Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Lateralus]

How far back do we have to take posts ? 6 years ?? 3 years ( consoles getting EDO but having to wait ) 2 years no EDO for consoles?
There is no in game need for PvP you can BGS and PP till your heart's content without PvP so the only need is a few who think it's a good idea or assume that's what it meant . It's a bit like Elite Dangerous ? It's not because it was a Dangerous galaxy, it was solely the most average rank.

I know most of you aren't developers or software engineers... but the process of idea conception to a fully realised product often takes years. 6 Years is well within acceptable timeframe for a proposal to still be relevant.

Also Powerplay was designed with PvP as a primary focus and reason for it's existence, please don't force me to link the Sandro Powerplay launch livestream video for the umpteenth time "Most importantly it allows consensual PvP" .

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

still doesn't change the fact that Frontier released the new powerplay without it being open only or "PvP focused". Seemed to me, the way Arthur and Zac introduced it, that it was a conscious decision. Whatever relevance whatever musings about open only might have had in the past, it seems it wasn't relevant enough to make it into the release of the new powerplay.

 

[angusmadmac1]

I know most of you aren't developers or software engineers... but the process of idea conception to a fully realised product often takes years. 6 Years is well within acceptable timeframe for a proposal to still be relevant.

Also Powerplay was designed with PvP as a primary focus and reason for it's existence, please don't force me to link the Sandro Powerplay launch livestream video for the umpteenth time "Most importantly it allows consensual PvP" .

Yeah Sandro said a lot of things in the begining and then the realisation hits . Like a sales person promises the earth gets you in and then goes ahhh you see there is a problem we can't do that because .....
Do you get a bonus for spending hours looking for a commander to blow up and then possibly 20 mins battling it out if they are up for it .
Or do you hunt down the masses of NPC and kill them ?
1 commander kill works out the same as 1 NPC kill.
I'm happy to fill up the bucket with NPC kills and win the PP bucket fill contest.
But don't then complain people aren't playing the way you envisioned it and it's unfair and people are hiding in different instances and timezones.
I play my way ( in open ) and have done for many years and whilst having consented PVP I have never needed to or see the need for PvP in game .

 

[Darkfyre99]

Always fly with a shield. I don't trust myself to not lose attention at a critical moment and i certainly don't trust the auto-dock to not run me into a wall.

I don't even trust myself to not run me into a wall.

And I deliberately slam into walls and hope I bounce back to the right place on the docking pad.

 

[Dragsham]

For powerplay 2.0 open only to work, fdev would have to address the ganking. Period!
Because that's going to destroy any cohesive "campaigns" where 2 "sides", are contesting control of a given system.
Not only that, but haulers, bounty hunters (pve), and other specced ships encountering them would face being nuked.
Pvp has it's place in 2.0 I'm convinced of that, even think it's partially designed for it.
But until ganking is removed from elite dangerous it's just not feasible. And to date they've done nothing to address it.
Perma noteriety after 3 or so kills, not being able to rearm etc in any populated system, removal of fc ownership once passed into perma threshold. Would result in them being consigned to zero population anarchy systems with no way to rearm/refuel.
One would think twice before wanton murder. Course this won't affect powerkilling of cmdrs vs cmdrs.
It's doable they just need to face it and remove this cancer once & for all.

 

[ethelred]

How would such an approach apply to an open world multi-player game where players at all stages may instance together in ships outfitted for very different roles?

Glad you asked.

There's two main ways this can be handled (caveat there may be more but this is my best recollection)

The first one is where NPC skills and ability rank to the individual players rank. This approach happens in Fallout 4/Skyrim where spawning enemies adapt to your level.

We saw a bit of this in ED, where (again from memory it was some time ago) being Elite in say, trade, meant that elite level NPCs with bells and whistles would spawn against you. This was roundly shouted down at the time and I think the system was amended.

I think you're (@Robert Maynard ) an, ahem, "mature" gamer like me so you're probably familiar with the second method of "zones" having particularly high level NPCs.

A really good example of this is Riedquat in the OG Elite - there is absolutely nothing stopping the player jumping to that system in the absolute basic Cobra, where you'd be met with multiple pirates and pretty quickly destroyed.

We also see this design with the Thargoid war - again nothing to stop you heading straight there in the starter sidewinder but you'll (generic) be facing a rebuy screen pretty quickly.

Other examples are the original Fallout and Fallout New Vegas.

Hope that answers.

Now, the opinion piece:-

It's my preference for a "zone" method but apart from the Thargoids, we don't really see this in ED. IMHO the game would be far better if there were zones where NPCs posed a higher level of threat (for more reward). Yes, to get to trade elite you don't need to fire a shot - but getting through an NPC blockade via player skill at either combat or flying should reward you more than a safe milk run.

Again IMHO this would add more flavour to the galaxy and mean that systems security and government type would be better visualised or "felt" within the game.

Best of all, game design like this is mode ambiguous - it shouldn't matter if you're in Open/Sole or PG.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

I feel duty bound to clear up the fact that Canonn did not "receive" a mega-ship in the way you seem to be suggesting. Frontier wanted to test the idea, following on from Jaques, of a megaship that tours around presumably to pave the way for the Guardian ruins shuttle. They asked Canonn if they wanted it put in their name, as it fit the science nature and as a nod to the work the collective has done in progressing the Thargoid storyline. It was added to a CG that was being proposed to get a decal, which other player groups also had back in the day when you could submit CGs. In the beginning Canonn had no control over where it went, then as the time passed and other things were added to the game they were allowed to submit potential systems for it to jump to. Which lead to the incident... #RememberTheGnosis

Also while I'm clearing things up OA never posted on this forum begging for anything. There was a thread started by a community member, as there has been for many other things over the years. But that was over 8 years ago and this community and Frontier are very different to those days.

You may disagree with how Frontier chose to handle those situations certainly, but the reality is quite different to those two throwaway remarks.

I'm sorry, but to me this isn't the correction you think it is.

1. Canon as a group recevied content that other groups didn't get, in the form of said mega-ship, which as you say, in its end state could be moved by a player group requesting a change to the galaxy state, something not available to other groups.

2. When the 'Get Obsidian a new GPU card' nonsense was ongoing, one of the forum rules was 'no soliciting money', which was conveniently overlooked by moderators, the forum consensus and FDEV themselves with Community Managers 'chipping in' to the cause.

I personally don't see much change in FDEV in this regard, the handling of the 'testing' of Powerplay in a wider community (by handing it out to chosen few streamers) is the continuation of a (ironically) Elite few having access to something the rest of the playerbase did not/or rules overlooked because 'reasons'.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

I don't disagree with the last - how it would be achieved would be of interest though, noting apparent issues with being able to avoid detection of a ship that is effectively static.

For the player with little or no interest in combat it's not moot - and the ability to avoid it is welcomed.

It's not part of the game that is played in the game, i.e. the use of "in-game" in the post that spawned this sub-topic was deliberate.

People quite often refer to game features as modes - it's not worth correcting every time.

1. Because I don't think you have to make it 'detect' if a ship is effectively static. Having the AI and its threat level to the point it can kill a static turret ran ship does not require that. For example (thought of over my first cup of coffee just now), even simply having it try to disengage, loiter outside of range till it can repair/recharge and come back against a player ship it can outpace is a quick, easy fix

2. Your CQC rank is in-game. The rewards for engaging in it are in-game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

1. Because I don't think you have to make it 'detect' if a ship is effectively static. Having the AI and its threat level to the point it can kill a static turret ran ship does not require that. For example (thought of over my first cup of coffee just now), even simply having it try to disengage, loiter outside of range till it can repair/recharge and come back against a player ship it can outpace is a quick, easy fix

A behavioural change then that would be able to be dealt with trivially by a player controlling their ship that would make static ships much less effective - I like it.

2. Your CQC rank is in-game. The rewards for engaging in it are in-game.

Can't argue with that - the rank (or complete lack of it in many cases noting Inara statistics regarding the "popularity" of CQC among those who use it) is shown in game (something that has been incongruous to me at least since CQC was launched), or that there is a permit reward.

Going forward it'll be sufficient to say that half of the paths to Elite rank don't require the player to fire a shot in combat.

 

[Nowski]

It's my preference for a "zone" method but apart from the Thargoids, we don't really see this in ED. IMHO the game would be far better if there were zones where NPCs posed a higher level of threat (for more reward).

Maybe I'm missing some context, but aren't POIs with threat levels exactly this? Hazardous, high, low resources; high, medium, low CZs in space and on foot? Powerplay has some new POIs with a range of threat levels, I believe. I guess you mean more of a system-wide "zone" or around existing assets like ports?

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

How would such an approach apply to an open world multi-player game where players at all stages may instance together in ships outfitted for very different roles?

The content consumption curve is an industry standard precisely because it allows players at different progression levels to coexist without undermining gameplay balance. Less advanced players can engage in level-appropriate activities or tackle higher risk encounters, solo or with allies, for more substantial rewards.

However, the problem in Elite Dangerous arises at the endgame. For players who’ve reached maximum progression, there’s a lack of challenging content to match their level, aside from perhaps Thargoid encounters. This creates a gap where high-end players either have limited meaningful activities or end up in situations that trivialize the experience for those still progressing.

 

[John_riggs]

To OP:

Players have always argued there needs to be a pvp flag: thats what powerplay seems designed as.

Players dont like gankers because they dont like exploding for “no reason”: your pp provides that reason. Our pps shall never see eye to eye.

Players are called gankers because their ship and skilllz are so far beyond their target’s: this is by design in powerplay as an explorer is using data to expand his powerplay faction and meets an opposing pp player in a combat ship whose duty is to destroy the weaker ship.

Players that arent combat pilots want to be able to engage with it. I am a rubbish pvp combat pilot, my goal will be to smuggle and trade by being sneaky. Is that harder against players: yes, but its very doable as well. This is assemmetric gameplay: a feature in a lot of games and one that elite is very suited to. Allowing that to happen in solo is effectively having no resistance at all.

Streamers etc that complain about pp npcs being too difficult for them to do community events wont have that issue anymore. When they go into their private group mode the PP npcs wont recognise them as a threat as they wont have any influence in that mode even if they are part of a po faction in open.

Solo mode players want all features available to them: Well, its a zero sum game, either you give pvpers a open only feature or you dont. Thats for fdev to decide their design intent. However we have seen many times in the past the loud solo mode crew will be able to change fdevs intial plans.

As i say, i am not a ganker, not because i think its “wrong” (far from it), but because i am rubbish at pvp combat and because i like to just dip in an out when it suits me: i dont want to commit to alot of social media and group duties.
But i do really like flying around scared that my goals will be thwarted, which isnt possible with npcs.

I am a solo (not solo mode: i do both solo and open) player and non combat pilot and i want oopp and be forced to go open all the time to engage with powerplay. I hope fdev have the big ones to follow through on what seems to be their design intent and risk upsetting some players.

Thats my response to OP

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

A behavioural change then that would be able to be dealt with trivially by a player controlling their ship that would make static ships much less effective - I like it.

Can't argue with that - the rank (or complete lack of it in many cases noting Inara statistics regarding the "popularity" of CQC among those who use it) is shown in game (something that has been incongruous to me at least since CQC was launched), or that there is a permit reward.

Going forward it'll be sufficient to say that half of the paths to Elite rank don't require the player to fire a shot in combat.

I don't want to get nitpicky, but I feel while I'm making headway I should just emphasise as well that this isn't a case of me trying to forcible weld pulse lasers onto your Asp Explorer. Regardless of a player firing a shot or not, they are still open to potential combat interactions, whether they are from a NPC or a player. This is why I was saying Combat is a cornerstone of the game in the original post.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't want to get nitpicky, but I feel while I'm making headway I should just emphasise as well that this isn't a case of me trying to forcible weld pulse lasers onto your Asp Explorer. Regardless of a player firing a shot or not, they are still open to potential combat interactions, whether they are from a NPC or a player. This is why I was saying Combat is a cornerstone of the game in the original post.

Such a cornerstone that it's pretty much completely avoidable by those disinterested in it.

 

[ethelred]

Maybe I'm missing some context, but aren't POIs with threat levels exactly this? Hazardous, high, low resources; high, medium, low CZs in space and on foot? Powerplay has some new POIs with a range of threat levels, I believe. I guess you mean more of a system-wide "zone" or around existing assets like ports?

Absolutely - but unlike Riedquat or trying to get to New Vegas from the off - POIs are avoidable.

I believe initially system jumps would have dropped you into real space at the beacon, so this could have been a way to introduce it, although there's issues with this too.

On foot is a different and from my little experience it works well as the content requires you to engage with it all, whether your equipment is ready for it or not.

 

[Nowski]

Absolutely - but unlike Riedquat or trying to get to New Vegas from the off - POIs are avoidable.

Point taken, but in my Elite 1984 experience, Ridequat Riedquat was entirely avoidable too

Edit: correct 40-year-old spelling issue.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Point taken, but in my Elite 1984 experience, Ridequat was entirely avoidable too

.... and any loss was but a reload of the save game away, as many times as one wished.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Glad you asked.

There's two main ways this can be handled (caveat there may be more but this is my best recollection)

The first one is where NPC skills and ability rank to the individual players rank. This approach happens in Fallout 4/Skyrim where spawning enemies adapt to your level.

Those are single player games with difficulty sliders - so aren't really applicable to as a comparison a multi-player environment.

We saw a bit of this in ED, where (again from memory it was some time ago) being Elite in say, trade, meant that elite level NPCs with bells and whistles would spawn against you. This was roundly shouted down at the time and I think the system was amended.

Not sure that it was amended, but it related primarily to combat ranks from memory - as some players asked Support to reduce their combat rank as a consequence of the change.

I think you're (@Robert Maynard ) an, ahem, "mature" gamer like me so you're probably familiar with the second method of "zones" having particularly high level NPCs.

A really good example of this is Riedquat in the OG Elite - there is absolutely nothing stopping the player jumping to that system in the absolute basic Cobra, where you'd be met with multiple pirates and pretty quickly destroyed.

We also see this design with the Thargoid war - again nothing to stop you heading straight there in the starter sidewinder but you'll (generic) be facing a rebuy screen pretty quickly.

Other examples are the original Fallout and Fallout New Vegas.

Hope that answers.

Elite had save games that meant that any challenging scenario could be attempted as many times as one wished without loss.

The Fallout games quoted are single player games with difficulty sliders - so the player was largely in control of the challenge posed by the game.

Now, the opinion piece:-

It's my preference for a "zone" method but apart from the Thargoids, we don't really see this in ED. IMHO the game would be far better if there were zones where NPCs posed a higher level of threat (for more reward). Yes, to get to trade elite you don't need to fire a shot - but getting through an NPC blockade via player skill at either combat or flying should reward you more than a safe milk run.

Again IMHO this would add more flavour to the galaxy and mean that systems security and government type would be better visualised or "felt" within the game.

Best of all, game design like this is mode ambiguous - it shouldn't matter if you're in Open/Sole or PG.

There are such zones already - noting that some players are dissatisfied that they are opt-in rather than represent a general difficulty shift in the game.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Such a cornerstone that it's pretty much completely avoidable by those disinterested in it.

Which has been caused by overtime since launch by the bloat of Hull and Shield Strengths, unwarranted AI Nerfs, Engineering and a myriad of other factors, which is the recipe for the perfect storm we have now in terms of turretboats and the other things we've been discussing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which has been caused by overtime since launch by the bloat of Hull and Shield Strengths, unwarranted AI Nerfs, Engineering and a myriad of other factors, which is the recipe for the perfect storm we have now in terms of turretboats and the other things we've been discussing.

Those did not cause the apparent optionality of combat, however they did exacerbate it. Noting that while some players don't accept NPC challenge tweaks, Frontier obviously deemed them necessary for the player-base as a whole, not just considering those who find NPCs to be little or no challenge.

It's far more likely that the decision around whether combat should be avoidable was made based on the fact that two of the three original paths to Elite in this game as launched did not require the player to fire a shot in combat.