Open-Only in PP2.0?

Not saying its what i want, just theorizing.

Judging by what I've seen in CQC, there are plenty of ways to mess with instancing to the detriment of the players (it's why I stopped playing that mode).

One thing these folks trying to force themselves into other people's games have overlooked is that there are plenty of ways folks can make their game experience just as miserable for them as they are making it for others. And when I've explained it previously, all we get back is "I'll report them" - report to whom, FDev don't employ GMs and judging by how long it went on they don't seem to have the ability (or willpower) to deal with that type of nastiness.

Imagine the kicking and screaming we would see on here if every time the PvP'ers pulled someone out of Supercruise, they got a sudden lag fest until that person had jumped out. I don't condone it and never would, but it would happen if people were forced to play in a way they didn't want to.
 
Judging by what I've seen in CQC, there are plenty of ways to mess with instancing to the detriment of the players (it's why I stopped playing that mode).

One thing these folks trying to force themselves into other people's games have overlooked is that there are plenty of ways folks can make their game experience just as miserable for them as they are making it for others. And when I've explained it previously, all we get back is "I'll report them" - report to whom, FDev don't employ GMs and judging by how long it went on they don't seem to have the ability (or willpower) to deal with that type of nastiness.

Imagine the kicking and screaming we would see on here if every time the PvP'ers pulled someone out of Supercruise, they got a sudden lag fest until that person had jumped out. I don't condone it and never would, but it would happen if people were forced to play in a way they didn't want to.

I’ve explained it numerous times myself, and the other type of response I’ve gotten is “You don’t know that will happen. It’s not happening in this game.” Which is kind of ironic, considering that some have admitted that this is their first ever MMO.

Elite Dangerous is doing something practically unique in my experience: rather than a PvP switch or dedicated PvP server to keep the usual suspects away from those with zero interest in PvP, Frontier has allowed players an unprecedented and unbiased choice in who they play with. This has resulted in the Holy Grail of MMO development: A PvE game without any artificial barriers to PvP, that isn’t hemorrhaging players and profits due to the behavior of the usual suspects.

I may not know if coercing players into Open will bring back the usual suspects, anymore than I know the sun will rise in the morning. But there is plenty of precedent, and the only successful counter example makes the usual suspects a feature, not a flaw, so I wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. But if my previous experiences during the early days of Open PowerPlay are any indication, it will.

I’m not a combat junky, so I just concentrated on hauling. By the time I decided I’d have far more fun going back to manipulating the BGS with a focus on overthrowing favorable fortification Federation factions, primarily against Hudson, I only encountered hostile pledged players twice. The Unpledged hostile players, who hung out in Kamadhenu intercepting empty cargo ships, outnumbered them ten to one. And weirdly enough, they vanished a few weeks after the start of PP, while it took me three months to decide I really wasn’t having fun hauling over the same old routes. And both hostile pledged encounters happened after the usual suspects disappeared.

It could very well be that the usual suspects disappeared because the PowerPlayer-base is significantly less likely than the general player-base to choose a mode other than Open, despite the near universal statements to the contrary. If that’s the case, coercing players into Open is not going to create a fun environment in Open. The type of player who would choose Solo/PG for efficiency’s sake, rather than a strong dislike for PvP, is just the sort of player who’ll weaponize the fact that this game’s networking architecture isn’t designed for PvP.
 
I’ve explained it numerous times myself, and the other type of response I’ve gotten is “You don’t know that will happen. It’s not happening in this game.” Which is kind of ironic, considering that some have admitted that this is their first ever MMO.

Elite Dangerous is doing something practically unique in my experience: rather than a PvP switch or dedicated PvP server to keep the usual suspects away from those with zero interest in PvP, Frontier has allowed players an unprecedented and unbiased choice in who they play with. This has resulted in the Holy Grail of MMO development: A PvE game without any artificial barriers to PvP, that isn’t hemorrhaging players and profits due to the behavior of the usual suspects.

I may not know if coercing players into Open will bring back the usual suspects, anymore than I know the sun will rise in the morning. But there is plenty of precedent, and the only successful counter example makes the usual suspects a feature, not a flaw, so I wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. But if my previous experiences during the early days of Open PowerPlay are any indication, it will.

I’m not a combat junky, so I just concentrated on hauling. By the time I decided I’d have far more fun going back to manipulating the BGS with a focus on overthrowing favorable fortification Federation factions, primarily against Hudson, I only encountered hostile pledged players twice. The Unpledged hostile players, who hung out in Kamadhenu intercepting empty cargo ships, outnumbered them ten to one. And weirdly enough, they vanished a few weeks after the start of PP, while it took me three months to decide I really wasn’t having fun hauling over the same old routes. And both hostile pledged encounters happened after the usual suspects disappeared.

It could very well be that the usual suspects disappeared because the PowerPlayer-base is significantly less likely than the general player-base to choose a mode other than Open, despite the near universal statements to the contrary. If that’s the case, coercing players into Open is not going to create a fun environment in Open. The type of player who would choose Solo/PG for efficiency’s sake, rather than a strong dislike for PvP, is just the sort of player who’ll weaponize the fact that this game’s networking architecture isn’t designed for PvP.

Saying that forcing players into Open "won't work" due to networking issues feels more like an excuse to preserve the status quo than a genuine effort to improve the game. Across 159 pages, I haven't seen a single viable proposal from the "IWantToHaulInSoloWithNoDrawbacks" crowd.

It's similar to when EVE Online introduced its null-sec regions. Many players resisted, thinking it would only lead to chaos and ruin the experience. Yet, once implemented, it became one of the game's most compelling features, fostering dynamic alliances, intense PvP, and emergent gameplay. The initial resistance faded as players adapted, and it showed that sometimes change, even when uncomfortable, can lead to a richer, more engaging experience.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Saying that forcing players into Open "won't work" due to networking issues feels more like an excuse to preserve the status quo than a genuine effort to improve the game.
While changes aimed to (attempt to) force players into Open might represent an improvement to some players, the same cannot be said of all players.
Across 159 pages, I haven't seen a single viable proposal from the "IWantToHaulInSoloWithNoDrawbacks" crowd.
What do the Open only proponents in the thread reasonably expect from those who would be adversely affected by changes that would (attempt to) force players to play in Open?
It's similar to when EVE Online introduced its null-sec regions. Many players resisted, thinking it would only lead to chaos and ruin the experience. Yet, once implemented, it became one of the game's most compelling features, fostering dynamic alliances, intense PvP, and emergent gameplay. The initial resistance faded as players adapted, and it showed that sometimes change, even when uncomfortable, can lead to a richer, more engaging experience.
Noting that the so-called "initial resistance" may have faded simply because some players chose not to play any more....
 
While changes aimed to (attempt to) force players into Open might represent an improvement to some players, the same cannot be said of all players.
Surely, even the invention of the wheel must have displeased someone.
What do the Open only proponents in the thread reasonably expect from those who would be adversely affected by changes that would (attempt to) force players to play in Open?
I proposed balancing rewards in Open instead of making it Open-only, but I couldn't find anyone willing to even discuss that.
Noting that the so-called "initial resistance" may have faded simply because some players chose not to play any more....
Yes, and EVE Online is still thriving 21 years later. No one remembers who left after Exodus or Red Moon Rising, if anything, the player count increased significantly
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Surely, even the invention of the wheel must have displeased someone.
Wheels don't (attempt to) force players of video games to present themselves for others to engage them in unwanted PvP.
I proposed balancing rewards in Open instead of making it Open-only, but I couldn't find anyone willing to even discuss that.
Indeed - as it's an old idea that wasn't agreeable even when it was first proposed. Also, no-one needs to discuss, much less agree, any proposal. Noting that "no" is a complete response to a proposal.
Yes, and EVE Online is still thriving 21 years later. No one remembers who left after Exodus or Red Moon Rising, if anything, the player count increased significantly
Thriving because it's free to play?
 
Thriving because it's free to play?
I'm trying to avoid getting into cyclical discussions with yourself, but come on dude, for a twenty plus year old game EvE is doing very well for itself. 32,781 players online right now, with its record being 65,303 back in 2013 is a pretty impressive statistic.

Conceeding that to Jack isn't going to cause your carefully constructed house of cards to collapse around you.
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I'm trying to avoid getting into cyclical discussions with yourself, but come on dude, for a twenty plus year old game EvE is doing very well for itself. 32,781 players online right now, with its record being 65,303 back in 2013 is a pretty impressive statistic.
It is indeed an impressive statistic for a twenty-one year old game. As that game facilitates particular player behaviours that some don't wish to see anywhere near this game, it's obvious that while it has an enduring appeal for some players it's long been a "nope, definitely not" for some others.
 
Saying that forcing players into Open "won't work" due to networking issues feels more like an excuse to preserve the status quo than a genuine effort to improve the game. Across 159 pages, I haven't seen a single viable proposal from the "IWantToHaulInSoloWithNoDrawbacks" crowd.

It's similar to when EVE Online introduced its null-sec regions. Many players resisted, thinking it would only lead to chaos and ruin the experience. Yet, once implemented, it became one of the game's most compelling features, fostering dynamic alliances, intense PvP, and emergent gameplay. The initial resistance faded as players adapted, and it showed that sometimes change, even when uncomfortable, can lead to a richer, more engaging experience.

Surely, even the invention of the wheel must have displeased someone.

I proposed balancing rewards in Open instead of making it Open-only, but I couldn't find anyone willing to even discuss that.

Yes, and EVE Online is still thriving 21 years later. No one remembers who left after Exodus or Red Moon Rising, if anything, the player count increased significantly

OMG, you're resorting to EVE Online as your yardstick, that is hilarious.
I played that game from day one, I was there for the first time 5,000 concurrent players were online, 10,000 / 20,000 and so on.

Null Sec was a hot mess (but fun), and griefing in 1.0 was rampant. People were tanking Concord (the system police for those who may not know) for years while they were new player smashing outside the starter system space stations and the Devs ignored it because the PvP crowd kept saying it wasn't an issue. Which is wasn't, for them, as they the were ones doing it.

And "thriving", you're joking. They had to introduce free-to-play because they could not keep up the numbers. Even now they are not getting the numbers they used to before lots of PvE players were driven off by PvP'ers exploiting and ganking. November 2020 was the last time they hit 10,000. They only exceeded 5,000 twice this year.
Though I'm not overly impressed with the F2P ship selection, I do like some of them. It's enough to get the jist of the game and be in chat long enough to see the nasty attitudes of some players and walk away before spending too much time or money on it.

It's really not a great yardstick - well, not for you. But it's a great one for me to hold up as to why PvP'ers should be ignored
(except for conversations about weapon balance, NPCs cannot complain when a weapon is overpowered so only PvP'ers can truly help with that aspect of a game)

And if you haven't seen any proposals by the PvE crowd, then you've been ignoring them on purpose. Because enough have been made and ignored or shouted down by your lot screaming for Open Only content.
 
I made a proposal, that the rampant mindless PvP'rs not the sensible ones, be afflicted with a disease in game, that explains their behaviour, and that is difficult to remove and is a little shameful to wear. You could also create an 'infected' part of the galaxy to which they all flock, or from where they were said to have spawned. Like the reavers in firefly or serenity. In effect setting a 'insanity' threshold that they do not want to cross.

To implement this an advanced implementation of actor model with, corresponding protocol would be required, I'm convinced that it is possible, however the protocol would have some deep requirements as to the structure and functionality of the game engine itself, at its foundational level, so not likely to be possible in elite dangerous; Perhaps in a future, elite serenity?

Its hard, because I get that these folks lack the ability to understand how it is that they break the suspension of disbelief in others, I think because they don't ever achieve it in game themselves.
 
Last edited:
Question that may be pertinent.

Is there any protection for pledged people from being attacked by people pledged to the same power?

Let's say i'm tootling around in my Power's region, doing my thing, and some ganker on my "side" decides to have a go at me. Do they suffer a penalty in relation to their power or is it just bounty/notoriety?

If i'm in my Power's space, i should be safe to assume anyone pledged to the same power is an ally, or at least not hostile to me. If i see an opposing power's ship then i can assume its most likely hostile at worse or will just ignore me (at best), as they might very well be focused on doing their mission and then getting out of enemy territory right?
 
Question that may be pertinent.

Is there any protection for pledged people from being attacked by people pledged to the same power?

Let's say i'm tootling around in my Power's region, doing my thing, and some ganker on my "side" decides to have a go at me. Do they suffer a penalty in relation to their power or is it just bounty/notoriety?

If i'm in my Power's space, i should be safe to assume anyone pledged to the same power is an ally, or at least not hostile to me. If i see an opposing power's ship then i can assume its most likely hostile at worse or will just ignore me (at best), as they might very well be focused on doing their mission and then getting out of enemy territory right?
I'm currently presuming that most gankers will go with Archibald Delacy and was wondering if perhaps all of the other powers police would be stricter against that faction over others, for obvious reasons. In game reasons, not the out of game whining about NPC's being to easy.
 
I'm currently presuming that most gankers will go with Archibald Delacy and was wondering if perhaps all of the other powers police would be stricter against that faction over others, for obvious reasons.

In game reasons, not the out of game whining about NPC's being to easy.

I'm thinking more about bad faith actors who pledge to a power just to mess with other members of that same power.
 
Question that may be pertinent.

Is there any protection for pledged people from being attacked by people pledged to the same power?

Let's say i'm tootling around in my Power's region, doing my thing, and some ganker on my "side" decides to have a go at me. Do they suffer a penalty in relation to their power or is it just bounty/notoriety?

If i'm in my Power's space, i should be safe to assume anyone pledged to the same power is an ally, or at least not hostile to me. If i see an opposing power's ship then i can assume its most likely hostile at worse or will just ignore me (at best), as they might very well be focused on doing their mission and then getting out of enemy territory right?
They should do, yes IMO.

However the question is: have the naively optomistic Developers when it comes to PvP that are FDEV thought about it? I suspect not sadly.
 
And "thriving", you're joking. They had to introduce free-to-play because they could not keep up the numbers. Even now they are not getting the numbers they used to before lots of PvE players were driven off by PvP'ers exploiting and ganking. November 2020 was the last time they hit 10,000. They only exceeded 5,000 twice this year.
Though I'm not overly impressed with the F2P ship selection, I do like some of them. It's enough to get the jist of the game and be in chat long enough to see the nasty attitudes of some players and walk away before spending too much time or money on it.
25,352 accounts active right now as of Server Status count: https://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility

Are you perhaps referring to Steam Numbers (which is about those you're referring to), because I'm fairly sure we're not supposed to use Steam numbers here (when citing then to refer to Elite as 'dying'), and your point gets poo-poo'd pretty quickly.
 
Back
Top Bottom