A ED 1.3 question that perhaps was not answered ?

[SentineI]

I was using "you" in place of "one". And this is not the same as Community Goals because Community Goals don't offer Counter Tasks (AFAIK because I don't play those, partly for that reason).

The lack of "Counter Tasks" is entirely irrelevant, because Michael has already said Solo players "balance" Solo players (and same for Open). I take that to mean they add-up Task A successes for solo, subtract Counter Task A successes for solo, and come to a positive/negative result for solo (which on it's own would indicate whether Task A or Counter Task A "won"). And the same for open. The problem is how they then combine the solo & open results, just like Community Goals have to.

@edgar
I'm glad that at least one other person seems to understand the problem.

@Sandmann
Sorry, I'm not going to get into a game of semantics.

 

[Sandmann]

How does side A or side B go about disrupting the efforts of the opposing side though? Everyone can still just jump into Solo and now it's just a race again like CGs are.

I assume you're asking "how do combat players go about disrupting the actions of trading players who are all in trying to achieve the same goal?" Obviously combat pilots of BOTH sides in open will be equally able to disrupt the efforts trading pilots of BOTH sides who are also in open, but NEITHER will be able to combat the efforts of trading pilots in solo. Yes there will be pilots you can't shoot down, but that will be the same for BOTH sides. How do you combat trading pilots working for the other side in solo? Promote tranding pilots to also work for your team in solo. Traders in solo from BOTH sides will be equally targeted by NPC's, and combat pilots in open on BOTH sides will have equal numbers of opposing team members to shoot down. The result is not determined by "who gets to 50 first", it's determined by "which side has the most actions of ANY sort in ANY play mode by the time the action ends".

 

[edgar]

The lack of "Counter Tasks" is entirely irrelevant, because Michael has already said Solo players "balance" Solo players (and same for Open). I take that to mean they add-up Task A successes for solo, subtract Counter Task A successes for solo, and come to a positive/negative result for solo (which on it's own would indicate whether Task A or Counter Task A "won"). And the same for open. The problem is how they then combine the solo & open results, just like Community Goals have to.

@edgar
I'm glad that at least one other person seems to understand the problem.

@Sandmann
Sorry, I'm not going to get into a game of semantics.

It's confusing, because on the one hand we have FDEV acknowledging & praising the metagamers with Galnet articles about the Merchant Marines and the like; but then the actual game mechanics seem to have these gaping holes in them which preclude any emergent gameplay styles from having any real impact or meaning.

It's just going to get worse when we have the Xbox Players (no crossplay) come along, will be zero way of impacting even the ones who play in Open!

 

[Kijarni]

Don't be daft. It's not *me* I'm worried about, it's the vast majority of other players. If THEY generally choose to play in Solo to achieve their Power's goal, then I am at a disadvantage unless I also play in Solo. So I have to choose between fun & actually getting the best result.

Be careful how you answer, because the same answer should apply to Community Goals (which *does* give Solo less weight).

Your issue seems to be more with the fact that PvP is harder than PvE than it is to do with the actual workings of Powerplay.
If both were equally difficult then your 'disadvantage' would disappear.

Given an influx of noobs when ED hits xbox, I'm not sure your worry is justified.

 

[SteveLaw]

The lack of "Counter Tasks" is entirely irrelevant

You brought up Community Goals. The difference between CG tasks and Power Play tasks is that PP offers counter tasks whereas CGs do not. If you want to disregard counter tasks then discussion on the difference between CG and PP is not possible.

 

[edgar]

I assume you're asking "how do combat players go about disrupting the actions of trading players who are all in trying to achieve the same goal?" Obviously combat pilots of BOTH sides in open will be equally able to disrupt the efforts trading pilots of BOTH sides who are also in open, but NEITHER will be able to combat the efforts of trading pilots in solo. Yes there will be pilots you can't shoot down, but that will be the same for BOTH sides. How do you combat trading pilots working for the other side in solo? Promote tranding pilots to also work for your team in solo. Traders in solo from BOTH sides will be equally targeted by NPC's, and combat pilots in open on BOTH sides will have equal numbers of opposing team members to shoot down. The result is not determined by "who gets to 50 first", it's determined by "which side has the most actions of ANY sort in ANY play mode by the time the action ends".

It's not just about wanting to shoot people lol.

Player piracy upon Player traders partaking in Goals / PP stuff, will attract Player BHs and there we have it a big emergent gameplay party on BOTH sides.

If it is more efficient for Goals or PP or whatever to be undertaken in Solo to ensure success then that's what will happen. Which precludes not only Player piracy, but also the entire Player-driven emergent ecosystem from forming at all.

 

[Sandmann]

@Sandmann
Sorry, I'm not going to get into a game of semantics.

Noone's arguing semantics. If I understand you, you appear to be concerned that people playing in solo will unfairly influence the outcome of PP goals, but you seem to be missing the point that people will be playing in solo AND open for BOTH sides thus balancing each other. Goals will still be decided by "which side has more player support". If for instance you only allowed goals to be performed in open then combat oriented powers would defeat trade oriented powers on every occasion. Similarly if you only allowed them in solo then the trade oriented powers would always dominate. And it's not just trade vs combat... if you have powers that use mining or exploration as strategies how would they compete with combat powers?

- - - Updated - - -

It's not just about wanting to shoot people lol.

Player piracy upon Player traders partaking in Goals / PP stuff, will attract Player BHs and there we have it a big emergent gameplay party on BOTH sides.

If it is more efficient for Goals or PP or whatever to be undertaken in Solo to ensure success then that's what will happen. Which precludes not only Player piracy, but also the entire Player-driven emergent ecosystem from forming at all.

My understanding is that this thread is about potential impacts of mode changing on PP goal achievements? Are we saying that piracy and bounty hunting are to be PP goals? Are we also saying that these can't be performed on NPC's as well as (if not better than) PC's?

While ALL actions can happen equally well or not for BOTH sides then mode swapping has no impact on the fairness or otherwise of PP goals.

If you're saying that If PP goals are more efficiently pursued in solo, and if the vast majority of players choose to follow the most efficient path then this may have an impact on play OTHER than PP goals, then yes... I agree it may. But that's not the topic of this thread. It also assumes that huge numbers of players will flock to solo all the time in order to only pursue PP goals and will abandon open and we know that this is not the case as many players do so ONLY because they seek PvP. I'm sure pirates and bounty hunters will see no significant lessening of potential player targets in open from this... and if they do it's because players have found something they enjoy MORE than PvP.

 

[SentineI]

You brought up Community Goals. The difference between CG tasks and Power Play tasks is that PP offers counter tasks whereas CGs do not. If you want to disregard counter tasks then discussion on the difference between CG and PP is not possible.

It's not that I want to disregard Counter Tasks, but rather that there is a "balance" mechanism in Power Play (implied but not yet contradicted by Michael) which means that Open & Solo tasks in Power Play still have to be added together like they do in Community Goals.

I may have misconstrued this "balance" mechanism, but it's the only way I can understand the idea of Solo players "balancing" other Solo players (and the same for Open) :

I take that to mean they add-up Task A successes for solo, subtract Counter Task A successes for solo, and come to a positive/negative result for solo (which on it's own would indicate whether Task A or Counter Task A "won"). And the same for open. The problem is how they then combine the solo & open results, just like Community Goals have to.

@Sandmann
Sorry, I'm still not going to debate with you... especially now that you are taking a reply from one conversation (with you) & trying to use it in an unrelated conversation I had (with someone else). If debates do not follow the requirements of logic, then they are pointless to me.

 

[SteveLaw]

It's not that I want to disregard Counter Tasks, but rather that there is a "balance" mechanism in Power Play (implied but not yet contradicted by Michael) which means that Open & Solo tasks in Power Play still have to be added together like they do in Community Goals.

I may have misconstrued this "balance" mechanism, but it's the only way I can understand the idea of Solo players "balancing" other Solo players (and the same for Open).

You originally raised the point of weighting of tasks from different modes in CGs. A weighting of modes is not necessary in PP because the task/counter task mechanism balances across all modes. In CGs there is no defined counter task mechanism so one mode typically becomes more effective/efficient than the other because Solo players can avoid the player devised counter task of preventing the task. In this discussion of Power Play tasks it's the weighting of Community Goals that is irrelevant because PP offers its own balancing mechanic - task/counter task - that gives actions and counter actions the same value across all modes.

 

[Sandmann]

@Sandmann
Sorry, I'm still not going to debate with you... especially now that you are taking a reply from one conversation (with you) & trying to use it in an unrelated conversation I had (with someone else). If debates do not follow the requirements of logic, then they are pointless to me.

S'fine with me, though it seems a lot like evasion to me... and it's not going to stop me replying to you.

Oh and I'm not replying to any other conversations related or not - I'm quite capable of coming up with my own ideas. If they happen to concur with someone else's that simply means that we both came up with the same idea. If we aren't agreeing with you that could simply mean that you haven't communicated your concern... or it it could be that we don't agree.

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

Is there going to be a weeks beta phase before 1.3 is launched?

 

[Sandmann]

Is there going to be a weeks beta phase before 1.3 is launched?

There was a beta period mentioned in the AMA. They've said they'll confirm dates "soon".

 

[Fenster]

It matters because regardless of fun some people find it fun to have their actions count for something. It might be fun and feel like you're actively participating in stopping the traders in open but if there are 10 traders for every 1 trader in open your actions are going to be pointless

I have fun in open trading against blockades or blockading/pirating myself so don't get me wrong but it is a valid concern.

... Except you can't do this anyways in open because of the instancing.
(which is good because too many cmdrs = slow fps)

 

[edgar]

If you're saying that If PP goals are more efficiently pursued in solo, and if the vast majority of players choose to follow the most efficient path then this may have an impact on play OTHER than PP goals, then yes... I agree it may. But that's not the topic of this thread. It also assumes that huge numbers of players will flock to solo all the time in order to only pursue PP goals and will abandon open and we know that this is not the case as many players do so ONLY because they seek PvP. I'm sure pirates and bounty hunters will see no significant lessening of potential player targets in open from this... and if they do it's because players have found something they enjoy MORE than PvP.

It is the topic of this thread. From the OP:

If you have all the traders for one faction making a push in to a new system in solo how are the combat pilots from the opposing faction in open going
to combat them?---

Player actions intended to disrupt other Players partaking in a Goal/PP is not "play OTHER than PP goals", it's metagaming around the PP goals.

Just as the Merchant Marines are metagaming around the recent CG. Just because there is not an in-game menu to press a button for it doesn't mean it's not part of the intended game.

Simply having an Opposing Trade goal as part of PP does nothing to address the question posed clearly in the OP.

 

[Fenster]

.... Also this prevents large player "jerk" groups from taking over... Which is only fun for them

 

[SteveLaw]

It is the topic of this thread. From the OP:


Player actions intended to disrupt other Players partaking in a Goal/PP is not "play OTHER than PP goals", it's metagaming around the PP goals.

Just as the Merchant Marines are metagaming around the recent CG. Just because there is not an in-game menu to press a button for it doesn't mean it's not part of the intended game.

Simply having an Opposing Trade goal as part of PP does nothing to address the question posed clearing in the OP.

To answer that specific question: The combat pilot in Open can counter the traders in Solo by performing the Counter Task from PP. They can do it in Open, Group or Solo as they choose.

 

[edgar]

To answer that specific question: The combat pilot in Open can counter the traders in Solo by performing the Counter Task from PP. They can do it in Open, Group or Solo as they choose.

No. The "Counter Task" would be a goal for TRADERS of the opposing faction to partake in.

NOT Combat Pilots!

So what do the Combat Pilots do about the Traders flocking to Solo?

 

[SteveLaw]

No. The "Counter Task" would be a goal for TRADERS of the opposing faction to partake in.

NOT Combat Pilots!

So what do the Combat Pilots do about the Traders flocking to Solo?

Really? Have you played the Beta? What else can you do?

 

[edgar]

Really? Have you played the Beta? What else can you do?

Well you seem to have the knowledge from your comment earlier:

Seems pretty clear to me. One action is worth one action regardless of which mode it is performed in. If you wish to counter Task A you do it by performing Counter Task B, not by trying to prevent other players performing Task A.

How do you know Counter Task B will be able to cater to a playstyle which is diametrically opposed to the playstyle catered to by Task A?

 

[SentineI]

You originally raised the point of weighting of tasks from different modes in CGs. A weighting of modes is not necessary in PP because the task/counter task mechanism balances across all modes. In CGs there is no defined counter task mechanism so one mode typically becomes more effective/efficient than the other because Solo players can avoid the player devised counter task of preventing the task. In this discussion of Power Play tasks it's the weighting of Community Goals that is irrelevant because PP offers its own balancing mechanic - task/counter task - that gives actions and counter actions the same value across all modes.

That MIGHT be true... but it leaves me confused as to why David Braben said the following:

it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation

Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.

And why Michael Brookes said the following:

If all the traders are in solo trading and all the combat cmdrs are in open then it's a bit wrong. If they spawn "trade npcs" for the open players this doesn't really help matters either as everyone is just working against npcs on their own.

This is why they are tracked as a balance rather than filling a bucket in the sense that the community goals do. All actions for and against are counted.

I take David's comment to literally mean that Solo players efforts are ONLY counter-balancing Solo players, giving a final balance as to who "won" in Solo. And by implication Open players are only balancing Open players, giving a final balance as to who "won" in Open.

Michael's comment seems to back-up my interpretation of David's comment.

But the problem is then how Solo & Open results are combined. At the moment it appears they are literally just added together (no weighting), but then (by the rules of mathematics) you might just as well have added Solo & Open all together in the first place, which contradicts the idea of adding them together separately to achieve a "balance". So I cannot make sense of Frontier's collective statements without more clarification.