Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
A mechanic so "core" that no player needs ever be subjected to it.
Yes, and that’s exactly because the design is flawed. Hence why this thread is 172 pages long LOL
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In the opinion of some players, certainly. Some players aren't all players - and no players who bought this game bought a game where PvP is compulsory.
is actually the reason threads like this get so long...because it’s an opinion shared by many
but if enough people are raising the same points, it might indicate a deeper issue
Open Mode does suggest a different risk level. It’s not about forcing PvP but about preserving the immersion and unpredictability that make Open unique.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It's an opinion shared by some and opposed by some others. Repetition does not mean that there's a "deeper issue" it simply means that Frontier haven't yet chosen to make changes to benefit some players and penalise other players.
Restricting any game feature to Open would facilitate players forcing PvP on players who may be entirely disinterested in PvP but chose to continue to affect a previously pan-modal game feature in the only game mode remaining where player affects would still count. So fundamentally it is all about forcing PvP on those who don't choose to present themself to be shot at by those who want to shoot at them.
No, it is not.
It is an opinion shared by very small but loud Crew, starved of victims.
And it is so long because ED tolerate any talk in building the hype for PP2.0. Otherwise you'd be taken to Hotel California hundreds of pages before.
The design isn't flawed just because you don't have enough victims in lightly armed traders.
One of the many things this game does better than anyone else is offer a true choice of environment.
O7
Luckily it will never happen, Fdev had a chance in this update and rightly saw no merit (pardon the pun) in it.
O7
I'll say its not better than anyone else.
Better would be full separation. PvP servers and PvE servers. Then this thread would not exist, nor any like it. Many games in the history of online gaming have gone this route.
Instead of Open vs Solo threads, instead you get threads like "Why are the PvP servers dead?"
This is one of the very first proposals that actually makes sense! The only issue—given that my Fleet had to wait 60 minutes to jump yesterday—is that Frontier seems to be lacking resources on the infrastructure side.I'll say its not better than anyone else.
Better would be full separation. PvP servers and PvE servers. Then this thread would not exist, nor any like it. Many games in the history of online gaming have gone this route.
Instead of Open vs Solo threads, instead you get threads like "Why are the PvP servers dead?"
And who knows, it might end up being the PvE servers that end up empty, since the endgame with the current PvE challenge level is pretty dull for a lot of players LOL
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If PvE players could coalesce from a multiplicity of PvE Private Groups (and Solo) into a multi-player game mode with no PvP then I'd expect it to be rather popular among the player-base that this game has attracted over the last decade.
You say “design flaw,” I say brilliant feature. Some players are simply not fun to play with, and allowing players the choice of who they play with has allowed Open to maximize the number of players who willingly choose to play with others, while minimizing the number of players who aren’t fun to play with, all without the expense of a massive staff of ingame moderators on Frontier’s part, or an artificial PvP switch to all but eliminate spontaneous PvP between more casual PvP inclined players.
This is a good thing, because I’ve seen the former bankrupt MMOs due to hemorrhaging players, and the latter is chosen pretty much by roughly 95% of a game’s population, based on comments I’ve seen in other MMOs who went that route.
Ah, this ephemeral risk again. It’s true that there is a teeny, tiny threat of getting attacked in Open, but it also has the huge advantage of having a large pool, of likely cooperative players, to form pick up groups. That advantage is non-existent in Solo, and much smaller in PGs like Mobius.
The bottom line is, if those who most want Open Only PowerPlay are genuinely playing in Solo/PG for that ephemeral advantage, despite the near universal claims to the contrary, then they can’t be trusted to even play by their own house rules, let alone Frontier’s rules or the unwritten rules of fair play. I’ve played in such an environment before, and it’s not a fun experience.
I don’t really care what any players motivation is for not playing in Open is. It’s already 99% likely I’ll only indirectly oppose players simply due to how Frontier designed this game’s networking solution and the matchmaking rules that make it work. The difference between that and 99.2% is a distinction without a difference.
Unless it turns out that difference isn’t 99.2% or 99.3%, but 99.8%. Because that all but guarantees that when players do encounter the rare hostile player, they won’t be fun to play with, and when you’re not having fun, the rational choice is to quit, not sink to their level. And that is a scenario that has killed many MMOs in the past, or caused devs to implement a hard coded PvP switch. The former guarantees that Frontier won’t invest in further developing PowerPlay, or a new feature that provides additional context to PvP. The latter will kill most forms of spontaneous PvP.
May be most of the player would have 2 accounts/profiles (like diablo IV or similar)
Judging by the size of the Mobius player base and my experience of always meeting way more folks in that PG than i ever did in Open, i would say otherwise.
O7
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Another proposal would be to create a new bubble, a short distance from the existing bubble, of initially unpopulated systems and permit lock it to Open only.
Previously this would have needed to be seeded with factions and Powers to kickstart gameplay but with the addition of Colonisation a fresh bubble for PvP colonists to expand into might possibly be an attractive option. It would also have the benefit of not needing to mess with the game for other players (one tiny fraction [that may comprise tens of thousands of systems] of the galaxy specifically excepted).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
No need - players would pick which one they wanted to play in - and stick to it.
I think that depends on the game, or whats being encouraged by it, which is where Elite really suffers for me by trying to cater for everyones desires, leaving to no-one fully satisfied (and before someone smugly posts "PvE players are happy" or what not, I remind you to remember the salt fueled and hatred fueled outpourings regarding UA Bombing, or when a PvP heavy player group got official FDEV coverage, which show that is not the case).I'll say its not better than anyone else.
Better would be full separation. PvP servers and PvE servers. Then this thread would not exist, nor any like it. Many games in the history of online gaming have gone this route.
Instead of Open vs Solo threads, instead you get threads like "Why are the PvP servers dead?"
Naval Action for example, had PvE servers that have been absolutely dead in comparison to the PvP one to the point they've regularly considered winding them down.
The problem with spreading the servers for me, as I'm sure we've discussed has always been at that point: Which 'server' counts as canon for lore and story driven event purposes?
Cracking idea, can we call the separate Bubble 'Coventry'?
Im sure UK folks will get the joke