(info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP

[Ikari]

I think PP is going to need a lot more than just a Buff to OPEN mode to become compelling.
However I don't think the buff will encourage people to go OPEN at all, I think people will just keep doing PP as is and grind harder in group/solo.

PP needs to be a more attractive prospect if you want people to come to open, lets say joining a power had them pay your insurance in open as long as you have rank 3 and you were killed by a rival power. That may just entice people into some PVP action plus it comes with the effort of having to gain the merits to get the bonus.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

It may be a good idea. At least the PP mechancis are a PvP mechanic. This way the solo queue can not be used to counter the PP activities in a "silent" mode.
However frontier needs to implement this clever to prevent people form switching modes to still do whatever they do. So no merits should be transferable from solo to open. Inbetween these acts any switch to solo should invalidate the multiplier. Otherwise people still can abuse the solo queue as a (temporary) silent running channel.

But ontop of this PP needs still a lot changes PP since PP is too much of an isolated island within the Universe to be appealign for more people. But Sandos Idea is a good fix for some exploits without taking away the ability for people to participate in PP via PVE mechanics.

Other solutions would be:
Entirely having a seperate PP state for Solo and grp queue vs open play.
Letting any solo/private group activities gain people the rewars yet NOT affect the PP states at all. This way the solo and private groups go into a true PVE mode safe from any silent manipulation.

 

[Abil Midena]

IMO, in spirit, this is a good move. In application, it does open up a "slippery-slope" argument, in regard to the promises that were made during the kick-starter and other starting phases. Realistically, if "Open-bonuses" became standard fair, that's a huge slap in the face to many early backers and original players.

Whether or not they should have made those promises to begin with is a different conversation.


If this stays relegated to Power Play it's probably a good move. If it starts spilling out into the rest of the game, then it is a very, very bad move.

As long is it is only about the effects on the PP simulation and no personal gains whatsoever, I guess it is okay. Completely unnecessary unless one sees PP as a vehicle for incentivising PvP, but okay.

This thread is getting a little long, so I'd like to point out that my original concern was that the change to PP would not be seen by those that don't PP, yet the change may leak into other areas of the game due to similar logic being applied elsewhere. That is why I posted in DD. My example was the BGS.

Further, as some may have not seen, Sandro did kindly address my question and concern (#354):
----------------
Hello Commander Abil Midena!

The difference between the background simulation and Powerplay is that Powerplay is explicitly designed to be competitive in nature, where Commanders are mechanically pinning their colours to the mast, so to speak.

However, you raise a valid point. In truth, it's impossible to to say with any certainty whether we'd want to push the concept a wider: we'd need to commit to adding it to Powerplay, then see how well it actually played out - that's a lot of bridges to cross.
------------------

edit* I forgot my other public service announcement. I've seen some folks comment about 58 pages in a thread. I see 11 pages in this one. Please note you can go to 'Settings/general settings' and set "Number of Posts to Show Per Page:" to a larger number so you're not sifting through so many pages.

 

[Mohrgan]

PvP means 'Player versus players', I redefine nothing. In many games the only way to do anything against another player is by hitting it with a gun, club or spell. In other games, like ED, you can work against other players in more ways. FD explicitly stated powerplay is competitive gameplay between players. You want to see it as a solo/NPC/roleplaying thing? Fine. But then why insist that your actions should fully and negatively influence other players? You cant say both "I insist that may actions work negatively towards the goals of hundreds or thousands of other players" and follow that up with "Oh, its just PvE for me, its all about NPC factions.".

You, and others, are expanding the definition of PvP, without the caveat that you are doing so. It is disingenuous to just start interchanging a factional battle against other players using PvE activities, with PvP as has been understood since practically the dawn of gaming. It's all part of the construct behind the open only crowd's smokescreen that they are put upon by the solo player. The best way to describe the over arching conflict in PP is Meta-PvP. That way, we aren't conflating two phrases.

 

[Kermit Laphroaig]

Isn't the PvP just a part of the reward?

I think coaxing people to play open more would be fun and good. Not everyone in Open is bloodthirsty.

 

[Glock_N_Load]

Indeed. I did read somewhere that when players give up a game because they feel something unjust happened, they divorce themselves from it completely and never go back. Solo/group players appear to be reasonably content, how much is it in FD's interest to upset them.



I'd like to see some insights to the stats too, but I guess that's never going to happen. Given that they appear to be trying to promote more multiplayer gameplay, they would seem to be more worried about open numbers than they are group/solo. *Guessing* but if people are not playing open as much as they'd like, then that hurts some of the features coming down the line. eg. multi-crew, ship boarding etc. If that's the case then they have misunderstood what players really want from the game.

My 2 cents of course.

You just answered your own statement/question. Solo and Group players are by the most part content with game play. That is why most of the improvement to the game has been for Open players. They are the ones with the most complaints about the games direction and interactions. I guess I'm just saying they are the most vocal (Squeaking wheel gets the most grease). Open signed on for the new features and multiplayer Elite while the Solo/Group just wanted an updated/part3 Elite. The Persistent Universe Model will always have Solo/Group and Open at odds with each other.

 

[VR Murgle]

PvP means 'Player versus players', I redefine nothing. In many games the only way to do anything against another player is by hitting it with a gun, club or spell. In other games, like ED, you can work against other players in more ways. FD explicitly stated powerplay is competitive gameplay between players. You want to see it as a solo/NPC/roleplaying thing? Fine. But then why insist that your actions should fully and negatively influence other players? You cant say both "I insist that may actions work negatively towards the goals of hundreds or thousands of other players" and follow that up with "Oh, its just PvE for me, its all about NPC factions.".

The only reason my actions adversely affect your enjoyment of the game is because you want it to. Due to the fact that E isn't an MMO but instead uses P2P networking you could theoretically sit in a system all day without ever seeing anyone. So are all the people that pass through the system in a different instance having a negative effect on you? Because as far as you are concerned they might as well have been playing in Solo. If I fortify a system in Solo you can counter me in Open. or you could do so in Solo or PG. But I could also be undermining in Open yet never end up in the same instance as you and the effect on your gameplay would be exactly the same as if I were playing in Solo. The only thing you can never do when I'm in Solo is shoot me while there would be a (smal) chance of that in Open.

 

[Mohrgan]

It may be a good idea. At least the PP mechancis are a PvP mechanic. This way the solo queue can not be used to counter the PP activities in a "silent" mode.
However frontier needs to implement this clever to prevent people form switching modes to still do whatever they do. So no merits should be transferable from solo to open. Inbetween these acts any switch to solo should invalidate the multiplier. Otherwise people still can abuse the solo queue as a (temporary) silent running channel.

But ontop of this PP needs still a lot changes PP since PP is too much of an isolated island within the Universe to be appealign for more people. But Sandos Idea is a good fix for some exploits without taking away the ability for people to participate in PP via PVE mechanics.

Other solutions would be:
Entirely having a seperate PP state for Solo and grp queue vs open play.
Letting any solo/private group activities gain people the rewars yet NOT affect the PP states at all. This way the solo and private groups go into a true PVE mode safe from any silent manipulation.

PP is completely centered on PvE activities. There is not one PvP activity that directly effects PP. PP is not a PvP mechanic, it is a Meta-PvP feature just like the entirety of the game.

 

[Hajile]

What do you say to the player that plays simply for the entertainment, and is not looking to LIVE through a video game? Why should I take on content I don;t find fun? Those that play in open have every opportunity to avail themselves of what Solo or PG has to offer. Why should the fault for not taking that up some how rest on the shoulders of those that do?

The energy behind this claim is entitlement. Players feel that because they log into open they are somehow making a sacrifice, and in making that grand sacrifice they are entitles to a bonus. Because, as we all know, open is the proper way to enjoy E: D. Now that sacrifice to playing Elite correctly has to be rewarded. Because their choice to play in open is worth more than my choice to play in a PG. It is a ridiculous assumption.

I play purely for entertainment, I do not see this as a change that will infringe on my ability to enjoy those 3 hours a week. This will only change for the people who are trying to drive CHANGE in the universe we all play in and for them (note that I am not one of them) the current situation is about as unfair and hopeless as I could imagine. If I want to rep for Hudson then I go to a military strike and kill NPC for an hour then I go and turn in. there is no risk because I am not terrible at this game and my Python can kill NPC ships with ease. But if Glutteny wants to rep for the empress (forgive me if you don’t I don’t know who you fly for, this is for the sake of argument) he CAN NEVER STOP ME, NEVER, EVER, EVER, NEVER, unless he comes over to my house and smacks the keyboard away. How is that equal opportunity?

This is no longer a discussion about modes, let’s all be very clear this is EQUAL OPPURTUNITY VS EQUALITY.

 

[VR Murgle]

I think coaxing people to play open more would be fun and good. Not everyone in Open is bloodthirsty.

I fear it'll take more than a PP bonus to make that happen.

 

[Mohrgan]

I play purely for entertainment, I do not see this as a change that will infringe on my ability to enjoy those 3 hours a week. This will only change for the people who are trying to drive CHANGE in the universe we all play in and for them (note that I am not one of them) the current situation is about as unfair and hopeless as I could imagine. If I want to rep for Hudson then I go to a military strike and kill NPC for an hour then I go and turn in. there is no risk because I am not terrible at this game and my Python can kill NPC ships with ease. But if Glutteny wants to rep for the empress (forgive me if you don’t I don’t know who you fly for, this is for the sake of argument) he CAN NEVER STOP ME, NEVER, EVER, EVER, NEVER, unless he comes over to my house and smacks the keyboard away. How is that equal opportunity?

This is no longer a discussion about modes, let’s all be very clear this is EQUAL OPPURTUNITY VS EQUALITY.

He doesn't have to stop you. He simply has to out grind you. Kill more of his enemies in a CZ than you do yours. He has a perfect recourse through the PvE mechanics that define the feature. He also has the option to play in solo, but he won;t. Because, his gamer ethics say: Play in Open. Why should his ethics be put above mine? It's all just a bunch of entitlement. "Because I sacrifice and play in open, I deserve a prize"

 

[Hajile]

He doesn't have to stop you. He simply has to out grind you. Kill more of his enemies in a CZ than you do yours. He has a perfect recourse through the PvE mechanics that define the feature. He also has the option to play in solo, but he won;t. Because, his gamer ethics say: Play in Open. Why should his ethics be put above mine? It's all just a bunch of entitlement. "Because I sacrifice and play in open, I deserve a prize"

Mohrgan please don’t take this in a condescending tone because I know that you are an intelligent person. ---- if it is only about who can out grind who then that is a TERRIBLE mechanic and should be reworked ASAP and surely you agree with me on this because no one wants a game with zero skill involved.

Please also I understand that I don’t think anyone deserves anything more than anyone else in any other mode: BUT PP was designed as a “my faction vs your faction” but it has become “a my GRIND” is stronger than yours (wow I just reread that). Frankly that sucks.

This GRIND FU has become silly.

 

[Jockey79]

Do you even play PowerPlay? Or are you just using this discussion about PowerPlay as a cheap way to start another, very unrelated, discussion? Ther problem isn't that 'people are concerned others have too much fun', but that some people are messing up the gameplay of thousands of people by gaming the system of the only structured PvP gameplay there is. Sandro proposed a way to help with that. Your only response so far is "never, we'd rather cheat!" and "there is no problem, lalalalala!". Neither of these arguments is very strong.

Then the big question becomes: if you don't want a big target on your back, and you dont want to engage in PvP, why do you even consider PowerPlay considering that is all about player versus player faction warfare?

I seem to understand PP better than you do, as I know PvP eanrs nothing in PP at all.
And that is the problem, you've assumed PP is part of PP despite there is no proof of it, in fact, when you consider that PvP pays you ZERO merits, it should be clear PvP is pointless.

PP is PvE token pushing. The side who PvEs the hardest wins.
The side more focused on PvP, does not earn any tokens and loses.

 

[Mohrgan]

Mohrgan please don’t take this in a condescending tone because I know that you are an intelligent person. ---- if it is only about who can out grind who then that is a TERRIBLE mechanic and should be reworked ASAP and surely you agree with me on this because no one wants a game with zero skill involved.

Please also I understand that I don’t think anyone deserves anything more than anyone else in any other mode: BUT PP was designed as a “my faction vs your faction” but it has become “a my GRIND” is stronger than yours (wow I just reread that). Frankly that sucks.

This GRIND FU has become silly.

That is exactly what the mechanic is. Show me one feature of PP that requires PvP, real PvP, not this Meta-PvP put up to create this debate. I find the design of PP was created to ensure that all players with any play style can have equal impact. That's why you get nothing to advance your factions cause by engaging another player in PvP. Players have been complaining about PP's design since before it launched. I'm not debating it's merits, just it's connection to PvP and the Modes.

 

[Jockey79]

I think coaxing people to play open more would be fun and good.

Why?

I don't want "coaxing", I want to be trated fairly and left alone to play the game Frontier are making - I don't want to play with a bunch of people I don't know and trying to force me either results in me leaving, or just working around unfair game mechanics, but either way, you are not going to get to play in *MY* instance without *MY* permission.

 

[GilliganTX]

Isn't the PvP just a part of the reward?

My point was in Forza 6 the game does compensate you in terms of credits/XP for success in game when handicapping yourself.

 

[Jockey79]

My point was in Forza 6 the game does compensate you in terms of credits/XP for success in game when handicapping yourself.

And in Elite: Dangerous, you get rewarded for playing open mode by being able to interact with other people, having wings to play with - getting support / help from others and the excitement of other players possibly shooting you.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I seem to understand PP better than you do, as I know PvP eanrs nothing in PP at all.
And that is the problem, you've assumed PP is part of PP despite there is no proof of it, in fact, when you consider that PvP pays you ZERO merits, it should be clear PvP is pointless.

PP is PvE token pushing. The side who PvEs the hardest wins.
The side more focused on PvP, does not earn any tokens and loses.

And that is exactly how it shouldn't be, and why Sandro said what he did. The only reason it is token pushing is because there is no way to counter token pushing. In most games, you can score points but also try to prevent the other team from getting points. For example, fielding a goalkeeper instead of yet another striker. When a goalkeeper makes a save, his team dont get a point. Yet its not pointless. Right now people in powerplay go to each other's space and kill stuff, with the only counter being pushing more tokens yourself. Its bizarre.

The only thing you can never do when I'm in Solo is shoot me while there would be a (smal) chance of that in Open.

Exactly. And sometimes that is just plain bizarre. I wouldnt even mind splitting powerplay into PvE and PvP elements (heck, might even be a good idea!). For example, everything done in your own space, or space exclusively wanted by your power, is done with no Open-bonus. But if you want to take a combat ship beyond enemy lines, head for a control center and start shooting ships from another faction, you should really give these guys a chance to defend themselves. In short: the more combat-oriented and aggressive your play is against other Powers, the more you should do that in Open. Its only fair.

Its a general principle, really. In the same way I never disable my hatch when flying a trader, as I find it a very cheesy way to bypass hatch breakers. Maybe its because I am from a RP'ers background which makes me want to have a cool space adventure where everyone involved should be able to express their character without limiting the sensible space of others. Going on the offense in solo robs the opposition of a viable defence. Its limiting the other player's freedomof telling a sensible story, much in the same sense as randomly shooting traders in railgun FDLs is. Lets have all of us decide for ourselves how much we want to influence the other, but have matching consequences for it.

Currently the discussions mostly focus on the assumption solo/private is PvE, and Open is PvP. I dont believe that is what David intended it to be. Currently FD is trying to change things in multiple ways. In some ways, such as this one,FD wants to have people who 'fight' each other's power to be more exposed to each other. In another, with the security changes, FD wants to provide a more balanced galaxy for PvE players. It seems to me they want to encourage PvP that is supported by in-game reasons, and discourage PvP that is one-sided and 'mindless'. I think it would be best for ED if Open were to evolve into a multiplayer-mode, rather than the assumd PvP-mode, where people can chose their level and type of interactions with others and have multiple paths to take from there. yet right now this topic seems to have devolved, yet again, in a 'you are a pvp'er/griefer!', 'no, you are a carebear' discussion. I think it would be far more interesting to discuss with you, and others here who obviously care a great deal, how we can let ED evolve from Griefer/Carebear into a whole range of possible attitudes towards player interaction and how this should be balanced for all players.

 

[Lustan]

Why?

I don't want "coaxing", I want to be trated fairly and left alone to play the game Frontier are making - I don't want to play with a bunch of people I don't know and trying to force me either results in me leaving, or just working around unfair game mechanics, but either way, you are not going to get to play in *MY* instance without *MY* permission.

You are being treated fairly. The work you do now would be exactly the same after these suggestions would be in place.

*YOUR* instance happens to share data with *EVERYONE'S* instance. It's not your galaxy. Seems like you're still hung up on wanting offline mode.

 

[Boomer Kay]

And in Elite: Dangerous, you get rewarded for playing open mode by being able to interact with other people, having wings to play with - getting support / help from others and the excitement of other players possibly shooting you.

If by chance they end up in the same instance.
Maybe before even thinking about epic space battles, army s. Army, one should wrap his head around the instancing limitations and scale.

One commander in solo achieves nearly nothing in the big picture. I've tried .. fortifying ..after about 10 trips in my asp I just surrendered .. other systems are 10x overfortifyed within hours.
They say undermining in solo is so unfair.. one commander in solo achieves very little.
30 commanders in open undermining for the same faction would just most likely end up in the same instance.
If you're "lucky" a wing of the defenders ends up in the same instance. An awesome epic battle.. for the whole 10 seconds it needs to take 2-4 out with 30..
Other way around you have 30 defenders and 20 attackers .. 2 attackers in the same instances the defenders and the other 18 carry on in their own "private open" like nothing happened. But that will show them!

I could really care less if they remove pp from solo or make it 10x more rewarding in open, when I already have close to 0 incentive to partake as "will never go to open" player.. I'll find something else to do