Open-Only in PP2.0?

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

INf trade profits then bounty and exploration, in that order are the BGS triggers so blowing up explorers or a few player ships who may have bounties( along with the ease of getting them back ) are just as futile .
My fav is no shields passenger with FA and auto rotation off . I don't even need to leave the station. and if the passengers don't like hull damage they leave and I don't blow up which is nice.

Trade profits are pretty weak.
As are missions.

 

[SergMx]

I've always wondered how PP2 would fit into the world and lore of Elite in relation to the people who are part of the Pilot Federation, at least PP1 managed to do that.

 

[angusmadmac1]

Trade profits are pretty weak.
As are missions.

Bounties and exploration are weaker.
We could go on, so my reasoning is Inf is the best ( a bearing in mind diminishing returns ) as they can done for all factions ( you don't need a station /outpost) so number 1. Trade and exploration are only available if they hold a station / outpost. Bounties are really only available if a factions owns a system and CZ are only available when at war . A mix of all is best if available with exploration being last because the amounts required to get max points for BGS is really low.
The amounts before diminishing returns depending on the factions are easily covered by a few commanders. PVP is very rarely an efficient way of BGS due to instancing etc.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Bounties and exploration are weaker.
We could go on, so my reasoning is Inf is the best ( a bearing in mind diminishing returns ) as they can done for all factions ( you don't need a station /outpost) so number 1. Trade and exploration are only available if they hold a station / outpost. Bounties are really only available if a factions owns a system and CZ are only available when at war . A mix of all is best if available with exploration being last because the amounts required to get max points for BGS is really low.
The amounts before diminishing returns depending on the factions are easily covered by a few commanders. PVP is very rarely an efficient way of BGS due to instancing etc.

Yep I think it's particular, re: PvP, in BGS. But if your opponent is in open, then having PvEers who are PvP-capable allows you to leverage it opportunistically without overly compromising your PvE effort (I'd say my group has more often been on the receiving end of that in recent times - our specialist PvPers are not always available at the right moments and not always interested in trawling every POI in the system on the off chance).

 

[Darkfyre99]

I'd never take missions for the faction I'm attacking without the express intention of failing them . There are much more efficient ways of improving rep. And I can fail missions at the same time as performing positive actions for the faction I'm backing, no need to "switch tack". If you're talking about passenger missions then they can also be failed much more efficiently than angling in supercruise for someone to kill you PvP.

Bounty vouchers, arguably the strongest BGS "lever", are lost on death. If a player can't operate safely then you're denying them that. Carto data is also a useful lever that you can deny in the same way.

The irony here is that the tactics you’re describing, especially in the last sentence, are only viable against the controlling faction of a system. If you’re using them to defend a controlling faction, you’re cutting your own throat. Those bounty vouchers and exploration data you’re destroying, are free influence for the controlling faction. Your faction.

Which reinforces my original point: defending a controlling faction via PvP is functionally identical to attacking a controlling faction via PvP.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Which reinforces my original point: defending a controlling faction via PvP is functionally identical to attacking a controlling faction via PvP.

Yeah, but... "Ship go BOOM" is the important bit for some...

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

The irony here is that the tactics you’re describing, especially in the last sentence, are only viable against the controlling faction of a system. If you’re using them to defend a controlling faction, you’re cutting your own throat. Those bounty vouchers and exploration data you’re destroying, are free influence for the controlling faction. Your faction.

Errrr it depends entirely who the BVs are issued for, and where the carto data are dropped. An enemy is not going to be dropping carto data at the station of the faction I'm trying to defend, they're going to drop it at a station owned by the faction they're trying to support (or by one they're using to drain my faction's inf). They're not going to be carrying BVs for my faction, but for the faction they're supporting against mine. Mission fails have the same effect on any issuing faction. Are you assuming I'm advocating indiscriminate murder of all players crossing your path, friend or foe?

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Yeah, but... "Ship go BOOM" is the important bit for some...

I mean this is sort of a good point. Some people are just going to find something better to do if there's no PvP, and you lose some support/critical mass. But at the same time those people probably aren't going to be your PvE big hitters either.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I mean this is sort of a good point. Some people are just going to find something better to do if there's no PvP, and you lose some support/critical mass. But at the same time those people probably aren't going to be your PvE big hitters either.

Allegedly (by rumour only) the majority of the more active PvP players left the game for pastures new some time ago - I think SDC migrated to SC as it offered more action - the organised PvP players lost San Tu fairly recently (some player factions just want to end other's fun, which sucks!) and are now playing in the rings of a system I don't recall the name of currently, and the usual crews still lurk around Deciat & SD most of the time.

Maybe PP 2.0 will give players wanting PvP to have a purpose in the game some entertainment, but, given how many other 'good ideas' coming from the managers at FD have fallen very flat, I won't be making any bets.

 

[ꝁestrel]

That being said all of these arguments and loopholes people come up with, they're not really an argument against open-only. Why are we letting perfect be the enemy of good?

Because if those issues persist it won't even be "good". It'll just devolve into cheesy PvP metas and exploits like it always does. Then a large amount of people quit and we're back to where we are today.

 

[ꝁestrel]

For as long as the game design has been published there have been those who can't accept that players don't need to make themself available to be shot at to affect the shared galaxy - which applied to the BGS (as we know it now) even before Powerplay was launched.

Picture this in PP 2.0:

I see a lone system that no one is paying attention to. I decide to sneak in and affect it. In the livestream the devs said this was possible for small groups of players or even lone wolves. I go there and start running tasks for my Power. Then I notice someone on the opposing side is countering my actions and halting my progress. If that person is playing in Solo mode there is nothing I can do to stop them. It becomes a game of who spends more time grinding some PvE tasks (eg: who can run more cargo for longer).

For a lot of people that's just weird.

When the stakes are high that's what the meta devolves to. Everyone hiding in Solo just grinding away in order to take the system. I don't blame people for doing it either: it's the most effective way to win.

But that's far from the vision FDev tells us they have. FDev envisions CMDRs clashing over territory and fighting it out in a big tug-of-war. The recent livestream is proof of this.

They talked about people fighting over those support fleet carriers in Stronghold systems. Why would people do this in Open when they could just do it in a private group and have way more impact? Going into Open has a high risk of losing so why bother? To have an epic space battle? Maybe once or twice but if people are playing Power Play to win (that's the point, right?) then why unnecessarily hinder yourself?

They talked about CMDRs at the top of leaderboards getting a special tag everyone can see. They talked about this CMDR being a primary target by opposing factions due to their notoriety. But all of that assumes this CMDR is playing in open. I'd wager that the people who are top of the leaderboard will be the ones who are grinding 24/7 in Solo and we'll rarely (if ever) see them in Open supercruise.

I don't think the solution is open-only (explained why here) but it's perfectly reasonable for people to want it.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Errrr it depends entirely who the BVs are issued for, and where the carto data are dropped. An enemy is not going to be dropping carto data at the station of the faction I'm trying to defend, they're going to drop it at a station owned by the faction they're trying to support (or by one they're using to drain my faction's inf). They're not going to be carrying BVs for my faction, but for the faction they're supporting against mine.

A fair point. Typically, when I'm in a scenario where there's actually player opposition, there isn't a handy foothold in the system to begin with. Most BGS groups I'm familiar with don't allow facilities in their system to be under anyone else's control, for exactly that reason.

Mission fails have the same effect on any issuing faction.

Which is only a viable tactic for a limited amount of time, until you've tanked your reputation with that faction. Which is the main reason why I miss BGS 1.0. I used to be able to trade influence to affect a faction's states, which isn't a thing anymore. Granted, I think it's silly for a faction you're working against to slaughter the fatted calf upon your arrival, but then again the kind of things I did during BGS 1.0 weren't exactly legal, and it made sense to me that I was corrupting the local Federation officials and then using the credits I made by feeding their vices to help the local brave freedom fighters.

Which is part of the reason why I'm looking forward to PowerPlay 2.0. BGS 2.0 makes it way too easy for groups to control large territories, and BGS work no longer has the same level of nuance it did before.

Are you assuming I'm advocating indiscriminate murder of all players crossing your path, friend or foe?

To be fair, most of "Oh, won't you think of the BGS!" advocates I've ever had this conversation seem to operation under the assumption that if you're not part of their group, then you're up to no good. I can count on one hand the number of times I've ever been communicated with in the game by those I know (via Inara) who support a faction I'm opposing, and still have all my fingers left over. If that doesn't describe you, then you're ahead of the game.

Not that I encounter much opposition to begin. This game has exactly the wrong networking architecture and matchmaking rules to ever make PvP blockades a viable tactic, whether its for the BGS, PowerPlay, Community Goals piracy, or simply "ship goes boom!" Considering the amount of hoops I have to jump through just to get instanced with the people I want to be instanced with, the "threat" of PvP in Open is more of a hypothetical one than existential one as far as I'm concerned.

 

[SergMx]

Allegedly (by rumour only) the majority of the more active PvP players left the game for pastures new some time ago - I think SDC migrated to SC as it offered more action - the organised PvP players lost San Tu fairly recently (some player factions just want to end other's fun, which sucks!) and are now playing in the rings of a system I don't recall the name of currently, and the usual crews still lurk around Deciat & SD most of the time.

Maybe PP 2.0 will give players wanting PvP to have a purpose in the game some entertainment, but, given how many other 'good ideas' coming from the managers at FD have fallen very flat, I won't be making any bets.

Do you think many PvP players are interested in strategy ? They are interested in tactical combat where they will win and even better if they can be seen in the record table. Whether they do it for the Force or just for the fun of it doesn't matter to them.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Do you think many PvP players are interested in strategy ? They are interested in tactical combat where they will win and even better if they can be seen in the record table. Whether they do it for the Force or just for the fun of it doesn't matter to them.

That's "competitive" PvP which is been practiced because there's lack of 24/7 "contestualised" (or "organic") PvP... there are much more players interested in "contestualised" PvP than "competitive", some of them are interested in both because of the learning curve acceleration which "competitive" PvP provides.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

A fair point. Typically, when I'm in a scenario where there's actually player opposition, there isn't a handy foothold in the system to begin with. Most BGS groups I'm familiar with don't allow facilities in their system to be under anyone else's control, for exactly that reason.

Lucky you that you have the resources to always be in control of everything.
Powerplay factions have hundreds of potential systems to defend. So it's hard to consolidate everything to that degree.

Which is only a viable tactic for a limited amount of time, until you've tanked your reputation with that faction. Which is the main reason why I miss BGS 1.0. I used to be able to trade influence to affect a faction's states, which isn't a thing anymore. Granted, I think it's silly for a faction you're working against to slaughter the fatted calf upon your arrival, but then again the kind of things I did during BGS 1.0 weren't exactly legal, and it made sense to me that I was corrupting the local Federation officials and then using the credits I made by feeding their vices to help the local brave freedom fighters.

Which is part of the reason why I'm looking forward to PowerPlay 2.0. BGS 2.0 makes it way too easy for groups to control large territories, and BGS work no longer has the same level of nuance it did before.



To be fair, most of "Oh, won't you think of the BGS!" advocates I've ever had this conversation seem to operation under the assumption that if you're not part of their group, then you're up to no good. I can count on one hand the number of times I've ever been communicated with in the game by those I know (via Inara) who support a faction I'm opposing, and still have all my fingers left over. If that doesn't describe you, then you're ahead of the game.

Not that I encounter much opposition to begin. This game has exactly the wrong networking architecture and matchmaking rules to ever make PvP blockades a viable tactic, whether its for the BGS, PowerPlay, Community Goals piracy, or simply "ship goes boom!" Considering the amount of hoops I have to jump through just to get instanced with the people I want to be instanced with, the "threat" of PvP in Open is more of a hypothetical one than existential one as far as I'm concerned.

People I don't know are potential allies or bystanders, and in big conflicts many groups you don't know so well can be working with you. Their alt accounts may not be in their squadron, etc. Best not to make enemies you don't need or lose friends you could have had.

I tend to judge PvP blockades on how effective they are against me and my fellow operatives. From which I judge that they often are. But that relies on me being in open and not fiddling instancing. And instancing is said to be worse since Odyssey.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Allegedly (by rumour only) the majority of the more active PvP players left the game for pastures new some time ago - I think SDC migrated to SC as it offered more action - the organised PvP players lost San Tu fairly recently (some player factions just want to end other's fun, which sucks!) and are now playing in the rings of a system I don't recall the name of currently, and the usual crews still lurk around Deciat & SD most of the time.

Nature finds a way.

Maybe PP 2.0 will give players wanting PvP to have a purpose in the game some entertainment, but, given how many other 'good ideas' coming from the managers at FD have fallen very flat, I won't be making any bets.

We keep our expectations grounded. Preferably somewhere close to the Dead Sea... (regarding PP in general I mean, honestly hardcore PvPers are going to find something that annoys them no matter what).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Then I notice someone on the opposing side is countering my actions and halting my progress.

Which is updated on the daily tick.

If that person is playing in Solo mode there is nothing I can do to stop them.

.... or if they are in the other Open, play at a different time of day, are far enough away geographically that the matchmaker won't put them in the same instance, etc..

For a lot of people that's just weird.

It's a consequence of a 24/7 game with no guarantee of instancing with another player in the same location.

I don't think the solution is open-only (explained why here) but it's perfectly reasonable for people to want it.

An interesting definition of "reasonable" when the consequence of Open only, in relation to any existing game feature, is for a game feature that has formed part of every player's game (whether they are interested in PvP or not) to be PvP-gated, effectively removing it from players who don't enjoy PvP, to satisfy a subset of the player-base (who bought the game on the same terms as other players).

 

[ꝁestrel]

That's "competitive" PvP which is been practiced because there's lack of 24/7 "contestualised" (or "organic") PvP... there are much more players interested in "contestualised" PvP than "competitive", some of them are interested in both because of the learning curve acceleration which "competitive" PvP provides.

Spot on. The issue with competitive PvP is the time/effort it takes to be competitive. Elite makes it even harder because PvP is also build-centric so engineering time is a requirement. So yea... competitive PvP cuts out like 98% of the community right off the bat.

Organic PvP has similar problems though. It can only be inclusive for those 98% of players if the skill ceiling is artificially capped somehow. But that of course annoys the competitive PvPers.

 

[ꝁestrel]

Which is updated on the daily tick.

The point is this: if it was forced open-only then I'd be more likely to encounter them. Then we'd collide and a fight over the system would ensue.

.... or if they are in the other Open, play at a different time of day, are far enough away geographically that the matchmaker won't put them in the same instance, etc..

If they play at a different time I can try to alter my schedule to see if I can catch them. That's fun and could create some cool stories.

The matchmaking issue is huge and it's why I think open-only can never truly work. Even if they make it open-only then people can abuse matchmaking to ensure they rarely end up around players. The game simply isn't built for it.

It's a consequence of a 24/7 game with no guarantee of instancing with another player in the same location.

Yep.

An interesting definition of "reasonable" when the consequence of Open only, in relation to any existing game feature, is for a game feature that has formed part of every player's game (whether they are interested in PvP or not) to be PvP-gated, effectively removing it from players who don't enjoy PvP, to satisfy a subset of the player-base (who bought the game on the same terms as other players).

FWIW I think advocates of open-only Power Play would also advocate for open-only player faction BGS stuff. It's been a contested issue for years. Using the "existing game feature" argument doesn't really fly because advocates of open-only are obviously asking for the existing status quo to change.

Not sure you can make the case that it's not reasonable. In the Power Play 2.0 livestream FDev themselves said it's up to the community. If it was so unreasonable for Power Play to be open-only then the game developers wouldn't be treating it as a 50/50 either/or decision that they need community feedback for.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The point is this: if it was forced open-only then I'd be more likely to encounter them. Then we'd collide and a fight over the system would ensue.

In which Open? Odyssey or Horizons?

FWIW I think advocates of open-only Power Play would also advocate for open-only player faction BGS stuff. It's been a contested issue for years. Using the "existing game feature" argument doesn't really fly because advocates of open-only are obviously asking for the existing status quo to change.

It's been obvious for years that, for some players, Open only Powerplay would only represent the first step in making the whole game Open only - which would result in the PvE gameplay in Solo and Private Groups losing all meaning in terms of the (currently) mode shared galaxy.

Not sure you can make the case that it's not reasonable. In the Power Play 2.0 livestream FDev themselves said it's up to the community. If it was so unreasonable for Power Play to be open-only then the game developers wouldn't be treating it as a 50/50 either/or decision that they need community feedback for.

Frontier can choose to change the game as they see fit - and will note the consequences of their choices in terms of player reaction and continued engagement (or lack thereof). Sandro floated the "Open only Powerplay" possiblity (noting that it was only for Powerplay and for no other game feature) in May'18 - and nothing happened for six years. It'll be interesting to see what any discussion on Open only in relation to Powerplay results in, noting that all players have been awaiting the major feature rework for quite some time not just those who enjoy PvP.