Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Robert Maynard]

Integral to the gameplay designed by the developers.
If the core mechanics, progression, or objectives revolve around competing with other players (directly or indirectly) then PvP isn't just an option, it's the foundation of the experience.
Removing or flagging PvP in such games would break the intended dynamics, turning them into something fundamentally different from what they were designed to be.

None of the core mechanics, progression, or objectives in this game require direct competition between players - as PvP is entirely optional. That being the case it's not exactly "the foundation of the experience" for all players, even if it is for those who choose to engage in it.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

None of the core mechanics, progression, or objectives in this game require direct competition between players - as PvP is entirely optional. That being the case it's not exactly "the foundation of the experience" for all players, even if it is for those who choose to engage in it.

BGS and PP inherently involve both direct (for those in Open) and indirect PvP.
If a PvP flag removes a CMDR's ability to influence BGS/PP, then the logical step would be to restrict that to Solo/PG, ensuring consistency.
In that case, I’d fully agree with you!

 

[Robert Maynard]

BGS and PP inherently involve both direct (for those in Open) and indirect PvP.

Indeed.

If a PvP flag removes a CMDR's ability to influence BGS/PP, then the logical step would be to restrict that to Solo/PG, ensuring consistency.

Why should it, given that players in Solo and Private Groups would still affect the mode shared game features that we all share?

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Indeed.

Why should it, given that players in Solo and Private Groups would still affect the mode shared game features that we all share?

Because PP/BGS is PvP, and a PvP flag already exists in PG/Solo.

If someone chooses Solo/PG, they’re opting out of PvP, so it’s natural to exclude PvP-related progress.

Especially when indirect PvP progress is disproportionately efficient for those retreating to Solo/PG for that reason.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Because PP/BGS is PvP, and a PvP flag already exists in PG/Solo.

If someone chooses Solo/PG, they’re opting out of PvP, so it’s natural to exclude PvP-related progress.

Especially when indirect PvP progress is disproportionately efficient for those retreating to Solo/PG for that reason.

The only PvP that players can choose to opt out of is that of the in-the-same-instance kind, because other players are optional in this game, by design.

Experiencing and affecting the shared galaxy, on the other hand, is something that all players do, regardless of game mode, by design.

That some players don't agree with the game design, or only agree with select parts of it, is not the fault of the game.

 

[Donald Duck]

Open only would be great, but I also do understand that the casual player trying to relax by gaming might find it too stressful always having to look over their shoulders...

Maybe one step in the right direction could be to reveal more data about traffic and actions taken in a system to the actual system 'owner', for both PP 2.0 and BGS?

Atm many are fighting a black box but by showing this information - along with for example the pp updates - would at least reveal who or how many are doing what, so that this can be countered more effectively or - worst case - given up, as for example one might see that they are facing superior numbers.

Making the decission easier to continue their efforts or to do something else, which could increase their 'quality of life', as Solo and PG increase the quality of life of those afraid of Open...

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

The only PvP that players can choose to opt out of is that of the in-the-same-instance kind, because other players are optional in this game, by design.

Experiencing and affecting the shared galaxy, on the other hand, is something that all players do, regardless of game mode, by design.

That some players don't agree with the game design, or only agree with select parts of it, is not the fault of the game.

The actual design allows players to choose their mode, but when Solo/PG progress impacts shared systems (BGS/PP), it blurs the line between opting out of PvP and still engaging in its outcomes.

This creates an imbalance: those in Open face risks that Solo/PG players avoid while both influence the same shared galaxy.
Recognizing this contradiction isn’t rejecting the design, it’s questioning whether it serves fairness across modes.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The actual design allows players to choose their mode, but when Solo/PG progress impacts shared systems (BGS/PP), it blurs the line between opting out of PvP and still engaging in its outcomes.

The line is very clear - no player required to engage or be engaged in in-the-same-instance PvP while all players affect the shared galaxy which may result in indirect asynchronous PvP.

This creates an imbalance: those in Open face risks that Solo/PG players avoid while both influence the same shared galaxy.
Recognizing this contradiction isn’t rejecting the design, it’s questioning whether it serves fairness across modes.

It rather seems to be a rejection of the fundamental design decision that other players are optional in this game.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Open only would be great, but I also do understand that the casual player trying to relax by gaming might find it too stressful always having to look over their shoulders...

...then assing 0 or 0.0x% weight to effects on anything else than the personal player progression and rewards.

I mean missions done = 0 INF points for BGS but still pay credits/mats or reputation, or 0 control points from all merits gained in solo/PG.

(I know this type of "incentives" has been widely discussed, I know that it wasn't what has been promised at kickstart time 10+ years ago... I know).

 

[St0rmFury]

Power conflict zones are riskier & harder in solo since you can't team up with others, should players get more merits from PCZs if they are in solo?

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Power conflict zones are riskier & harder in solo since you can't team up with others, should players get more merits from PCZs if they are in solo?

Pretty weak point, try a CZ in open with CMDRs on the other side. LOL

 

[Rebel Yell]

Power conflict zones are riskier & harder in solo since you can't team up with others, should players get more merits from PCZs if they are in solo?

PCZs are just longer, and NPCs does little or none progression... but yes (why not), earn more personal merits and 1/100 or zero control points for the system: I'm fine with that.

 

[Donald Duck]

...then assing 0 or 0.0x% weight to effects on anything else than the personal player progression and rewards.

I mean missions done = 0 INF points for BGS but still pay credits/mats or reputation, or 0 control points from all merits gained in solo/PG.

(I know this type of "incentives" has been widely discussed, I know that it wasn't what has been promised at kickstart time 10+ years ago... I know).

Surely that makes sense, but I presume it would be complicated to code that and that it would produce a lot of data. Because they'd need to track each move and switches between modes not only of Cmdrs but their missions and/or cargo as well, as cmdrs could change between open and the others, e. g. travel in solo and finish their business/mission in open.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Surely that makes sense, but I presume it would be complicated to code that and that it would produce a lot of data. Because they'd need to track each move and switches between modes not only of Cmdrs but their missions and/or cargo as well, as cmdrs could change between open and the others, e. g. travel in solo and finish their business/mission in open.

They could simply mark Open commodities, data, or missions as "Open Only." If a player logs into Solo/PG, those items could be automatically lost, and the associated missions marked as failed.

 

[Donald Duck]

They could simply mark Open commodities, data, or missions as "Open Only." If a player logs into Solo/PG, those items could be automatically lost, and the associated missions marked as failed.

I have my doubts if that is so simple... I guess the mechanics are there somehow, as mission cargo is marked as mission cargo, for example. But a tag for switching between modes could be complicated, as it does not only concern cargo. Some powers reward for example explo data, so one would have to scan in open to make a later pp usage of them valid.

 

[angusmadmac1]

You can play Elite with no PvP.
The only gameplay requirement for PvP is CqC.
Why does Elite still dominate after all these years ? Because it means different things to different players and they enjoy it because they play the game as they want, not how others see it.
You could close down PP and BGS and the game still works ( see consoles).
As for numbers well only Fdev have those and they have never shared and I don't think never will. So it's our best guesses
But if the PvP supporters are saying the majority of players are in Pg or Solo does that not say make folk think why ?

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Some powers reward for example explo data, so one would have to scan in open to make a later pp usage of them valid.

Sure, exactly! exploration data also influences the BGS. If you plan to use it for something beyond credits and personal influence, that’s how it should work: collected in Open to be valid for shared systems.

 

[Vermin]

Instances would be full of invincible players, that's no good for those of us looking for PvP powerplay/piracy/bounty hunting. It also exposes those players running No-PvP flags to potential taunting and non-combat disruption (pad blocking, ramming, kill stealing etc).



Again see above, just because they can't shoot you doesn't mean they cannot annoy you or cause you problems. Think about it, if a rival powerplay player sees a PvP-Off player doing undermining activities against their power, that's a huge recipe for toxicity/being called out etc...

I would expect low effort "trolling" to be present on both sides. Arguably more so on the people who are not flagged with PvP-on.

I rarely see gankers in open display actual outright toxicity, they'll take the mickey, sure, but usually in a light-hearted manner.. Its the recipients/PvE players who tend to chuck out slurs and abuse very readily.

So yeah.. I don't think a PvP flag would work, it would just start to display even more outward toxicity.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Surely that makes sense, but I presume it would be complicated to code that and that it would produce a lot of data. Because they'd need to track each move and switches between modes not only of Cmdrs but their missions and/or cargo as well, as cmdrs could change between open and the others, e. g. travel in solo and finish their business/mission in open.

Journal keeps track of game modes and where the single "transactions" happen (it has been checked)... they have all the data needed to implement that.

 

[Donald Duck]

Journal keeps track of game modes and where the single "transactions" happen (it has been checked)... they have all the data needed to implement that.

Oh, wasn't aware of that. Supports that FDev's thoughts about open only for pp2.0 actually had a 'scientific' background and was not just hot air...
Problem could be that they won't present a new gaming mode that would not attract the majority of players if open only...
On the other hand many more complaining about ganking could increase web traffic around E and FDev, which are important ingredients to economical success nowadays...