The Open v Solo v Groups thread

But if you are unopposed in PP due to your instancing isn't that like cheating then ?
PP in open is no guarantee that you will meet other players so therefore it's like PG or even worse solo (lol) ?
Now if open was truly open where all people in open met each other then the argument could be used but until such everyone's open is very much limited to their instance so really a private or solo ?
I fly in open
 
"PowerPlay 2.0 in general to be fun and engaging enough for more of the general player base to want to join in."

Would the general player base (I am thinking of those that want to engage in any PvP interactions on a casual basis) have to grind the engineers/materials/modules to stand a chance of fun encounters? After all, if you do not play with a top tier PvP build, are you not in an unequal, not fun fight? Would it just be a case of build to survive and run away to avoid having to fight.

Steve
 
Would the general player base (I am thinking of those that want to engage in any PvP interactions on a casual basis) have to grind the engineers/materials/modules to stand a chance of fun encounters? After all, if you do not play with a top tier PvP build, are you not in an unequal, not fun fight? Would it just be a case of build to survive and run away to avoid having to fight.

There's the rub. All things being equal, a PvP meta-build would make mincemeat of a multi-role mission runner. If I'm in the latter, then there's no point in me thinking of fighting back. I'm fairly confident in my ability to avoid getting interdicted in the first place, and my ship will be able to easily survive long enough to jump out, but it won't have a chance to survive long enough to grind throught nine multiplicative defensive modules.

I'm hoping that PowerPlay 2.0 will work similar to BGS in terms of gameplay, which will mean that the chances are good that, for me at least, the scenario will be multi-role mission runner vs multi-role mission runner. Which means that any PvP won't be a 15 minute-long grind against insanely strong shields, but a much quicker contest between two similar ships loaded for NPCs. And in cases like that, personal skill will have a greater role to play. Those ships won't have nearly as many modules stacking defensive bonus upon bonus, which will hopefully make for a fun encounter. The difference between G3, single G5, and "full" G5 engineering isn't that great. It's when you raise that difference to the ninth power that you get such extreme nonsense.

At least, that's my hope. If not... well... as long as the PvE gameplay is still fun, I'll be happy. :)
 
Ah you see, and this is what Solo and PG players get from PvP'ers, exploit, a nasty word that, like, you know, you guys are cheating. And then they wonder why other players get a bit short with them. It's not an exploit if it's specifically allowed in the games rules and code, it's acceptable game play!
Yes, it is and it has been exploited in the past (not in the meaning of cheating, I didn't say that) to damage powers from inside (5C).
 
But if you are unopposed in PP due to your instancing isn't that like cheating then ?
PP in open is no guarantee that you will meet other players so therefore it's like PG or even worse solo (lol) ?
Now if open was truly open where all people in open met each other then the argument could be used but until such everyone's open is very much limited to their instance so really a private or solo ?
I fly in open
Constant reset of instances takes out 99% of instancing issues, when there's need to.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I've never called for solo or PG to be removed.
How about the other two common requests mentioned?
It's not a penalty if you choose not to engage in gameplay, only a self inflicted one.
It's a removal of mode choice when engaging in the content, that forms part of an existing pan-modal game feature - that in and of itself constitutes a penalty.
A penalty would be DLC or gameplay conferring an in game advantage, or items giving such an advantage locked behind a paywall.
If a bonus were given to players in one mode and not the other two then that would be equivalent to a penalty being applied to those players in the other two modes.
 
Last edited:
The difference between G3, single G5, and "full" G5 engineering isn't that great. It's when you raise that difference to the ninth power that you get such extreme nonsense.
Stacking of defensive modules was fine and dandy in vanilla when the biggest buff you could get from a booster was 20%.
I wonder how much it'd shake things up if you couldn't use two of the same blueprint on HRPs and SBs?
It'd barely effect small ships that can only fit one or two such modules anyway, but could make a pretty big difference on the 6+ utility ships.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
The fact that there's a PvE element, shouldn't be used as a justification (as it has been the case so far) to avoid open play to save one's underpants from being burnt.

Why someone who's not willing (or ready) to play in open is looking for a game activity which is been designed to encourage PvP?

It seems quite illogical...
The feature in question was consciously implemented on a pan-modal basis - of course it is PvE driven.

No player needs to justify their preference, or lack thereof, for PvP - in a game where in-the-same-instance PvP is an optional extra and not required by any game feature.
 
I, for one, do not understand this attitude. I want more people engaging in PowerPlay, not less. And more importantly, I want those people to be fun to play with, not so thoroughly unpleasant that people quit playing PowerPlay altogether.

Currently, we have a situation where the cohort of players who are not fun to play with do so in Solo/PG, because the players they most want to mess are also in solo/PG. Yes, that cohort is engaging in Fifth Column activities, but that is the fault of the rules, not the modes. Hopefully, PP 2.0 will fix this situation.

5C players are already cheating. Do you think they’d stop cheating just because Solo/PGs are unavailable to them? Especially in a game where you have to jump through hoops to get instanced with the players you care about in the first place? And of course, there’s the PvE players who have no interest in even the potential of interacting with that most troublesome cohort. They’ll also cheat to preserve gameplay they enjoy… or just quit playing altogether. That isn’t a recipe for fun IMO. It’s a recipe for frustration.

Losing players is never a good thing, whether it’s a game, server, or feature. Player Engagement leads to fixes and improvements. We have no idea how big the Power Playerbase (PPB) is, nor do we know how big the PvE-only PP population is. Every Power claims that everyone else is hiding in Solo/PG, while they bravely do their work in Open.

Perhaps the PPB is mostly made up of hypocritical liars who tell others to do as they say, not at they do. More likely, the PPB is similar to the general population, where the significant majority of which play in Open. Most likely in my opinion? The PPB in general mostly do play in Open, and instancing is simply that bad. At least, when it comes to the needs of PvP.

You want more and better PvP. I get that. You won’t get that through Open Only. You’ll just get more frustrated by the increase of combat loggers, firewall spoofers, and other unsportsmanlike players who simply aren’t fun to play with.

What you should want is a change that brings meaningful PvP gameplay. Gameplay that isn’t PvE, but rewarding enough that PvP-adjacent players like me will be tempted to engage in it, vs the status quo where it’s better not to engage at all. What you should want is a change in the instancing rules to more heavily weigh those pledged to a Power with each other, as opposed to the current priorities of the status quo: friends first, connectivity second, and PowerPlay not at all.

But most of all, what you should want is for PowerPlay 2.0 in general to be fun and engaging enough for more of the general player base to want to join in. That’s how you get fixes and improvements in the future. And that's how you get a larger player-base, which in turn leads to more and better PvP. Not by forcing everyone into Open, but by making PvP so tempting to the general population that only the most hard-core of PvE players will stay in Solo/PG, and a population in Open that is PvP savy enough to frustrate the desires of those who only play to ruin the gameplay of others.
There's too much overlap of concepts... the point is that open doesn't mean PvP, but PvP requires (unless same PG) open play.

To me, as leader of one of the 11 powers, sounds terrible and cringy setting up an order to attack/undermine an enemy [power/PMF] and have to rely on fellow players who are risking 0% to meet any enemy players' direct opposition.

Nope, that's a no go for me...

Regarding 5C, let's see what happens with PP 2.0 I can only say that at the moment is one of the issues we have to deal with.
 
Last edited:
Constant reset of instances takes out 99% of instancing issues, when there's need to.
But who would reset if its all NPC ?
And how would it be applied ? Ahhh you had no humans in your instance so therefore the results in your effort will be reduced ?
The problem is that PP has been multi group ( solo Pg and open) that to change it now to open only would cause more hassle ? If at the begining it was open it may have been different .
 
That would be awesome!

 
How about the other two common requests mentioned?

It's a removal of mode choice when engaging in the content, that forms part of an existing pan-modal game feature - that in and of itself constitutes a penalty.

If a bonus were given to players in one mode and not the other two then that would be equivalent to a penalty being applied to those players in the other two modes.

You'll have to remind me of the apparently common other requests.

Do you mean NPCs offering no resistance whatsoever to an experienced pilot in solo for those undertaking PP activities?

Ok, Gedankenexperiment time - let's assume PP is kept exactly the same, except for one entirely new type of activity that has to be done in Open. How do you view this?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
You'll have to remind me of the apparently common other requests.
It's still in the post, immediately after the the part that mentioned proposals to remove Solo and Private Groups.
Do you mean NPCs offering no resistance whatsoever to an experienced pilot in solo for those undertaking PP activities?
The game is not just for experienced pilots. That said, NPCs in Powerplay do lack in terms of challenge.
Ok, Gedankenexperiment time - let's assume PP is kept exactly the same, except for one entirely new type of activity that has to be done in Open. How do you view this?
If the new activity was contributory to the feature to which it was added, but not dominant*, then I doubt there would be much reasonable resistance to it.

*: edited to clarify: not automatically dominant just because some players in Open did it. Obviously if the majority of participants were engaged in the new activity it would be unreasonable for them not to "win".
 
Last edited:
As close to agreement as we're likely to get this week.

Ultimately, my view is that however it is amended it should not matter which mode you are in - there should be a PP rewards based on improvements to gameplay and challenge, rather than mode-locking.

We've seen over the last 10 years though, the difficulty with that.
 
But who would reset if its all NPC ?
And how would it be applied ? Ahhh you had no humans in your instance so therefore the results in your effort will be reduced ?

When doing PP activities in enemy territories we reset instancing every 10-15mins, it does magic.

The problem is that PP has been multi group ( solo Pg and open) that to change it now to open only would cause more hassle ? If at the begining it was open it may have been different .
May be open play becomes -> Powerplay Open Mode :D ...we have always played in open, so I don't know 🙏 you should ask to those powers which don't play in open.
 
That's not necessarly bad... imho, if that happens today would be simply amazing!!! :ROFLMAO:
I thought the idea, which we both wanted, was to get more folks into PP so that Fdev thought it worth while investing time, good luck with that if it becomes Open only.

O7
 
To me, as leader of one of the 11 powers, sounds terrible and cringy setting up an order to attack/undermine an enemy [power/PMF] and have to rely on fellow players who are risking 0% to meet any enemy players' direct opposition.

It sound's "cringy" to have more players enjoy PowerPlay, even if they do it in Solo/PG? Compared to dealing with an increase of combat logging and other unsportsmanlike behavior???

Okay, then...
 
Back
Top Bottom