Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Sounds like NPCs from each Power contesting the system should be in the system - which sounds like rather an oversight if they are not.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
So are you accusing Alec Turner and Brother Sabathius of doctoring images?
Powerplay 2.0 : what we know from partners' streams
Is there any route out to Colonia? Not chaining just 30 LY at a time there isn't. You'd need something closer to 500 LY to make it work (which would obviously be silly in the bubble!) - I can't remember what the maximum separation between CB stations is but it's not far below that (and...
And now do you see why I keep on about roving NPCs that have teeth?
But the situation is logical- you (i.e. players) are agents infiltrating systems that have nothing to do with powers (yet).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Understood, however given that eleven from twelve of those NPCs will be hostile to a pledged player I expect that NPC challenge and context is part of Frontier's balancing exercise as it relates to Powerplay 2.0, noting that it has already been delayed for one week for apparent NPC related issues.
.... and it's not as if players can't fight over it once the expansion is completed, where there will be NPCs present from the controlling Power.
It is, its why I also wanted it linked to effort so that the very active get very active opponents.
But again, thats reductive rather than allowing more actions 'because'. It will be silly if you have a twelve way race where the only way to influence others is to do it faster, possibly lose and then wait while the contenders continue and then undermine, and repeat it all.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which could be the case and we just don't know about it yet.
The actions are allowed, for those so inclined to engage in. They are not, however, mandatory in any way.
But people can't say everything can be engaged in all modes, which then causes issues because unless there is a carrot, why risk the expansion? If you are losing the race, why not be able to risk it all to get ahead?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I agree that PvP can't be engaged in in all modes. The enjoyment of PvP is the carrot - if more is needed then maybe PvP isn't really as popular with the player-base as some might hope it to be.
I wonder how many of these systems exist. Two established powers contesting a system but at least one additional power (out of 12 total) that has a fortified or stronghold system within 20 or 30 ly's depending, who also wants to fight for the system
edited: spelling
Last edited:
Speaking personally, I’d much rather have that kind of gameplay among like-minded players, as opposed to an environment where there are players who have been coerced into participating in that kind of gameplay.
The former environment can be a lot of fun. The latter… or more accurately those who are only playing because the latter have been coerced into it… not so much. Doubly so when you consider how ill-suited this games networking solution, matchmaking services, and (lack of) moderation practices are to that kind of gameplay.
Maybe you miss the rudiments of game design. PvP is a game feature, where risk/reward is a fundamental mechanism that goes far beyond just PvP
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not missed at all - as it's clear that there are riskier activities in the game that enjoy greater rewards. Noting that PvP is not one of them, in this game.
Maybe... no, for sure you miss this: PvP is just one of the game features, where risk/reward is meaningless, because the loudest proponents of "come to 'play' with us, it's sooo fun" don't risk a thing in their G5 muderboats.
Hence PvP is just one of the game features, never ever said to be the main thing. You have other modes, all equal in their contribution.
Maybe... or rather, for sure, you're overlooking some key principles of game design here.
PvP is indeed just one of the game features, but dismissing risk/reward as meaningless misses the mark.The essence of risk/reward isn't about forcing players into PvP, but rather how the game system structures those interactions fairly.
That’s why a better weighting of rewards is crucial: without it, the inherent higher risks of PvP in Open Play become disproportionately punishing, discouraging engagement. Balanced incentives would ensure that players feel the reward is worth the risk.
The so-called 'G5 murderboats' (who aren’t cheating, of course) operate within a designed ecosystem where their risk in Open is lower due to preparation.
Simply because some players have mastered a specific advantage doesn’t negate the underlying game mechanics at work.
And without a reward, why do it? Some will do it regardless but for others they'll want something in return.
Thats not coercion, given they also have the option of not doing it. And whats the worst that can happen when you have a 100% free rebuy?
And lets remember that its only other 'third party' power pledges that are rivalling what is going on.
Last edited:
There will be many, not to mention other allied powers 'helping' too.
For some, yes. But for it to be encouraged and risked (remember that rebuys are eventually free too) you also need an in game reason as well.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Rebuys may be free but ship contents, for those who aren't engaged in combat, are not. So the "free rebuy" perk is next to useless for those players (given that ship contents may be worth massively more than the rebuy).
Hence, the weighting too.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The weighting desired by some players that would susceptible to being able to be acquired by instancing with no players in Open?