Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Jockey79]

There is nothing stopping you changing your ship, flying somewhere else, teaming up and using smarts to survive. Thats the part @Screemonster is (iMO) talking about- that its you using what you have to survive in a mode (and feature if Powerplay).

ED was set up to be you v an uncaring galaxy, not a 1:1 PvP game. Thats why CQC did not resonate.

ED was also set up with the option of choosing who we play with when we play the game content, but that's not stopping you from demanding an undeserved bonus if others don't want to play with you.

And as it's your choice to subject yourself to others and everything that entails, you should accept the consequences of your choice. There is no reason for anyone in Open to get any sort of bonus for playing the mode they chose to play.

 

[Jockey79]

We simply don't know. FD have always started with Open Only in every design revision and worked backwards.

The award for the biggest porkie goes to...

Frontier from day 1 has always started with giving us the choice over who we play with, when in the game.

Here is a small reminder from the Kickstarter page, as you seem to have forgotten ED was not designed as your Open Only playground.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The award for the biggest porkie goes to...

Frontier from day 1 has always started with giving us the choice over who we play with, when in the game.

Here is a small reminder from the Kickstarter page, as you seem to have forgotten ED was not designed as your Open Only playground.

How is what I said a lie exactly?

What I said:

FD have always started with Open Only in every design revision and worked backwards.

Sandros Powerplay proposals:

Flash Topic 1: Open Only
Flash Topic 2: Weighted

Later revised proposal (circulated on dev facing discord): Open only

Most recent proposals: Open Only (you'll have to trust me)

Every time they started with Open Only.

 

[Rubbernuke]

ED was also set up with the option of choosing who we play with when we play the game content, but that's not stopping you from demanding an undeserved bonus if others don't want to play with you.

And you illustrate my point perfectly- I argue for the Open wing bonus to remain but be removed from PG and yet this a step too far for you.

And as it's your choice to subject yourself to others and everything that entails, you should accept the consequences of your choice. There is no reason for anyone in Open to get any sort of bonus for playing the mode they chose to play.

In the wider game I fully agree with you. But for Powerplay where mode choice makes the strategic game easier for free it makes no sense.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Or as stated before you are making things harder for yourself, not our problem.

O7

Well its a matter of perspective- strategically you gain a bonus in solo for removing peer opponents.

 

[Dragsham]

One major issue for PP & bgs groups ingame is their inability to deal with the influence dealt by solo/pg activities. Also 5C actions.
I think being utterly honest, this is the reason why open only is put forward.
It's not so much the actual pvp. It's the fact that in open only one can clearly see and action activities that wouldn't have been possible before.
It's that simple..
Is this a big enough reason to enable open only PP 2.0? Depends on which side of the fence your on I guess.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

One major issue for PP & bgs groups ingame is their inability to deal with the influence dealt by solo/pg activities. Also 5C actions.
I think being utterly honest, this is the reason why open only is put forward.
It's not so much the actual pvp. It's the fact that in open only one can clearly see and action activities that wouldn't have been possible before.
It's that simple..
Is this a big enough reason to enable open only PP 2.0? Depends on which side of the fence your on I guess.

I think there are a list of reasons and that's a big one of them.

 

[Robert Maynard]

One major issue for PP & bgs groups ingame is their inability to deal with the influence dealt by solo/pg activities. Also 5C actions.

Claims of "inability to deal with the influence dealt by solo/pg activities" by players in Open are, at best, inaccurate - as they have exactly the same tools as those affecting the features from the other modes. What the claims boil down to is that those players who prefer Open can't use a preferred, but optional, means of affecting players engaged in affecting the features.

I think being utterly honest, this is the reason why open only is put forward.

Which is based on a false premise.

It's not so much the actual pvp. It's the fact that in open only one can clearly see and action activities that wouldn't have been possible before.

If it's not about PvP then what "action" would be being taken?

It's that simple..

Apparently not.

Is this a big enough reason to enable open only PP 2.0? Depends on which side of the fence your on I guess.

We'll see.

 

[Rubbernuke]

One major issue for PP & bgs groups ingame is their inability to deal with the influence dealt by solo/pg activities. Also 5C actions.
I think being utterly honest, this is the reason why open only is put forward.
It's not so much the actual pvp. It's the fact that in open only one can clearly see and action activities that wouldn't have been possible before.
It's that simple..
Is this a big enough reason to enable open only PP 2.0? Depends on which side of the fence your on I guess.

For V1 Open Only essentially made players replace NPCs that could not scale to the design. V2 we will have to see if thats been rectified enough so that they (NPCs) provide a consistent 'enemy' to hinder you. V2 also leaning towards the BGS means Open Only (IMO) won't happen- however I expect (depending on how NPCs behave) weighting would be considered.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Claims of "inability to deal with the influence dealt by solo/pg activities" by players in Open are, at best, inaccurate - as they have exactly the same tools as those affecting the features from the other modes. What the claims boil down to is that those players who prefer Open can't use a preferred, but optional, means of affecting players engaged in affecting the features.

Which is based on a false premise.

If it's not about PvP then what "action" would be being taken?

Apparently not.

We'll see.

At the same time, you are reminded multiple times per day, it feels like, in threads like this that there are a multitude of ways that interaction in open other than PvP, or where PvP is only part of the story, can mitigate unnecessary conflict or needless rancour.

 

[Robert Maynard]

At the same time, you are reminded multiple times per day, it feels like, in threads like this that there are a multitude of ways that interaction in open other than PvP, or where PvP is only part of the story, can mitigate unnecessary conflict or needless rancour.

Of course - however as any player (whether engaged in the same game feature, or not) can attack any other player in Open then limiting any game feature to Open would be to PvP-gate it. Also noting that "where PvP is only part of the story" is more an admission than mitigation.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Of course - however as any player (whether engaged in the same game feature, or not) can attack any other player in Open then limiting any game feature to Open would be to PvP-gate it. Also noting that "where PvP is only part of the story" is more an admission than mitigation.

It's actually open play gating. It's no more PvP-gating than making people oppose ghosts in solo is boringness-gating.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Well its a matter of perspective- strategically you gain a bonus in solo for removing peer opponents.

That would be easy to balance... adding powerplay NPC ATR-like gankboats, but...

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

(And if only boringness were the worst of it).

 

[Rubbernuke]

That would be easy to balance... adding powerplay NPC ATR-like gankboats, but...

Yes, and no- the problem always is that NPCs are very predictable and lack context (at least currently) in a player driven feature.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's actually open play gating.

Which, for the reason previously provided, is no different to PvP-gating, no matter the attempts to portray it as something else.

 

[Dragsham]

Claims of "inability to deal with the influence dealt by solo/pg activities" by players in Open are, at best, inaccurate

Sorry Robert but your wholly wrong on this issue.
It's a fact that cmdrs can affect influence ingame via solo or pg, with impunity ie not being stopped. You can't stop or offset that which you cannot see! 5C activity is almost wholly in solo or pg. Perhaps for stealth reasons yes. But again it cannot be affected by counter actions because one cannot see it. Only the consequence thereafter.
I will add that you can anticipate solo/pg actions ie combat zones you know their in solo/pg doing it and you counter accordingly, but my point is you cannot intervene and take them on directly.
So if they choose solo to do stuff their doing it knowing they cannot be affected which is my point.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

That would be easy to balance... adding powerplay NPC ATR-like gankboats, but...

Not going to happen sadly, we all saw how the old-guard community reacted when the AI suddenly got the ability to fight back with the AI overhaul back in... what was it? 2017?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Not going to happen sadly, we all saw how the old-guard community reacted when the AI suddenly got the ability to fight back with the AI overhaul back in... what was it? 2017?

If it was linked to your effort for the cycle you can't complain* as its logical a rival power would attack the most active.

*well, some will try

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

If it was linked to your effort for the cycle you can't complain* as its logical a rival power would attack the most active.

*well, some will try

That would be a pretty simple to implement solution, they'd just need to have the NPCs pursue you reliably from instance to instance, even in the event of a CLOG/'Accidental disconnect'.