Open-Only in PP2.0?

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

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

You emphasise that point because it allows you to imply something like "open-only advocates are griefers!" without actually saying it. It's an attempt to circumvent the substantive arguments with an emotive one. The assumption that people automatically want to subject others that don't want PvP to PvP is invalid, it's more that there should be a fair trade - affecting the galaxy should come with personal and factional risk. Hence the alternative of presenting risk using NPCs is often mentioned.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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'.

The usual irony is that its in game right now- ATR do this around carriers (well, the last time I tested it did). Makes takeoff and landing quickly take on a whole new meaning...

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Hopefully, should be an easy 'carry-over' then. If that is their intent.

I will say, hand on heart, I miss the early days of PP1, with open groups (such as Arissa's, which I was massively invested in) organising 'wing convoys' escorted by one or two fighters, who's job was to either swat off a nae'r do well, or simply interdict them well before they could get a good bead on the bulker. Such a vibrant, active engaged community with a good competitive energy going on, before it descended into the nonsense it became.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

They can't be "stopped" because PvP is optional and they can't be forced to play among those who might quite like to stop them. They can, as acknowledged, be countered" - so the claim of an "inability to deal with the influence dealt by solo/pg activities" remains inaccurate.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You emphasise that point because it allows you to imply something like "open-only advocates are griefers!" without actually saying it.

Just because a player wants to be able to shoot at another player does not make them a griefer.

When that want turns into proposals to force players engaged in existing pan-modal game features to play in Open to continue to affect them then the desire of some players to force other players to "play their way" (when that "way" is not required by any in-game feature) becomes more obvious - as if removing choice from other players is in some way "fair".

Noting that PvP-gating any content to Open would force players wishing to affect that content to play among any actual griefers who may from time to time inhabit Open.

It's an attempt to circumvent the substantive arguments with an emotive one. The assumption that people automatically want to subject others that don't want PvP to PvP is invalid, it's more that there should be a fair trade - affecting the galaxy should come with personal and factional risk.

It's pointing out that some players can't accept that other players don't need to present themself to be shot at (should another player so choose to) while engaging in game features. Affecting the shared galaxy has been sold to every player all as something they will do as part of their gameplay, regardless of game mode, there's no "fair trade" required in that regard.

Hence the alternative of presenting risk using NPCs is often mentioned.

To which there can be no reasonable opposition.

 

[Dragsham]

They can't be "stopped" because PvP is optional and they can't be forced to play among those who might quite like to stop them. They can, as acknowledged, be countered" - so the claim of an "inability to deal with the influence dealt by solo/pg activities" remains inaccurate.

Once again wholly inaccurate.
Your basis that pvp is optional?
Solo pg is also optional is it not?
This Is about PP 2.0 behind a pvp wall.
Then the tables would be turned. Solo pg could no longer affect the outcome.
In my opinion long overdue.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Once again wholly inaccurate.
Your basis that pvp is optional?
Solo pg is also optional is it not?

Other players remain optional in the game, which means that PvP is optional in any pan-modal game feature.

This Is about PP 2.0 behind a pvp wall.
Then the tables would be turned. Solo pg could no longer affect the outcome.
In my opinion long overdue.

It's been an issue for some for nearly a decade (since the game design was published and some backers realised that players would not need to play with them to affect the game), and Frontier have been aware that not all players agree with their position.

Whether Frontier choose to PvP-gate Powerplay 2.0 to Open, effectively removing it as a feature from players who don't enjoy PvP (and have been waiting for the "major feature overhaul" since May'22, just the same as those who do enjoy PvP), remains to be seen.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

(RE: AI) To which there can be no reasonable opposition.

Except there was considerable outroar and opposition from the Forum PvE community the last time we had an update pushed out where the AI could fight back reasonably well and intelligently, to the point it was proverbially lobotomosied again

 

[Robert Maynard]

Except there was considerable outroar and opposition from the Forum PvE community the last time we had an update pushed out where the AI could fight back reasonably well and intelligently, to the point it was proverbially lobotomosied again

The player reaction to the bugged weaponry combined with a step-up in NPC challenge when 2.1 Engineers was launched was overall highly unfavourable, noting that there were some players revelling in the misery of those adversely affected. Frontier reverted the change a week later - likely having seen what the effect had been on player hours.

Agreeing that NPCs should pose more of a challenge in Powerplay is one thing. The question then becomes: how much more, and in which contexts? Noting that half of lpayers are at or below median skill and not all players fly engineered combat ships - so if that half of the player-base is not to be effectively excluded from the content then the contextual level of challenge needs to be set with care.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The question then becomes: how much more

Its easy- you do more, you get more pushback. Get into the top 10 (and effectively become an ace) and expect rivals to want you dead the most. New people shifting envelopes get hardly anything while the hard core get hard core responses in kind.

There are a plethora of mechanisms in game right now that achieve this, its a matter of connecting them up. The simplest would be having an invisible rank (similar to ranks in V1) that the BGS looks at, and dishes out NPCs, wings of NPCs and 'surprises'.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

The player reaction to the bugged weaponry combined with a step-up in NPC challenge when 2.1 Engineers was launched was overall highly unfavourable, noting that there were some players revelling in the misery of those adversely affected. Frontier reverted the change a week later - likely having seen what the effect had been on player hours.

Agreeing that NPCs should pose more of a challenge in Powerplay is one thing. The question then becomes: how much more, and in which contexts? Noting that half of lpayers are at or below median skill and not all players fly engineered combat ships - so if that half of the player-base is not to be effectively excluded from the content then the contextual level of challenge needs to be set with care.

I agree the bugged weaponry was an issue that needed pulling (and was glad it was, to be clear), but for emphasis I'd like to highlight that the 'adverse affecting' you mention was a change from AI that would go static, and roll on the spot without taking any action (unless they had turrets) vs. a player, to overnight actually dogfighting/using Flight Assist Off, 'wolfpack' tactics and disengaging when they realised they were not going to succeed.

The 'revelling' in misery was aimed at players (from what I saw) who were used to rolling in one of the big 3, all turreted hardpoints, all shield booster utility builds who used to talk big about their PvE 'Eliteness' (which pretty much at that point involved parking in middle of combat zone, set turrets to engage enemy, go static, and make a cup of tea/read a book to make major impact on CGs and BGS (as I we saw it at the time, before the 'one kill, turn in exploit), who tended to turn their nose up at any PvP player as 'a griefer' who couldn't handle anything that wasn't a soft target (these players incidentally were the ones who generally relished the change and the challenge), or those flying unshielded merchants using Solo/PG play suddenly finding they were taking damage who were snapping when their rants on the forums were met with 'Why are you flying an unshielded ship?' from Open mode players.

In my opinion, PP NPCs should present some of the biggest threat (outside of the 'goids) to Players who interact with the PP system, providing encouragement to adjust tactics, encouraging a multi-ship/multi-crew solution to the threat they pose.

This is not a 'gotcha' question by the way, but regarding 'Noting that half of lpayers are at or below median skill not all players fly engineered combat ships', do you take similar umbridge with the Thargoids as a game concept?

 

[Rebel Yell]

In my opinion, PP NPCs should present some of the biggest threat (outside of the 'goids) to Players who interact with the PP system, providing encouragement to adjust tactics, encouraging a multi-ship/multi-crew solution to the threat they pose.

Indeed... it's cringy to see a random deadly DBX "hunter" coming after my hauling battleship (Cutter) and screaming "it's time to die" in the chat.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Indeed... it's cringy to see a random deadly DBX "hunter" coming after my hauling battleship (Cutter) and screaming "it's time to die" in the chat.

There was a complaint at the time which effectively read "Why is the enemy in a Cobra that I'm trying to kill with an Anaconda laden down with Hull reinforcements and Shield Boosters just flying away from me?" was a quite interesting discussion.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indeed... it's cringy to see a random deadly DBX "hunter" coming after my hauling battleship (Cutter) and screaming "it's time to die" in the chat.

Its also required to actually justify having eleven powers in the first place- if they send the equivalent of wet toilet paper ships the whole feature is pointless. PP leaders hate each other, by extension they hate pledges and at some level need to have a sliver of fear as they fly about.

 

[Rebel Yell]

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

They should work just to level the "trade-off" balance between the various modes... that would be enough imho. I mean, if we discuss about "efficiency" (= merits-forts/hour in current PP 1.0) this type of NPC would slow/disrupt the "efficiency" so that there's no advantage in picking up a game mode for "efficiency".

 

[Rubbernuke]

They should work just to level the "trade-off" balance between the various modes... that would be enough imho. I mean, if we discuss about "efficiency" (= merits-forts/hour in current PP 1.0) this type of NPC would slow/disrupt the "efficiency" so that there's no advantage in picking up a game mode for "efficiency".

It goes beyond that though, in that human NPCs have been tamed so much they need to learn how to be scary but also we need areas for them to prowl about properly.

For example, we know PP V2 uses some V1 like activities (prep races, hauling) which inherits broken PvE mechanics from the wider game. These include an over-reliance on interdiction (when it actually happens), players dropping into station weapon range immediately, NPCs pursuers breaking off (not firing a shot), and being able to take off unmolested.

For hauling to be more of a struggle these areas need tweaking or the whole loop changed (for Powerplay) so that players actually mix with our new scary NPC guys.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Its easy- you do more, you get more pushback. Get into the top 10 (and effectively become an ace) and expect rivals to want you dead the most. New people shifting envelopes get hardly anything while the hard core get hard core responses in kind.

There are a plethora of mechanisms in game right now that achieve this, its a matter of connecting them up. The simplest would be having an invisible rank (similar to ranks in V1) that the BGS looks at, and dishes out NPCs, wings of NPCs and 'surprises'.

Depends whether the more relates to the amount per week or the challenge posed by a specific mission type scenario - likely a bit of both rather than one or the other.

As the mechanisms are already in place elsewhere in the game to be copied to then increase PvE game challenge in Powerplay 2.0 then that suggests that Open only would not be a necessary part of it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I agree the bugged weaponry was an issue that needed pulling (and was glad it was, to be clear), but for emphasis I'd like to highlight that the 'adverse affecting' you mention was a change from AI that would go static, and roll on the spot without taking any action (unless they had turrets) vs. a player, to overnight actually dogfighting/using Flight Assist Off, 'wolfpack' tactics and disengaging when they realised they were not going to succeed.

Also noting that those obvious bugs were fixed over time.

The 'revelling' in misery was aimed at players (from what I saw) who were used to rolling in one of the big 3, all turreted hardpoints, all shield booster utility builds who used to talk big about their PvE 'Eliteness' (which pretty much at that point involved parking in middle of combat zone, set turrets to engage enemy, go static, and make a cup of tea/read a book to make major impact on CGs and BGS (as I we saw it at the time, before the 'one kill, turn in exploit), who tended to turn their nose up at any PvP player as 'a griefer' who couldn't handle anything that wasn't a soft target (these players incidentally were the ones who generally relished the change and the challenge), or those flying unshielded merchants using Solo/PG play suddenly finding they were taking damage who were snapping when their rants on the forums were met with 'Why are you flying an unshielded ship?' from Open mode players.

While some of it may have been that was not all of it, from memory.

In my opinion, PP NPCs should present some of the biggest threat (outside of the 'goids) to Players who interact with the PP system, providing encouragement to adjust tactics, encouraging a multi-ship/multi-crew solution to the threat they pose.

Indeed - noting that Thargoid content is effectively tiered and not a "straight to brick wall level" challenge.

This is not a 'gotcha' question by the way, but regarding 'Noting that half of lpayers are at or below median skill not all players fly engineered combat ships', do you take similar umbridge with the Thargoids as a game concept?

Not at all - as entry level Thargoid content does not seem to pose an insurmountable challenge (as there don't seem to be a massive number of long threads about how difficult it is) - so it can be argued that it already takes into account the skill distribution of the player-base.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Depends whether the more relates to the amount per week or the challenge posed by a specific mission type scenario - likely a bit of both rather than one or the other.

As the mechanisms are already in place elsewhere in the game to be copied to then increase PvE game challenge in Powerplay 2.0 then that suggests that Open only would not be a necessary part of it.

The example was amount per week corresponding to the R1 - 5 levels but you can also mix in mission difficulty on top (as you suggest) which would increase random events.

The issue is that (as I outline above) NPCs have severe limitations and typical PP hauling PvE has few areas where NPC disruption can happen. Its no good if you have ATR Thargoid hybrid ships but the players never see them enough to alter what you are doing. Its also bad design if the only way to be attacked is via interdiction.

Its why players will always be the more cunning and unpredictable foe.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Just because a player wants to be able to shoot at another player does not make them a griefer.

When that want turns into proposals to force players engaged in existing pan-modal game features to play in Open to continue to affect them then the desire of some players to force other players to "play their way" (when that "way" is not required by any in-game feature) becomes more obvious - as if removing choice from other players is in some way "fair".

Noting that PvP-gating any content to Open would force players wishing to affect that content to play among any actual griefers who may from time to time inhabit Open.

It's pointing out that some players can't accept that other players don't need to present themself to be shot at (should another player so choose to) while engaging in game features. Affecting the shared galaxy has been sold to every player all as something they will do as part of their gameplay, regardless of game mode, there's no "fair trade" required in that regard.

To which there can be no reasonable opposition.

I'm not sure we have the power to force anything, or the ability to even attempt it. It would be FDev that change any constraints on what effects can be accessed how.

As for what's fair - the argument has been that an unfair situation has perpetuated for a long time that needs to be redressed. It's unfair on newer players that perhaps never had the chance to affect the galaxy before the change, but that is the same as for any nerf or change of mechanics that makes a feature more challenging. The change that you view as acceptable, to NPC opposition, falls into the same bracket. Particularly when one considers that advantages gained by powers whose players have leveraged closed mode advantages harder may retain the benefits of such gameplay biases even after the change.