Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That's as may be - however all three options are clearly displayed and only a click (or three in the case of Private Groups) away.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
Yes, it’s even weirder because we’re all essentially in the same league.
True, all options are available with just a click, but the design and order suggest a standard approach (Open Play) followed by facilitated modes, reinforcing the idea of distinct experiences rather than equivalent ones.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It's not weird that we all affect the game equally, even if the choices of some of us mean that we may have interactions with others. We all have the option to play in particular ways (subject to the presence of other players if required) but no requirement to do so.
It’s true that we all have options, but it’s a bit like a triathlon where everyone competes in the same event, yet some choose to race solo on a treadmill while others compete openly in the main race.
The choice to avoid direct interactions doesn’t make everyone’s experience equivalent.
Those in the main event face unique challenges and risks, which naturally impact the nature and rewards of their race.
In ED, playing in Open involves similar added risks and dynamics that aren’t present in Solo or PG, making the experiences inherently different.
Balancing risk and rewards is essential here, as it ensures that players who take on greater risks in Open Mode have corresponding rewards.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That's a consequence of other players being an optional extra in this game that no-one was forced to buy - no player needs to play among other players nor interact with them in any way while experiencing and affecting the shared galaxy.
Firstly, apologies if this is hard to read, as I can't break up or edit a quotation at the moment again.Here’s the thing:
I’d agree with you if Frontier was the one that hosted instances.
But Frontier isn’t the one doing the hosting. Players are, and that opens a very wide door for “ain’t no such rule” abuse.
Right now, almost everyone in Open are acting in a sportsmanlike manner. In the scenario I described above, especially among PowerPlayers, I could choose to engage the opposition confident that it’ll be a fun encounter for both of us. Neither one of us is likeky to act like effluence from the southern end of a northern facing bull to keep from losing.
That won’t be the case when you weigh the influence of Open… especially if it turns out that PowerPlayers, despite statements to the contrary, genuinely are in Solo/PG for the sake of what is, in my experience and opinion, a rather ethereal advantage.
At best, instancing really is that bad for this kind of confrontational PvP, so nothing will really change, and those demanding the change will continue to be frustrated by everyone “cheating” by playing in their “private” Opens. There will, of course, be a handful of players doing just that, but most players won’t be plagued by long transitions caused by an overworked matchmaking service having to deal with players “poisoning the well” to keep others from instancing with them. Furthermore, meadow-muffin like behavior will continue to be rare.
At worst, if PowerPlayers genuinely are significantly more likely to choose Solo/PG for that illusionary advantage, then we’ll see the same kinds of behavior in I’ve seen in other MMOs, which will make for a miserable experience for everyone. I’m personally getting rather sick and tired of the longer transition times I’ve been encountering during my local prime time already, and they’re the exception, not the norm.
And personally? I’ve already dropped the interdiction module from my multi-role ship, because quite frankly the opportunity cost, merit wise, is simply too high, let alone the risk/reward ratio. I get more merits letting a unaligned pirate interdict me, and I’m not about to deviate from my flight path chase down an opposing Power, whether they are an NPC or a player.
Which is fortunate for other players. Because I have yet to see a single player even twitch when I scan them in Supercruise. And the few times we’ve been going to the same destination, I’ll still beat them there, despite them having a head start and me slowing down to scan them. Talk about cooperating with your potential killer…
I agree and acknowledge there are issue with networking, however I personally (and genuinely) believe its best to have a developer lead the player to the 'intended path' through rewarding intended behaviour as much as possible. There will always be outliers and exploiters, but I think most of the people discussing this that are in favour of weighting etc. are fully aware of this and comfortable with it as long as developers make an effort to combat it as best they can. You can only lead a horse so far to water, and all that.
I wish you'd stop downplaying the Solo/PG meta of CGs and PP as being illusionary, when all the evidence (AFK turretboats, unchallenged hauling etc) points to the contrary. It really cheapens otherwise fair points you're making (such as the networking one). The issue for the remenant of the 'old guard of powerplayers' who until now had seemingly settled into a heavily open-only 'house rule' is the same as it was during that initial period I often cite; either adopt the same meta, or accept they cannot compete to the same level without adopting it, which as I have mentioned is what pushed a lot of folk away from PP1.0 (and in the case of a lot of folk I flew with and against, away from the game entirely) as it erodes the need for teamplay or interaction with other players (be they rivals or allies) and descends into the sort of finger pointing toxicity we saw when PP was at its height in terms of engaged player numbers.
I just want to close again by highlighting that as 'open only players', you and I have a very different skillset moulded by over a decade of (in your case, constant, I'm assuming) play with the system, not wanting to self-aggrandise, but assuming that others have the same knowledge or unique skillsets we've developed due to our playstyles (which reduce and mitigate our risk of an encounter with another antagonistic player going the wrong way for us), our willingness to learn from our mistakes and our acceptance of loss when we actually do lose sets us a little apart from those bred by a watered down, neutered challenge of a game to assume a 'protagonist mentality' that you see common in those private group and solo only players who engage in competitive gameplay.
Yes, playing with others is optional, just like choosing higher risk for greater rewards.
This is a standard design principle: those who take on more risk can access higher benefits.
It’s not coercion, but a choice for those seeking greater challenges and rewards.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Choosing to play among other players may not significantly raise the risk profile of a player's gameplay - it depends on many factors. Greater reward for doing so is not a feature of this game.
A bonus for players in one game mode is functionally equivalent to a penalty against those in the other game modes - and will be seen as a bribe or attempt to coerce players to play in the mode with the bonus - which would very likely lead to players making more use of the block feature if implemented.
Playing among others in Open inherently raises the risk profile, as player interactions are unpredictable and can’t be fully controlled, unlike interactions with AI.
The variability in encounters is precisely what creates that increased risk factor, even if it doesn’t occur every time.
As for whether greater rewards for higher risk could or should be a feature, that isn’t really up to any of us to define
Game design evolves with player needs and feedback, so it’s entirely possible that future features may address this balance.
A bonus is an addition, a reward given for taking on extra challenges or risks, without removing anything from others.
In contrast, a penalty implies a reduction or a sanction that diminishes the experience or resources available to someone else.
Here, providing a bonus for players who choose to play in Open doesn’t reduce or limit the content in Solo or PG; it simply adds value for those who accept the additional risk.
Nothing is taken away from those who don’t, and any player can choose to access the bonus at any time.
Currently, Open actually carries a penalty of risk, as players face unpredictable encounters without any added reward.
Balancing this with a bonus would simply acknowledge that higher risk
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Risk is comprised of probability of occurrence and severity of outcome.
When the probability of outcome (destruction) is negligible in all three game modes for players in their G5 murderboats, and the severity of that destruction is a rebuy, there's not much risk.
Noting that all that players in combat ships lose on destruction is the rebuy, and that as pledged players increase their rank the rebuy will reduce to zero, the risk to those players engaged in combat will tend to zero over time.
Frontier have had a lot of feedback on the merits of / problems associated with the three mode / shared galaxy approach they have taken - that they chose not to make Powerplay 2.0 Open only over six years after first floating the idea (and eight years after floating the idea of a mode bonus for Powerplay [and very clearly Powerplay only]) as a possibility may be an indication of their position.
And I believe that it's best for the developer to deal with problematic players by allowing social solutions to social problems. I've seen far too many aspiring MMOs get destroyed by the outsized influence of the usual suspects, and those that didn't implemented a PvP switch to halt the exodus.
And I think you're overplaying the danger of Open in CGs and Powerplay. Yes, there can be danger in Open, but those who actually experince it are actively seeking it out, going as far to add the opposition to their friends list to maximize their chance for encounter. Do you really think the typical player is going to add an enemy to their friends list, simply for the sake of PvP?
I have absolutely no doubt that I'm an outlier. My little experiement over the last two weeks was consistent with my experiments in CGs and PowerPlay 1.0 control systems: Most players are relatively rare compared to the threat of NPCs, seem to be blissfully unaware of the potential danger around them, and content to double their travel time. If this is the type of player you're worried about, they are in far more danger from NPCs than they are from other players, regardless of mode choice.
There is nothing on the HUD to determine who is from a hostile Power or not. If I scan another Player who'se pledged to (for example) to Yuri Grom, they don't even go red after I scan them. And roughly 20% of players I was in a position to scan (about a third of the players I'd encountered over the last two weeks) were actually pledged to a Power. That is a lot of noise to sort through, and if they're anything like me, that's too much noise to bother with. Especially when you consider both the opportunity cost of carrying an interdiction module, as well as the risk/reward ratio of going on the offensive.
That interdiction module cost me a minimum of 160 merits every time I didn't encounter a valid target, and a maximum of 280. And I'd be putting up to 4000 merits at risk, to have a chance to earn 80 merits at most... and there isn't a guarantee that I'd win that fight. At least with NPCs, the odds are in my favor.
Risk does indeed involve probability and severity, but in Open, the probability of unpredictable player encounters (even with G5 murderboats AKA Very Normal Engineered Ships) adds a unique layer of risk compared to Solo or PG, where encounters are predictable or non-existent.
Just because destruction might not occur every time doesn’t make the risk negligible.
Open Mode introduces a type of unpredictability that isn’t present in Solo/PG, where only AI encounters apply.
The idea that destruction risk trends to zero over time ignores key variables: PvP scenarios remain dynamic.
Even high-level ships can face unexpected, skilled adversaries or ambushes, regardless of rebuy costs.
Many experienced players understand that no ship is immune to an encounter that could lead to rebuy, which means risk never truly reaches zero.
Finally, citing Frontier’s past decisions doesn’t equate to a permanent stance. Game design evolves with feedback, and their ongoing monitoring of PP and Open discussions suggests they haven’t dismissed the possibility of change.
The choice not to make PP 2.0 Open-only may simply reflect a decision based on current priorities rather than a definitive position against balancing risk and rewards.
Absolutely agree, the idea that open is NOT more risky than solo or private mode is pretty bananas... Other players are generally more dangerous than NPCs, and they are the only variable from open that is different to solo and private. How could there not be more risk with that single extra variable?
Hey Lateralus, love the Tool reference, one of my all-time favorite bands!
Couldn’t agree more with what you said.
It’s clear as day that some folks are doing some serious mental gymnastics to argue otherwise.
The extra player variable in open mode is obviously a game-changer in terms of risk.
Yet somehow, some people still manage to dance around that fact… Appreciate you voicing it!
Conversly, I've seen a lot of games I've played being destroyed by catering to 'low skill, maximum time engagement' model in terms of its quality. But then (this isnt a snide dig to be clear) you and I seem to have played two very different types of MMO's or in the few we've both played (looking at you Ultima) been in very different situations or playstyles.
I didn't say that I had 'enemies' (in the context of the game) in my friends list, merely that I've encountered and interacted with players that have both been allies and rivals in my time playing Elite Dangerous
At the moment, while players are scurrying around trying to fortify their powers territories, we're going to see very much a lot less 'compression' than we will once the bubble has been fully exploited by powers, and battle lines drawn. Again, I'd suggest players like that are at no threat from an NPC due to the lack of aggressiveness and capacity for an NPC to inflict damage on them. Get Cutter. Submit. Boost. Press "Yes I am still watching this show" on Netflix on the primary monitor. Repeat. You cant do that in the situation a player reverts you to normal space.
The colouration thing is something that I think might need tweaking prersonally, both for NPC and Players. More information easily accessible is always a good thing for situational awareness.
Silight sidebar, I know we keep talking about interdicting, but I think its important to note you don't need to interdict a player to pose opposition to them.
Indeed!
I mean in my mind its a straight-forward concept... is it fair that players can use private modes to circumvent enemy player opposition in a purpose designed player vs player system, taking virtually no risk at all if they are geared-out enough to swat NPCs? The answer has to be a straight No. Especially when you factor-in players using exploits to generate outsized merit gains - they nearly always do this in solo/private where nobody can see or stop them. If they were forced to do this in open they would just get killed over and over until they stopped.
So many issues like that would stop, and you would see a massive improvement in the overall game (actual conflicts, strategy, diplomacy an uptick in players - new and returning).
What we get with the current situation is another flavour of grind (admittedly it is much improved over 1.0), with occasional PvP that is enjoying a flurry of popularity now because its new but will in time start to settle back down to a niche activity. Most of the PvE community will soon be preoccupied with colonisation anyway... Why not give Powerplay some long-term legs rather than rely solely on the 'flashy new thing' factor?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Anything multiplied by zero is zero - so while the probability of destruction may increase in Open, if the severity of destruction is zero (once the player has reached the required rank to enjoy zero rebuy) then the risk is zero (as nothing is lost regardless of how many times it happens).
Indeed - and they will receive feedback from players of all play-style preferences, not just those who prefer PvP.
It may, or it may not. We will see, in time, how it pans out.
Last edited:
The 'severity' of destruction remains in the context of powerplay though, as negating or slowing someones bucket filling (whilst advancing your own) still remains.