To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?

[Navigare Necesse Est]

It works pretty well in powerplay, from my couple of years' experience, even with normal limitations around instancing. But only if both sides are in open, exposed to the same risks, otherwise it's pretty limp and leads to bad feeling between sides.

Yes, surprise surprise: PvP works well when it's PvP. Wow, look at this PvP! It's really PvP!!! Whoohoo. Holy grail what a revelation this is. No one ever knew this! I don't know, but I play games for some 30 years now. Back then we used to hotseat but this concept isn't really new.

Still doesn't work with PvE players.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Given the INARA stats, I doubt that any game feature is likely to be made Open only - as Frontier stand to annoy far more players than they would stand to please.

There are so many knobs to tune (e.g. first 1000 merits in any mode, move modules out of PP), that you could engineer it to not significantly annoy many people. In a feature no-one likes you have little to lose anyway. Particularly given I would confidently assert that most merits in all of PP are earnt by players who do it in open and avoid blocking opponents as a matter of principle. It does get "spoiled" though in some key crux moments where players kn certain groups are too easily tempted to sacrifice principles for a win. Fundamentally for me it's about aligning cultures across groups better in order to serve game balance between those groups.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In a feature no-one likes you have little to lose anyway.

That's for Frontier to decide whether they risk finding out, or not as the case may be.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Yes, surprise surprise: PvP works well when it's PvP. Wow, look at this PvP! It's really PvP!!! Whoohoo. Holy grail what a revelation this is. No one ever knew this! I don't know, but I play games for some 30 years now. Back then we used to hotseat but this concept isn't really new.

Still doesn't work with PvE players.

Err, you do know powerplay is moved through PvE actions right? If not then maybe wait another 30 years before "contributing".

The point is that the PvE is realtively dull and repetitive until PvP's ability to impact its execution comes into play as a real possibility. To a lesser extent also true of co-op's opposite impact on the execution of PvE tasks.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

That's for Frontier to decide whether they risk finding out, or not as the case may be.

Yep, but risks have had a habit of coming home hard and forcing decisions over the last year. I do think there are ways of minimising the projectedly negatively viewed impacts while keeping the benefits to some unique gameplay in such changes though.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yep, but risks have had a habit of coming home hard and forcing decisions over the last year.

The main one would seem to be down to hardware limitations on old console platforms which preclude Odyssey release on those platforms. Whether or not one or more game features might be retroactively PvP-gated to Open only faces no such brick wall.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Err, you do know powerplay is moved through PvE actions right? If not then maybe wait another 30 years before "contributing".

The point is that the PvE is realtively dull and repetitive until PvP's ability to impact its execution comes into play as a real possibility. To a lesser extent also true of co-op's opposite impact on the execution of PvE tasks.

I know. And I lied - it's actually 40 years. And fir that tome PvP almosr always had PvE elements.

Still doesnt make a PvE player want to participate. What a surprise this is today.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

The main one would seem to be down to hardware limitations on old console platforms which preclude Odyssey release on those platforms. Whether or not one or more game features might be retroactively PvP-gated to Open only faces no such brick wall.

I always think of baby stair gates when you say that now. Although I do like the wall/gate thing going on. Sorry, off topic.

The brick wall, or rather sapper's tunnel maybe, is engagement. You want more players doing more stuff, keeping the game afloat, now more than usual, perhaps. There tend to be two broad complaints about powerplay from those who dismiss it as not worth the bother:
"It's garbage, remove/radically overhaul it."
and
"The PvE is a bit basic, but it's a great strategic/tactical team conflict mechanic, until you realise your opponents are cheesing the whole thing in solo/PG, beyond what can be explained by instancing limitations."

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I know. And I lied - it's actually 40 years. And fir that tome PvP almosr always had PvE elements.

Still doesnt make a PvE player want to participate. What a surprise this is today.

Well all I said was that the synergy between the PvE and PvP elements works great for those participating in it currently . I can only speak about my neighbourhood of Imp vs. Fed PP, but I feel it applies broadly. It's let down by the ability to break thay synergy using closed modes.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

I don't believe there's a specific responsability for only one of the sides... flippling the coin, one can argue about the "I want to haul goods in my shieldless T9" statement as well. I mean, besides the engineered combat ships have obviously superior fire power vs. hauling ships, there are wayouts in the game allowing non-combat ships to avoid such "annoyance".

I tried the shieldless hauler thing back when I was in the T6. Hated every trip.
In the T9 I have top end bulkheads, boosted biweaves and armament.
It's not up to PVP but it nets a nice side income from bounties.

 

[Rebel Yell]

The point is that the PvE is realtively dull and repetitive until PvP's ability to impact its execution comes into play as a real possibility. To a lesser extent also true of co-op's opposite impact on the execution of PvE tasks.

Choosing solo/PG just sets to 0% any chance to both sides of the interaction coin... opposition and co-operation.

Personally, I like to log on the game thinking "let's see who's around here or there..." and then travelling around looking for folks. And most of times (9 out of 10) is not for kaboomin' their ships. I can't even turn on the console/PC thinking that chance to see some one is 0%.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The brick wall, or rather sapper's tunnel maybe, is engagement. You want more players doing more stuff, keeping the game afloat, now more than usual, perhaps.

Indeed - in which case going out of ones way to knowingly annoy significant portion of the majority of the player-base is unlikely to be a rational way forward.

There tend to be two broad complaints about powerplay from those who dismiss it as not worth the bother:
"It's garbage, remove/radically overhaul it."
and
"The PvE is a bit basic, but it's a great strategic/tactical team conflict mechanic, until you realise your opponents are cheesing the whole thing in solo/PG, beyond what can be explained by instancing limitations."

The second seems to be a complaint from a relatively small minority of players, i.e. those who engage in PvP.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Well all I said was that the synergy between the PvE and PvP elements works great for those participating in it currently . I can only speak about my neighbourhood of Imp vs. Fed PP, but I feel it applies broadly. It's let down by the ability to break thay synergy using closed modes.

Maybe ED should have been designed as a PvP game then. I wonder how good that would have sold then.
You only speak for PvP and maybe even make good points. They just dont matter for ED. This discussion doesn't matter. All that matters is that devs stop making the same mistakes in MP design over and over again.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Maybe ED should have been designed as a PvP game then. I wonder how good that would have sold then.

We can't be sure that it would have met its funding goal on Kickstarter if it had been pitched as a PvP game.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

We can't be sure that it would have met its funding goal on Kickstarter if it had been pitched as a PvP game.

And that is the crux, isnt it? Marketing promised the impossible. The modes are likely the best solution to the conundrum. And 10 years later the players still dont get it.
It's good to have ideas to improve - in the next game. You cant break the back of a current game and expect it to still work.

 

[Pyrii]

Yeah I still play solo or closed group just to avoid the trolls in open. If there was a PvE-only mode, I'd probably play open more. I miss Mobius PvE and there doesn't seem to be a current alternative sadly. I've played too many open games where I just got ganked by people exploiting mechanics or just general trolling that it ruins immersion imo. I'd prefer a PvP toggle so that commanders can engage in it without consequences against eachother etc.

I miss seeing players flying around, but I just have to stick to solo for my own sanity.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Tthe consequence for you in ED is literally zero, since your CMDR can never die - which you very much can IRL where a certain (negligible, but very much real) percentage of drivers are actively trying to crash you, and still you are willing to take the risk.

Well consequences for me aren't zero. If my rebuy would be zero, and no fines for failed missions, well then of course gank me, I would not care.

 

[Brrokk]

Yeah I still play solo or closed group just to avoid the trolls in open. If there was a PvE-only mode, I'd probably play open more. I miss Mobius PvE and there doesn't seem to be a current alternative sadly. I've played too many open games where I just got ganked by people exploiting mechanics or just general trolling that it ruins immersion imo. I'd prefer a PvP toggle so that commanders can engage in it without consequences against eachother etc.

I miss seeing players flying around, but I just have to stick to solo for my own sanity.

Mobius PvE still exists. You have to choose between Eurasia or US group to join now.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Indeed - in which case going out of ones way to knowingly annoy significant portion of the majority of the player-base is unlikely to be a rational way forward.


The second seems to be a complaint from a relatively small minority of players, i.e. those who engage in PvP.

I'm specifically talking about powerplay, where as I've said, the majority of significant merit earners are comfortable with the PvE/PvP synergy that arises in the feature. And I've also suggested that I think even those few that would be slightly annoyed (not enough to quit in numbers I'm certain) could easily find that annoyance largely mitigated by some simple design choices. I'll leave it at that.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Maybe ED should have been designed as a PvP game then. I wonder how good that would have sold then.
You only speak for PvP and maybe even make good points. They just dont matter for ED. This discussion doesn't matter. All that matters is that devs stop making the same mistakes in MP design over and over again.

You talk like all games/features are the same. Powerplay is fairly self-evidently, to most who engage in it, a PvP-promoting feature, while using PvE as the substrate driving that PvP. So that's "good". Given powerplay is part of the game ED, I don't really follow your logic (for want of a better word). This discussion doesn't matter, there we might agree!