Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Brrokk]

I think it's fair to say that they did want PvP, but as a company that
a) back in 2012-2014 had no experience of running a MMO of any sort at all
b) even over a decade on from that don't really get "competition" as a concept
there was little chance of it actually working beyond the basics of "you can do it but why would you?"

For example...

This is all stuff I agree with and think is a major problem - though, I think so much of a wider issue for Powerplay as a competitive system that burying the discussion in this thread where the usual "open only"/"no open only" fight will hide it does it a disservice. All of this also still applies even if they made Powerplay solo-only so that all the competition happened in separate instances.

Still, I might as well post this somewhere

1) The bubble was, even last month, absolutely huge. Powers had several hundred systems to start with, even the small ones, which means lots of opportunities for their rank bonuses to apply
- bounty hunting bonuses don't even need the Power to own systems (they apply on hand-in, and you can hand-in a bounty anywhere, so you can just go back to the unassailable HQ for those)
- exploration bonuses don't need the Power to own systems because it's again "where handed in" not "where collected"
- same with S&R bonuses, not that there's anything much left in the way of high-value S&R now the Titans are dead
- rebuy bonuses are pretty marginal since nothing is going to attack you in your own territory, and NPC power agents mostly won't in enemy territory (and on the other hand, loss of cargo and data can make "free rebuy" barely relevant in other cases)
- trade bonuses do need the Power to own systems but you don't need more than they already have to get a good mix of economies and BGS states, they're well past the point of diminishing returns when it comes to taking even more systems
- Delaine's bounty nullifcation is about the only ability which actively benefits (and very strongly so) from the Power being larger (and maybe Kaine/Duval/Winters' reputation bonus, if you really push it)

2) But even despite the Powers' sizes, there were still 10,000 systems not yet Acquired by any Power. And with the removal of CC, every system is as good as any other (and different powers will have different criteria for "good system" anyway) so it's just a lot cheaper to Acquire a system on the uncontested borders than it is to have an Acquisition fight or especially to go through a whole undermining-and-reacquiring process in the face of opposition. So no incentive to fight even if you want to expand
- and of course the "infill" colonisation has now meant that every power has hundreds or thousands of systems within its borders which no-one else can easily reach anyway
- and the bubble is now expanding about a hundred times faster than Acquisition is proceeding so there'll always be plenty of uncontested space heading away from the centre

3) Reinforcement is profitable, legal, mostly safe, and often a byproduct of "existing in your own Power's space", plus you get access to all your Power's rank benefits while doing it. Undermining is unprofitable, mostly illegal, more difficult, rarely possible to do accidentally "while existing", and then has System Strength Penalty piled on top of that, and in most cases you don't get to use your Power's rank benefits on it.
- combine that with most player groups being extremely loss-averse (i.e. no attacking anyone before our defence is secure, a peace treaty is better than a war, etc)
- combine that with there being no point to attacking anyone anyway for the above
- combine that with there certainly being no incentive for players who just want a bit of rank and don't care about the big picture to attack anyone
... and it's not a surprise that early data from the latest Journal updates is showing an 11:1 ratio in favour of Reinforcement over Undermining, and it took parking an actual Thargoid Titan on Sol to get even a short-term fight going.


I don't think any of this is remotely fixable, though - and the speed and scope of colonisation has put even minor possibilities for encouraging conflict beyond all hope by making there be so much neutral space to claim first-come first-served that conflict seems even more pointless.

(If they'd actually known how to think this through back in 2013, then they'd have started off with a bubble of well under 1000 systems, because all the rest of "you never see anyone else" comes out of that. But it's too late to change that. Put it on the list for a couple of decades time as something to be really forceful about demanding in Elite V)

IIRC Braben said that he expected PvP actions to be "rare and meaningful".

Then he designed a game which showed that he had no idea the internet was full of griefers.

These days I think we have the tools to keep things under control though.

I think PP is as you say. As a law-abiding CMDR I usually restrict myself to reinforcing, and I hardly ever see other players.

 

[varonica]

Wanting PvP to occur and forcing players to engage in it as a mandatory part of any game activity are quite different positions though. Frontier seem to be very much in favour of the former and haven't moved any game feature into the latter (apart from CQC, of course).

Curiously most MMO's that I have played that allow PvP have extreme restrictions on where and when and how it can be done. Special arenas so only players who want to fight eachother can fight. Challenges, that players can refuse to take part in, entire separate worlds that you have to specially travel to, minimum levels for PvP, very few games allow straight PvP from first entering the game as a player because all that does is end up in noob spawn camper ganking. Not talking about small MMO's either, LOTRO, Black Desert, Guild Wars 2 etc, they all have restrictions on PvP, not sure why we get much flak here from the PvP crowd to make everyone take part.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Wanting PvP to occur and forcing players to engage in it as a mandatory part of any game activity are quite different positions though.

Yes. But wanting PvP to occur in any format outside no-stakes for-fun duels between people with billions in the bank for rebuys / stopping at 20% hull anyway and overwhelming-force ganking (presumably neither of which are really the ones Frontier envisaged with that old "meaningful but rare" comment) require game design which provides an actual motivation for both parties to participate.

So in this context, that Powerplay doesn't even provide an incentive for quietly-in-our-own-instances having some indirect asynchronous "PvP" means that it's never going to be a useful place for in-instance PvP either.

Frontier seem to be very much in favour of the former and haven't moved any game feature into the latter (apart from CQC, of course).

CQC is the one they got right at a conceptual level for PvP (shame about all the other flaws, but it was fun while it lasted)

- you gain progress in CQC by carrying out PvP actions (they're not merely a way to highly inefficiently and conditionally slow down someone else's PvE)
- there are distinct (short-term) competitions which you win by PvPing better than your opponents (especially in the team modes)
- even if you lose you still get something out of it beyond the fun of the fight
- because the wider competitions are short-term, they don't end up in stalemates where no-one wants to attack for fear of losing on the defence

None of that has ever been translated into any of the main game contexts where PvP might occur in any way.

So they managed the "rare" bit of PvP - having the average player population of a system be <1 even before all the modes/platforms/etc. splits are considered will do that even before most players not really caring to engage in it gets considered - but never managed to give it any meaning at all by situating it in a context where it actually mattered if you shot someone or not.

"Wanting PvP to occur" is one thing, and Frontier definitely did that in 2013 and maybe even still does. "Having any idea how to build game systems in which PvP is a remotely sensible thing to do for either party never mind both" is completely outside of Frontier's design mindset, and the design of Powerplay to incentivise peaceful building and strongly discourage Undermining (yes, even Undermining in Solo) exemplifies that.

(And the game probably would have been better off if they'd known back in 2013 that they didn't understand how to build competitive game loops - even, more importantly, asynchronous separate-instance ones like Powerplay! - and just made ED fully co-op to start with, then added CQC as the arena mode later. But again, something to consider for Elite V in a few decades)

 

[Robert Maynard]

IIRC Braben said that he expected PvP actions to be "rare and meaningful".

Then he designed a game which showed that he had no idea that the internet was full of griefers.

These days I think we have the tools to keep things under control though.

I think PP is as you say. As a law-abiding CMDR I usually restrict myself to reinforcing, and I hardly ever see other players.

Not sure about the "no idea" bit - as the block feature was implemented by Frontier, i.e. it was not as a result of requests from the player-base, and the three mode system with single shared galaxy state is suggestive of an awareness that not all players would want to play among all other players.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

The first real MMO (Everquest) had no PvP (apart from one small spot but lets not go there) it was huge back in the day and by far the hardest game ive ever helped run guild raids in.
Now look at the other MMOS:
WOW - i was there at the start doing PvP at the crossroads but it wasn't popular so they made arenas (AV WSG) and eventually PvP servers (look how that went)
ESO - learned from WOW and PvP was segregated from the start (Cyrodiil), this was fun until they couldn't separate the two mechanics and ruined the fun for PVE (fyi i was a PvPer there too).
Other MMOs didn't even bother, EQ2s PvP was scrapped, GW2s PvP areas were (and still are) a mess.

From my experience its only a small minority (including me at one time) that wanted to kill folks, the majority of MMOs were PVE.

I have done a lot of PvP in my time at a really high level, Elite can never be a PvP game, there's no ship balance, no stable server areas to fight and more importantly no level playing field when folks are using VA, scripting and hacks (you know its out there, you've seen the vids), but more importantly this game does not have the player base that supports it.
Fdev knows this hence CQC was left to rot and nothing PvP wise was added to PP2.

O7

Ah, CQC, such a shame. Really enjoyed it as a PvP thing to do on occasion. But just not enough players and no real reward for the main game. Always wanted to be able to customize my SLFs in the main game and CQC would provide a nice way to do that. If they just could add bots to it, it would help revive the mode i think and be more opportunities for PvP since if people knew they could get a game at any time, with bots or players, they might jump in.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Curiously most MMO's that I have played that allow PvP have extreme restrictions on where and when and how it can be done. Special arenas so only players who want to fight eachother can fight. Challenges, that players can refuse to take part in, entire separate worlds that you have to specially travel to, minimum levels for PvP, very few games allow straight PvP from first entering the game as a player because all that does is end up in noob spawn camper ganking. Not talking about small MMO's either, LOTRO, Black Desert, Guild Wars 2 etc, they all have restrictions on PvP, not sure why we get much flak here from the PvP crowd to make everyone take part.

The flak seems to be generated by those who can't accept that no-one needs to play with them to affect the galaxy that we all share, which means that PvP* (which may be a major reason why some players are attracted to the game) is an optional extra - there seems to be an assumption that the game is "wrong" for not forcing players to play with them and should be changed to suit their preference.

*: in-the-same-instance PvP, not "asynchronous indirect competition between players affecting mode shared game features driven by PvE actions"

 

[Rebel Yell]

Players pledge to powers, powers own territory.

Current PP2 status is like "let's reinforce system XYZ" ..."ah there's a mining spot" .."ok, let's do it in solo/PG as I don't want to waste hours mining and go kaboom if enemy spots me" (> hauling and trading more or less same "let's go fly a shieldless T9, go solo/PG so no one can destroy you"). Acquistions/undermining done with ground data stacked in players inventories are hard to detect and impossible to counter... uMMing is done in solo for most part so multiple CMDRs can raid the same anarchy settlement over and over so we're having a borderline exploiting of those modes as the already very low % of encountering enemies goes to zero when other-than-open modes are exploited used.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Curiously most MMO's that I have played that allow PvP have extreme restrictions on where and when and how it can be done. Special arenas so only players who want to fight eachother can fight. Challenges, that players can refuse to take part in, entire separate worlds that you have to specially travel to, minimum levels for PvP, very few games allow straight PvP from first entering the game as a player because all that does is end up in noob spawn camper ganking. Not talking about small MMO's either, LOTRO, Black Desert, Guild Wars 2 etc, they all have restrictions on PvP, not sure why we get much flak here from the PvP crowd to make everyone take part.

FO'76 did have unrestricted PvP to start with and resulted in the outcome you describe.
It also has forums with it's own version of Hotel California and almost word for word arguments and suggestions from PvP enthusiasts.
Elite is not unique in that regard.

 

[varonica]

FO'76 did have unrestricted PvP to start with and resulted in the outcome you describe.
It also has forums with it's own version of Hotel California and almost word for word arguments and suggestions from PvP enthusiasts.
Elite is not unique in that regard.

Yeah there have been a few games that tried that model......most of them ended up graveyards or changed the way they did it.

 

[Darrack]

Do you even remember this thread's topic?

Yup ive actually been on this thread a while now

O7

 

[Darrack]

Ah, CQC, such a shame. Really enjoyed it as a PvP thing to do on occasion. But just not enough players and no real reward for the main game. Always wanted to be able to customize my SLFs in the main game and CQC would provide a nice way to do that. If they just could add bots to it, it would help revive the mode i think and be more opportunities for PvP since if people knew they could get a game at any time, with bots or players, they might jump in.

My vision for CQC would have been centred around a station with just stock, standard ships, sure you can repaint your cobra and lob a ship kit on it but that's all.
For me real PvP is folks in equal ships with equal weapons just pitting wits and skill, CQC could have been better.

O7

 

[Jockey79]

I think in this case... the game shows as MMO, it doesn't act like it. Even if you took away the PVP end of it, there's just very little social interactivity and it's saddening when the game's pitching how you can build a reputation and story for yourself among the stars but then you realize there's no one there.

The definition of MMO;

So even if everyone were playing Solo, it would still be an MMO as it doesn't say anything about people being able to directly interact with each other.

(and yes, I hate this, I hate they put the MMO tag on Elite: Dangerous and I think despite the definition the term "MMO" means something completely different to the layperson)

 

[Jockey79]

The flak seems to be generated by those who can't accept that no-one needs to play with them to affect the galaxy that we all share, which means that PvP* (which may be a major reason why some players are attracted to the game) is an optional extra - there seems to be an assumption that the game is "wrong" for not forcing players to play with them and should be changed to suit their preference.

*: in-the-same-instance PvP, not "asynchronous indirect competition between players affecting mode shared game features driven by PvE actions"

This has been the crux of the issue since it was explained in the Kickstarter that direct PvP would be optional.

A small subset of players have been throwing a tantrum ever since, including giving predictions about how long the game would last without forced PvP.
It's quite rewarding to see the game not only lasted longer than their predictions but lasted longer than them as well

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

how long the game would last

Didn't you get the memo? Game is dead for years now .

 

[enonymous]

If they just could add bots to it, it would help revive the mode i think and be more opportunities for PvP since if people knew they could get a game at any time, with bots or players, they might jump in.

I would never play the main game. All of my time would be in cqc.

I haven't been in an SRV in literally years; but it's a blast in VR. SRV CQC would be something else that would take a lot of my time.

 

[ꝁestrel]

Who remembers Salomé? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

 

[ꝁestrel]

FO'76 did have unrestricted PvP to start with and resulted in the outcome you describe.

New World too.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Who remembers Salomé? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Loads of preparation and gatekeeping by "organisers" for a 90 minute run that predictably ended in betrayal - and that most players missed completely.

 

[ꝁestrel]

Loads of preparation and gatekeeping by "organisers" for a 90 minute run that predictably ended in betrayal - and that most players missed completely.

It was a microcosm of unrestricted organic PvP.

Attackers have an overwhelming advantage because they choose when the fight happens.
Eve Online tried to solve this problem with a thing called vulnerability states. Let's say you and your friends own a big starbase that contains all of your high value items. In order to destroy the starbase my group needs to perform an initial attack on it. If the attack succeeds (it's usually uncontested for obvious reasons) then the starbase becomes invulnerable for a few days. Only when the invulnerability wears off can my group complete the attack and loot the contents inside. This gives the defenders a chance to mobilize and sets a specific time for the battle to occur.

Only a tiny portion of the participants get to enjoy the activity for any meaningful amount of time.
Star Citizen does have large scale organic space battles occasionally. Typically this happens when two PvP groups happen to be online at the same time in large enough numbers to mobilize. Mobilization still takes multiple hours (herding cats) and, when the battle finally occurs, the majority of both fleets are dead within the first 30 seconds. People can respawn which is basically more waiting. When the respawned players reinforce the same thing happens; dead in 30 seconds or less.

There other aspects that I won't go into (but can if you want):

• Zerging is and always will be the meta. Skilled pilots are hard to find and train. Easier to organize 20x less experienced pilots.
• Exploiting the game is a race to the bottom; everyone does it because everyone else does. Everyone wants to win at all costs.
• Fleet ship diversity is non existent. A game could have 50 combat capable ships and only 1-3 ships will ever make an appearance.

 

[Venan]

The definition of MMO;



So even if everyone were playing Solo, it would still be an MMO as it doesn't say anything about people being able to directly interact with each other.

(and yes, I hate this, I hate they put the MMO tag on Elite: Dangerous and I think despite the definition the term "MMO" means something completely different to the layperson)

I think that definition is missing some subtext because no one's playing with a very large amount of players.... they're playing solo with a game that simulates what other players do. Connectivity of data =/= multiplayer and we both know this is semantics with that lol.



It really feels like the discussion is still focussed on PVP and open world exclusivity when in the end the thread title is still about PP and no one's really addressing the fact that PP just doesn't have good meaning or value in the grand scheme. I don't think PVP is the only solution here to this and if anything is once again just something that should be an option that is reinforced through PP2.0


Also as much as I want to see PVP and open PVP changes so there's value to protecting others, playing with others, making decisions that are impactful...

Source: https://youtu.be/pbwy-XP_FbM?si=X-yYJMAgQpbk_Fj2



They gave their answer in this some time ago. Whether they're willing to go back on it or not is still up to them I guess because our word certainly doesn't matter. Also would like to note this isn't me making fun of the devs as I didn't make this video, but it shows some evidence that PVP is on the backburner.

Yup ive actually been on this thread a while now

O7

Then in my previous comments you understand this is no longer specifically about PVP and the thread topic is in regards to PP2.0 having meaning. Let's proceed from there and keep our focus on something that matters since you have shown you don't have care for the PVP end.