I fully agree. Powers are imbalanced by the number of supporters they attract and have. Encouraging people to play a multiplayer game in open, where you can interact makes sense. Encouraging people to play a multiplayer game in solo does not make sense. Power Play is about teams against other teams, not about one player that affects a shared world. As it stands now the "solo team" has a great advantage over the open team. Playing in a sterile environment just to beat the other teams is like combat logging to the main menu when you are interacting with another player. It's allowed but it is not fair play. Anyways, since they made the AI stupid again, I think the game wants to encourage people to grind their combat rank and never die. A smart AI would make the gap between solo/open smaller. I wonder, if they would remove the re-buy completely, if people would play in open. As it is now it's not dangerous at all. You can give modules and defenses to people, that guarantee your escape. They will not want to learn how to use them. I think PvP is an excuse. Power Play in Open is not PvP, which is occasional. Power Play in open is about fun, creativity and teams.
Powerplay Why are Solo and Private Groups allowed to influence Powerplay?
- Thread starter Woofington
- Start date
I fully agree. Powers are imbalanced by the number of supporters they attract and have. Encouraging people to play a multiplayer game in open, where you can interact makes sense. Encouraging people to play a multiplayer game in solo does not make sense. Power Play is about teams against other teams, not about one player that affects a shared world. As it stands now the "solo team" has a great advantage over the open team. Playing in a sterile environment just to beat the other teams is like combat logging to the main menu when you are interacting with another player. It's allowed but it is not fair play. Anyways, since they made the AI stupid again, I think the game wants to encourage people to grind their combat rank and never die. A smart AI would make the gap between solo/open smaller. I wonder, if they would remove the re-buy completely, if people would play in open. As it is now it's not dangerous at all. You can give modules and defenses to people, that guarantee your escape. They will not want to learn how to use them. I think PvP is an excuse. Power Play in Open is not PvP, which is occasional. Power Play in open is about fun, creativity and teams.
There is no solo or open team.
All powers have players who play in different modes depending on what they prefer. Logic would dictate, between the different powers, the rough distribution of people playing in different modes is roughly equal between them.
ie: If the distribution of Hudson players is 33/33/33% Open/Group/Solo one would expect a very similar distribution between Torval players and all the rest.
If people choose to play in open, its because they want the environment provided by open. With all the pros and cons that come along with it. For instance, in Open (and group) you can wing up, and cause havok in Militrary Strike zones... an option that is not available to solo players. How about if someone suggested a bonus to solo players in military strike zones because its harder for them?
Last edited:
I'm pledged to Archon and I'm 99% open. I always fortified and prepped in open without a single interdiction or an issue. In past two days, I've fortified 5000 points, all of that in open. I'm all in for an open PP bonus.
I think we fail to see the bigger picture. You start in a sidewinder with 1000 Cr, if I remember correctly. I needed about 1 year to be able to buy an Anaconda. Now people want to start the game, have the anaconda by the end of the first week and be the best in week 2. Of course the game is harder for people, that have just started the game and especially, if they cheat by farming ranks and credits, which is allowed. But as someone said not everything that is allowed is good for you. If they would take their time, they would have a blast with the game and not complain so much about making a team game (I mean Power Play) solo. There are advantages to open, and the biggest of them all is the "feeling". The game just feels different. You can "leave a trail" in the galaxy. Please don't tell me that "leaving a trail" in the galaxy in solo mode is fair play. We are just talking about Power Play in open having some advantages for your Power, not for you, over Power Play in solo. So you would not lose anything, if you want to play in solo. ONLY your Power would benefit more, if you would play Power Play in open. It would be mainly the same thing as it is with missions. If your trade rank is elite, you get access to missions, that pay more. Since there are no points to put in the skills of your character, there should be a way to differentiate skills. Making it harder with an increased combat rank is a good solution on individual level. Now think of "team" and propose a solution to differentiate between team skills and team rewards. In my opinion the solution of "open benefits your Power" seems reasonable enough.
Last edited:
*sigh*
The name comes from one of the game's ranks. It is not a description.
And you are forum member #762374234 to say what you did.
Regards
Why are Solo and Private Groups allowed to influence Powerplay?
Allowed?
Powerplay was designed for players to influence this new game mechanic no matter what mode they played in: to participate in PP how they like.
The question seems you want to ask is this:
Why did the developers design PP such that a person playing the game in either Solo, Open or Private Groups mode have equal effect with respect to PP?
For me it's right that this is so.
I play in Open, don't play PP, too complicated but it does make for a colourful Galaxy Map.
I don't want to deny my fellow paying players a downgraded game experience or to be penalised in anyway or form for playing in a particular mode.
Allowed?
Powerplay was designed for players to influence this new game mechanic no matter what mode they played in: to participate in PP how they like.
The question seems you want to ask is this:
Why did the developers design PP such that a person playing the game in either Solo, Open or Private Groups mode have equal effect with respect to PP?
For me it's right that this is so.
I play in Open, don't play PP, too complicated but it does make for a colourful Galaxy Map.
I don't want to deny my fellow paying players a downgraded game experience or to be penalised in anyway or form for playing in a particular mode.
Open players are penalised over solo/private, because their game mode is more risky - yet the reward and influence is the same.
Especially expansion systems in open are dangerous, Cutters Vultures and Corvettes buzzing around. It's fair and absolutely logical to reward those who risk more.
Agreed.
FD have even implemented a mechanic which specifically sets Powerplay up as a "high-risk" gameplay path - the concept of losing your Merits if you are killed before cashing them in.
The intention behind the riskiness of holding onto Merits is essentially de-fanged by the ability to freely Mode-Hop to avoid "bottleneck" or enemy interdiction during transit before cashing in.
Weighting Powerplay actions to Open (and PENALISING Players that deliberately Mode-Hop to avoid the other team by locking Merits to the Modes they are earned in too), redresses the hole in the mechanic existing alongside free Mode Switching.
Last edited:
please consider: no one has mentioned penalizing players, not even penalizing Powers. The only viable proposition is to reward POWERS, NOT Players, that are supported in open. So, if you want to play solo or in a PG you can play this way with no penalty whatsoever. The power play action in open would have a bonus, that will be received by your Power, not by you. Implementing this idea would mean encouraging teams to meet and adding more options of actions in Power Play.
Last edited:
Absolutely agree with you ever - nothing should be taken away from players who prefer a Solo experience - but risk should be rewarded with a bonus (to the Power, not the Player) to actions in Open.
However a penalty would be appropriate in my opinion, for those that deliberately hop between Solo and Open for the express purpose of exploiting the Modes to preserve their Merits from loss by hostile player action. That is using a out-of-game mechanic to gain an unfair advantage and is exploiting and should be punished.
However a penalty would be appropriate in my opinion, for those that deliberately hop between Solo and Open for the express purpose of exploiting the Modes to preserve their Merits from loss by hostile player action. That is using a out-of-game mechanic to gain an unfair advantage and is exploiting and should be punished.
Thanks, I did not know. Glad though so many people saying this, probably in different contexts.
Anyways, if names are chosen at random they are meaningless. And you have in the name two ranks (elite and dangerous), why would someone name a game after its content and name it twice?! Makes little sense. A name does describe something, otherwise it would not be a name.
Elite: Dangerous is a high-end, epic 'open world' multi-player space-sim trading/combat PC and Mac experience. This cutting edge crowd-funded franchise re-boot also delivers an astonishing VR experience. Head for the stars, take a ship and trade, bounty-hunt, pirate or assassinate your way across the galaxy. It's an awe inspiring, beautiful, vast place; with 400 billion star systems, planets, moons and asteroid fields just waiting to be explored and exploited.
Fair? 2 people paying the same money for the same game but one being denied an equal game mechanic?
Logical? It's logical that those who risk more and more often, should be penalised by losing more money more often and losing their ship more often. That is absolutely logical is it not? You risk more you lose more; would you like that? Is that fair?
One choses to risk more.
It does not matter if one is playing in Open or otherwise in a HazRes in a densely populated asteroid field, it's risky. One can choose to go into them or not. How does the presence of other players in this situation make it more risky?
What assessment of risk are you doing here?
And where does your logic lead? Explorers being paid less for their explorer data in Solo than in Open? The risks and dangers of flying are just the same.
The only situation of more risk in Open is where players acting the role of piracy or just plain thugs prey on other players with far inferior combat capable ships. This occurs in CG and PP as they define volumes of space where players need to go to complete tasks. And where prey goes so do the predators. The risk is definitely more for the victim here, but for those thugs it definitely is not, and they reason it so. What are they risking? Not much.
NPC behaviour is the same for each mode I assume. So let's upgrade the chances of these pirates and thugs being destroyed by NPCs etc.
Seems fair and logical to me.
No, let's just keep it as it is, imperfect though it might be.
No. Read what you wrote again, and you may realise how ridiculous it is.
If you choose to risk more AND are successful at playing in a risky enviroment, you should naturally be rewarded more. Like smuggling, where you risk getting caught but make more money when you succeed. Or bounty hunting, you can go into a low res and make less money, or go into a haz res and make more money but face tougher enemies.
If you pick the easy route with no resistance, you don't risk death but also should be rewarded less. This is absolutely logical and it's a fair balance!
Currently, the player who fights in an expansion system and risks getting ganged by wings of Cutters and Corvettes has the same influence and reward as player who goes into risk free solo mode. This is pure imbalance.
If you choose to risk more AND are successful at playing in a risky enviroment, you should naturally be rewarded more. Like smuggling, where you risk getting caught but make more money when you succeed. Or bounty hunting, you can go into a low res and make less money, or go into a haz res and make more money but face tougher enemies.
If you pick the easy route with no resistance, you don't risk death but also should be rewarded less. This is absolutely logical and it's a fair balance!
Currently, the player who fights in an expansion system and risks getting ganged by wings of Cutters and Corvettes has the same influence and reward as player who goes into risk free solo mode. This is pure imbalance.
Last edited:
PVP sucks in this game. Why bother?
And to answer your main question, the reason that it cannot be changed IS because the game was completely designed around the idea that all modes are to have equal input into the only PvP that matters-the outcollection of PVE trophies by one side of a conflict over the other. As I, and so many others have stated, Direct PvP in this game is poorly thought out, poorly implemented, and so painful to lose that the vast majority cannot be bothered to play it.
Last edited:
Except for the fact that it's not, as open players risk getting attacked by other players on top of usual NPC attacks, while solo players only face NPCs, but the risk is not compensated in any way. And if you have a look at Elite as a game, you notice that most of this game is balanced around the "risk = reward" idea, for example RES sites and smuggling, or certain weapon types. But, from some reason, open mode is not balanced this way.
Last edited:
The argument that PvP is a vital balancing factor in PP holds absolutely no water. I have lots of interactions with opposition, who cares if that isn't human? The outcome is the same.
In fact, my engagement with NPCs and story elements of the game (all arguably comparable to any PvP interaction you have re: game mechanics and effect) serve to heighten your enjoyment as you play in open, as you have opposition in the ebb and flow of power. In short, thanks to me and my solo/private play, you have efforts to oppose.
Short of the tired Solo vs Open argument, your enjoyment for a game you paid for does not trump mine. FD has brilliantly allowed players of all types to enjoy an amazing game without being pigeonholed into someone else's idea of fun.
I will thank you not to try to tell them it was a bad idea
If you want Danger then you should attack the Commanders already in Open Play, armed and ready to fight you in PvP and not keep pushing to force those not interested in engaging with PvP in there just so you can go sealclub Haulers with your FdL.
Why should the dangerous part only apply to others and not yourself?
Same applies to the so-called 'roleplaying a psycho' players who want more players into Open so they can kill players at minimum risk to themselves. The dangerous part should apply to them as well. Ergo, killing ships because you are a psycho should ban you from all stations in the entire bubble except anarchy systems, they should be forced to stay in Open as per their own arguments so they can be hunted by PvPers, they should be constantly harassed by NPC interdictions et.c.
Funny how the people who invoke the 'Dangerous' part of the game never speak of danger to themselves, but only about others because they lack balls to engage other PvPers but just want to do low-risk PKing themselves to artificially inject a sense of accomplishment into their own lives for a small ego boost.
So go out there, live by your Dangerous statement, and fight others who are interested in PvP instead of forcing your gameplay on those who aren't just because you have a desperate need to club baby seals.
It is not a matter of balancing Open play versus Solo or Group. That is a ridiculous statement. In Solo you can't form wings like in Group, so I guess that is not balanced either. Lets force Solo players into Group to make it balanced.
Open and Group offer exactly the same in terms of experiencing the design of the game such as RES hunting, CGs and powerplay. The ONLY difference is that Open adds the option of encountering random players.
THAT is the ONLY difference between Open and Group and it has NOTHING to do with balancing RES hunting, powerplay or otherwise. If you feel the Open play diminishes your earning potential because of player interference then guess what!?
You can join group play like others who feel the same does!!
Instead you default to 'but I dont like Group play, and if I can't play in Open and earn credits as fast as those in group because of player interference then EVERYONE else should be forced into my prefferred playstyle of being in Open with all the disadvantages it entails.'.
Forcing others into Open because you prefer Open and want them to have same issues of player interference is a completely stubborn, arrogant and selfish attitude.
Open allows random player interactions. That is the ONLY thing it offers. If you find it challenging then play in Group play.
And if you want to 'gatecamp' systems in powerplay or CGs then honestly, go back to EVE.
I didn't say anywhere that I want to force players to go open. I'm not requiring any nerfs either. I'm suggesting a small bonus to merits that are earned in Open, like 10% increase in the effect.
I mean, keeping the amount of merits you make and amount of money the same, but when you claim your merits and they were earned in open, it counts as 110% for your faction (BUT you get the same amount of merits), basically you as a pilot don't get any additional reward or merits, your profitability would remain the same, only your faction benefits.
You bring 100 fortification goods to your HQ and you recieve 100 merits as always, only difference is that the system you fortified gets fortified by 110 points instead of 100.
I'm mainly speaking of expansion systems however. The risk of getting killed by a gank squad of enemy faction is almost zero percent EXCEPT for expansion systems which are usually buzzing with resistance that interdicts you as soon as you enter the system because you are marked as an "enemy" to them. Which is FAR from "random player interaction".
Do you know what is arrogant and stubborn? Making up things I never said nor meant to make me look like an anti-solo extremist.
All I personally ask for is a small influence bonus. Like 10-15%. I don't request or want any nerfs to solo.
I mean, keeping the amount of merits you make and amount of money the same, but when you claim your merits and they were earned in open, it counts as 110% for your faction (BUT you get the same amount of merits), basically you as a pilot don't get any additional reward or merits, your profitability would remain the same, only your faction benefits.
You bring 100 fortification goods to your HQ and you recieve 100 merits as always, only difference is that the system you fortified gets fortified by 110 points instead of 100.
I'm mainly speaking of expansion systems however. The risk of getting killed by a gank squad of enemy faction is almost zero percent EXCEPT for expansion systems which are usually buzzing with resistance that interdicts you as soon as you enter the system because you are marked as an "enemy" to them. Which is FAR from "random player interaction".
No I don't want solo players to have the same issues as open, Isolo should be left UNTOUCHED the way it is now.
Do you know what is arrogant and stubborn? Making up things I never said nor meant to make me look like an anti-solo extremist.
All I personally ask for is a small influence bonus. Like 10-15%. I don't request or want any nerfs to solo.
Last edited: