am in this crazy world of elite and what it is that I'm trying to achieve.
Another really fun moment was landing my type-9 with 750 tons of beer to support democracy, whilst being chased down by a small gang of fairly highly ranked pirates, level 8's and having to navigate 1.5G of gravity in landing; Just hilarious stuff. But it really requires a finely tuned ship to be able to do it, really really fun game play. Doesn't matter which mode, it's the same in all of them, OK in open some twit might ruin your fun, but for the most part if you get away from the early game key systems, you get away from the toddlers too.
The skill is in the engineering I think, to really get the fun juices out of the play, but then that's just the way that I like to approach the game; There is no rank for the ability to cobble together a fun ship, but perhaps this rank is only measured by the way that we choose to play.
It will be great if Powerplay can make use of the same ships, fingers crossed; I'll have to wait and see.
Last edited:
This is FDs chance to have that, really while not disturbing the rest of the game. Its also an excellent (in theory- we'll see next week) fusing of USS and BGS making whole systems a high level USS that in itself has twin uses, depending on pledge.
It applies to any competitive games with rewards that is balanced:
- Trick-taking card games (e.g., Briscola in Five very popular here in Italy): In some variants, players can bet everything on a single round, risking losing a lot but potentially winning big if successful.
- Bluffing games (e.g., Werewolf, Spyfall): Players risk elimination or losing if they’re caught, but a successful bluff brings considerable rewards, like staying in the game or gaining points.
- Backgammon: The "doubling cube" introduces the option to double the stakes during the game, with the risk of losing double but also the potential to win more if the opponent accepts the double.
- Auction-based board games (e.g., Power Grid): In these games, players risk resources in auctions to acquire valuable resources or strategic advantages, with those willing to risk more standing to gain bigger rewards if their bids succeed.
- Competitive Jenga: The difficulty increases as the tower becomes more unstable, and players must decide whether to take a riskier move for more turns won or play it safe with smaller gains.
- Dexterity games (e.g., Kapla or Pick-Up Sticks): In these games, the risk of taking harder moves can result in higher scores, but also increases the chance of failure and losing all progress.
- The Quacks of Quedlinburg: In this game, players take on the role of potion makers drawing ingredients from a bag. The more ingredients they draw, the better their potions, but they risk their pot exploding and losing everything if they push their luck too far.
- Clank!: A deck-building adventure game where players venture into a dungeon to collect treasure. The deeper they go, the more valuable the loot, but staying too long increases the risk of being caught by the dragon, losing much of what they’ve gathered.
- High Society: A bidding game where players risk overspending their limited resources to acquire high-value luxury items. However, if they run out of money, they risk losing the game, no matter how many valuable items they’ve acquired.
- Incan Gold: A press-your-luck game where players explore an ancient temple, collecting treasure along the way. The deeper they go, the more treasure they can find, but staying too long risks being caught by hazards, causing them to lose everything.
ED Rewards scales with reputation and grade, not skills. Skills allow you to take more rewards in less time (not the same as scaling rewards)
- EVE Online: A classic "high risk, high reward" game. Exploring nullsec regions or wormhole space offers opportunities for immense wealth in rare minerals or loot, but with the constant risk of being attacked by other players.
- Albion Online: unprotected PvP zones offer rare resources and valuable loot.
- Lost Ark: optional PvP maps and special missions in remote areas significantly increase the risk of being attacked by other players, but offer richer loot and rewards compared to safer areas.
- Black Desert Online: Open PvP zones, especially in high-level grinding areas or resource control wars, offer greater rewards
- Warframe: In high-level missions like endless survival modes or special events, continuing past the safe point offers increasingly valuable rewards, but with a growing risk of death as the difficulty escalates.
- Escape from Tarkov: Players enter raids with valuable gear and, if they survive, can extract with high-value loot. However, the risk is always losing everything in an ambush.
- Dual Universe: The more dangerous areas offer rare resources and valuable materials, but with the constant risk of being attacked by other players and losing valuable ships or resources.
- ArcheAge: The open-sea PvP zones are full of opportunities but also fraught with danger.
- Vendetta Online: players can venture into dangerous sectors to obtain rare resources. The areas with the most valuable loot are often patrolled by other players, increasing the risk of being attacked and losing your cargo.
- Sea of Thieves: The more valuable the treasure, the more likely it is that other players will try to steal it, especially in open waters where PvP is prevalent.
- The Division 2: The best gear is often found in the riskiest parts of the Dark Zones.
- Conan Exiles: The best materials and loot are often found in high-risk PvP zones, where other players may attack you to steal your resources.
You did and you will every time when any Player adds you to Ignore list, thus effectively creating a PG for all but those in his/her Ignore list. A forced cheating for Open purists?
Among many other balances, I'd prefer the block feature to be removed and replaced with a more efficient 'report player' system. Blocking someone can lead to broken instancing for everyone in the system, which feels counterproductive, unfair, and frankly, rude. If you block the two CMDRs defending a system, it creates a high potential for exploiting mechanics. It’s like in football, you can’t ban a player on the opposing team, but the referee (or in this case, the report system) can intervene when necessary.
I note that suggesting that the comparing anything other than ED to ED point was easily missed...
Great fun though, I must admit. Do keep it up!
It appears to be the same old, same old...
Game X does this, but ED does not...
The only game on point here is this game, surely?
ETA: But no worries... The conversation is pointless, in truth, isn't it?
Last edited:
It's clear you're enjoying the back and forth, but the point remains that risk/reward mechanics and balance principles are not exclusive to ED. They're fundamental to game design in general. While ED has its unique aspects, it's still subject to these broader concepts.
If you're not interested in that conversation, that's fine, but there's no need to dismiss it just because it's a comparison to established principles in other games. Either way, enjoy the fun!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While some players obviously feel that way, quite often correlated to their need for the presence of other players to facilitate their play-style, it should be noted that Frontier introduced the block feature, unasked, before launch, and have only strengthened it and made it easier to use since then.
Noting that those who choose to block other players may do so because those players are engaging in gameplay which, to them, is "counterproductive, unfair, and frankly, rude" from their perspective
Put simply, similarly to how the three game modes allow each player to decide how many or few players they want to play among on a session by session basis, players are free to excise individual players from their game.
Indeed I have been enjoying the back & forth and appreciate you remaining civil and good natured over it. (that's honest truth!)
I appreciate the angle you are approaching, re: game sesign as a principle - but the only game being discussed is ED, and the design FD have chosen for the game.
It doesn't really matter if there is an entire encyclopaedia spanning 100 volumes on 'perfect game design', the only thing of import in ED is the manner in which FD designed the game, a point I was attempting to make all along.
I'll always lightly dismiss a conversation where there is a fundamental misunderstanding, as pointless, as the discussion is comparing an egg and a Ferrari, effectively.
I understand your commitment to the angle of game design in a perfect world, I just accept that this game, the only one that matters in this forum, is exactly what it is, nothing I can do to alter that, or pretend that it is something it isn't.
You have been excellent, thanks. But, as we are approaching the matter from massively opposing sides, perhaps better to agree to disagree politely?
The complaint 'the option has always been there' doesn’t hold water, either in Elite or in the real world. Just because something exists doesn’t mean it’s healthy for the community or gameplay. For example, just because certain laws or policies have existed for a long time doesn’t mean they’re fair or beneficial.
Slavery existed for centuries, but it was eventually abolished because it was unjust. Similarly, monopolies have long existed in markets, but they are now regulated to ensure fairness. In the same way, the block feature can be misused to bypass the core mechanics of competitive gameplay, and IMHO that’s not a sustainable or fair practice for a game like ED.
Yes, but 'report player' means what? Report to who? At the moment there are no Moderation, Punishment, anything that could put some (if any) penalties on reported player, thus Ignore button, IMHO, is to stay for a while.
Lead to broken - Sure, it already does. For everyone, IMHO, no way, that is not how it works. I'll keep saying that PG is a native mode in ED. Simply in Open individual instances are allowed to start interact with each other without prior authorisation at login time. And that interactions could be cancelled at any moment by Ignore list mechanism.
Even as someone not interested in PvP at all I would confirm every word in that. At the moment no referee, no moderation, nothing required for somewhat fair competitive multiplayer is built-in to the gameplay. I.e. missions against human pirates will not be seen in nearest future since it is enough for anyone of those just to add bounty-hunter to the ignore list fast enough.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The same could be said for PvP in the game.
It has been pointed out to Frontier many times over the years that the block feature and the ability to menu exit (possibly after a short delay) at any time would have an adverse effect on particular gameplay - however Frontier chose not to side with those who like to impose their gameplay on other players.
Also noting that this is a game, with immortal space pixies as avatars, played in the comfort and safety of our preferred gaming environment - the game is not the real world and quite obviously does not need to follow the same rules or social norms.
Exactly, and we could say the same about so many things: air travel, the internet, or even forks. Just because something exists doesn’t inherently justify its impact or how it’s used. It's like saying, 'the existence of traffic lights could also be questioned.' The point is that context matters, and simply saying 'it exists' doesn’t address whether it contributes positively or negatively to the game’s balance and player experience. If we stick to that logic, we can justify almost anything without ever questioning its actual value.
Frontier's decision to keep certain features like the block option or menu exit doesn't mean they automatically create a balanced or fair gameplay environment. Just because they haven’t removed them doesn’t mean the concerns raised over the years are invalid. It’s not about imposing gameplay on others, but rather ensuring that core mechanics, like risk and reward, function as intended in an open-world environment. Features that can be exploited to avoid consequences undermine the integrity of gameplay, whether it's PvP or other elements. The goal should be a system that promotes meaningful interactions, not one that lets players bypass core aspects without consequence.
Of course, it's a game, and I’m not arguing that it needs to mimic the real world. However, even within the context of a fictional universe with 'immortal space pixies' there still needs to be internal consistency and fair game mechanics. The rules and systems within a game are what define the challenge, risk, and satisfaction of playing. When mechanics like blocking or menu exiting allow players to bypass intended consequences, it erodes that internal logic and diminishes the value of interactions.
The point is not about making the game like real life, but about maintaining balance and fairness within its own framework.
It seems like there’s a fear of having their 'toy' touched whenever we try to discuss how it’s built and how it could be improved. But constructive conversations aren’t about breaking the game, they’re about refining and enhancing the experience for everyone. We’re not lead Developers at Frontier, our discussions and ideas are more of an exercise in conversation and exchanging viewpoints. However, this exchange is often diminished by certain behaviors that stifle meaningful dialogue.
It’s about exploring possibilities, not taking anything away.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Just as the decision to keep them does not automatically mean that the game is unbalanced or unfair - it very much depends on what the game is, rather than what some players obviously want it to be. The game as it is does not require any player to engage in PvP in any in-game feature, nor is the game designed in a way that makes PvP a dominant aspect of any in-game feature.
Noting that for some PvP in and of itself constitutes meaningless and forced interactions, whether or not the game should "promote" (read as "force", given the next part of the sentence) interactions so that some players' desired interactions can't be bypassed remains a matter of opinion.
Put differently, this game ensures that each player's choice of who to play among precedes and may over-ride any other player's desire to play with them - entirely by design.
Then why bring RL into the discussion?
First define "fair" in the context of a game where other players are an optional extra, which means that PvP is an optional extra, and where every single player experiences and affects the shared galaxy regardless of which game mode they choose to play in - and we all acquired the game on that basis, even if some of us can't accept that no player needs to play with us to experience or affect the game.
Noting that, unless we all flew the same ship with a fixed build then player encounters are highly likely to be unbalanced - even if we did then player skill would create an imbalance. Also noting that one player's "value" may represent another's "complete waste of their game time" in terms of interactions.
Noting that what some players may want will be diametrically opposed to what some other players want, the aspiration of "enhancing the experience for everyone" is, at best, highly unlikely.
When "no" is a complete response to a proposal, what meaningful dialog is hoped for? Noting that no player who would be adversely affected needs to "negotiate" with change proponents over how much of the game would effectively become meaningless to them if such proposals were implemented.
Which must be trying to ignore the obvious adverse effects on some players of proposals to PvP-gate existing game content to Open or proposals to penalise players for not engaging in entirely optional PvP, of course....It’s about exploring possibilities, not taking anything away.
The vast majority of PvP-oriented proposals seek to take things away from those who don't enjoy PvP and can't be forced to engage in it.
Last edited:
You make a good point, and I totally agree that a 'report player' feature would only be effective with proper moderation and penalties in place. Right now, I understand that the ignore button feels necessary for avoiding harassment or disruptive behavior. My suggestion is more about how we could improve things over time without letting the ignore button unintentionally interfere with instancing or create exploits. Maybe we could find a balance, keeping players protected while maintaining the core game mechanics and interactions. The ignore button might need to stay for a while, but it’s fun to think about what long-term improvements could look like!
I see your point, but PG isn't a 'native' mode, it's just one of the three modes ED offers. Turning Open into another form of PG through the use of the ignore list defeats the purpose of having distinct modes. Open is meant to foster real, unscripted player interactions, which is a core part of its appeal and the PowerPlay dynamic. By selectively removing certain players from your instance, it dilutes the very essence of Open, making it less about unpredictable encounters and more about controlling who you engage with, something PG already offers. If players want a controlled environment, PG is already there for that, but transforming Open into a semi-private experience seems to go against the balance and intent of the mode.
I completely agree, and that’s exactly the issue. Without moderation or safeguards, the block feature allows players to bypass interactions that should be part of the gameplay, especially in competitive scenarios like PvP or PowerPlay. It's not about forcing PvP, but maintaining the integrity of Open mode, where risk and interaction are meant to be core elements. The current system undermines that balance by letting players opt out too easily
An alternative approach could be to limit the scope of the block feature in Open mode. Instead of completely removing a blocked player from all instances, the block could simply mute communication and hide visual elements like chat or wing invites, while still allowing both players to exist in the same instance. This would prevent players from bypassing gameplay interactions, such as PowerPlay or PvP engagements, while still offering protection from harassment or disruptive behavior.
After all, the only legitimate reason to block a player in an open environment should be if they are cheating or violating game guidelines, not simply to avoid competitive interactions. This way, the core mechanics of Open remain intact, but players retain control over their experience without undermining competitive balance.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If you've got a link to where Frontier have either said or implied that I'd be interested to see it.
Otherwise it's simply an opinion that is not shared by all players.
If you're focusing on the fork and traffic lights rather than the point about value and context, then you’ve missed the purpose of the analogy. By getting stuck on the examples, you're wasting time instead of engaging with the actual argument, which is about how long-standing systems aren't inherently good just because they exist. A passive/aggressive interpretation like this makes the discussion pointless, and honestly, it discourages reading the rest of your post.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
When the apparent point of bringing RL issues into the discussion seems to be some form of "appeal to reality" it makes the discussion relating to video game features somewhat pointless.If you're focusing on the fork and traffic lights rather than the point about value and context, then you’ve missed the purpose of the analogy. By getting stuck on the examples, you're wasting time instead of engaging with the actual argument, which is about how long-standing systems aren't inherently good just because they exist. A passive/aggressive interpretation like this makes the discussion pointless, and honestly, it discourages reading the rest of your post.