Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Vermin]

Combat orientated players can have as much PvP as they want with others who wish to participate.

For as long as the more combat orientated players have been asking for changes to suit them, there has been a push back from those not interested in PvP.

It suits the system better. You're fighting over territory, indirectly or directly should'nt matter, it should be confined to open due to its inherently competitive nature.

Personally, I want to see alliances and mercenaries and players actually working together to achieve goals. PvPers and PvEers, IE; cohesive faction play.

And as for the latter point, like i have mentioned before, ganking is mostly a symptom of there being a lack of content supporting PvP. Most gankers, if not all of them will happily fight other gankers. If there was actual content for us to be involved with, IE; fighting for powers in cohesive units, blockading systems, taking on player defence forces in systems our faction wanted to push, defending those who do less direct activites to push powers, etc, then you would see random ganking all but disappear.

There is a fundamental disconnect of understanding between the two groups. One expects us all to be unhinged psychopaths who only want to ruin others day, the other rolls with it because they have nothing better to do and no content that supports them, and thusly there is endless perpetuating the negative aspects of the PvP vs PvE argument. Slapping everyone in the same mode with common goals goes a long way to both fix and permanently eliminate that perpetuation.

 

[smeggysmeg]

I think the question needs to be asked of those that are so against OOPP why? What is it that is so abhorrent?

I suspect it may be the fear that they will simply become seals to club; punching bags for sweaty gankers. If that's the case then as long as FDev provides suitable tools to give those who don't want to fight a reasonable chance to evade attackers would that be OK? I already suspect that might be the "feature" of these new variants; an SCO-style experimental cloaking system maybe or something else defense-focused that could give more casual players a fighting chance to engage in the PP game without having to necessarily fight. Cat and mouse is valid game play in my opinion as long as the mouse has a real chance of getting away.

If the motivation for the No Open side turns out to be just I-want-to-have-reward-with-no-risk-and-no-effort then, well, I don't really consider that point of view to be valid as it is simply contrary to what PP is.

It's definitely the seal clubbing concern. There's a massive performance difference between a PVP focused combat ship versus anything else, such that encountering one is basically an instant-kill for anyone not in one. Even my highly engineered PVE Python MK2 stands no chance. It's not even a skill gap question, but a loadout/engineering question.

If you have to be in a fully engineered PVP combat ship at all times, then it precludes all other gameplay, locking off powerplay to anyone not willing to grind to a maxed PVP ship.

I'm not opposed to reduced merits for non-open, especially combat, but if all powerplay became open only, all it takes is one faction deploying a player in a handful of systems to effectively blockade off all non-PVP powerplay gameplay for a given turn.

 

[Mrc_NorthEast]

1) I still think a good (very small) step would be making the new FC Stronghold instances Open Only (not the full system). No specific extra bonus, however, you would have to be pledged to any power to be able to see and drop into those instances. There is no hauling there as far as I know. You can hack and blow stuff up by fighting if visiting an enemy stronghold. If it is your own stronghold FC you can land and do more, but I do not think you can do any on foot stuff.

2) Idea is give the PP2 Pvp'ers who like and want Cmdr vs Cmdr combat, a specific place to go. Cqc failed at this. Maybe tie some missions to it, make the power play merits and or credits worth the time. If it were only in open, the questionable mechanic of farming the stronghold FC SLF's from long range could be countered by cmdrs being there to defend against that.

3) Will it work? Will it be fun? We won't know until we try it

4) Maybe a possible open only change for non power players would be zero credits lost on death, and no loss of cargo if not pledged and another Cmdr shot or rammed you to death. All that is lost would be time and perhaps some added frustration.

5) I am just trying to think outside the box here. Status quo has two large groups unhappy with PP1/2 all modes play, and non consensual Pvp in Open. Fdev has not really done much for either group in this regard. So what (if anything) can the two groups agree on since Fdev are being so quiet?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Slapping everyone in the same mode with common goals goes a long way to both fix and permanently eliminate that perpetuation.

It seems that Frontier made their choice on this point over twelve years ago, not that some players choose to accept it.

.... and attempting to force players with zero interest in what the PvPers have to offer to play in Open stands approximately zero chance of the argument ceasing.

 

[Vermin]

It's definitely the seal clubbing concern. There's a massive performance difference between a PVP focused combat ship versus anything else, such that encountering one is basically an instant-kill for anyone not in one. Even my highly engineered PVE Python MK2 stands no chance. It's not even a skill gap question, but a loadout/engineering question.

If you have to be in a fully engineered PVP combat ship at all times, then it precludes all other gameplay, locking off powerplay to anyone not willing to grind to a maxed PVP ship.

I'm not opposed to reduced merits for non-open, especially combat, but if all powerplay became open only, all it takes is one faction deploying a player in a handful of systems to effectively blockade off all non-PVP powerplay gameplay for a given turn.

This is a misunderstanding. If you stand and fight, yes, you will absolutely get obliterated in a very short time, but with a modicum of engineering, a decent shield and making the right maneuvers (Submitting to the interdiction and jumping out to another system) most ships are perfectly survivable, especially PvE combat ships.

You don't need to be in a PvP adjacent ship to survive a gank, you just need to make the right moves and do a little bit of preperation.

Does that mean losing a little bit of cargo? Yes. Does that mean you would'nt be able to slip through the net? Absolutely not.

Blockading a system, should be an option in powerplay, but if there is a concerted effort to turn it over, then some ships will get through the net, and others would be deployed to keep the combat vessels busy whilst they do. This would benefit every group as everyone is playing a part in that effort and it would require cohesion on a greater scale. Which is only a good thing in regards to a faction and territory based gameloop.

Sure, you would'nt get away with a shieldless Cutter or T9, but nor should you. Same as you would'nt get away with a paper exploration ship trying to turn in data in an occupied system, you would have to adjust your strategy and many are simply unwilling to do so regardless of the amount of effort required.

 

[Nowski]

I'm about as unconvinced by the pro-Open arguments as you can get, of either the Open only or weighted Open varieties.

The one relevant change I would be happy to see (and I look at as something of a missed opportunity) would be the game explicitly recognising PvP Power kills and rewarding them significantly more than the PvE equivalent (mabye with some further variations between PP2 system types, to encourage participation).

PvP combat is a naturally "open only" game element, and I don't see any harm in rewarding PvP over PvE combat in view of the relative scarcity of opponents and difficulty of encountering them.

I guess it's open to some abuse but I see this as a small downside against the upside of incentivising those focused on PvP to engage the playstyle of their choice.

Clearly this wouldn't be enough for many on the pro-Open side, but I don't think that's a reason not to go ahead. In fact I thought from some of the preview screenshots that this would be a feature of PP2.0 and I'm a little baffled as to why it was apparently dropped.

 

[smeggysmeg]

This is a misunderstanding. If you stand and fight, yes, you will absolutely get obliterated in a very short time, but with a modicum of engineering, a decent shield and making the right maneuvers (Submitting to the interdiction and jumping out to another system) most ships are perfectly survivable, especially PvE combat ships.

You don't need to be in a PvP adjacent ship to survive a gank, you just need to make the right moves and do a little bit of preperation.

Does that mean losing a little bit of cargo? Yes. Does that mean you would'nt be able to slip through the net? Absolutely not.

Blockading a system, should be an option in powerplay, but if there is a concerted effort to turn it over, then some ships will get through the net, and others would be deployed to keep the combat vessels busy whilst they do. This would benefit every group as everyone is playing a part in that effort and it would require cohesion on a greater scale. Which is only a good thing in regards to a faction and territory based gameloop.

Sure, you would'nt get away with a shieldless Cutter or T9, but nor should you. Same as you would'nt get away with a paper exploration ship trying to turn in data in an occupied system, you would have to adjust your strategy and many are simply unwilling to do so regardless of the amount of effort required.

From my experience, this is false. G3-5 engineered Cutter with Class 6 shields I think, upgraded light hull. I submitted, had another system preselected, turned with FA off to face attacker and boosted, popped chaff, was blown away in less than 10 seconds. Not even 1/3 cooled down FSD, hopeless. Now, I'm pledged in powerplay and I'm playing in open, and I have billions so I'm fine with it, that's part of the game for me.

But for many other people, for this to be viable the PowerPlay pledge screen needs a big warning saying, "OTHER PLAYERS WILL 1 SHOT YOU UNLESS YOU HAVE A MAXED PVP SHIP". Because that's the state of affairs.

My kid, not involved in powerplay, got ganked once in open and stopped playing for 2 months because he was so upset. They didn't demand cargo or even have a motive. "Little Cobra? Kill it!" He won't ever play in Open again. Now imagine that sort of light/casual player signing up for powerplay without the warning I suggested above - and they're getting blown away every time they logon and not knowing why.

The gap between a top engineered PVP ship and anything else is such that it discourages non-PVP players from sharing the same space.

 

[Vermin]

From my experience, this is false. G3-5 engineered Cutter with Class 6 shields I think, upgraded light hull. I submitted, had another system preselected, turned with FA off to face attacker and boosted, popped chaff, was blown away in less than 10 seconds. Not even 1/3 cooled down FSD, hopeless. Now, I'm pledged in powerplay and I'm playing in open, and I have billions so I'm fine with it, that's part of the game for me.

But for many other people, for this to be viable the PowerPlay pledge screen needs a big warning saying, "OTHER PLAYERS WILL 1 SHOT YOU UNLESS YOU HAVE A MAXED PVP SHIP". Because that's the state of affairs.

My kid, not involved in powerplay, got ganked once in open and stopped playing for 2 months because he was so upset. They didn't demand cargo or even have a motive. "Little Cobra? Kill it!" He won't ever play in Open again. Now imagine that sort of light/casual player signing up for powerplay without the warning I suggested above - and they're getting blown away every time they logon and not knowing why.

The gap between a top engineered PVP ship and anything else is such that it discourages non-PVP players from sharing the same space.

That sounds like a cheater. You should'nt be dying in ten seconds with a Cutter even with G3 engineered shields.

That is not the state of affairs at all, that in absolutely a falsehood.

Game balance is out of wack, I won't deny that (and I have plans for an essay directed to FDev on how to remedy this), but you will not get one shot unless you've intentionally made a ****box of a ship. In which case, that is on you, the player, not on the person who has put the time in to make a ship that is effective in combat.

 

[Darrack]

that is on you, the player

Nope its not, it aint big or clever to attack a trader with a murder boat, hence why many stay out of Open.

O7

 

[ethelred]

It seems the real question is how could PvP be implemented in PP?

Could there be a worthwhile subset of PP activity that would be PvP, if so what would it look like?

 

[gorankar]

That sounds like a cheater. You should'nt be dying in ten seconds with a Cutter even with G3 engineered shields.

That is not the state of affairs at all, that in absolutely a falsehood.

Game balance is out of wack, I won't deny that (and I have plans for an essay directed to FDev on how to remedy this), but you will not get one shot unless you've intentionally made a ****box of a ship. In which case, that is on you, the player, not on the person who has put the time in to make a ship that is effective in combat.

There is a lot more cheating going on than we would like to admit. Seen a lot of weird things lately that I can't really chock up to legacy modules/weapons or the games generally lousy p2p networking. You are right, they should not be able to kill that fast, or at all most of the time if you run and high wake in an appropriately shielded ship..

Still though, you keep asking other people play in a way that suits you. They don't want to, they don't need to, and they have no reason to. If you try to get game mechanics changed to force them to play with you, most will just refuse to.
Play with the people that want to play with you. Others have different playstyles, and you have already admitted escape would be common. PvP is just not going to have an effect on the outcome. As a combat player, you have always and likely will always do more for your power in less time by killing/robbing NPCs than real players, so no one believes this is about who wins or loses at power play.
Is this about some vain hope you will have more players to shoot at? Do you think open only or open bonus/solo-PG penalty is supported by more players than are against it? Why should the many sacrifice for the few?

 

[SteveWW57]

Why should the many sacrifice for the few?

As has been said before according to some:

"The greater good."

Not my view though. Solo all the way baby!

 

[Ghststlkr051]

I see all this back and forth about Open/Solo/PG and a PvP flag.

1. So having Open play (PvP risk) and solo (no PvP risk)

2. Having only Open play with a PvP flag.

What is the fundamental difference between either of the above scenarios?
NOTHING!

Players can still affect Power play in solo. There is zero PvP risk. Players will also never see another commander.

Playing in hypothetical Open with PvP flag set OFF. Guess what? It is exactly the same as Solo play, mechanically, except I may pass/see other commanders at times doing their thing…

Turn the PvP flag on, and it is 100% exactly the same as Open is right now.

All that a toggle pvp flag would do is combine both Open/solo/PG into a single game mode.

Those that argue that there is risk in Open are completely forgetting that a lot of the players are in Solo/PG mode because they don’t want to deal with PvP at all. Why prevent them from seeing other commanders flying around? You’re in a PvP squadron? Great, turn your PvP flag on and others will surely join in the PvP. Those that don’t, won’t.

I have enough stress at work; clients, budgets, deadlines; I don’t want more stress when I am playing in my downtime.

I don’t disapprove of PvP; sometimes, I’m just not in the mood to deal with it though.

 

[Vermin]

Still though, you keep asking other people play in a way that suits you. They don't want to, they don't need to, and they have no reason to. If you try to get game mechanics changed to force them to play with you, most will just refuse to.

Incorrect. Im not asking anyone to fight me, or to look for PvP fights. Merely that the architecture for Powerplay is inherently competitive and it should be locked to the mode that supports more competitive gameplay.

Asking people to play in a way that suits them is how people who want it in Solo and PG are behaving. They don't even want the possibility of competition, they want to manipulate the system as ghosts with zero chance of recompense unless the people who want to combat their blatant advantages* play exactly as they do.

This locks one playstyle out from participating in the system in any meaningful manner entirely. It changes next to nothing for them should it become open only. They can still haul, they can still undermine as they usually would. They just now have the risk of system blockades and active, more direct competition and have to make build sacrifices to deal with that.

We, as PvPers, cannot play our chosen playstyle and have relevance in the new system as a result of this deliberate hypocrisy.


*Ease of hauling, ease of undermining with zero risk and thusly builds that move more tonnage due to no defensive requirement, thusly always running at a higher efficiency level than you can safely manage in open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I see all this back and forth about Open/Solo/PG and a PvP flag.

1. So having Open play (PvP risk) and solo (no PvP risk)

2. Having only Open play with a PvP flag.

What is the fundamental difference between either of the above scenarios?
NOTHING!

Players can still affect Power play in solo. There is zero PvP risk. Players will also never see another commander.

Playing in hypothetical Open with PvP flag set OFF. Guess what? It is exactly the same as Solo play, mechanically, except I may pass/see other commanders at times doing their thing…

Turn the PvP flag on, and it is 100% exactly the same as Open is right now.

All that a toggle pvp flag would do is combine both Open/solo/PG into a single game mode.

Those that argue that there is risk in Open are completely forgetting that a lot of the players are in Solo/PG mode because they don’t want to deal with PvP at all. Why prevent them from seeing other commanders flying around? You’re in a PvP squadron? Great, turn your PvP flag on and others will surely join in the PvP. Those that don’t, won’t.

I have enough stress at work; clients, budgets, deadlines; I don’t want more stress when I am playing in my downtime.

I don’t disapprove of PvP; sometimes, I’m just not in the mood to deal with it though.

Having only Open play would take Solo and Private Groups away from all players, noting that some would not mourn their loss. That is a difference.

If a PvP flag were to be implemented there would be even less reason to remove Solo and Private Groups.

 

[angusmadmac1]

Sorry I just want to reiterate something then I will leave be . The competitive nature of BGS and PP is only just filling up imaginary buckets , that's it, haul more than the other sIde.
No need to know who you are up against or even see or interact with the opposition.

 

[ethelred]

I suppose each week one CZ could be designated as an Open PvP one, where the merit gains count as double. Not sure if that's easily implemented though, technically.

The other idea is a hauling/blockade station - where merits need to be shipped in open.

Finally, and I'm not sure if this could work at all, but stolen merits from players would count as triple (or something). But then the robbed would have to consent to be robbed instead of self-destructing which seems unlikely.

For all of these the block system would need tweaking, not to mention the instancing being able to support X amount of ships.

As it's never happened, I don't think it's likely.

Shame though.

 

[Nowski]

I suppose each week one CZ could be designated as an Open PvP one, where the merit gains count as double. Not sure if that's easily implemented though, technically.

The other idea is a hauling/blockade station - where merits need to be shipped in open.

Finally, and I'm not sure if this could work at all, but stolen merits from players would count as triple (or something). But then the robbed would have to consent to be robbed instead of self-destructing which seems unlikely.

For all of these the block system would need tweaking, not to mention the instancing being able to support X amount of ships.

As it's never happened, I don't think it's likely.

Shame though.

Open weighting and open only isolated gameloops like your blockade idea introduce more code complexity - the amount of bugs implementation improvement opportunities we have already indicates that's maybe not the best idea, and they're likely more difficult to seal against loopholes and abuses than would be immediately apparent.

The real low-hanging fruit, for open weighting some chunk of Powerplay is PvP combat between players pledged to different Powers (Pledge vs Pledge? Power vs Power?) IMO. I imagine this could be done with minimal code changes, just a merit amount adjustment when a "Power Kill" victim is another player.

Incentivised sufficiently (5-10x normal merits for player Power kills? More?) it could add a balanced PvP gameloop with posibilities for emergent "organic" PvP if players want to spice up existing play that can be done in PvP-capable ship builds, like delivering Power Data or Stronghold assaults, for example.

 

[Darrack]

Open weighting and open only isolated gameloops like your blockade idea introduce more code complexity - the amount of bugs implementation improvement opportunities we have already indicates that's maybe not the best idea, and they're likely more difficult to seal against loopholes and abuses than would be immediately apparent.

The real low-hanging fruit, for open weighting some chunk of Powerplay is PvP combat between players pledged to different Powers (Pledge vs Pledge? Power vs Power?) IMO. I imagine this could be done with minimal code changes, just a merit amount adjustment when a "Power Kill" victim is another player.

Incentivised sufficiently (5-10x normal merits for player Power kills? More?) it could add a balanced PvP gameloop with posibilities for emergent "organic" PvP if players want to spice up existing play that can be done in PvP-capable ship builds, like delivering Power Data or Stronghold assaults, for example.

No amount of weighting will work, if there was merits to be made in PvP folks would not be on here moaning.
They don't want PvP, what they want to be able to do is murder haulers, the perceived easy pickings.
You could give a 100x bonus to player kills and it wouldn't make the slightest difference, i wont do PvP when its easier to haul goods like in PP1.

I would be interested to know how many merits folks are making at the moment doing direct PvP between factions? My guess is close to naff all, certainly not enough to actually make any headway into systems.
Its smoke and mirrors "we want to be able to oppose undermining by attacking other players" - these large space battles are a myth, it wouldn't happen as player groups would realise going head to head, rebuy, back again would be as useless as trenches during the war.

PP2 is about as many have said 'filling buckets'

O7

 

[Nowski]

No amount of weighting will work, if there was merits to be made in PvP folks would not be on here moaning.
They don't want PvP, what they want to be able to do is murder haulers, the perceived easy pickings.

I think this is an overgeneralisation and unfair to genuine skill-based PvP enthusiasts. I agree the "put more fish in my barrel please FDev" approach is a non-starter and imagine the gameplay loop of (PvP) blockade running with any significant cargo will remain unappealing to the vast majority even with any amount of merit incentivisation.

You could give a 100x bonus to player kills and it wouldn't make the slightest difference, i wont do PvP when its easier to haul goods like in PP1.

Me either, but then neither of us are in the target player group.

For those who'd like PvP as a factor in carrier assault and other undermining / defending activities, though, a substantial merits incentive especially where player skill is critical, and at comparatively little development cost, seems worth a try.

If nothing else, it would bite into one plank of the grievance-based pro-open rhetoric.

these large space battles are a myth,

Not always: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/b2-carinae-worthy-of-galnet-article.624567/ though I share your skepticism over some of the "want to defend our turf from haulers" lines.

it wouldn't happen as player groups would realise going head to head, rebuy, back again would be as useless as trenches during the war.

You might be correct, I'm not so convinced. One way to find out.