Powerplay 2.0 “Open” Rewards

Ragnascot

Ragnascot
I support open only for the following reasons

  • Allows us to counter scripted bot accounts
  • Effective Tactics (blockades, smuggling)
  • Emergent Gameplay
  • Player Progression
  • Brings “life” to the game
  • Encourages multiplayer


There may be valid arguments against open only, so i’d like to mention some ideas towards a compromise (in the hope it inspires better ones)



Open only rewards

  • Arx
  • Leaderboard eligibility
  • Increased influence per action
  • Some form of vanity award / recognition


Probably the cleanest way to get feedback would be a vote, like with ship transfer times.



If you’re looking for loyalty reward ideas, I think engineered modules or bare bones (powerplay) ships would be cool, maybe leading towards a pre build or previous CG reward modules we never got a chance to revisit



Some unrealistic ideas include a reverse engineered thargoid ship developed through extended control of an important research system, or progress our ability to enlist NPCs help outside of the fighter bay…

Since recent troubles I’m really enjoying the comeback vibes with Frontier Unlocked and new content.

So many of us love the game and want to see you succeed, we just disagree how it should be done. Great effort so far, Fdev o7
 

DemiserofD

D
I would agree with open only PP 2.0 with a few stipulations. First and foremost being, it needs to be more complicated than straight up murder. There is nothing entertaining about a fully engineered PVP ship killing a ship optimized for something besides PVP. By contrast, if they need to steal things from you, or kill some sort of NPC Target while you defend it, that's a different matter entirely.

However, I still hold that given the network architecture of elite, the best solution is to have dedicated PVP areas that are open only, while leaving the majority of the non-combat focused stuff wherever players want to use it.
 

[VR] Bulbulunufus

[VR] Bulbulunufus
If the feature were balanced across modes, open play wouldn't be imperative. But the reveal today contained some glaring potential for exploits that could be leveraged in PG. It's 101 stuff and I'm waiting for them to silence the concerns that any thinking gamer would spot straight away. And especially those used to PP1.0 having been a bonfire of exploits at key moments.

Meanwhile, the more "exciting" the gameplay they're selling, the more that closed modes become an easy ride, incentivising their use when things are competitive. Don't talk about danger and dogfights when someone can just as easily AFK the whole undermining thing in PG or sleep at the wheel hauling in solo for a better result.
 

Ferox Worgen

Ferox Worgen
I have to agree with the changes they are making. I have to say both PP 2.0 and BGS should be in open only as for their affects on the system/galactic landscape. A lot of us who play either/both of the mechanics know the headache it is to fight against players who are not in Open. In regards to PP 2.0 there should be away for PG/solo players to at least get the rewards.
 

DemiserofD

D
Mrc_NorthEast said:
But how would Open Only work with block lists the way they are? Cmdr names on both sides are known
Click to expand...

It wouldn't. Something will have to give. This is part of why I think the ideal solution is dedicated PVP zones. You enter the PVP zone, you accept everyone who is there. And of course, the PVP Zone will be open only. Everywhere else would function normally.

That's just the method that makes the most sense, given the Network framework we have to work with.

Honestly, I really don't expect what people expect to be able to do against some of these new methods. For example, it seems as if exploration will now count. Are you going to go out and hunt down explorers? Guard every single station every single hour of every single day?
 

EddDoloroso

E
William J Smith said:
I would leave PP as is except for one change

Flying in open doubles your rewards
Eg 700 forts on your T9 becomes 1400 merits etc etc etc

Bill
But then I'm also in favour of any pilot with a noterity of 10 can only dock in anarcy systems...
Click to expand...
It may sound like a good idea but it doesn't solve the major problem that is: people playing in Solo influencing people playing in Open. That's the root of the problem. If you solve it, the problem disappears. Using multipliers for rewards only targets the symptoms of the problem, not the root.

I also agree with the notoriety thing. People in this forum seem to refer to it as "Crime and punishment". I totally agree. Pirates, gankers and things like that shouldn't be welcome on areas that have security. They may try to enter but the security ships should attack them and an alert should sound for players in the system.
 

Ceres_O7

Ceres_O7
DemiserofD said:
It wouldn't. Something will have to give. This is part of why I think the ideal solution is dedicated PVP zones. You enter the PVP zone, you accept everyone who is there. And of course, the PVP Zone will be open only. Everywhere else would function normally.
Click to expand...
It's definitely a tough one, cos blocks can be used for stuff other than just hiding from opponents. Like, I've seen CMDRs harass players with female avatars in chat before (not often! Most players are actually really nice), but that kinda stuff is worthy of a block (if not other action from fdev but, y'know, they aren't the best at taking action on accounts as it is)

Maybe if they stepped up their moderation on reports, or at the very least made it exceptionally clear when jumping to a contested PP system that "block lists are ignored here, enter at your own risk", idk
 

Danieros

D
The only game feature that relied on only directly fighting other players didn't end up very well (CQC).

I hope they don't try to limit PP2 to a single game mode, and that's not even considering all the ways such a restriction won't really be practical as this isn't a single shard like EVE Online but rather multiple instances - the netcode may fail instancing, block lists, firewall port blocking, or even worse - forcing players into a scenario like the titan vents not working, and you being unable to switch mode to progress. Though I suppose one can ultimately switch between Odyssey and Horizon Open to work around it.
 
Last edited:

DemiserofD

D
EddDoloroso said:
It may sound like a good idea but it doesn't solve the major problem that is: people playing in Solo influencing people playing in Open. That's the root of the problem. If you solve it, the problem disappears. Using multipliers for rewards only targets the symptoms of the problem, not the root.

I also agree with the notoriety thing. People in this forum seem to refer to it as "Crime and punishment". I totally agree. Pirates, gankers and things like that shouldn't be welcome on areas that have security. They may try to enter but the security ships should attack them and an alert should sound for players in the system.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there will always be invisible players in this game. There are several players which, for some reason, I simply cannot instance with. It doesn't matter if we are friends, if both of our internet connections are in great shape, we simply cannot connect. Something to do with the peer-to-peer nature of the connection, and perhaps the Rivalry between our separate isps.

If we decided to pledge to rival power play factions, we still would never see each other, even if we both always played in open. I could be hauling merits to systems in their control all day long, and Not only would he be unable to see me, if he has any friends that are in his instance, they wouldn't be able to see me, either.

The only way to fix this problem is to scrap the peer-to-peer network connection format entirely, and switch over to a server-based network architecture. But servers are expensive, and would require a subscription fee for the sort of continuous play game like Elite. I certainly wouldn't pay a subscription fee for a game I already own.

That's why I think the only viable solution is specific instances in specific locations that are hosted like a server. PVP arenas, essentially.

It wouldn't make everyone happy, but I don't think there is a possible solution that does.
 

Ceres_O7

Ceres_O7
Even if players end up coincidentally being unable to instance together, I still think that's a lot better than giving players deliberate tools to avoid pushback (by going to solo). Sure there will be those who know enough about how to make them un-instanceable even in open, but I feel like that'll be a drop in the bucket compared to just clicking the menu option for Solo Play.

At the very least some kind of influence penalty should be applied in Solo and PG imo.
 

DemiserofD

D
Ceres_O7 said:
Even if players end up coincidentally being unable to instance together, I still think that's a lot better than giving players deliberate tools to avoid pushback (by going to solo). Sure there will be those who know enough about how to make them un-instanceable even in open, but I feel like that'll be a drop in the bucket compared to just clicking the menu option for Solo Play.

At the very least some kind of influence penalty should be applied in Solo and PG imo.
Click to expand...

The opposite is true, actually. Right now, things are mostly Fair. Most stuff happens in solo, but since everyone can equally contribute that way, the fight is relatively equal.

But if you force everyone into open, they will mostly counter each other out. That means the few remaining players who can't be seen will have their effect disproportionately magnified. After all, if both sides have PVP ships killing 9/10 of all trade ships before they can get there, but there is one player who can get through unhindered, they are effectively 10 times more powerful than before.

This, in turn, heavily incentivizes Network manipulation to avoid instancing with hostile players.

Pretty soon, the players who are trying to play legitimately will quit, feeling as if their effort doesn't matter. At that point, the game will be entirely dominated by the small subset of the population who never actually see anyone else.
 

Planewalker

Planewalker
DemiserofD said:
But if you force everyone into open, they will mostly counter each other out.
Click to expand...
Indeed; it could end up being counterproductive and most likely push a portion of the player base away from the game.

Elite was always about options and is one of its' core strengths. It'd be backwards to throw that out.


That being said, i see no issue with "Open Only Power Players" getting some cosmetic stuff to strut.
-the implementation or how it would be verified i can't even begin to guess at tho.
 

Ceres_O7

Ceres_O7
DemiserofD said:
But if you force everyone into open, they will mostly counter each other out. That means the few remaining players who can't be seen will have their effect disproportionately magnified. After all, if both sides have PVP ships killing 9/10 of all trade ships before they can get there, but there is one player who can get through unhindered, they are effectively 10 times more powerful than before.
Click to expand...
That implies perfect balance of attack and defence though which I think isn't likely when there are likely tens of various fronts at any given time. If every faction had evenly divided players in evenly divided timezones and were all evenly divided across systems, then I agree.

But by the nature of it taking place in space, there will be many options for players to take - if people realise there is a strong PvP force killing their traders in system A, a few might peel off to system B, or even system K, where there is no active defense, and get an advantage there. A small defending force that responds in system K might then get overwhelmed by a strong offensive PvP force from the other side.

Since the battle grounds can be chosen and changed by players I don't think this perfect stalemate is likely to occur on a large scale. It would only happen if multiple factions decide to bet everything on a single system and have evenly matched playerbases in the same timezones, and even splits of combat vs trade players.
 

DemiserofD

D
Ceres_O7 said:
That implies perfect balance of attack and defence though which I think isn't likely when there are likely tens of various fronts at any given time. If every faction had evenly divided players in evenly divided timezones and were all evenly divided across systems, then I agree.

But by the nature of it taking place in space, there will be many options for players to take - if people realise there is a strong PvP force killing their traders in system A, a few might peel off to system B, or even system K, where there is no active defense, and get an advantage there. A small defending force that responds in system K might then get overwhelmed by a strong offensive PvP force from the other side.

Since the battle grounds can be chosen and changed by players I don't think this perfect stalemate is likely to occur on a large scale. It would only happen if multiple factions decide to bet everything on a single system and have evenly matched playerbases in the same timezones, and even splits of combat vs trade players.
Click to expand...

Things actually get worse if there's not perfect balance. The weaker side will basically be unable to make ANY progress except for what they can do hidden, and will therefore be maximally incentivized to fix their connection to allow them to win.

The only time there won't be extreme pressure to cheat is if there's no pvpers on either side.

On the whole, I'd rather confine PVP to specific regions, instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom