As I point out- its making the gameplay consistent as possible while in Open. If I see you, and I see you are #1 in PP2s ranks, and you instantly block me how is that consistent when shooting you is a goal? I would ask why are you in Open when other modes exist, and illustrates why consistency of rules matters.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Open is a mode where the player may shoot at anything they instance with, where they may block any player they encounter; where they may choose to leave at any time (possibly subject to a delay) - that's what Open is, noting that some players only accept a subset of what Open actually is.
It seems to still be around in some form, having just celebrated 27 years and a new update was released: https://uo.com/And as we know, UO is no longer around.
I expect that we can all imagine hypothetical situations in other games that have been designed to be inflammatory to "prove" a point.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While shooting other players is an optional goal of the feature, other players, and the PvP they may want to engage in, remain optional.
But in a mode and feature where its a valid objective (and people nope out) it invalidates their gameplay and they should not be in Open for PP.
They'd fix a lot of issues if they'd simply make game mechanics worth participating in.
People keep mentioning: "Kill enemy commanders" as an objective.
"Make your ship worse for what you enjoy spending time doing so you can limit the punishment you face when forced to spend your time running away from commanders" isn't an objective. It's just a worthless game mechanic. Having the interaction is always worse than not having the interaction. Even proponents of the current design realize it's not something worth participating in. They're asking the devs to give people a participation trophy for tolerating it. You wouldn't need to bribe people into participating if people thought the interaction was worth their time.
None of this is about 'risk' or competition. It's about people opting out of trash game design. People want content. Not in the 'gankers want content' meaning of the term. There ARE macro level competitions going on and they want this attack vs escape gameplay to be a part of it. People pick the objectively correct option of opting out.
We don't know how many people opt out; but we know enough opt out that 'attackers' complain. Maybe only a few opt out and they're complaining over nothing. Maybe a ton of people opt out and the devs are failing their players by creating mechanics not worth opting in to. They're failing people that want content in open by creating mechanics that drive people to opt out. They're failing people that would default to open if only the design wasn't so absurdly stupid.
The devs can make "run away" an objective worth the time to participate. The current design has no value beyond role play.
People keep mentioning: "Kill enemy commanders" as an objective.
"Make your ship worse for what you enjoy spending time doing so you can limit the punishment you face when forced to spend your time running away from commanders" isn't an objective. It's just a worthless game mechanic. Having the interaction is always worse than not having the interaction. Even proponents of the current design realize it's not something worth participating in. They're asking the devs to give people a participation trophy for tolerating it. You wouldn't need to bribe people into participating if people thought the interaction was worth their time.
None of this is about 'risk' or competition. It's about people opting out of trash game design. People want content. Not in the 'gankers want content' meaning of the term. There ARE macro level competitions going on and they want this attack vs escape gameplay to be a part of it. People pick the objectively correct option of opting out.
We don't know how many people opt out; but we know enough opt out that 'attackers' complain. Maybe only a few opt out and they're complaining over nothing. Maybe a ton of people opt out and the devs are failing their players by creating mechanics not worth opting in to. They're failing people that want content in open by creating mechanics that drive people to opt out. They're failing people that would default to open if only the design wasn't so absurdly stupid.
The devs can make "run away" an objective worth the time to participate. The current design has no value beyond role play.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
One player's desire does not over-ride that of another, even in Open. To question why they choose to play in Open seems not unreasonable, however they, like any other player, don't need to play the way that other players may want them to.
In the wider game, no. In Powerplay it should. Its why instead of block I suggest shuffling instances afterwards temporarily.
New module? Concord Cannon
And as we know, UO is no longer around.
UO begs to differ:
Ultima Online
uo.com
I’d also like to note that Shadowbane, developed as a reaction to the Trammel/Felucca split, died long before UO started losing players to the next generation of first-person MMOs.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In the whole game, of which Powerplay is part as it was implemented as part of the base game.
But PP is not the wider game.
In open we all share more directly the same game world, some people choose to attack other players for their own amusement, I'm not one of those. But am not opposed to it, if it is done with good reason, and in the spirit of the communal game. But I don't require this for it to be fun for me.
If the vessels are sensible matched it is a lot of fun, but then that is so rarely the case so far that I've seen. I wait with my fingers crossed to see if power play 2 makes this a little more entertaining.
One thing I hate about watching ED: menu juggling.
Powerplay has other players destruction as an objective- if being a target to others is not for you, play in other modes for PP.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Makes no difference.
If players could dictate to others how they must play, how much PvP would be expected? Yes, even in Open....
Why; did you see the size of the galaxy? I love PvP and will engage when the odds are fair, else I'll just evade. That does not mean that I'll be attacking other folk without good reason. If they are kitted out for a fight when they can not repair because it is not their territory, and I'm defending a place that I like, then I'll get involved. But I'm picky about which fights I get into, and am not there as someone else's content, I find that notion quite abhorrent.
Powerplay gives you a reason.
If I decide to side with a power, it will be the way that they act towards corruption that sways my choice as to with whom.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Cargo gives player pirates a reason - not that any player needs to play along.