Open-Only in PP2.0?

If players are choosing Solo to "game the system," then I'd rather they stay in Solo and have Frontier elimiate whatever PvE loophole they're using. Trying to coerce them into Open is just going to frustrate everyone else, and will do nothing to solve the actual problem.
While making PvE much more engaging is a must, other players will always be better or be a more direct way of preventing what others want to do.

All games have rewards and Open should be no different given the situations in Powerplay- FD are already 'coercing' / tempting players to play Powerplay with huge rewards.
 
Indeed - however the basis of the decision of each player as to which mode to affect it from is no different.
And yet if one mode removes the most potent enemies (i.e. other players) it impacts the ongoing strategic picture. Would the Titan CG have had the same impact if it was multi mode?
 
In other news, I've finished engineering my OO Cutter, can't wait to try it out in open!


(ignore the festive flak launchers, I'm just storing them)
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
And yet if one mode removes the most potent enemies (i.e. other players) it impacts the ongoing strategic picture. Would the Titan CG have had the same impact if it was multi mode?
The most potent enemies that ironically face little to no risk themself while providing it to their chosen targets.

Which Titan CG was Open only? I expect that you are referring to the NVidia Titan competition - noting that it was one of very few exceptions to the "all modes affect" philosophy - not part of the game though, more a treasure hunt organised within the structure of the game. It'd be interesting to know how many actually took part.
 
Last edited:
What are these rewards?
Hypothetically (for me) it would be keeping the wing bonus in Open as it is (x4) and lowering it in PG (x2).

Other ideas were having hauling bonuses based on the danger present in the system- the BGS records Powerplay cargo lost, it calculates ship costs lost and you could then use the scale of UM that tick to make a bonus for supporting an 'at risk' system. Attacks would get flat bounties and counter INF.
 
The most potent enemies that ironically face little to no risk themself while providing it to their chosen targets.

Which Titan CG was Open only?
The most potent enemies that ironically face little to no risk themself while providing it to their chosen targets.
Which is the 'situational' part of Open. Sometimes you will be at a disadvantage.

Which Titan CG was Open only?
The GTX one where you could win the graphics card.
 
Hypothetically (for me) it would be keeping the wing bonus in Open as it is (x4) and lowering it in PG (x2).

Other ideas were having hauling bonuses based on the danger present in the system- the BGS records Powerplay cargo lost, it calculates ship costs lost and you could then use the scale of UM that tick to make a bonus for supporting an 'at risk' system. Attacks would get flat bounties and counter INF.
So is this financial, or is it in effects rendered to advance the power for whom you are acting?
 
You have risk and risk mitigation backwards.

Open is riskier against other players who have the same ships, skills, modules and have better tactics than NPCs. You mitigate that risk by flying better, being somewhere else, flying a faster ship and so on.


Because NPCs are not peer adversaries and are not as sneaky as players. Solo and PG takes away problems rather than adds to them.
Why are we attributing risk only to human opposition? Yes, humans are sneakier, and capable of more than NPCs, that makes them a tougher opponent, which is admittedly higher risk, but just because NPCs don't pack the same punch doesn't mean there isn't risk involved; I can choose to hunt in a shieldless T9 with one laser, even vs. NPCs that's riskier than a well built FdL.

I can mitigate my risks vs. humans in multiple ways just as I can against NPCs; I can unlock new ships, get better engineering or modules, earn more credits to pay for it all, and all the while learn how to fly better. Is choosing to fly a lower tier ship any different to the risk presented when that's the best ship you've got access to due to progress in the game?

Risk is risk, mitigation is mitigation, and choosing to do certain things to raise or lower exposure to the risk is the same regardless of the presented threat. This is why actual risk is such an important thing for the equation. If we want risk based rewards it must factor in all risk, and all mitigations, not just one facet. PvP is high on the risk scale, but PvE, and the various levels of ship/NPC capability, make up the lower echelons of that scale.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
You still miss my point- there is nothing stopping FD from adding that bonus if they want to.
Of course - just as there is nothing stopping Frontier adding a PvE version of Open to the game (as the challenge has been overcome by more than one game developer) - what may be lacking is inclination, because to introduce a bonus for one game mode is to penalise players in the other two game modes - yet all players bought the game on the same basis, with no requirement to engage in PvP (nor be bribed into doing so).
 
Why are we attributing risk only to human opposition? Yes, humans are sneakier, and capable of more than NPCs, that makes them a tougher opponent, which is admittedly higher risk, but just because NPCs don't pack the same punch doesn't mean there isn't risk involved; I can choose to hunt in a shieldless T9 with one laser, even vs. NPCs that's riskier than a well built FdL.

I can mitigate my risks vs. humans in multiple ways just as I can against NPCs; I can unlock new ships, get better engineering or modules, earn more credits to pay for it all, and all the while learn how to fly better. Is choosing to fly a lower tier ship any different to the risk presented when that's the best ship you've got access to due to progress in the game?

Risk is risk, mitigation is mitigation, and choosing to do certain things to raise or lower exposure to the risk is the same regardless of the presented threat. This is why actual risk is such an important thing for the equation. If we want risk based rewards it must factor in all risk, and all mitigations, not just one facet. PvP is high on the risk scale, but PvE, and the various levels of ship/NPC capability, make up the lower echelons of that scale.

Why is this even being asked? In PP V1 NPCs are from 2015. Even 2024 NPCs are not as good. The only NPCs that pose a challenge are Thargoids, and even then players have soloed many, if not all of them.

You are choosing to be weaker, rather than having a situation where you are at your best but at a disadvantage. You are mitigating risk by doing your best but in the end situations in Powerplay are not and never will be balanced- its never going to be CQC.
 
Same holds for players against NPCs with no player opposition - noting the skill distribution of players.

Indeed - see edit.
And in those cases you are lucky when you are in the clear. Other times you won't and will have to cope with what you have and can do.

The GTX was a one off, but my question was would the character of the CG been different? You could steal the GTX from others and blow others up to 'win'. Its very much like Drews 'real time' event where people were purposefully hunted- would the character be the same if you relied on NPCs?
 
Back
Top Bottom