Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Wily Rites]

Indeed it is contextual, however you do also have objective metrics to guide your initial thoughts- of which then you choose who to listen to. The problem is sometimes you listen to the wrong people. For example long ago shield balance was shrieked into the floor because 'the wrong people' said sensible changes (because frankly they knew combat inside out).

Sure yes, and it's an amazing thing in and of itself! That the whole shebang is ultimately dynamic and more like an organism than a static piece of code is in many ways as ground breaking as were back face culled vectors back when elite was released. One hell of a thing to direct, that much is very clear!

As for who to listen to, I hope the thing is ultimately governed and not a general free for all. Listening is great, but I really hope that there is firm direction still, that keep close to the games original ethos. I'm aware that David Braben is no longer CEO of the company, but would like to hope that this will not detract from its overall governance or direction, for the future.

I'd very much like to think that Mr Braben spends a considerable amount of his time, playing elite

 

[Wily Rites]

Its more along the lines of making Open coherent for feature like Powerplay. IMO Open for the wider game is perfect, but its poor for PP because its strengths for unfocussed play become weaknesses in objectives based features. For example blocking- in PP its an objective to kill others but how is that valid when you can click them away? IMO it should be that instances should shuffle (to separate out players after an attack) but blocking pledges (in PP ) should be disabled.

In your version of PP it is an objective to kill others, in someone else's it might not be important or even considered at all; Why should that stop them from being able to engage in power play?

 

[Darkfyre99]

• 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.

I can’t help but notice that most of those are games that have a heavy emphasize PvP with some PvE, which is the opposite of Elite Dangerous’ heavy emphasis on PvE with optional PvP. If I wanted to play that kind of game, I’d be playing one of those, not ED.

 

[Wily Rites]

I thought power play is about politics, not war, war is a state that factions fall into, but it is by no means the only state; Some factions fall into elections not wars.
The killing is a part of it, but only a focus for some factions, where others may seek alliances and more peaceful means to resolve differences.

 

[Wily Rites]

I can’t help but notice that most of those are games that have a heavy emphasize PvP with some PvE, which is the opposite of Elite Dangerous’ heavy emphasis on PvE with optional PvP. If I wanted to play that kind of game, I’d be playing one of those, not ED.

If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Noting that this game's population arrived pre-split, in terms of we have always had three game modes to choose from where to experience and affect the game, it may be that Frontier's design is actually inspired - as there's no PvP server to lose players from and no forced PvP for those disinterested in it.

Those who want to avoid PvP can always choose Closed Play (PG/Solo), where they can set their own rules, such as no PvP. Alternatively, they can embrace the challenge and potential danger of Open Play, where common rules apply, including the possibility of PvP.
The point isn't to get rid of PG or Solo, but to prevent Open from becoming another form of PG, where the risk/reward balance is undermined.
This is something UO failed to manage effectively, leading to its long-term decline. Unlike UO, we need to ensure Open remains a meaningful space, not just a diluted version of private play.

And as we know, UO is no longer around.

Which sounds to be based on opt-in PvP rather than forced PvP simply for playing among players - I can see why that would work - it's rather reminiscent of this game's design in that players need to choose to play in Open where they may be engaged in PvP by other players, but there's no requirement for them to do so and no penalty for not doing so.

Imagine if, in FF XIV once you chose to participate in PvP, you had the ability to block an opponent mid-match or replace them with an NPC, yet still earn the same rewards. That would be considered a major exploit, allowing players to bypass the challenge and risk that come with competing against real player.

 

[enonymous]

Those who want to avoid PvP can always choose Closed Play (PG/Solo), where they can set their own rules, such as no PvP. Alternatively, they can embrace the challenge and potential danger of Open Play, where common rules apply, including the possibility of PvP.

Make an open-pve mode. Let it share an instance of the galaxy with solo and PG. Move Open into it's own instance of the galaxy. People have asked for that for a long time. It's an obvious solution that would work well IMO.

Then you always have someone popping up with, "but that would split up the player base!"

 

[Wily Rites]

Noting that Ultima Online was apparently haemorrhaging players before they introduced Trammel as an alternative to Felucca.

Thanks for highlighting, I'm new to online multiplayer games so this is a learning curve for me, I'll read up on this as I find the subject fascinating. I'm particularly interested in 'The Actor Model' and this really does seem like a superb testing ground for code that works with protocols that are of this structure.

 

[Wily Rites]

Noting that this game's population arrived pre-split, in terms of we have always had three game modes to choose from where to experience and affect the game, it may be that Frontier's design is actually inspired - as there's no PvP server to lose players from and no forced PvP for those disinterested in it.

Which sounds to be based on opt-in PvP rather than forced PvP simply for playing among players - I can see why that would work - it's rather reminiscent of this game's design in that players need to choose to play in Open where they may be engaged in PvP by other players, but there's no requirement for them to do so and no penalty for not doing so.

Apparently this choice slowed the decline, the game was in decline before the decision was taken.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Make an open-pve mode. Let it share an instance of the galaxy with solo and PG. Move Open into it's own instance of the galaxy. People have asked for that for a long time. It's an obvious solution that would work well IMO.

Then you always have someone popping up with, "but that would split up the player base!"

That's a great idea and honestly would be the ideal solution..having an Open-PvE mode sharing an instance with Solo and PG, while Open-PvP exists in its own separate galaxy. It would perfectly cater to both playstyles without forcing anyone into unwanted interactions. The only downside is that it would be quite expensive for Frontier to maintain, as it would require essentially supporting multiple parallel universes with all the backend resources needed to manage them. It's likely why they haven't implemented something like this yet, despite the demand from players over the years.

 

[Rubbernuke]

In your version of PP it is an objective to kill others, in someone else's it might not be important or even considered at all; Why should that stop them from being able to engage in power play?

No, its an objective in PP2 (its in the UI). What I'm arguing is that Open itself needs adaption to features because they have different needs.

 

[Wily Rites]

That's a great idea and honestly would be the ideal solution..having an Open-PvE mode sharing an instance with Solo and PG, while Open-PvP exists in its own separate galaxy. It would perfectly cater to both playstyles without forcing anyone into unwanted interactions. The only downside is that it would be quite expensive for Frontier to maintain, as it would require essentially supporting multiple parallel universes with all the backend resources needed to manage them. It's likely why they haven't implemented something like this yet, despite the demand from players over the years.

I believe FDev have already stated that they will not get involved in moderating any mode.

 

[Wily Rites]

No, its an objective in PP2 (its in the UI). What I'm arguing is that Open itself needs adaption to features because they have different needs.

I'm sure that it is one of the objectives, but what I mean is that there are also other objectives, as such no reason not to play it in other modes.

Addendum: If the other modes did not have the main factions then sure, but they do and everything that happens in the game effects the feedback loops. To cripple that would be to wreck the game, I think anyhow.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That's a great idea and honestly would be the ideal solution..having an Open-PvE mode sharing an instance with Solo and PG, while Open-PvP exists in its own separate galaxy. It would perfectly cater to both playstyles without forcing anyone into unwanted interactions. The only downside is that it would be quite expensive for Frontier to maintain, as it would require essentially supporting multiple parallel universes with all the backend resources needed to manage them. It's likely why they haven't implemented something like this yet, despite the demand from players over the years.

The other approach is features that exist in game are tied to modes. If PP V1 went Open with PP2 like BGS separation it would be a 'in galaxy' PvP mode.

The other is separating out tasks to modes- https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ti-5c-mode-specific-plus-other-tweaks.552045/#post-8079411

In essence solo and PG got tailored PvE and Open gets a structured 'conflict' mode.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Apparently this choice slowed the decline, the game was in decline before the decision was taken.

You're absolutely right. UO downfall began when they failed to properly balance the risk/reward between Trammel and Felucca

 

[Wily Rites]

You're absolutely right. UO downfall began when they failed to properly balance the risk/reward between Trammel and Felucca

I just said that the folk were leaving before they introduced it, and that introducing it slowed the migration.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'm sure that it is one of the objectives, but what I mean is that there are also other objectives, as such no reason not to play it in other modes.

Addendum: If the other modes did not have the main factions then sure, but they do and everything that happens in the game effects the feedback loops. To cripple that would be to wreck the game, I think anyhow.

There are other tasks, but violence from others (and NPCs) acts as a tempering force.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

I believe FDev have already stated that they will not get involved in moderating any mode.

In fact we don't need moderation, Open play is....open Block anyone and it become a PG. What the community is asking for is weighting on rewards based on open risk.

And yes a sort of moderation is there because some CMDRs had already their accounts banned

 

[Wily Rites]

Elite has been set up and running as is for 10 years now, and does not show signs of fading. Heck the games theme, which is still very present in solo mode, for 40 years.

 

[anShpan]

Its more along the lines of making Open coherent for feature like Powerplay. IMO Open for the wider game is perfect, but its poor for PP because its strengths for unfocussed play become weaknesses in objectives based features.

To be honest, to me that is ridiculous how little information we have about PP2.0 mechanics at the moment thus have to bring in our logical assumptions, expectations, etc. Hopefully, some day after release it will be some oficial info on how it really works and what are goals to achieve. Or not and it will be 1001+ feature that CMDRs across forums will be documenting while very cooperatively sharing practical info about.

For example blocking- in PP its an objective to kill others but how is that valid when you can click them away? IMO it should be that instances should shuffle (to separate out players after an attack) but blocking pledges (in PP ) should be disabled.

Well... that leads us to safe assumption on how exactly PP2.0 is relater (or not) to practical PvP, right?
IMHO, it is more about BGS improvements then PvP in Open. Very significant improvement on effort recognition of individual Players does not automatically mean Open-only effort, probably.