Powerplay 2.0 “Open” Rewards

[Ferox Worgen]

Do you?
Tell me a system you're BGS defending in open and i will make it my goal to show you how much of a headache you will get for fighting against me in open
And keep it in mind, i will fly an unarmed small ship.

Let see how many times will you kill me, getting bounties and affecting your faction and system security before realizing that's not how you should do BGS

Hostile much or who hurt ya in Open play? Lol

Anyways I think ya are missing the whole point. Having PP/BGS regulated to Open play gives faction owners/supporters the chance to defend their systems, especially during wars.

That and getting bounties on oneself really isn't and issue since get those anyways when raiding or killing clean ships of another faction. Security state is easily enough to counter by turning in bounty vouchers for the faction.

Even though it is legitimate flying with report crimes on when you are actively trying to mess with a player group's BGS, it still is a cheesy move.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

I guess you don't know many Italians, it's like a taboo or maybe a meme. Like putting ketchup on your pasta.

They're clearly Americans who had an ancestor in Europe in the 19th century therefore know everything about Europe.

 

[Ragnascot]

…i will make it my goal to show you how much of a headache you will get for fighting against me in open
And keep it in mind, i will fly an unarmed small ship

Yeah tactical small ships are tough to catch. Point is, it’s something we can try counter in open. Can’t do squat against people who want to influence powerplay while operating from the safety of other modes

 

[metatheurgist]

They could, but then why say "Commanders"? I feel like they have in their heads (while designing PP2.0) this idealised image of commanders fighting hand to hand over contested systems, which probably won't happen in practice if all modes are treated equally.

No, it means destroy the guy with the alt account and zero rebuy Arx mining ship over and over and over.

 

[Jack Winter]

They're clearly Americans who had an ancestor in Europe in the 19th century therefore know everything about Europe.

We're really getting off topic..

I did somewhat study the history of pizza, but I have no idea where pineapple on pizza comes from. I suspect it to be an American thing, thus automatically seen as an abomination by most Italians. Though seeing the question asked in the context of having been interdicted made me laugh.

 

[Vedmo]

We're really getting off topic..

I did somewhat study the history of pizza, but I have no idea where pineapple on pizza comes from. I suspect it to be an American thing, thus automatically seen as an abomination by most Italians. Though seeing the question asked in the context of having been interdicted made me laugh.

Somehow Canadian bacon and pineapple became a Hawaiian Pizza over here many decades ago, probably without any input from Hawaii.

 

[PiLhEaD]

I dislike and fear change. Bring back PP1.

Or make it an ARX option?

I'll see myself out....

PS I like Hawaiian pizza....

 

[Jack Winter]

I dislike and fear change. Bring back PP1.

Or make it an ARX option?

I'll see myself out....

PS I like Hawaiian pizza....

Did you take your medications?

 

[angusmadmac1]

Hostile much or who hurt ya in Open play? Lol

Anyways I think ya are missing the whole point. Having PP/BGS regulated to Open play gives faction owners/supporters the chance to defend their systems, especially during wars.

That and getting bounties on oneself really isn't and issue since get those anyways when raiding or killing clean ships of another faction. Security state is easily enough to counter by turning in bounty vouchers for the faction.

Even though it is legitimate flying with report crimes on when you are actively trying to mess with a player group's BGS, it still is a cheesy move.

But BGS and the new PP is about how many buckets you can fill not how many people can be chased or blown up ? If I'm in a different instance or timezone we shall never meet .
That's some of the argument hiding in different timezones/ instances bad form ole chap .
Personally I don't care if in open or Pg or solo you adapt your BGS/PP actions to the threat seen or not . Fill more buckets and you win chase round the odd commander and you don't because it doesn't fill up your buckets or bottles of wine .
I totally agree messing with other folks PP and BGS is not a good move but if you aren't into BGS or PP and hit a goldmine you are going to run that til it's dry and then find another ? Thats what held me in BGS for years the unknown factor .

 

[Ozric]

I am going to post this over here too because we've somehow ended up with two established threads on this topic.

Firstly, stay on topic please.
Secondly, show some respect to people who have a different viewpoint to you.

And although he is no longer on the project I think that Sandro's words from 2018 are still very appropriate.

Hello Commanders!

Just something to note: arguing that a change to feature X will cause players to disengage, or engage with the feature/game, beyond your own personal decision, is not very useful.

What is very useful is your own opinion on why a change would cause you to disengage or engage, and most importantly, why.

 

[Rubbernuke]

But BGS and the new PP is about how many buckets you can fill not how many people can be chased or blown up ? If I'm in a different instance or timezone we shall never meet .
That's some of the argument hiding in different timezones/ instances bad form ole chap .
Personally I don't care if in open or Pg or solo you adapt your BGS/PP actions to the threat seen or not . Fill more buckets and you win chase round the odd commander and you don't because it doesn't fill up your buckets or bottles of wine .
I totally agree messing with other folks PP and BGS is not a good move but if you aren't into BGS or PP and hit a goldmine you are going to run that til it's dry and then find another ? Thats what held me in BGS for years the unknown factor .

If the PP NPCs provide a robust scaled challenge thats interesting then its great- having a system level focus will help. The problem is a lot of the gameplay comes from attacking high value systems and FCs, so unless NPCs can do that too (which might be possible like this https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ne-solution-to-uneven-mode-difficulty.624795/) other players will be the main source of actual pushback rather than racing bar graphs.

 

[Ferox Worgen]

But BGS and the new PP is about how many buckets you can fill not how many people can be chased or blown up ? If I'm in a different instance or timezone we shall never meet .
That's some of the argument hiding in different timezones/ instances bad form ole chap .
Personally I don't care if in open or Pg or solo you adapt your BGS/PP actions to the threat seen or not . Fill more buckets and you win chase round the odd commander and you don't because it doesn't fill up your buckets or bottles of wine .
I totally agree messing with other folks PP and BGS is not a good move but if you aren't into BGS or PP and hit a goldmine you are going to run that til it's dry and then find another ? Thats what held me in BGS for years the unknown factor .

Oh I get the whole "buckets to fill" notion since BGS is all I do in game and have for the last 7 years. I also get that there is the potential to not instance with other players in different timezones/regions. My arguement for open play only in PP and Open is for having the chance to instance with other who maybe trying to work against your faction or power.

The main example I like to use is my group had been getting countered in a war by another NA group who played in PG. The multiple wars we fought could of 1) been resolved diplomatically from instancing and finding out who they were right away or 2) we would of been able to target their ships in CZs or in supercruise to end the conflicts quicker.


Granted with Elite and their instancing it could not happen, but the proponents for Open play are just looking for the chance to either counter or be able to open diplomatic talks in the case of people not knowing better

 

[vanFace]

In the past, I have tinkered with PP for some modules and the LYR exploration data bonus. The actual strategic part was completely secondary to me.
If it were open only back then, I would not have bothered at all, or maybe searched for a way to exploit every single legal possibility to circumvent that "feature", like e.g. using blocklists excessively.

Now I know that I may not be the average user, but I guess that folks hard pressed on the strategic part will also try to maximize the outcome for their "power" if the possibility is there. This means if an open-only PP runs alongside the current block-feature, it will be used. If instancing keeps on being poor, that will be used, too. If IP blocks help to keep the other side away, this will be used as well.

Bottom line is: if FDev can't manage to foolproof the netcode, better keep your hands off open-only (or even just open-first) PP, or you will cause a hell of a time for everybody.

Whatever it will be, though, I'll be sitting front row to see the fireworks.

 

[Northpin]

Hostile much or who hurt ya in Open play? Lol

Anyways I think ya are missing the whole point. Having PP/BGS regulated to Open play gives faction owners/supporters the chance to defend their systems, especially during wars.

That and getting bounties on oneself really isn't and issue since get those anyways when raiding or killing clean ships of another faction. Security state is easily enough to counter by turning in bounty vouchers for the faction.

Even though it is legitimate flying with report crimes on when you are actively trying to mess with a player group's BGS, it still is a cheesy move.

What i was trying to point out is you dont do BGS by PVP - and you still dont get this.
If you see me running missions in a clean ship in your system, the correct action for you is to run missions that will gain you influence to counter my missions, not killing my ship which as i said it will hurt your faction instead of helping it. The only thing you will do is to help me reach the station faster to deliver my data missions, while you waste your time gaining no influence for your faction.

Report crimes ON is the normal state of affairs in Open - the only exceptions would be AX CZ or AX coop gameplay or organized PVP tournament / fights
And getting notoriety in your own system will really help you run missions and "defend" your system, not.


Anyways, good luck "defending" your system by PVP instead of working the bgs as you should, then watch your faction losing influence while you scream "BOTS!!!11!!" because you think BGS is won by PVP and ED is a PVP game

 

[PiLhEaD]

Did you take your medications?

Never knowingly, no.

e. Just seen Ozic's post and will now shut up and push off - apollys

 

[DemiserofD]

Personally, I just don't take any enjoyment from an activity where the lose condition is just wasting my time.

I will haul Commodities all day long, and if the other side hauls more than me, fair enough. But if I try to haul Commodities all day long, but every time I try, I get killed, I'm just going to quit.

Let me compete freely against other players who want to do the same thing. I have no interest in trying to trade to compete with PVP players. If I wanted to do pvp, I would be doing pvp, not trading. Or, say, mining, or exploring. If I go do those things, it will be a few hours of enjoyable activities mining or exploring, followed by approximately 5 minutes of annoyance, while I try not to waste the rest of my time.

Ultimately, I think it's reductive to boil power play down to nothing more than PVP. It should be a comprehensive competitive environment.

Open only is nothing more than an attempt to put all other activities under the thumb of PVP players.

And I will be fair here; PVP players do have legitimate complaints. After all, PVP has been completely pointless and meaningless and useless for the lifespan of elite.

But that doesn't give them the right to suddenly demand complete dominance over all other playstyles.

Let me play the way I want to play, or I won't play at all. That's the long and short of it.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Personally, I just don't take any enjoyment from an activity where the lose condition is just wasting my time.

I will haul Commodities all day long, and if the other side hauls more than me, fair enough. But if I try to haul Commodities all day long, but every time I try, I get killed, I'm just going to quit.

Let me compete freely against other players who want to do the same thing. I have no interest in trying to trade to compete with PVP players. If I wanted to do pvp, I would be doing pvp, not trading. Or, say, mining, or exploring. If I go do those things, it will be a few hours of enjoyable activities mining or exploring, followed by approximately 5 minutes of annoyance, while I try not to waste the rest of my time.

Ultimately, I think it's reductive to boil power play down to nothing more than PVP. It should be a comprehensive competitive environment.

Open only is nothing more than an attempt to put all other activities under the thumb of PVP players.

And I will be fair here; PVP players do have legitimate complaints. After all, PVP has been completely pointless and meaningless and useless for the lifespan of elite.

But that doesn't give them the right to suddenly demand complete dominance over all other playstyles.

Let me play the way I want to play, or I won't play at all. That's the long and short of it.

Doesn't hauling hard all week to find out you were beaten in a race count as a waste of time? Like, lots of time? In what way do you have less to show for a single failed PvP encounter than for a failed PvE-progress-bar-filling group vs group encounter?

Also I'd avoid outlandish suppositions about what motivates people to argue for open-only. Plus I'd warn that your take on PvP could be perceived as having a sneering tone by some.

 

[DemiserofD]

Doesn't hauling hard all week to find out you were beaten in a race count as a waste of time? Like, lots of time? In what way do you have less to show for a single failed PvP encounter than for a failed PvE-progress-bar-filling group vs group encounter?

No moreso than any type of race. It's the same reason why people rightly criticize Quidditch, because most of the game is determined in the end by the Seeker.

PVP is the seeker. It doesn't matter how good or dedicated your chasers(haulers) are, if their seeker(pvpers) is on their game, they win.

I don't think it's particularly outlandish for people to want their preferred method of gameplay to be dominant. I just won't play a game that puts someone else as more valuable than me, that's all.

 

[DYSEQTA]

No moreso than any type of race. It's the same reason why people rightly criticize Quidditch, because most of the game is determined in the end by the Seeker.

PVP is the seeker. It doesn't matter how good or dedicated your chasers(haulers) are, if their seeker(pvpers) is on their game, they win.

I don't think it's particularly outlandish for people to want their preferred method of gameplay to be dominant. I just won't play a game that puts someone else as more valuable than me, that's all.

This is exactly why I suggested elsewhere that the key here is for FDev to ensure that Jerry has tools to thwart Tom (that's a mouse and a cat from a famous cartoon in case no one knows anymore). Cat and mouse can be fun as long as the mouse actually has a fighting chance.

 

[Jmanis]

If the PP NPCs provide a robust scaled challenge thats interesting then its great- having a system level focus will help. The problem is a lot of the gameplay comes from attacking high value systems and FCs, so unless NPCs can do that too (which might be possible like this https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ne-solution-to-uneven-mode-difficulty.624795/) other players will be the main source of actual pushback rather than racing bar graphs.

The problem is to-date, the game has had a decided lack of "robust, scaled challenge" which meets a commensurate reward. I don't hold much hope that we'll see that change just because PP2.0 is a thing.