Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Rubbernuke]

That's not the point you made or I answered, stop moving the goal posts.

You said NPC's cannot bother you on Solo, I pointed out they can bother you just as much in Solo as any other mode.

And you miss the point that 'bothering' has nuance- when PP was new engineering did not exist and players and NPCs had parity. Today in 2024 that situation has changed and its easy to build a ship that can tank ten PP NPCs without sweating- now, in any given hauling run how many PP NPCs do you face? One? Two? And how easy is it to escape from them, esp since they don't have SCO, and that they don't chance NFZs?

As Robert pointed out, just because it's forbidden in the Mobius Group by the players, doesn't stop unwanted PvP from happening there.
All PG's are still PvP enabled. The only mode other players cannot shoot you is Solo.

And some people like join the Mobius group with dishonest intent. So you still have to be on guard for unwanted PvP

And because in PP a PG is normally a tight group that never happens, for obvious reasons- if you are dealing with multiple tens of thousands of merits that wins a cycle or forms a merit bomb, are you going to really risk allowing someone you don't know in? Of course not.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Either make the reward risk/difficulty based or don't.

Well haulers are risking the cargo load just by being in that mode, no? The onus is on the hunter to find them, and shoot them down (and be subject to counter attack, or waste time). Its not like a shooting gallery where its a binary destruction / victory. You can also retreat, change system, and try again (which then delays that shipment).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well haulers are risking the cargo load just by being in that mode, no? The onus is on the hunter to find them, and shoot them down (and be subject to counter attack, or waste time). Its not like a shooting gallery where its a binary destruction / victory. You can also retreat, change system, and try again (which then delays that shipment).

Haulers risk cargo in any game mode - the risk/difficulty may change if they meet a player, if that player is hostile and chooses to attack and is in a ship that has sufficient advantage to be able to destroy the hauler. Several if gates in there.

.... and the presence / hostility / ship / loadout / etc. of other players would just be some of the factors taken into account when calculating any reward/effect multiplier on a player's action.

 

[Jockey79]

And you miss the point that 'bothering' has nuance- when PP was new engineering did not exist and players and NPCs had parity. Today in 2024 that situation has changed and its easy to build a ship that can tank ten PP NPCs without sweating- now, in any given hauling run how many PP NPCs do you face? One? Two? And how easy is it to escape from them, esp since they don't have SCO, and that they don't chance NFZs?

Again, you're moving the goalposts to avoid the fact you lied regarding how many NPCs people face in each mode.
NPC's work the same in every mode, that's the end of it.

As for the capabilities of the NPCs, that wasn't what you said and it isn't what I answered.
I previously agreed with you that the NPcs in the game need looking at. Not just for PP but for the game in general.

I don't do engineering, I found the whole system to be a thankless and pointless grind.
Plus with the NPC's being as easy as they are just by A rating a ship, by further improving the modules we just amplify the problems with the NPCs.

And because in PP a PG is normally a tight group that never happens, for obvious reasons- if you are dealing with multiple tens of thousands of merits that wins a cycle or forms a merit bomb, are you going to really risk allowing someone you don't know in? Of course not.

If I were dealing with lots of merits I was nervous about, I wouldn't be in a PG with people I don't know in real life, in fact even then I'd be in Solo.
Some of my real-life friends can barley walk in a straight line - they certainly cannot fly in one. So I'd not risk it.

 

[Jockey79]

That’s kind of leaning into the “No True Scotsman” trope. My point was, PvPers are in open looking for fun PvP. If you find someone willing to go head to head against you spontaneously, you’ll want to add them to your friends list to make it more likely you’ll encounter them again in the future… especially given the awful nature of this game’s instancing.

Well, awful if you looking for fun spontaneous PvP battles.

As I understand it, the PowerPlay PvP community is a rather tight knit one. Everyone knows everyone else, and everyone is in each other’s friends list. This is why they seem to have a skewed view of the relative “dangers” of Open. It also explains why every PowerPlay group proudly claims that they bravely do their activities in Open, while every other group cowardly does their activities in Solo/PG.

Unless you’re at one of the extremely rare opposed expansions, the odds are high that you won’t encounter anybody. Too many systems, too many time zones, and too few players. And this is PowerPlay version One. PowerPlay version Two spreads all those activities, which used to be confined to control systems, across the systems they used to control. The new fortress mega ships have the potential to be PvP chokepoints, but I suspect that when I visit an enemy’s during my normal play window, which is outside local prime time, it’ll be deserted.

Speaking personally, I don’t want players to be bribed into playing in Open. It attracts players who are not fun to play with, for a variety of reasons. The reward for me playing in Open is that players provide a different (but not necessarily harder) challenge vs NPCs, and thus I have more fun. Fun should always trump efficiency as far as I’m concerned, and I’d prefer to play with like minded people. I’ve played similar games where all that mattered was efficiency, and they are not fun.

Great write-up and some nice points well made.

This has brought to mind another point as well. If so many people who do PP are adding each other to their friend list, then they are in fact reducing the chances of meeting random people. Those on your friend list have a higher priority to be instanced with you than some random you've never seen before.

So weirdly, in busy systems, you'll be less likely to meet a random player as your instance bubble will quickly fill up with "your friends" before the game considers showing you the random people there. So by having a large friend list, you hinder your own ability to meet new people.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Again, you're moving the goalposts to avoid the fact you lied regarding how many NPCs people face in each mode.
NPC's work the same in every mode, that's the end of it.

As for the capabilities of the NPCs, that wasn't what you said and it isn't what I answered.
I previously agreed with you that the NPcs in the game need looking at. Not just for PP but for the game in general.

I don't do engineering, I found the whole system to be a thankless and pointless grind.
Plus with the NPC's being as easy as they are just by A rating a ship, by further improving the modules we just amplify the problems with the NPCs.

How many PP NPCs have interdicted you (this is what the topis about)? For me its vanishingly small and the threat they pose is minimal. Here is an average PP hauling trip:

Take off (no PP NPCs since you jump before you leave protection)
No NPCs each jump (for however many jumps you have)
One interdiction at the home system

Thats the crux of the problem, its why I want better and more consistent NPCs or a mission structure that prevents this. Not doing engineering is your choice, but in a competitive feature and in a game where engineering is so prominent- thats your fault.

I'm not talking about the rest of the game- just Powerplay.

If I were dealing with lots of merits I was nervous about, I wouldn't be in a PG with people I don't know in real life, in fact even then I'd be in Solo.
Some of my real-life friends can barley walk in a straight line - they certainly cannot fly in one. So I'd not risk it.

Then frankly you demonstrate how little about how PG in PP works and what pledges do. For example when Utopia dropped 8 systems it was in PG, and not one person who was in that PG was shot at once by another player.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That’s kind of leaning into the “No True Scotsman” trope. My point was, PvPers are in open looking for fun PvP. If you find someone willing to go head to head against you spontaneously, you’ll want to add them to your friends list to make it more likely you’ll encounter them again in the future… especially given the awful nature of this game’s instancing.

Well, awful if you looking for fun spontaneous PvP battles.

As I understand it, the PowerPlay PvP community is a rather tight knit one. Everyone knows everyone else, and everyone is in each other’s friends list. This is why they seem to have a skewed view of the relative “dangers” of Open. It also explains why every PowerPlay group proudly claims that they bravely do their activities in Open, while every other group cowardly does their activities in Solo/PG.

Unless you’re at one of the extremely rare opposed expansions, the odds are high that you won’t encounter anybody. Too many systems, too many time zones, and too few players. And this is PowerPlay version One. PowerPlay version Two spreads all those activities, which used to be confined to control systems, across the systems they used to control. The new fortress mega ships have the potential to be PvP chokepoints, but I suspect that when I visit an enemy’s during my normal play window, which is outside local prime time, it’ll be deserted.

Speaking personally, I don’t want players to be bribed into playing in Open. It attracts players who are not fun to play with, for a variety of reasons. The reward for me playing in Open is that players provide a different (but not necessarily harder) challenge vs NPCs, and thus I have more fun. Fun should always trump efficiency as far as I’m concerned, and I’d prefer to play with like minded people. I’ve played similar games where all that mattered was efficiency, and they are not fun.

You are half correct: people are in Open because it promises to allow them to affect the person(s) going against them directly. Thats the fun part, because you can directly counter another group using PvP skills and strategy such as wing fights, overwatch, stealth etc.

 

[Wily Rites]

That’s kind of leaning into the “No True Scotsman” trope. My point was, PvPers are in open looking for fun PvP. If you find someone willing to go head to head against you spontaneously, you’ll want to add them to your friends list to make it more likely you’ll encounter them again in the future… especially given the awful nature of this game’s instancing.

Well, awful if you looking for fun spontaneous PvP battles.

As I understand it, the PowerPlay PvP community is a rather tight knit one. Everyone knows everyone else, and everyone is in each other’s friends list. This is why they seem to have a skewed view of the relative “dangers” of Open. It also explains why every PowerPlay group proudly claims that they bravely do their activities in Open, while every other group cowardly does their activities in Solo/PG.

Unless you’re at one of the extremely rare opposed expansions, the odds are high that you won’t encounter anybody. Too many systems, too many time zones, and too few players. And this is PowerPlay version One. PowerPlay version Two spreads all those activities, which used to be confined to control systems, across the systems they used to control. The new fortress mega ships have the potential to be PvP chokepoints, but I suspect that when I visit an enemy’s during my normal play window, which is outside local prime time, it’ll be deserted.

Speaking personally, I don’t want players to be bribed into playing in Open. It attracts players who are not fun to play with, for a variety of reasons. The reward for me playing in Open is that players provide a different (but not necessarily harder) challenge vs NPCs, and thus I have more fun. Fun should always trump efficiency as far as I’m concerned, and I’d prefer to play with like minded people. I’ve played similar games where all that mattered was efficiency, and they are not fun.

I thought I'd better repost as I've made a big addendum to my previous response:

I have just looked up the 'No True Scotsman' statement, as I was not familiar with it. Reading the wikipedia page on it, inspires this thought from me:

It really is difficult in such a system to gauge others use and experience of it, all part of learning about how online game interactions work, for sure.

I stand by my previous estimation, that 20% of folks are PvPers, and half of those gank and engage in anti social behaviour.

I'm not anti either, but bear in mind, that those who get beat in the death match arena that the key PvE points have become, take it out on folk that are smaller than them selves.

I would not want to remove PvP interaction in open play, god no, but I do think that it needs to be better integrated.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Haulers risk cargo in any game mode - the risk/difficulty may change if they meet a player, if that player is hostile and chooses to attack and is in a ship that has sufficient advantage to be able to destroy the hauler. Several if gates in there.

.... and the presence / hostility / ship / loadout / etc. of other players would just be some of the factors taken into account when calculating any reward/effect multiplier on a player's action.

The risk in current Powerplay is minimal to none outside of Open- an unengineered Eagle is not going to do much to a kitted out 2024 Cutter.

Plus all those ifs are complications that players have to mitigate, making the experience much more complex in Open. I do agree that weighting needs nuance but with the amount of information the BGS has, its not difficult to find some hooks. For example, presence and number of enemy pledges, ships lost, economic value of system. That, or reduce things like wing merits in PG so teamplay in a hostile environment pays more.

 

[Darkfyre99]

You are half correct: people are in Open because it promises to allow them to affect the person(s) going against them directly. Thats the fun part, because you can directly counter another group using PvP skills and strategy such as wing fights, overwatch, stealth etc.

It may "promise" that, but it doesn't necessarily deliver on that promise unless both sides are willing to jump through hoops to do so. If they're not, they're not likely to do so. And while the chance may be greater than zero, that chance is so close to zero that it's a distinction without a difference. You're not going to get the kind of fun activities you want unless Frontier changes how instancing "works" first. And in my experience, "bribing" players into playing the way you want them to won't produces the results you expect them to. Unless the results you expect to have is increasing your levels of frustration.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The risk in current Powerplay is minimal to none outside of Open- an unengineered Eagle is not going to do much to a kitted out 2024 Cutter.

We're not talking about Powerplay v1, rather how Powerplay 2.0 might be - and NPCs that pose an actual challenge are expected to be part of Powerplay 2.0.

Plus all those ifs are complications that players have to mitigate, making the experience much more complex in Open. I do agree that weighting needs nuance but with the amount of information the BGS has, its not difficult to find some hooks. For example, presence and number of enemy pledges, ships lost, economic value of system. That, or reduce things like wing merits in PG so teamplay in a hostile environment pays more.

The player only needs to mitigate them some of the time, if at all - as there's no guarantee of encountering a player who ticks all the requisite boxes to actually represent increased risk/difficulty.

Ridiculously gamey things like Wing merits / Wing bonus would need to be removed entirely if a credible risk/reward system were to be implemented. That the game "pays out" up to a total 4x the reward/effect for 1x the effort (and down to 25% of the risk/difficulty of a single player attempting the same objective) would be faintly ridiculous under a risk/reward system.

 

[Doctor Dread]

Ridiculously gamey things like Wing merits / Wing bonus would need to be removed entirely if a credible risk/reward system were to be implemented. That the game "pays out" up to a total 4x the reward/effect for 1x the effort (and down to 25% of the risk/difficulty of a single player attempting the same objective) would be faintly ridiculous under a risk/reward system.

This

 

[Jockey79]

How many PP NPCs have interdicted you (this is what the topis about)?

I don't keep count, the point is they still do - regardless of the mode I'm in.

For me its vanishingly small and the threat they pose is minimal.

Good for you, but your experiences are yours alone.
Other people have different experiences and you're completely ignoring that fact.

Thats the crux of the problem, its why I want better and more consistent NPCs or a mission structure that prevents this. Not doing engineering is your choice, but in a competitive feature and in a game where engineering is so prominent- thats your fault.

And I've agreed with you about having better NPC's. Quite a few times I've agreed with you about that and yet you keep bringing it up.
It's almost as if you're not paying attention and arguing for the sake of arguing.

As above, my experiences are different to yours, engineering is far from prominent in my game. So just because you've had to rely on it, I haven't.
I can join in with PP, I can haul in an unarmed and barely shielded hauler for the most part and I can do missions, I can mine and I can do NPC hunts without ever touching engineers.

You can play the entire game without needing to visit an engineer. Heck you can even PvP without them - or have you forgotten the PvP match that came out of the SOG thread where I and another took non-engineered ships into PvP to prove this point? (which we did).

So if you "need" to engineer your ships, that's a you problem.

Then frankly you demonstrate how little about how PG in PP works and what pledges do. For example when Utopia dropped 8 systems it was in PG, and not one person who was in that PG was shot at once by another player.

And again, as you're ignoring it - you can still be shot and killed in any PG (including Mobius) by a human player - even if it's not on purpose, it can still happen (friendly fire is enabled in the game). It only takes a stray shot or a badly timed boost and you explode.

So if I want to be 100% sure during a PP session that will not happen, then the only choice is to play Solo Mode.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

It'll be interesting to see if the new system avoids the 'fish in a barrel' problem.
V1 has specific locations where reinforcement takes place and where blockades would be expected to form.
Seal clubbers and CG campers prefer to hang around such 'barrels' and wait for 'content' to be served up to them. If V2 has a more freeform approach it should be relatively simple to loose yourself in the Bubble depending on how information is presented to potential opponents.

 

[Wily Rites]

That’s kind of leaning into the “No True Scotsman” trope. My point was, PvPers are in open looking for fun PvP. If you find someone willing to go head to head against you spontaneously, you’ll want to add them to your friends list to make it more likely you’ll encounter them again in the future… especially given the awful nature of this game’s instancing.

Well, awful if you looking for fun spontaneous PvP battles.

As I understand it, the PowerPlay PvP community is a rather tight knit one. Everyone knows everyone else, and everyone is in each other’s friends list. This is why they seem to have a skewed view of the relative “dangers” of Open. It also explains why every PowerPlay group proudly claims that they bravely do their activities in Open, while every other group cowardly does their activities in Solo/PG.

Unless you’re at one of the extremely rare opposed expansions, the odds are high that you won’t encounter anybody. Too many systems, too many time zones, and too few players. And this is PowerPlay version One. PowerPlay version Two spreads all those activities, which used to be confined to control systems, across the systems they used to control. The new fortress mega ships have the potential to be PvP chokepoints, but I suspect that when I visit an enemy’s during my normal play window, which is outside local prime time, it’ll be deserted.

Speaking personally, I don’t want players to be bribed into playing in Open. It attracts players who are not fun to play with, for a variety of reasons. The reward for me playing in Open is that players provide a different (but not necessarily harder) challenge vs NPCs, and thus I have more fun. Fun should always trump efficiency as far as I’m concerned, and I’d prefer to play with like minded people. I’ve played similar games where all that mattered was efficiency, and they are not fun.

Are you referring to my mention of the Pilots' Federations and behaviour unbefitting a pilot with 'elite' status, when you reference 'No True Scottsman' or perhaps my mention of the warrior cast, using the comms as a weapon? I genuinely can't find how it might apply, but would be grateful of your clarification, if indeed it does.

I love to role-play the call to act on the behalf of what the Pilots Federation stands for, but don't see that accusing gankers of not behaving in accordance with this as leaning into 'Not a true Scotts man' in the slightest, (I groked the context better when pondering 'Not a...' rather than 'No true' I think the latter requires a heavy Scotts accent to really make the senses as intended.

Just looking to understand your context.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It may "promise" that, but it doesn't necessarily deliver on that promise unless both sides are willing to jump through hoops to do so. If they're not, they're not likely to do so. And while the chance may be greater than zero, that chance is so close to zero that it's a distinction without a difference. You're not going to get the kind of fun activities you want unless Frontier changes how instancing "works" first. And in my experience, "bribing" players into playing the way you want them to won't produces the results you expect them to. Unless the results you expect to have is increasing your levels of frustration.

It does to a certain extent now (such as the eternal struggles of FUC v ZYADA), it just lacks a balanced, structured incentive to do so for being in a mode with other hostile players (since you are doing more at a gameplay level than solo where you are going through the motions).

And in my own experience the instancing works well enough for that- the only time it really falls down is things such as missions with objects not registering.

And in my experience, "bribing" players into playing the way you want them to won't produces the results you expect them to. Unless the results you expect to have is increasing your levels of frustration.

Even with tiny changes such as halving PG wing merits for PP? Really

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't keep count, the point is they still do - regardless of the mode I'm in.

Thats not in question- the issue is that they don't affect your run like a capable NPC does (say Spec Ops) or another player who can strike at any time after you take off.

Good for you, but your experiences are yours alone.
Other people have different experiences and you're completely ignoring that fact.

The NPCs work to the same rules for everyone. Sec, NFZs, dropzones, PP NPC pirates, adjusters- the timings are the same, the spawns are the same.

And I've agreed with you about having better NPC's. Quite a few times I've agreed with you about that and yet you keep bringing it up.
It's almost as if you're not paying attention and arguing for the sake of arguing.

I get that, but you don't seem to join the fact innefectual NPCs allow for the higher strategic layer of PP (as in keeping things solvent and out of turmoil) easier.

As above, my experiences are different to yours, engineering is far from prominent in my game. So just because you've had to rely on it, I haven't.
I can join in with PP, I can haul in an unarmed and barely shielded hauler for the most part and I can do missions, I can mine and I can do NPC hunts without ever touching engineers.

And for most people in PP (going by Kumo, Antal, ZYADA, LYR, FUC discords) you are very atypical, since most players want as many advantages as they can to allow them to do more against other people who are doing the same, since they are both in competition. V2 will amplify this with the Top 10 commanders leader board too.

You can play the entire game without needing to visit an engineer. Heck you can even PvP without them - or have you forgotten the PvP match that came out of the SOG thread where I and another took non-engineered ships into PvP to prove this point? (which we did).

So if you "need" to engineer your ships, that's a you problem.

Of course you can play the game without engineering- the point is it puts you at a disadvantage if others don't have that limitation.

When I was BGS murdering I'd use an unengineered Clipper because it was cheaper bounty wise when the ship was ditched- I had to select very soft targets and be very wary of ATR who could kill with four shots at extreme ranges.

And again, as you're ignoring it - you can still be shot and killed in any PG (including Mobius) by a human player - even if it's not on purpose, it can still happen (friendly fire is enabled in the game). It only takes a stray shot or a badly timed boost and you explode.

So if I want to be 100% sure during a PP session that will not happen, then the only choice is to play Solo Mode.

Its just the use of PG in PP is not like that at all when you are grouped with people who are dedicated to the power- these are not randoms. I know its not valid in your eyes, but I did run and be part of organising powers and not once did we have someone run amok in one. I'm sure accidents do happen, but someone deliberately attacking another over?

 

[Rubbernuke]

We're not talking about Powerplay v1, rather how Powerplay 2.0 might be - and NPCs that pose an actual challenge are expected to be part of Powerplay 2.0.

V2 will still have hauling races (expansions and contested expansions), non stronghold systems, as well as bread and butter activity (of which we don't know how PP NPCs figure in).

The player only needs to mitigate them some of the time, if at all - as there's no guarantee of encountering a player who ticks all the requisite boxes to actually represent increased risk/difficulty.

But its a balance of probability - for some places all of them apply (such as with V2 with high value systems and / or 'hub' systems) because thats where people will attack for maximum strategic impact.

Ridiculously gamey things like Wing merits / Wing bonus would need to be removed entirely if a credible risk/reward system were to be implemented. That the game "pays out" up to a total 4x the reward/effect for 1x the effort (and down to 25% of the risk/difficulty of a single player attempting the same objective) would be faintly ridiculous under a risk/reward system.

I'd be happy if they were removed from PG, not so much so from Open. But if there are more targeted measures I'd be happy taking them out entirely.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It'll be interesting to see if the new system avoids the 'fish in a barrel' problem.
V1 has specific locations where reinforcement takes place and where blockades would be expected to form.
Seal clubbers and CG campers prefer to hang around such 'barrels' and wait for 'content' to be served up to them. If V2 has a more freeform approach it should be relatively simple to loose yourself in the Bubble depending on how information is presented to potential opponents.

In a feature that was about gaining strategic advantage, having chokepoints adds to the game- its why sandro wanted to make all flow inbound so that every power had that weakness.

V2 has the concept of high value systems based on various factors to make them more influential (and worth more in the Galactic Standing) with an uncapped UM (which is a tug of war). Add to that some systems act as support systems for others you will naturally have 'hot' systems that will always be attacked. A tin shack system worth nothing will be ignored for a high value one that if dropped causes a chain reaction with its dependents.

Exactly how many a power might have is currently unknown- it might be a similar number to control systems now.

 

[Robert Maynard]

V2 will still have hauling races (expansions and contested expansions), non stronghold systems, as well as bread and butter activity (of which we don't know how PP NPCs figure in).

That it may - and, in terms of balanced risk/reward, the haulers risk/reward should be sufficient for haulers to want to engage in it.

But its a balance of probability - for some places all of them apply (such as with V2 with high value systems and / or 'hub' systems) because thats where people will attack for maximum strategic impact.

All of them some of the time, none of them some of the time - it's a case by case. location by location, interaction by interaction factor, not a blanket covering the whole of Open just because Open may contain opponents, somewhere, maybe.

I'd be happy if they were removed from PG, not so much so from Open. But if there are more targeted measures I'd be happy taking them out entirely.

The premise behind a risk/reward approach to Powerplay 2.0 is to remove inequity, not perpetuate it.

.... and it should not reasonably be balanced around the 1%ers at the top of the skill ranks in meta-combat ships.