Modes Why does PvP in open even exist ???

[Marra Morgan]

The thing is here, you're assigning the meaning to PvP not Frontier (ergo, FD made it meaningless).
Which is fine and basically within the scope of the game for you to find joy and meaning with your actions.

Yep. Fine with me.

I think Frontier are far too scared of trying to balance PvP and deal with possible cheats/exploits

I don't think that's the case at all. They're a professional software development company - you don't not do things because you're "scared" or "terrified" - you approach them as challenges, make impact analysis, costs vs benefits and risk assessments, and from those make a business decision.

From the outset, FDev have kept PvP as an optional element to the game, and their decisions to date reflect that - not because of fear of people cheating, but because it's sticking to the design brief.

 

[Mouse]

Yep. Fine with me.



I don't think that's the case at all. They're a professional software development company - you don't not do things because you're "scared" or "terrified" - you approach them as challenges, make impact analysis, costs vs benefits and risk assessments, and from those make a business decision.

From the outset, FDev have kept PvP as an optional element to the game, and their decisions to date reflect that - not because of fear of people cheating, but because it's sticking to the design brief.

My confusion with that is I've heard it was said that Power Play was supposed to help invigorate PVP and people claim it was for PVP. Yet when you look at it. It is the same as the rest of the game PVP wise... So to me if Power Play was intended for PVP, they dropped the ball on it because they made it a PVE mini-game.

 

[Marra Morgan]

My confusion with that is I've heard it was said that Power Play was supposed to help invigorate PVP and people claim it was for PVP. Yet when you look at it. It is the same as the rest of the game PVP wise... So to me if Power Play was intended for PVP, they dropped the ball on it because they made it a PVE mini-game.

Yep, there is evidently some jumbled up thinking in the original Powerplay design. The proposals to improve Powerplay are much more focused and coherent, imo.

I think angling Powerplay towards PvP is fine - it's still an entirely optional part of the game.

 

[Goose4291]

My confusion with that is I've heard it was said that Power Play was supposed to help invigorate PVP and people claim it was for PVP. Yet when you look at it. It is the same as the rest of the game PVP wise... So to me if Power Play was intended for PVP, they dropped the ball on it because they made it a PVE mini-game.

It's important to remember though it's not in quite the same shape as it was at release, as you used to get rewarded with merits for killing players pledged to rival powers.

Like I keep saying in an almost Maynard-Bot like fashion (Jesus, I hope he hasnt assimiliated me into the collective) I think their lack of experience in MP games is where it went wrong with regards to the implementation of powerplay, and Sandro's proposals were steps to redress those issues.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's important to remember though it's not in quite the same shape as it was at release, as you used to get rewarded with merits for killing players pledged to rival powers.

I'd forgotten that little nugget - it would support the contention that if players can collude, they will - which is why I suspect that merits for player destruction were removed.

 

[Rat Catcher]

PvP exists in Open because it was part of the ED remit (look at the 'advertising' for the game) and therein lies the reason. I have no issue with PvP existing in Open as I have the 'safety' of PG or Solo to avoid unwanted interaction with others.
If the communication between modes (which I think was the last thing in beta to appear - but may have misunderstood the notes on it, I was a long way from the bubble) will be possible in C4 then it may make non-Open play feel less anti-social...

I go play CG's in Open sometimes, just to give the PvP'ers an easy target and will invariably be destroyed without firing a shot (usually as I travel with no guns or maybe a size 1 laser) a few times before I get bored, but Open at a CG is a bit like having a death wish for folk like me - but it is still a kind of fun so I'm not bleating

I'd play much more often in Open if there was a PvP 'switch' but am not too bothered otherwise, PG Mobius is fine too.

 

[Goose4291]

I'd forgotten that little nugget - it would support the contention that if players can collude, they will - which is why I suspect that merits for player destruction were removed.

If they did, it would have been wholly against the interests of 'exploiters' using such a trick, because its not only quicker and just as safe to farm the merits conventionally, doing so even just in a wing of two increased the speed and safety of doing it massively with no credit loss to a cmdr.

 

[Dietger]

.... which can only take place after the first stage - each player's "fundamental liberty" to play in whichever game mode they choose - as we all have to choose a game mode before entering the game (subject to being able to play in multi-player at all)

.


I agree here. Three modes, your choice.

PvP cannot exist without other players - and those other players don't have to play in a game mode where it is possible. Therefore it can be argued that, by choosing to play in Open, players *are*, in some way, co-operating with regard to PvP.

There is no time like the present. Since we all are playing one mode at a time, only live players are of the matter, of course of the mode your in, in our case its Open, the All-group.

The only way to remove a "griefing&ganking" mechanic would be to remove PvP entirely from the multi-player game or make the game single player (neither of which is remotely likely to happen, in my opinion) - as the oft requested "give PvP *meaning*" could not stop those intent on "griefing&ganking" from continuing to do so as and when they chose to.

Here as well, I am of the same opinion. There is no way of stopping griefers and gankers, player intended to ruin your play, in any PvP game. However, player falsely accusing others of being "gankers or griefers" can be "fixed", fixed only on the "victims" side. Here is the choice you made of importance, indeed.

Again to reiterate, Open as the choice for many and the most players(Frontier), sports a competition absolutely emergent, player driven through and through, yet impotent beside and against play-core- mechanics. Which is the point I address and under question here.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Here as well, I am of the same opinion. There is no way of stopping griefers and gankers, player intended to ruin your play, in any PvP game. However, player falsely accusing others of being "gankers or griefers" can be "fixed", fixed only on the "victims" side. Here is the choice you made of importance, indeed.

Whether the claims of "ganking" and "griefing" are accurate, or not, would require an uncontested definition (especially of the latter term) for the encounters to be compared against in a bid to determine whether such claims were false or true. There is no universally agreed definition of the latter term - and likely to be little or no readily available evidence to support any investigation into such encounters (if anyone even had the time or inclination to do so).

Again to reiterate, Open as the choice for many and the most players(Frontier), sports a competition absolutely emergent, player driven through and through, yet impotent beside and against play-core- mechanics. Which is the point I address and under question here.

Open may host the most players (as Sandro has indicated, while at the same time acknowledging that both Solo and Private Groups enjoy "significant" populations), however another Dev has indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP (regardless of game mode).

Open is not "special" - it's just another matchmaking filter (in addition to those for Solo and Private Groups) - as such, it no more "owns" the game than either of the other two game modes (as evidenced by the fact that all players, regardless of game mode, affect the single shared galaxy state).

 

[Dietger]

*stands on head, reading the post*

[noob]

You really don’t get it, do you?

There is little I do not understand. Certainly nothing in Elite falls under this category.

It is having the freedom, or “liberty” if you prefer, to choose who we play with, on a session by session basis, free from coercion, that has allowed Open to thrive, unlike other freeform PvP games I’ve played in the past. It neatly deprives the typical ”griefer” of the things they need: a captive audience, a stage to play upon, and an easy way to cause “grief.”

Where is your argument?
Your speculations about the success of Open is entirely yours. Whether or not a PvP game you ever played was dead because of PvP, is again speculative and beside the point. Shall I explicate? I shall not.

If anything, its likely to be it's omni present liberty which drives more and more players into Open.

Since We do play only one mode at a time, only present players matter. Those chose to play Open. Any other mode is not of my concern, nore if anyone/someone is subject to PvP in Open.

Grief is entirely subjective.

So no mode other then the chosen one, in our case Open, is of a matter. My argument, PvP lags the potence(in Open) against PvE or MP-PvE.

Simpls.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So no mode other then the chosen one, in our case Open, is of a matter. My argument, PvP lags the potence(in Open) against PvE or MP-PvE.

While other modes may not matter to some, the fact that the Developer has stated that "all play modes are equally valid choices" (in their opinion) suggests that players in all game modes matter to them.

The developers did not design the game around PvP - that much is abundantly clear, in my opinion - rather it offers players so inclined the opportunity to engage in it while playing a game that does not require any player to directly interact with another player (unless they wish to, of course - and even then, only if they encounter one or more players - the galaxy is *big*, after all).

 

[Dietger]

Whether the claims of "ganking" and "griefing" are accurate, or not, would require an uncontested definition (especially of the latter term) for the encounters to be compared against in a bid to determine whether such claims were false or true. There is no universally agreed definition of the latter term - and likely to be little or no readily available evidence to support any investigation into such encounters (if anyone even had the time or inclination to do so).



Open may host the most players (as Sandro has indicated, while at the same time acknowledging that both Solo and Private Groups enjoy "significant" populations), however another Dev has indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP (regardless of game mode).

Open is not "special" - it's just another matchmaking filter (in addition to those for Solo and Private Groups) - as such, it no more "owns" the game than either of the other two game modes (as evidenced by the fact that all players, regardless of game mode, affect the single shared galaxy state).

I am debating, only, whether or not PvP in Open should be set more into focus, compared against PVE. In this light only Open is of a causal matter here.
Neither are technical limitations nore any other mode, you may or not may chose.
Here exclusively Open is subject within its PvP mechanic.

As I ever said, ganking and griefing is completely subjective, subject to the accuser.
Under the light of Frontiers none intervention policy, Open is therefor completely "free" of it, the cases falling under the C&P rules. No restrictions.

Sammarco claimed: Open being the biggest chunk of Elite, by a significant margin, if I remember correct.

Again Why PvP even is existing in Open but arguably less potent than any other strait, worsened by the coexistence of separate instances and modes, is under question.
Neither are modes, instancing or player choices.

For the matter at hand, they are insignificant.

 

[Milarwen]

While other modes may not matter to some, the fact that the Developer has stated that "all play modes are equally valid choices" (in their opinion) suggests that players in all game modes matter to them.

The developers did not design the game around PvP - that much is abundantly clear, in my opinion - rather it offers players so inclined the opportunity to engage in it while playing a game that does not require any player to directly interact with another player (unless they wish to, of course - and even then, only if they encounter one or more players - the galaxy is *big*, after all).

I don't actively participate in pvp, but I play in open. I want to encourage players to target me for valid reasons, like pirates and commanders of rival factions. I like the danger, but pure griefing is something I would never participate in myself. I don't think taking away the ability to grief is the right answer either but perhaps the penalty for griefing should be more severe, like it would in real life. I'm not talking about ganking, as in one uber ship against a poorly equipped one but rather those that attack just to cause misery to other players for no apparent reason other than to amuse themselves.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I am debating, only, whether or not PvP in Open should be set more into focus, compared against PVE. In this light only Open is of a causal matter here.
Neither are technical limitations nore any other mode, you may or not may chose.
Here exclusively Open is subject within its PvP mechanic.

The PvP mechanics are not exclusive to Open....

As I ever said, ganking and griefing is completely subjective, subject to the accuser.
Under the light of Frontiers none intervention policy, Open is therefor completely "free" of it, the cases falling under the C&P rules. No restrictions.

Only Frontier (and any players "dealt with" for it, of course, if any) know whether any players have fallen foul of the ToS with regard to that.

Sammarco claimed: Open being the biggest chunk of Elite, by a significant margin, if I remember correct.

That he did - although he clearly stated that both Solo and Private Groups have "significant" populations. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52kOyADxK5E&feature=youtu.be&t=51m50s

Again Why PvP even is existing in Open but arguably less potent than any other strait, worsened by the coexistence of separate instances and modes, is under question.
Neither are modes, instancing or player choices.

For the matter at hand, they are insignificant.

Back to the start then - PvP exists in Open (and Private Groups, of course) simply because it is not prohibited, i.e. players can choose to shoot at anything that they encounter. If PvP is worsened by the existence of the other two game modes then that is probably due to potential targets being able to choose not to play among those who wish to engage them in PvP - and everyone has a free choice of which game mode they play in (with the now standard caveat regarding console players without premium platform access only being able to play in Solo) - players are not forced to play with other players.

The game is not designed to accommodate all players in a single shard either - and relies on players' mutual P2P connections for multi-player to function.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52kOyADxK5E&feature=youtu.be&t=51m50s

That must be one of my favourite quotes. "Just to put a misconception to rest"

And replace that by "More people play in Open than the other modes, by a significant margin." Which can be interpreted as 40% play in open, 30% solo, 30% PG, to 60% play in Open, the other 40% in other modes.

I wonder .... which misconception was put to rest?

 

[Jockey79]

Sammarco claimed: Open being the biggest chunk of Elite, by a significant margin, if I remember correct.

"More people play in Open than the other modes, by a significant margin." - S. Sammarco

However;

"majority of players don't get involved in PvP" - M. Allen

On PvP vs PvE
We listen to both sides. While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP. A few changes here are more focused on one or the other (torpedoes have no real place in PvE at the moment for starters), but overall I think they promote variety of loadouts in both styles of play, and will make both more fun. On a personal note: I play more or less entirely in PvE, so if anything my bias in favour of that .

That's a lot of PvE going on in Open Mode then

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

That must be one of my favourite quotes. "Just to put a misconception to rest"

And replace that by "More people play in Open than the other modes, by a significant margin." Which can be interpreted as 40% play in open, 30% solo, 30% PG, to 60% play in Open, the other 40% in other modes.

I wonder .... which misconception was put to rest?

One could reasonably extrapolate off of the infamous reddit survey, which was roughly 50/25/25.

What is the point?
That most people are fine with open as it stands whether they play PVE or PVP?
Yes, that part is self evident.

 

[Dietger]

That must be one of my favourite quotes. "Just to put a misconception to rest"

And replace that by "More people play in Open than the other modes, by a significant margin." Which can be interpreted as 40% play in open, 30% solo, 30% PG, to 60% play in Open, the other 40% in other modes.

I wonder .... which misconception was put to rest?

Open is dying.
A lot of vocal PvEers wanted to know that back then.
Including those simmering in the Hotel,
Greetings Ziggy

 

[Dietger]

The PvP mechanics are not exclusive to Open....

Not of a matter here.

Only Frontier (and any players "dealt with" for it, of course, if any) know whether any players have fallen foul of the ToS with regard to that.

See above.

That he did - although he clearly stated that both Solo and Private Groups have "significant" populations. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52kOyADxK5E&feature=youtu.be&t=51m50s

Thank you for the link R. Maynard

Back to the start then - PvP exists in Open (and Private Groups, of course) simply because it is not prohibited, i.e. players can choose to shoot at anything that they encounter. If PvP is worsened by the existence of the other two game modes then that is probably due to potential targets being able to choose not to play among those who wish to engage them in PvP - and everyone has a free choice of which game mode they play in (with the now standard caveat regarding console players without premium platform access only being able to play in Solo) - players are not forced to play with other players.

Back to the start yes:

Again Why PvP is existing in Open but arguably less potent than any other strait ....of course only Frontier decides the matter, which they did a long time ago.
However, there is no reason to dwarf PVP even more beside the technical stuff and beyond it.
Players could still choose whether or not to PVP even if it was considerable more effective by design and participation encouraged by way of attractive rewards.

The game is not designed to accommodate all players in a single shard either - and relies on players' mutual P2P connections for multi-player to function.

All addressed above.

 

[Mouse]

Open is dying.
A lot of vocal PvEers wanted to know that back then.
Including those simmering in the Hotel,
Greetings Ziggy

How is Open "dying"?

Because I keep seeing post after post talking about how full it is...