Powerplay Why are Solo and Private Groups allowed to influence Powerplay?

[CMDR John Casey]

But anyway, maybe all this is too much silliness. From what I hear, plenty of people do play PP from Open, and I guess a lot more than those who play from other modes.

My personal statistics says that the majority of players switch modes depending on what is most convenient. For instance, they do fortification in solo to avoid enemy interdiction and undermine in group/open to maximize the spawn rate.

As I said before, most people are just minmaxers, no matter the mode. They will always try to squeeze the lemon the most they can.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But losing the possibility to have an open universe with a lot of interactions, just to stick to a conservative design decision, seems shortsighted to me.

If Frontier had wanted everyone to exist in a single game mode , they could have.

They chose not to constrain players in this way and have made player interaction optional / selective in their game.

They know that not everyone agrees with this approach (and have done for quite some time).

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Linking Powerplay to Open may create some very enjoyable gameplay, such as the organisation of convoys protected by wings of fighters to fortify systems, or the organization of reconnaissance patrols in undermined systems, etc.

People can do that now in Open if they want. Do they do it? If not, why not? They are in Open, they have the "risk"... so if it was Open only, why would they change how they play?

Maybe some players would prefer to not participate in such a version of Powerplay: it would be their choice, and the rest of the game offers them a lot of possibilities: they may support factions via the BGS, participate in CGs etc., all things that are copied in Powerplay.

And then, there are people who have called for all those activities you have listed to also be limited to Open only, or to receive bonuses for participating in Open. If PP became open only, what next? BGS, CGs, hmm... where do we stop? Perhaps bonuses for trading in open, and bonuses for exploration in open, and bonuses for bounties in open? I know some people would favour this.

But this is not the game neither you nor I bought. We both bought a game which promised all modes would be equal (as they can be... no winging up in solo for example).

 

[Agony_Aunt]

My personal statistics says that the majority of players switch modes depending on what is most convenient. For instance, they do fortification in solo to avoid enemy interdiction and undermine in group/open to maximize the spawn rate.

As I said before, most people are just minmaxers, no matter the mode. They will always try to squeeze the lemon the most they can.

So, basically, what you are saying is that most players appreciate the ability to switch modes?

 

[CMDR John Casey]

People can do that now in Open if they want. Do they do it? If not, why not? They are in Open, they have the "risk"... so if it was Open only, why would they change how they play?

They don't do it because it's not convenient. If they had to play in open, people would adapt their tactics/strategies to be more effective.

And then, there are people who have called for all those activities you have listed to also be limited to Open only, or to receive bonuses for participating in Open. If PP became open only, what next? BGS, CGs, hmm... where do we stop? Perhaps bonuses for trading in open, and bonuses for exploration in open, and bonuses for bounties in open? I know some people would favour this.

But this is not the game neither you nor I bought. We both bought a game which promised all modes would be equal (as they can be... no winging up in solo for example).

When I bought the game there was no Powerplay nor Arena, and I was expecting, coming from the old Elites, to play in a single player mode. It's when I started to interact with other people that I felt that the game offers more than that, and at the same time I saw that these possibilities were not exploited. I also played TIE Fighter back in the '90s and I was expecting to see big Star Wars-like space battles. But I didn't see such battles apart in Lugh, in the CZ, where I had a lot of fun; now it's quite disappointing, especially because the combat zones with warships have been nerfed (and I'd like to recall that this happened because people parked their turreted condas in solo near the battleships to make credits "for free"). I can say that since Lugh I'm playing just to wait the next one. I had very high expectations when they announced Powerplay since it seemed an automated way to create a Lugh-ish scenario, but at the end I can say that it's not what I was expecting.

So, basically, what you are saying is that most players appreciate the ability to switch modes?

Players switch modes because it's advantageous. As they would park next to a battleship to maximize credits, or resell slaves to the station in Robigo. The majority of players are quite easily predictable, they're selfish and they'll do the thing that is more advantageous for them.

 

[edgar]

Lugh

Lugh was awesome, I've never seen such mass spontaneous co-op gameplay in Open, it was so exciting, with squadrons forming organically at Stations to go and seize "control" of the CZ (fighting for control of the CG farming zones, until the enemy organised to push back).

The reason that stuff like Lugh doesn't happen anymore is that the community collectively realised during the Lugh CGs, that Community Goals could be "gamed" and "exploited" by mode switching to avoid those aforementioned player squadrons and wings. Since then CGs have just been credit-farming opportunities for most.

The same issues plague PP, hence the almost constant accusations that it is a boring grind - Lugh would have been a boring grind too if everyone had embraced the dodgy mode-switcheroo tactic back then as well.

 

[Woofington]

Players switch modes because it's advantageous. As they would park next to a battleship to maximize credits, or resell slaves to the station in Robigo. The majority of players are quite easily predictable, they're selfish and they'll do the thing that is more advantageous for them.

Bingo, the crux of the dillema. Pretty much everyone arguing against this is arguing because they are selfish and becuase this is easiest and most advantageous. There is a reason why you don't just give a player the stars and sky from the gate, because most people will always use and exploit anything that gives them an advantage despite it being good or bad for the game as a whole.

Look at games like Warhammer Vermintide. People would exploit the bell tower. Was it necessarily fun or the right way to play? No of course not, but players abused it because it was advantageous. Switching freely between Open, Solo, and Private is the exact same.

But again people are just really really bad at having a solid discussion in this thread and rely on a number of poor argumentative fallacies.

"Oh well its always been this way": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

"Oh but most players use it this way": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

There has been literally zero actual discussion or argument past these two fallacies being discussed in this thread against this proposed change. Such an absolute waste of a thread. People here are pretty much the worst at having level headed discourse.

Lugh was awesome, I've never seen such mass spontaneous co-op gameplay in Open, it was so exciting, with squadrons forming organically at Stations to go and seize "control" of the CZ (fighting for control of the CG farming zones, until the enemy organised to push back).

The reason that stuff like Lugh doesn't happen anymore is that the community collectively realised during the Lugh CGs, that Community Goals could be "gamed" and "exploited" by mode switching to avoid those aforementioned player squadrons and wings. Since then CGs have just been credit-farming opportunities for most.

The same issues plague PP, hence the almost constant accusations that it is a boring grind - Lugh would have been a boring grind too if everyone had embraced the dodgy mode-switcheroo tactic back then as well.

I wish I could frame this post.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There has been literally zero actual discussion or argument past these two fallacies being discussed in this thread against this proposed change. Such an absolute waste of a thread. People here are pretty much the worst at having level headed discourse.

Why *should* Frontier change the game to suit a subset of the player-base (at the expense of another subset of the player-base)?

They consciously designed the game the way it is, after all.

As we're pulling argumentative fallacies into the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery

 

[Woofington]

Why *should* Frontier change the game to suit a subset of the player-base (at the expense of another subset of the player-base)?

They consciously designed the game the way it is, after all.

As we're pulling argumentative fallacies into the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery

You do realize you can't just quote a logical fallacy and assume it applies, since the two fallacies you just posted have nothing to do with my arguments thus far.

My argument is correct not because its novel, its correct because it directly addresses a failure of the game structure.

My argument is correct not because its newer, its correct because it directly addresses a failure of the game structure.

I get that having a grown up discussion is difficult for you. I understand.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You do realize you can't just quote a logical fallacy and assume it applies, since the two fallacies you just posted have nothing to do with my arguments thus far.

Of course, one needs to read the definition to find that they apply.

My argument is correct not because its novel, its correct because it directly addresses a failure of the game structure.

The argument is neither correct nor incorrect - because it is based on an opinion, not fact. Other opinions vary.

The second fallacy is pretty much your argument, "Well it was designed this way first so it must be correct!" You pretty much shot yourself in the foot with that one haha

Not really - the second fallacy is an assumption that older is inherently worse:

Chronological snobbery is an argument that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior to that of the present, simply by virtue of its temporal priority.

While the first fallacy is an assumption that news is better:

The appeal to novelty (also called argumentum ad novitatem) is a fallacy in which one prematurely claims that an idea or proposal is correct or superior, exclusively because it is new and modern. In a controversy between status quo and new inventions, an appeal to novelty argument isn't in itself a valid argument. The fallacy may take two forms: overestimating the new and modern, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to be best-case, or underestimating status quo, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to be worst-case.

 

[Woofington]

Of course, one needs to read the definition to find that they apply.



The argument is neither correct nor incorrect - because it is based on an opinion, not fact. Other opinions vary.



Not really - the second fallacy is an assumption that older is inherently worse:



While the first fallacy is an assumption that news is better:

Just because you say something is an opinion doesn't make it an opinion. If you have a player who has a playstyle they want to play to be effective towards a goal, but then you subvert that players ability to be effective, you are effectively ruining that playstyle. This is not an opinion. Do you have a brain injury? Not trying to be mean, just trying to honestly understand how someone can have such a hard time with this concept.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Just because you say something is an opinion doesn't make it an opinion. If you have a player who has a playstyle they want to play to be effective towards a goal, but then you subvert that players ability to be effective, you are effectively ruining that playstyle. This is not an opinion. Do you have a brain injury? Not trying to be mean, just trying to honestly understand how someone can have such a hard time with this concept.

Facts need proof - all that has been offered is subjective opinion. If players want to play in a manner that is not supported by the game then they have to hope that others want to play that way too....

With the three game modes, as we both well know - because we both discussed them in threads before launch - forced PvP was highly unlikely to be possible, just as blockades would not work unless both sides play along in Open.

All of this was known before launch. The implementation of Poweplay has not changed that.

 

[Woofington]

I never knew that stating a consequence of an action, a verifiable, undeniable consequence, is an opinion. Pretty crazy world we live in.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Many people thought the invention of the car would make the horse and buggy out dated, but it turned out that consequence was an opinion and therefore incorrect. Even today there are still more horse and buggies.

 

[Asp Explorer]

This is the biggest bucket of lulz I've had all day. In my opinion

 

[edgar]

Woofington I don't think you're going to get an actual debate out of this forum about this topic sadly.

I suspect most people who hold the view that the Mode Switching / Mode Impunity issue needs to be addressed have become too frightened of being jumped upon by multiple biased Mods with anti-PvP agendas whenever it is mentioned, to speak up any more.

 

[Martin Schou]

Why? Because not all powers are created equally. Sure, if you're a combat pilot for a power that's been heavily involved in combat and attracts a      ton of combat pilots, forcing everyone into open sounds like a fantastic idea.

Suppose instead that you're Torval, Sirius or Mahon - powers that pretty much have absolutely no interest for combat pilots - why are you so intent on ruining their ability to actively ruin the fun that their players can have? They have no pilots capable or even willing to defend them, because the game rules have actively discouraged combat pilots from joining them.

Even better - why are you so intent on ruining four powers' ability to properly fortify? Torval, Delaine, Antal and Mahon all have inbound fortifications. That means that all of their fortification merits go through a bottleneck, namely their head quarters. If PowerPlay only existed in open, then you can effectively blockade those four powers, while the six others cannot be effectively blockaded. Sure, you can kill their fortifiers when they arrive in the HQ, but at that point they're not carrying any merits.

It gets worse. Suppose for a moment that Hudson and Mahon got into a prep war (happened a few cycles ago). Assume for a moment both powers have an equal amount of combat pilots. Which merit pilots are at greater risk - Hudson or Mahon? I'll break the suspense - it's Mahon. Mahon preps by carrying merits TO the preparation system (meaning they're bottle necked), whereas Hudson carries merits AWAY from the preparation system.

The game mechanics already give some powers an enormous advantage, and now you want the game to be even more biased towards those powers. I play almost exclusively in open, including when hauling merits back and forth, and I see absolutely no reason that solo or private groups should be barred from participating in PowerPlay, just like I see absolutely no reason that open should carry a bonus for PowerPlay participation, precisely because of the already massively unbalanced mechanics that are in play.

When I (Mahon pledge) fortify in open, I am taking a MUCH higher risk than any fortifier from Aisling, ALD, Patreus, Hudson, Winters or Sirius, because I have to bring my merits through a bottle neck. We all risk facing a rebuy screen, but Antal, Delaine, Mahon and Torval pilots fortifying are also risking a complete cargo load of fast tracked merits - which in my case works out to between 7 and 8 million credits. That's a risk that is never talked about, because no one (including Sandro and OP) seems to be completely oblivious to, and quite frankly I find it insulting to my intelligence whenever people bring up these topics, because time and time again, I have to point out that THE GAME MECHANICS ARE MASSIVELY UNBALANCED FOR EACH POWER. Currently that is something that can be handled, partly by cooperation, and partly by some people going into private groups. And that's without even bringing up the ability to fly in open without being able to actually instance with anyone - open solo-mode if you will.

If you want these changes, first get FDev to make the game mechanics identical for each power. Actually, if you can manage that, get them to fix the crap ton of bugs that already exist in PowerPlay before introducing new things that will inevitably introduce new bugs that can continue to muck things up for players.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I am taking a MUCH higher risk than any fortifier from Aisling, ALD, Patreus, Hudson, Winters or Sirius, because I have to bring my merits through a bottle neck.

What is a merit?

 

[edgar]

So what if Powers are unbalanced?

Powerplay was quite obviously never intended to be perfectly balanced and flat between the Powers - hence the significant imbalances to the starting positions of all Powers and the variety in their Ethos and mechanics.

Suggestions to reward Open contributions or limit non-Open impacts are often intended to make Powerplay MORE INTERESTING and capable of supporting emergant gamestyles like those that occurred in Lugh (spontaneous on-the-fly formation of wings and creation of lasting friendships) - NOT to create a sterile level playing field. It is arguably the imbalances themselves that would precipitate the best emergant styles, as greater jeopardy and risk would encourage players to seek novel methods to mitigate the risks such as providing escort duties or security sweeps that would actually serve a purpose and have real meaning.

 

[Martin Schou]

So what if Powers are unbalanced?

When they're unbalanced to the point of actively driving combat pilots away from certain powers, the idea that you can manage to make "on the fly escort wings" is ridiculous.

Suggestions to reward Open contributions or limit non-Open impacts are often intended to make Powerplay MORE INTERESTING

More interesting for whom? The combat pilots, who arguably already have the most interesting gameplay available alread? I can't help but notice that you're an Elite combat rank pilot in a Fer-de Lance and pledged to a combat power. I wonder which grouping you happen to fall into.

 

[edgar]

Ad hominem argument. I'm a BGS player for what it matters. Oh yeah, it doesn't matter... Nice attempt to shut me down though. I've heard you're classy like that.