Powerplay should not be made Open-only. Here's why... [EDITED]

[Genar-Hofoen]

Private mode grind warfare is boring, it creates no or little drama, very little Youtube or Twitch content appeal and gives the game an image of inequity (private mode players have all the advantages), stagnation and tedium. Time to shake things up Fdev - make Powerplay worth doing for the players it was intended for in the first place.

Indirect-PvP is boring for you and others like you who prefer to solve problems the direct-PvP-lets-blow-everything-up way, for sure. But I'll wager there are many folks who find the more tactical indirect-PvP side of things to be interesting and fun. Funny that, different players have different preferences and what they find fun, eh?

It was from 23.04.2015 and yes, Powerplay as it actually is designed right now WAS and IS working in solo and friends-only games. And here is actually the problem many people see in it.
How does it make PvP more intresting in these modes? And why should it remain in this state and never change?

Moving Powerplay to Open-only won't make it any more interesting for the majority of players, and has been pointed out many times in this thread, it will NOT solve other problems like 'botting' and unscrupulous players being able to play in Open connectivity mode but preventing other game clients from connecting to their game clients.

Because they add powerplay to solo, and presumably felt AI would be up to the task of providing the direct action? I kinda think at this point the options are leave the mechanics in a failed state so commanders can bask in the glory of successful stopping the developer, who will just move on to the next thing. Which will probably also then be blocked. Or maybe consider if that's not pointing a gun at feet.

I guess it depends on whether it means more to improve the game, or to win an argument?

No they simply added Powerplay to the game. Again I remind folks that there is only the game, and there are simply three different game client connectivity modes to select how one plays the game.

Lastly, it's not a case of basking in glory of stopping developers changing things - it's precisely a case of saying to developers/designers why an idea which initially seems great, will turn out to be not having the effect they think it will have. See: various posts I've made in this thread.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Again, PP was only touted as providing an actual reason for players to PvP, it wasn't ever touted as direct-PvP only, as you are claiming. Read what Sandro said in 2015. Read it again. Understand.

You seem to be stuck in 2015 then (or maybe in the kickstarted goals). Things can change and in the case of PowerPlay, Sandro 8and other devs) have stated in multiple livestreams and other media (I do not care to quote, instead, look at the most recent quote) that PP is primarily about PvP. There is no PvE influence and no BGS connected to it. No missions will be influenced and no systems to be flipped. No commodities will be allowed or banned and no starport services will be restricted and most importnatly, no thargoids will be summoned.

And to correct your statement and bring you up to date:

Hello Commanders!
Powerplay is fundamentally about consensual player versus player conflict. We think that pretty much all of the systems and rules would benefit from being played out in Open only, as it would dramatically increase the chance of meeting other pledged players and being able to directly affect the outcomes of power struggles.

 

[Andovar]

Actually I don't mind that so much. But in this case, it's "I don't like you playing it that way, so I want it removed so you can't".

Where exactly are the supporters of open-PP making this argument? I have yet to see it.
From everything I've read, the people who want it want it because they believe it will make powerplay a better gameplay experience.

 

[Sterling MH]

As long as the main ingredient for winning a fight in open is not skill but using a target lock breaking Plasma FdL or FAS, this discussion is lacking reality.

I don't do meta builds as I consider them boring. Asking myself, how using such would feel, I setup a "90% engineered" FdL for testing purposes and did some mock fights against non meta ships.

The outcome was ridiculous. Not by skill, but by weapon system used.

There will be no step toward "more open" until the target lock breaker plasma pain is cured.

It's one reason why the change to open is meaningless to me (and likely many others). Instead of buying a ship with what i want (or what I can get hold of at the time) I have to aim for a build to do PvP. Thousands of wiki pages on Diablo II builds for PvP javazons and PvE javazons but the builds for the latter demand a heavily twinked character build and much tighter tolerances to variations in kit otherwise you are going to lose because of the kit, not the player skill.

In solo I don#t have to engineer. If I do, I can engineer and accept what I get as what I get given. I don't have to build something to tank shields and hope they don't have shield pierce. I don't have to build for massive boost to escape, or engineer everything to the max.

In short in solo (and lesser extent in PG) I can build any ship and my skill decides what my survival rate is. In Open I have to build to a specific build, look up wikis and simulations to see what I need next, and until I get that uber build, I am unable to use skill to tide me over.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Haaaannnnngggg on. Weren't you the one elsewhere saying that it was ore effective to take out a player carrying 5000 merits than going round swatting for NPC kill merits? You never mentioned the expected payoff, insinuating that the PC kill was a sure thing there.

Yet here you are saying it's so unlikely to happen it can be ignored???

Someone is lying here. CQC battle between you to find out which one.

Strategic targets: hostile expansion systems, HQs, high income fortification systems, etc.
Worthless targets: overfortified, closest systems to HQ.

Expect less to no hostile forces to be in worthless target areas but high hostile forces in strategic important ones. If you are just grinding for the module of a specific power, you have no interest in supporting that power in the first place and thus will only grind merits wihtout any strategic value ... which is usually done by fortifying the closest system to HQ .. which is a low value target for enemies and thus you will face less to no PvP risk there ... unlike in strategic important areas.

 

[Kira Mikamy]

Where exactly are the supporters of open-PP making this argument? I have yet to see it.
From everything I've read, the people who want it want it because they believe it will make powerplay a better gameplay experience.

Powerplay is actually a grinding race. who grind most win, so who have more cmdrs win. doesnt means how skilled are they, they always win if they outnumber other pp faction, with only play mechanics, i can loose anyway, but fighting and try to stop the opposite faction. isnt so strange, lot of pp faction simply dont do stuff because they know the enemy are so much in solo and the only things they can do is to watch and loose. wheres the equity?

 

[Sterling MH]

Where exactly are the supporters of open-PP making this argument?

They don't have to. They are getting what they want if they can silence opposition or misrepresent their numbers. Look at what FD *isn't* giving you: BGS open only. Now look for all the PvPers wanting it taken away, making the arguments that you claim they don't make when the reason why not is for PP they are already getting it taken from others.

Want to see those demands made? Get FD to drop the idea. Wait thirty minutes and you'll see those arguments. Because not all PvPers wanting to punish non-Open play will read this prediction and will do what they want, not avoid proving me right.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

You seem to be stuck in 2015 then (or maybe in the kickstarted goals). Things can change and in the case of PowerPlay, Sandro 8and other devs) have stated in multiple livestreams and other media (I do not care to quote, instead, look at the most recent quote) that PP is primarily about PvP. There is no PvE influence and no BGS connected to it. No missions will be influenced and no systems to be flipped. No commodities will be allowed or banned and no starport services will be restricted and most importnatly, no thargoids will be summoned.

And to correct your statement and bring you up to date:

Aaaand the whole point of my thread was to remind Sandro of what he said in 2015, and why trying to change the goalposts now isn't going to work. QED.

 

[kofeyh]

So we are comfortable then, that there is no reason for a developer to ever address perceived issues in any way that actually changes the outcome because this would not do what they think?

Because that's the same reason every single time. Every. Time. Frontier clearly won't have the outcome they want despite being the developer of the thing.

Ok. Stopping all change because second guessing the developer every time is a valid argument, is the automatic outcome here.

Like I said. I wish Sandy luck. Because after this? Low chance of any major changes occurring. Because the developer will of course be 100% wrong then to. Like they always are.

Am I out of touch? No it is the children who are wrong.

 

[Genus]

So we are comfortable then, that there is no reason for a developer to ever address perceived issues in any way that actually changes the outcome because this would not do what they think?

Because that's the same reason every single time. Every. Time. Frontier clearly won't have the outcome they want despite being the developer of the thing.

Ok. Stopping all change because second guessing the developer every time is a valid argument, is the automatic outcome here.

Like I said. I wish Sandy luck. Because after this? Low chance of any major changes occurring. Because the developer will of course be 100% wrong then to. Like they always are.

Am I mistaken?

All of that.

 

[SnowyNI]

From everything I've read, the people who want it want it because they believe it will make powerplay a better gameplay experience.

Are we back to looking for more seals? It sounds very much like it. Let's force any PP solo players in open so we can eat them whole! Here's a thing, if they say you can avoid players be blocking them or setting the router, what if you block everyone you meet? Isn't that solo via the backdoor? (sry, I dunno how it works to block others, as I see no others anyway !!!).

 

[Sterling MH]

Strategic targets: hostile expansion systems, HQs, high income fortification systems, etc.
Worthless targets: overfortified, closest systems to HQ.

All of that is PvE and works in solo just as well. PG allows you to wing up with only your fellow factioneers. So your claims are redundant and self contradicting.

1) If you can solo, you can do things without me stopping you by pewpew!
2) If you go open, you will be able to do your thing with no more risk than in solo!

 

[kofeyh]

Aaaand the whole point of my thread was to remind Sandro of what he said in 2015, and why trying to change the goalposts now isn't going to work. QED.

Stalemate. You're essentially arguing for a stalemate. Also your point was to start discussion. If you wanted to remind Sandy of prior commitments, then the feedback post he raised was exactly the appropriate avenue.

Also don't complain about someone else having a one sided discussion and then attempt the exact same thing yourself, without sounding a tad transparent.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Aaaand the whole point of my thread was to remind Sandro of what he said in 2015, and why trying to change the goalposts now isn't going to work. QED.

Also false, you have created this thread not to remind Sandro of what he's said in 2015, but ...

I posted this as a response to Sandro's thread, but it needs discussion here where normal replies can be made without incurring the wrath of breaking that Feedback section's rules..

... to actively promote a discussion, which you have achieved so your goal of this thread is met.

However, a discussion is meant to gather opinions from multiple participants and not to promote a personal point of view. If your only goal was to remind Sandro of what he has said in 2015, you could just as well have written a personal message to him without making it public and drawing attention to that.

 

[dfgqsb]

As long as the main ingredient for winning a fight in open is not skill but using a target lock breaking Plasma FdL or FAS, this discussion is lacking reality.

I don't do meta builds as I consider them boring. Asking myself, how using such would feel, I setup a "90% engineered" FdL for testing purposes and did some mock fights against non meta ships.

The outcome was ridiculous. Not by skill, but by weapon system used.

There will be no step toward "more open" until the target lock breaker plasma pain is cured.

Not before the seeker/packhound instant killing external modules pain is cured. Point defense and ECM are nothing but jokes.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

All of that is PvE and works in solo just as well. PG allows you to wing up with only your fellow factioneers. So your claims are redundant and self contradicting.

1) If you can solo, you can do things without me stopping you by pewpew!
2) If you go open, you will be able to do your thing with no more risk than in solo!

Huh? How is all of that PvE? Especially in expansions, PvP is pretty common as this is the final stage before a system is taken over, including all systems in a 15 LY range.
Thus, many players from all factions are likely to be present trying to support or prevent that expansion. Also, allied forces (such as ALD, Aisling, Torval, Patreus for example) can support eachother by patrolling the system as they are incapable of supporting their allies by PvE (wrong power pledged) which is leaving PvP as the ONLY way to support allies.

 

[Sterling MH]

Stalemate. You're essentially arguing for a stalemate.

Well, yes. That too is a compromise: Neither get what change we want. The change YOU wanted is a zero sum game. So this is zero sum too and just as relevant, and the only difference is nobody "wins". What was that you said earlier about "If winning means so much to you..."? How relevant is winning to you?

Huh? How is all of that PvE?

Show me those HQs that are player owned and not NPC assets and I'll check up and see if you're right and they are PvP assets.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

So we are comfortable then, that there is no reason for a developer to ever address perceived issues in any way that actually changes the outcome because this would not do what they think?

Because that's the same reason every single time. Every. Time. Frontier clearly won't have the outcome they want despite being the developer of the thing.

Ok. Stopping all change because second guessing the developer every time is a valid argument, is the automatic outcome here.

Like I said. I wish Sandy luck. Because after this? Low chance of any major changes occurring. Because the developer will of course be 100% wrong then to. Like they always are.

Am I mistaken? No it is the children who are wrong.

kofeyh, I've given you countless +reps on this forum over the years on various topics. I like you as a forum poster and have found lots in agreement

I like a lot of what you're saying, but in this case and in particular this post, I have to disagree with your premises.

Sandro has merely touted the possibility of making Powerplay open-only. He is asking us on the forums what we think. That means there are folks who are going to be entirely pro the idea, folks who are against the idea, folks who don't care, and folks like me who point out reasons against doing it.

I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread that I'd agree that making Powerplay Open-only would be a logical and good idea and would work as intended - if E: D was based on a client-server architecture.

However, ED is based on a p2p+server architecture, and I have pointed out that this renders the idea of making Powerplay Open-only, unworkable, such that players will find ways of utilising the P2P nature of the game in order to circumvent this proposed change.

In addition, I remind Sandro of what the intentions of Powerplay were when it was released - his recent statements contradict what he said in 2015 - I suspect he may have forgotten what he said - that is, that Powerplay gives players a reason for direct-PvP, which is now being contradicted by his more recent statement. It does him no harm reminding him of this.

 

[Perseus]

Because people complained that it was crap. I didn't think it was crap so I didn't complain at FD that it wasn't crap. Confirmation bias. It's a real thing.

And yes, really. It works fine. I have no problems with PP as it is. It certainly works better than if they make it open only cos not playing it is the result.

It works fine. Want proof? Ask me, "Is PP a mess?" and I'll say "No, it's fine".

OK. . .Thanks for sharing the proof of your opinion.
o7

 

[Genus]

How relevant is winning to you?

We don't know what the prize is yet.