Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Mr Jack Burton]

Anything multiplied by zero is zero - so while the probability of destruction may increase in Open, if the severity of destruction is zero (once the player has reached the required rank to enjoy zero rebuy) then the risk is zero (as nothing is lost regardless of how many times it happens).

Loving your skill with math, but this feels a bit like some flat-earthers’ logic: focusing on isolated variables while ignoring the broader context.
Flat-earthers, for example, ignore gravitational theory and visual evidence because they fixate on what seems intuitively 'true' to them, like a flat horizon.

Similarly, focusing only on rebuy cost as the sole measure of risk overlooks other critical factors in Open, such as interruptions to gameplay, loss of cargo or mission progress, and the unpredictability of player interactions.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Similarly, focusing only on rebuy cost as the sole measure of risk overlooks other critical factors in Open, such as interruptions to gameplay, loss of cargo or mission progress, and the unpredictability of player interactions.

Exactly. Again the problem of the single-player mindset when approaching a TvT/PvP mechanic becomes readily apparent.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The 'severity' of destruction remains in the context of powerplay though, as negating or slowing someones bucket filling (whilst advancing your own) still remains.

True - in a not so easily quantified way.

Loving your skill with math, but this feels a bit like some flat-earthers’ logic: focusing on isolated variables while ignoring the broader context.
Flat-earthers, for example, ignore gravitational theory and visual evidence because they fixate on what seems intuitively 'true' to them, like a flat horizon.

Similarly, focusing only on rebuy cost as the sole measure of risk overlooks other critical factors in Open, such as interruptions to gameplay, loss of cargo or mission progress, and the unpredictability of player interactions.

Loss of cargo would be a tangible loss - so not zero. Missions, if lost on destruction, would be another tangible loss. Lost time is less easily quantified.

 

[Ozric]

lmao...Apparently, I'm not allowed to have an opinion regarding someone else's opinion.

Discuss the post, and not the poster.

It's in the rules. If you keep on ignoring the rules you have agreed to when you signed up to this forum, then you posts will be removed.

It's the same for everyone.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Risk does indeed involve probability and severity, but in Open, the probability of unpredictable player encounters (even with G5 murderboats AKA Very Normal Engineered Ships) adds a unique layer of risk compared to Solo or PG, where encounters are predictable or non-existent.

It took me a while to notice, but you’ve been equating highly specialized PvP ships with normal ships. Normal ships have have passenger cabins, cargo racks, SRV bays, and other equipment in their optional bays, and frequently have non-shield boosters in their utility slots.

PvP ships don’t.

There is no way a ship designed for normal gameplay can ever hope to destroy a PvP meta-ship. Survive long enough to jump out? Yes, but not actually be a threat to a PvP build.

That’s why I was keeping track, as much as possible, of who I encountered during the first two weeks PowerPlay 2.0. I was hoping that there was enough incentive for normal ships to engage in spontaneous PvP. Needless to say, I’m not surprised to be disappointed that this isn’t the case.

 

[Vermin]

It took me a while to notice, but you’ve been equating highly specialized PvP ships with normal ships. Normal ships have have passenger cabins, cargo racks, SRV bays, and other equipment in their optional bays, and frequently have non-shield boosters in their utility slots.

PvP ships don’t.

There is no way a ship designed for normal gameplay can ever hope to destroy a PvP meta-ship. Survive long enough to jump out? Yes, but not actually be a threat to a PvP build.

That’s why I was keeping track, as much as possible, of who I encountered during the first two weeks PowerPlay 2.0. I was hoping that there was enough incentive for normal ships to engage in spontaneous PvP. Needless to say, I’m not surprised to be disappointed that this isn’t the case.

A ship built for PvE activities is by design, not a thoroughbred combat ship, so no, of course there is no competition there, but thats half the point, it shouldn't ever be.

PvP players should exist within the system as the next level up from system-security or powerplay specific NPC vessels, Enforcers if you will.

Encountering such vessels should force you out the system you're trying to undermine as per a military outfit would to an invading force. As I posted previously in this thread, this would open up gameplay for both parties in the form of mercenaries and longer term alliances to protect or take over systems and thusly builds communities and cohesive forces working on multiple fronts to push their chosen power.

There is a hell of a lot of gameplay and community based potential in an open only Powerplay system. Cohesive factions full of players with multiple skillsets would be far more effective on the galactic stage and giving people a reason to collaborate and work together encourages players to stick at the game because they have a social aspect, in both positive and "negative" aspects. Always have friends, always have enemies and thusly there is always a game to be played regarding powers and territory.

 

[Dragsham]

I've made this point many times in the past. If we had a level playing field ie only open, then ships of all kinds especially cargo vessels, would be designed and engineered in such a way to negate interdiction, perhaps not take em on but certainly to avoid conflict in a tussel with a murder boat.
Solo vessels engineered do not, are not engineered in such a way because we all know a g5 engineered python cargo runner can easily dodge an npc interdiction, even destroy the npc.
Ships in open only would all be made with potential trouble, in mind. So ultimately it might mean less cargo capacity, but your ships better and your experiencing game loops like pvp interdiction which are not terminal! You'd be able to get away. Perhaps deploy shock mines or an slf. Or fly with a friend. It's mindset! We're safe! It's not nessesary!
Why should we?
Because space isn't safe! Elites supposed to be dangerous!
Clues in its name.
We (solists) would adapt!
You wouldn't fly a maxed out cargo paper plane cutter In open only. It would end in tears!
And that's what we the pvp community are up against. Those who wanna have their cake and eat it.
Open only is realistic. Yeah it needs crime & punishment pass for sure. And gankers need addressing too. I'm not advocating a.murderboat free for all I'm just saying it's more realistic for everyone to be in one platform. Staying safe and not being shot at in PP2.0 or out and about the bubble just isn't realism.
Course this is just my humble opinion and bears no comparison with elites current build.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

It took me a while to notice, but you’ve been equating highly specialized PvP ships with normal ships. Normal ships have have passenger cabins, cargo racks, SRV bays, and other equipment in their optional bays, and frequently have non-shield boosters in their utility slots.

PvP ships don’t.

It’s ultimately a player’s choice to decide the degree of specialization for their ship, considering risk balance and efficiency.
From a Powerplay enemy or unpledged 'terrorist' perspective, specializing for efficiency.
What you’re calling a G5 Murderboat is simply a different type of specialization than yours.

That said, even the highest DPS ship in the game wouldn’t be able to stop a shielded Cutter in a trading role unless specific conditions apply, such as:

• The 'bait' (trader) isn’t skilled at flying that ship
• The bait lacks countermeasures, like PD for Grom missiles
• The trader’s build isn’t optimized for high-wake jumping or shield tanking

In Open, balancing specialization, skill, and strategy means that every player has a degree of choice and adaptability, even when facing high DPS ships.

There is no way a ship designed for normal gameplay can ever hope to destroy a PvP meta-ship. Survive long enough to jump out? Yes, but not actually be a threat to a PvP build.

As those builds are specialized for fighting, it’s natural to specialize your ship if you aim to counter an attacker or join a wing and use tactics.
Expecting a standard build to compete directly with a PvP meta-ship is like expecting a convertible minivan to take on a tank.

Each role has its own setup and strategies.
Preparing for PvP just means adjusting accordingly.

That’s why I was keeping track, as much as possible, of who I encountered during the first two weeks PowerPlay 2.0. I was hoping that there was enough incentive for normal ships to engage in spontaneous PvP. Needless to say, I’m not surprised to be disappointed that this isn’t the case.

Once a player dives into PvP, it usually doesn’t take long before they start optimizing their builds, just as they did for PvE.
The reality is that specialized builds become the natural choice for PvP, as players seek efficiency and effectiveness in encounters.

That said, there are various levels of customization for a non-PvP ship, a ship not intended to survive extended encounters with other players but rather to achieve its own goals, whether that’s trading, mining, PvE activities, exploration, passenger missions, or cargo runs. These customizations allow the ship to evade or survive just long enough to complete its objectives, focusing on escape and resilience rather than direct combat endurance.

 

[Dragsham]

One addition to interdiction is a counter. So you escape the 1st interdiction there should be a delay in when the 2nd interdiction is possible. And a further delay in the 3rd thus removing the spam interdiction scenario.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

One addition to interdiction is a counter. So you escape the 1st interdiction there should be a delay in when the 2nd interdiction is possible. And a further delay in the 3rd thus removing the spam interdiction scenario.

If the attacker loses an interdiction, they already drop out of supercruise and face a long cooldown timer. This mechanic is already in place to prevent continuous interdiction attempts immediately after a failed one.

Were you perhaps suggesting something else ?

 

[Dragsham]

Players don't often lose an interdiction. A wide angled interdictor almost guaranteed success.
As a result most, myself included surrender to the interdiction by zero throttling. This enables the victim to resume supercruise flight cos fsd cooldown is low, whilst the interdictor is still tumbling out of warp.
This is a well known meta.
What happens next is when the victim goes back into supercruise, the interdictor resumes another interdiction. What I'm suggesting is a time delay thus allowing the victim to either gain some distance via sco drive, or high wake.

 

[Vermin]

Players don't often lose an interdiction. A wide angled interdictor almost guaranteed success.
As a result most, myself included surrender to the interdiction by zero throttling. This enables the victim to resume supercruise flight cos fsd cooldown is low, whilst the interdictor is still tumbling out of warp.
This is a well known meta.
What happens next is when the victim goes back into supercruise, the interdictor resumes another interdiction. What I'm suggesting is a time delay thus allowing the victim to either gain some distance via sco drive, or high wake.

Just low-waking is only increasing the chances of successful destruction of your ship, you absolutely should not be low-waking away from PvP vessels, you should always high-wake to another system as your shields and hull will only dwindle over repeated encounters until you simply don't have enough tank to survive.

This is an issue i encounter a lot regarding attacking vessels, they assume that they can jump back into cruise with no penalty, the game doesn't allow for that, and nor should it. If it did, then we once again run into the problem where completing, say, undermining, becomes assured so long as you can survive two or so encounters and would thusly render the concept of PvP intervention regarding powerplay moot, even with the change to an open only system.

There should not be "get out of jail free" cards beyond the pilot reacting appropriately to the situation. If you jump back straight into cruise, thats an error, and is directly punished by another interdiction.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Once a player dives into PvP, it usually doesn’t take long before they start optimizing their builds, just as they did for PvE.
The reality is that specialized builds become the natural choice for PvP, as players seek efficiency and effectiveness in encounters.

Yeah… no thanks. I value my free time, my sanity, and my sense of fun to ever want to dive into the grindy slog that passes for PvP post-engineering, even after the latest manufactured material Monty Haul revamp. G3 engineering is still more than sufficient to kill the occasional NPC.

I’ll simply have continue to be amused by the fact that the type of PvPer who preferentially targets transport ships has put in a hundred times the amount of effort I did on Engineering, and they still can’t make the kill.

 

[Vermin]

Yeah… no thanks. I value my free time, my sanity, and my sense of fun to ever want to dive into the grindy slog that passes for PvP post-engineering, even after the latest manufactured material Monty Haul revamp. G3 engineering is still more than sufficient to kill the occasional NPC.

I’ll simply have continue to be amused by the fact that the type of PvPer who preferentially targets transport ships has put in a hundred times the amount of effort I did on Engineering, and they still can’t make the kill.

It might surprise you to find out that a lot of traders only get attacked due to the "wrong place, wrong time" situation.

And as I've stated earlier in the thread, you'd see a lot less in the way of random ganking if Powerplay was Open only and we actually had a relevant activity to apply our skillsets too, rather than being washed out of it due to overly weighted influence from Solo/PG and no requirement to interact with other players despite influencing an inherently PvP based system.

 

[Rebel Yell]

It might surprise you to find out that a lot of traders only get attacked due to the "wrong place, wrong time" situation.

99% to my records.

 

[Darrack]

Balancing risk and rewards is essential here, as it ensures that players who take on greater risks in Open Mode have corresponding rewards.

There is no greater risk in Open

O7

 

[Darrack]

It’s ultimately a player’s choice to decide the degree of specialization for their ship, considering risk balance and efficiency.

And game mode

O7

 

[Vermin]

There is no greater risk in Open

O7

Well the only variable that changes in Open is that there is the potential of encountering a hostile player, given thats the only variable than changes, yes, there is more risk in Open

 

[Darrack]

We're not complaining, we're asking for a fair game where you can stop us doing things and we can do the same to you.

The game is fair at the moment, folks can pick how they want to play, its not on others to force different gameplay on them.

One can always run/try to escape etc. again fair game.

Why should i bother? Open folks on here have said how easy it is to avoid interdiction or get away when you are stopped, so the risk in Open (if you know what you are doing is low).
My ships whilst built for PVE could easily avoid being blown up, i know what i am doing and they are all engineered to an inch of their life.
I'm not going to lose cargo, what I'm losing is time, my time and that's far more important to me than bothering whether game modes are balanced.
You want to hobble yourself in Open? Crack on.

Unfortunately, solo/PG is not fair game anymore, saying the contrary is hypocrisy.

Its perfectly fair many of the activities in PP2 are designed without any combat in mind.
Hypocrisy quiet frankly is saying Open should have a bonus when 99% of the time nothing happens.

O7

 

[Vermin]

The game is fair at the moment, folks can pick how they want to play, its not on others to force different gameplay on them.


Why should i bother? Open folks on here have said how easy it is to avoid interdiction or get away when you are stopped, so the risk in Open (if you know what you are doing is low).
My ships whilst built for PVE could easily avoid being blown up, i know what i am doing and they are all engineered to an inch of their life.
I'm not going to lose cargo, what I'm losing is time, my time and that's far more important to me than bothering whether game modes are balanced.
You want to hobble yourself in Open? Crack on.


Its perfectly fair many of the activities in PP2 are designed without any combat in mind.
Hypocrisy quiet frankly is saying Open should have a bonus when 99% of the time nothing happens.

O7

How exactly is the gameplay fair when one group doesn't have to make any build concessions to usurp a system, but the other does to survive, as how is it fair for a system blockade to be circumvented by players essentially being ghosts?

See the Cutter argument. A system your faction wants to take over, is blockaded in open, and only friendly vessels can get through, but there are also members of the invading faction shooting at the traders or miners. The ones competing in Open, can carry 538 tons of cargo, due to the requirement to have a beefy shield to make it through the players trying to take them out.

The ones playing in solo or PG, can carry 794 tons of cargo with no shield because NPC interdictions are simply not a threat, even to ships as unwieldy as a Cutter is.

Success in these scenarios, IE; reaching the command points thresholds faster, is based entirely on efficiency, so one group, already has a leg-up due to the lack of risk and the ability to run more cargo space, and they also do not have to deal with interdictions in the same way, and so their trips are significantly faster and they can do more in the timeframe.

The result is that the group playing in Solo or PG, can freely reach the caps needed to take over territory with no risk, and no intervention. Whereas, the players in Open, will simply not be able to compete due to both a cargo load and time difference, thusly impacting the factions efficiency. Lower efficiency = Significantly lower chance of success.

Its inherently broken to have what is in effect a competitive system be influenced from a mode which isnt subject to the same difficulties as another one. There is no argument regarding this at all, its straight up factual. One group is in an advantageous situation, where the other is at a disadvantage. By definition, that is not fair gameplay.