Good post. I applaud FD for their bravery. I also think they have metrics that show them where the majority of playerbase is spending its time. I think it's not a coincidence that more and more new features are geared towards multiplayer. Writing is on the wall and people will have to come to terms with it. I'm fine with the direction but understand that not everyone else is. They will have to figure out if they want to adjust or move on.
Powerplay should not be made Open-only. Here's why... [EDITED]
- Thread starter Genar-Hofoen
- Start date
Good post. I applaud FD for their bravery. I also think they have metrics that show them where the majority of playerbase is spending its time. I think it's not a coincidence that more and more new features are geared towards multiplayer. Writing is on the wall and people will have to come to terms with it. I'm fine with the direction but understand that not everyone else is. They will have to figure out if they want to adjust or move on.
quite frankly, you can quote whatever you like, of course. But it doesn't change the fact that from a game design perspective open only is the only correct decision for Powerplay. My 2cc
Let me guess.. sometimes at night you still wake up and you scream: OFFLINE MOOOODEEE AAARRGGGHHH.
Sterling MH
Banned
Well that was all the claim PP was rubbish was: proof of the person saying it was crap's opinion.
If you wanted some objective message, you should have provided some objective statement, not your opinion of PP.
I find it is fine, so I see no reason to change it, especially by removing it entirely for me. You see it as crap, so if we stay status quo, you lose NOTHING. And I lose nothing too.
And THIS is why people asking "Got a source for that" are JAQing off. They just want to pretend that it's wrong and denying it is real is the first and easiest step. Just ignoring it and discounting it COULD have been done first, but for some reason they never try that one.
Well, they've changed their minds because:
1) Powerplay is stagnant - you just need to check the PP board to see people just fortify (I wonder why?) and they barely act to take anything.
2) The majority of the playerbase has never been happy with it (you just need to see the criticisms from Yamiks and Obsidian Ant in their videos)
3) The majority of the playerbase simply played it via the backdoor - solo/groups, no.1's problem, above.
4) They underestimated how much friction would be caused for PvP (not much) because of 3.
Open only for PP is a positive step - one widely accepted by the majority of forum users.
Being serious for a moment.
Isn't that notion just a little disingenuous? A soupson, a bit of a smidgeon?
This whole argument should never have gone public, the very fact it was uttered as a thing by the Lead Designer on the forums...states intent over an idea that should never have made it out of the meeting. You don't suggest building a bridge if you don't intend to cross the river.
Personally, I think this is nothing more than naivety on the part of whoever didn't get the memo. This Powerplay in just open thing will never happen for business reasons, let alone the nonsense it would create in the Design and subsequent gameplay.
We should all know better by now. And for Grud's sake, next time...someone keep it on a leash. I mean where has Ed been for the last two months?
Last edited:
The whole PP thing is an issue that barely affects what, 5% of the player base? Given the nature of FDev's design process though, this fits in with being totally ridiculous and needs to be stopped in favour of more important dev time.
So we know for a fact it was never PVP only as we have the data to prove that in numerous quotes from Braben, Brooks and Sammarco.
We also know for a fact that PP in it's current state is rubbish. Nobody is playing it and it needs work on it rather than being scrapped - I think most people would like to see more done to it.
But this is FDev, so it'll suck most likely. And we'll have another few months of Dev time completely wasted and we still won't have any exploration content. Mining will still be awful as will trading and the missions and we'l lstill be left with PP that hardly anyone is playing.
So we know for a fact it was never PVP only as we have the data to prove that in numerous quotes from Braben, Brooks and Sammarco.
We also know for a fact that PP in it's current state is rubbish. Nobody is playing it and it needs work on it rather than being scrapped - I think most people would like to see more done to it.
But this is FDev, so it'll suck most likely. And we'll have another few months of Dev time completely wasted and we still won't have any exploration content. Mining will still be awful as will trading and the missions and we'l lstill be left with PP that hardly anyone is playing.
Sterling MH
Banned
Yeah, it's kind of the problem. Removing PP from solo and PG is the act. The prize is what? Nobody knows. Heck, we don't even know the price. But my point was to point out that when someone complains about "You just want to win, it means so much to you", they will ignore that when it comes to winning themselves. It's just an ad hom and wastes time.
Gave you a consolation-prize +rep for that. I have no participation medals to give you though, sorry
If you read the thread - which you haven't - you'll have seen why what you said can't be true
Have an awesome day, CMDR o9
Sterling MH
Banned
And if they had numbers to make the call that it would be a net user benefit, why would they ask at all? They'd already have the data on who. The ask reeks of not having the data on who would be affected, so they went the worst way.
How many posts said "If this change happens, I'll buy elite!".
Power play is currently broken and played primary in Solo PG by a tiny group of players. It is essentially a dead mechanic because of this.
And almost no one in Solo or PG or even Open would care about PP except that suddenly it has been drawn into the old Open vs Solo debate. Now suddenly everyone is lining up behind old battle lines and very few are seeing the bigger picture.
The bigger picture is that humans, like all particles in the universe, will always follow the path of least resistance. This is a basic principle of physics and human psychology. Solo/PG is easier, passive, non-competitive, and yet this is also wholly in opposition to the spirit of competition that PP was supposed to support. So is it really surprising that the current "least resistance" path for PP is being in a defecto death-like coma?
Without direct competition, PP in Solo/PG is like playing chess while opponents pieces are invisible. PP needs to be Open for the mechanics to have any meaning, just like chess pieces need to be visible for chess to have any meaning.
And almost no one in Solo or PG or even Open would care about PP except that suddenly it has been drawn into the old Open vs Solo debate. Now suddenly everyone is lining up behind old battle lines and very few are seeing the bigger picture.
The bigger picture is that humans, like all particles in the universe, will always follow the path of least resistance. This is a basic principle of physics and human psychology. Solo/PG is easier, passive, non-competitive, and yet this is also wholly in opposition to the spirit of competition that PP was supposed to support. So is it really surprising that the current "least resistance" path for PP is being in a defecto death-like coma?
Without direct competition, PP in Solo/PG is like playing chess while opponents pieces are invisible. PP needs to be Open for the mechanics to have any meaning, just like chess pieces need to be visible for chess to have any meaning.
Last edited:
All the bot software will do is add a line in where they suspend network processes to dump them from the instance. So you will delay them a bit at first.
And who's that sad to use bots for PP for crying out loud "oh I must have a different text on this system!!!"
Woopie doo
Dude, I don't know what you're talking about anymore. You just seem to be mindlessly ranting or maybe thinking too fast or . . . something.
I can only give my opinion about this game, just like anybody else. That includes you!
I never said PP was crap - you did! I want PP to develop and open only would suit PP down to a tee. This is my opinion and, from the looks of the forum at large, it's the opinion of many others.
Development good - stagnation bad.
Sterling MH
Banned
Yeah, but at least it isn't gone. This change removes it. I don#t get to play it.
And there's nothing to say this will work, and everything to say it won't. CQC, wings, multicrew, all were supposed to be the next big thing to make consentual PvP and multiplayer modes exciting. And every single one failed, along with PP.
Tell you what, remove wings and multicrew from solo. Heck, remove CQC from solo too!
Nothing says that PP has to be removed from Open other than whiners who complain that they can't pewpew. But if you want meaningful PvP in PP, why isn't the change to ADD PvP missions to PP?
I still won't use it, but then again, I won't lose it either, so the result of indifference to changing PP is that this can go ahead: add new PvP missions to PP.
Is that
1. because you do but want to pretend
2. because you are incapable
?
As someone mentioned way back in the thread near the beginning of time, this proposal has nothing to do with improving Power Play and everything to do with finding a reason for Squadrons to exist.
Gave you a consolation-prize +rep for that. I have no participation medals to give you though, sorry
If you read the thread - which you haven't - you'll have seen why what you said can't be true
Have an awesome day, CMDR o9
Why should i read all the thread? I ve had enough reading your same post twice in these forums. You clearly dont like broken promices and you clearly believe that all modes should be equal due to some dead post that you found?
Well let me tell you that the equal modes promise wasnt the first one broken and i will also tell you that modes were never equal.
Whos cmdr o9? Is that your other name in your reality?
Sterling MH
Banned
Bad arguments annoy me. Even a WRONG argument leads to learning something and demonstrates that it is an argument to attain something positive, not an excuse not to listen, which is what a bad argument is. Wrong can be fixed. A bad argument cannot, there's no argument there to fix. All you can do is point it out and make fun of it.
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.
Sure. It's also true that what was said 4 years ago, may not be relevant now, with the benefit of hindsight. It's also true that a developer recognising issues with a set of mechanics and thus wishes to change them, is not an automatic fault state.
It's possible for a thing to not achieve goals stated at it's incept. I believe this is at the heart of a recommendation from a developer who can see what is actually happening, within the context of that happening.
I, personally, will never get every statement I make confidently about a given scenario ahead of time 100% correct, under all circumstances. It would be unusual for a developer to somehow miraculously achieve this, either
So we can either try to hold the future, to protect the past and maintain the status quo, or recognise change is an essential part of the developer process, and is acting as a barrier to that, purely on the grounds of prior statements, actually constructive.
This is just my view. To me this is less about open/ solo and more recognising and accepting that the developer is not always going to get the first approach of something in an optimal state and there needs to be some room for the developer to adapt.
So far, it's mostly "don't do this" obstruction, as opposed to a preparedness to accept that they will at times have to make hard choices about the outcomes of prior choices.
I don't know if pushing powerplay into open will solve anything. My concern is more what happens if the developer is forced to back down, and is unable to address prior decisions.
What happens to the development cycle. Or the growth of the game?
Your analogy is incorrect.
The chess pieces are always visible; the chess pieces are the Powers. It's the players who aren't. Also, this is a giant game of chess in which direct blowing up of players who can be seen doesn't work as effectively as moving the chess pieces or the 'tokens' sent between the chess pieces. (Yeah it's one weird game of chess!
)Making Powerplay only playable in open connectivity mode is not the solution, due to E: D being based on p2p. All it'll do is force bot users and unscrupulous players to select Open client connectivity mode but prevent other game clients connecting with theirs. The chess pieces will still be visible, still be moved around, tokens sent between chess pieces will still happen, and ultimately, players will still be invisible.
Now, this entire conversation would be moot if Powerplay was played in a game with client-server architecture, but until and unless Frontier decide to stop relying on P2P to see other player ships, then I cannot see how Powerplay can possibly be anything other than what it is right now.