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

[Perseus]

Well you need to change your game. It's not as easy as you think so you have to be careful. There is challenge in solo. You can't fly without rebuy that#s just insanity. That's tip number one, you will have to work out the rest yourself.

SterlingMH . . . are you a pigeon, by any chance?

 

[Sterling MH]

I doubt that that works, as it means a parallel infrastructure next to the existing one,

Nope,it's really REALLY easy. The Met Office in the UK have run dual setups for their climate models for many decades. What you do is you get another set of computers, load up the program and data to the other computer and then run its simulation.

Costs go up, sure, but not by double, since there are some people you need one of because people go gooey and stop working when you try to get a third of a person. And any changes are a null difference, you just mirror the changes on both at the same time. With the added advantage of redundancy being redundant for half of it. Cold swap kit for one is just as cold for two.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Uh you DO know that you get an imminent "danger" of an interdiction or station ambush in solo too, you know? We have these things called "NPCs". Try solo one day. Learn how to play the game PROPERLY.

In all my years in Powerplay, I've been interdicted by two Powerplay NPCs. Two awe inspiring Eagles that fired exactly five shots that tickled my D rated shields.

Wake me up when NPCs have SRB PA, or can disable my shields with reverb, or facegrab my ship with an expanded capture arc interdictor.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Nice try but quoting without context does not work :
[We're giving players a reason to engage in PVP against supporters of other factions, and a chance to feel like part of a team even if you prefer to play alone]

Knowing you can't PvP in solo, the "play alone" does not refer to this mode. It refers to feeling you are part of a team while you play as a lone wolf (not in a wing)

Au contraire mon capitan.

Read that sentence again - it literally means they're giving players a reason to engage in direct-PvP. It does not say they were making direct-PvP mandatory for Powerplay. Powerplay was intended to be the mechanism by which PvP-pro-bros could have an actual reason for PvP - to give it meaning within the context of the game, rather than just flying around ganking willy-nilly for no other reason than Just Because/Mining Salt. The important part you are missing is that players have a choice of whether they want to partake in direct-PvP-shooty-shooty or not. Once again, take the context of when that newsletter was published, as well as reading the rest of the thread.

 

[Sterling MH]

LOL Nope Sir! They scare me witless!

I know. Thinking that there's safety there then finding that it;s not empty is a shock! Luckily I never had that problem: I never assumed about the game and never got a shock at what I found. It's OK once you get used to it.

In all my years in Powerplay, I've been interdicted by two Powerplay NPCs. Two awe inspiring Eagles that fired exactly five shots that tickled my D rated shields.

So you're answering your own question. Why should you worry about Solo PP having no risk when you have never had risk at all either? Sounds like you debunked your own claims!

 

[znôrt]

Uh, it's a game.

exactly. it's a game and supposed to have players actually playing it. feedback from the forum is tepid at best, frontier has the numbers and the simple fact that they propose this radical change tells me they must not be very buoyant.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I know. Thinking that there's safety there then finding that it;s not empty is a shock! Luckily I never had that problem: I never assumed about the game and never got a shock at what I found. It's OK once you get used to it.



So you're answering your own question. Why should you worry about Solo PP having no risk when you have never had risk at all either? Sounds like you debunked your own claims!

That was in Solo.

 

[Rubbernuke]

From a thread I posted years ago:

What if...WW2 was fought using Powerplay rules?

London Blitz:

"Hello? Is that Hugh Trenchard?"

"Its three in the morning, Winston. What do you want?"

"Well Hugh, I need to find out who is bombing London. Do you know?"

"What do you mean Winston? I can clearly see bombers over the city from my window."

"But who is sending them, Hugh? We really need to know."

Normandy:

"Ah, Eisenhower! The battle is going well."

"Are you nuts Montgomery? You've occupied Manchester! France is the other way you idiot!"

"But we all agreed that Manchester was better. We voted on it, remember Dwight? I spent a million pounds to overrule everyone else."

Battle of Britain:

"Winston, we are under attack! Huge waves of bombers are over us! Our country is being blown apart!"

"What do you mean? Its a sunny day Attlee. I can't see any bombers in the sky at all."

"But, can't you see them sir? Look at the smoking ruins around us!"

"Clement, have you been on the gin again? Under attack from invisible ghost planes?"

 

[Abil Midena]

And thus a player vs player system, in short: PvP whic hshould contain players ... not NPCs.

Also the answer is because there isn't an effective way to counter hostile players other than PvE ... which people who want to play PP (a PvP content) do not intend to do.

Then I hope PP folks are ready for the repercussions of this.

Possibility: The powers that rely on trucking are going to fall, and hard. PP goes open only, and the truckers know they are going to be slaughtered, so stop PP-ing. The only ones left are the PKPers (player kill player), who have no interest or desire to do anything like trucking. PP is from then on ruled by the powers that prep/cont/exp by pew pew. Sounds like a death knell for PP. Good luck.

 

[Roybe]

Tactical play for one. Using your ship and thinking about outfitting more. Interactions with others.

Why should someone think about outfitting? The whole of PP is to move merits...with that as a goal..it's quicker to suicide on interdiction. Merits are no issue anymore...so just die and get back to running merits. Not convinced that interactions will increase enough to warrant such a wholesale change.

People making a conscious decision to engage in an organized conflict where there are other commanders involved. If one does not agree to those terms, wny would one pledge?

Because, currently, everyone can be engaged.

This is like asking people what do they expect when playing a game of football and half the other team vanishes to play the same game on a different field, versus the same one.

When was the last time you watched a football match where half the players on each side played the same game on dozens of different fields?

What the devs are doing is removing the field from players...when those players could play on the field...

Why is two teams squaring off on the same field a logistical fault that beggars belief? Or it's impossible for a match to happen under lights (there are quite a lot of timezones but many overlap). Or any other such incredulity.

Because the game was originally setup so that there were no limitations to the field. Imagine how surprised you would be, going to a public golf course and suddenly they changed the access to members of the ruling party.

I'm not sure I follow some of the arguments presented.

Thank you for asking this question!

1. Reduction in merit bombing due to risk of being destroyed. Therefore a more steady influx of merits and better planning capability for all sides.

All this is based on perception. But, controlling that perception will quiet down the PVP people...

2. Player coordination tactics that can actually be effective, such as attempting to prevent fortifications, patrolling against underminers, patrolling against preppers (which also ties into the proposed changes to preparation)

Game does not provide a basis for any of this. Between networking and matchmaking...nothing is guaranteed...again, this only works to the perception.

3. Return of a lot of good PP players that left because of the above reasons. More engaged players means better experience all around.

Questionable. Good PP/PVP people know the limitations and aren't going to accept the perception once they realize that nothing else has changed...in the long run, it will be the final nail in the PVP coffin for the game.

4. Introduction of some "on the fence" solo players into Open. Reading the posts, they are out there. More engaged players means better experience all around.

For how long?

5. If the engagement numbers warrant it, further development of multiplayer aspects of the game, including needed work on network infrastructure, more in-game social tools (some of which are coming with squadrons).

Unfortunately, this is what needs to occur FIRST...rather than try to play with people's expectations.

<snip> Let's take a bold step for once and see what happens.

Only to bring about a failure for two different communities within the game.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

From a thread I posted years ago:

What if...WW2 was fought using Powerplay rules?

London Blitz:

"Hello? Is that Hugh Trenchard?"

"Its three in the morning, Winston. What do you want?"

"Well Hugh, I need to find out who is bombing London. Do you know?"

"What do you mean Winston? I can clearly see bombers over the city from my window."

"But who is sending them, Hugh? We really need to know."

Normandy:

"Ah, Eisenhower! The battle is going well."

"Are you nuts Montgomery? You've occupied Manchester! France is the other way you idiot!"

"But we all agreed that Manchester was better. We voted on it, remember Dwight? I spent a million pounds to overrule everyone else."

Battle of Britain:

"Winston, we are under attack! Huge waves of bombers are over us! Our country is being blown apart!"

"What do you mean? Its a sunny day Attlee. I can't see any bombers in the sky at all."

"But, can't you see them sir? Look at the smoking ruins around us!"

"Clement, have you been on the gin again? Under attack from invisible ghost planes?"

I admire the creativity, but alas, it's pretty meaningless in the context of the game

 

[PeLucheuh]

Nope,you can't pewpewPvP in solo. But if someone is delivering messages in solo, you can deliver counter propaganda in solo. Player. Versus Player. Both in solo.

PvP isn't pewpew.

It's the only one you can't do in Solo. All the other PvP you can do.

You are talking about PvE vs PvE : doing PvE gameplay in order to fill a PvE bucket without any PvP gameplay. At best it can be called PvEvP where you never directly affect another player.
It is exactly the same with UA bombing in solo. UA delivered to the station does not affect anyone or involve PvP gameplay. At some point it will trigger an effect on the NPC Station wich will be applied on you.

Yes you can counter the NPC station effect but can you counter, oppose or stop the player himself though (aka PvP) ?

That is precisely why Powerplay is a failure atm and why it has to be Open only.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

I admire the creativity, but alas, it's pretty meaningless in the context of the game

Are we approaching the point where fanfic is better than both the game, and the forums?!?

 

[kofeyh]

So the logic of UA bombing in solo is perfectly fine because it can be mitigated after the fact and it doesn't need direct action.

I seem to recall quite a lot of suggestions that UA bombing should be in open for precisely all the reasons people are now claiming are fine for powerplay in solo.

Context, I guess. Or something. I don't even know what people want any more

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

You are talking about PvE vs PvE : doing PvE gameplay in order to fill a PvE bucket without any PvP gameplay. At best it can be called PvEvP where you never directly affect another player.
It is exactly the same with UA bombing in solo. UA delivered to the station does not affect anyone or involve PvP gameplay. At some point it will trigger an effect on the NPC Station wich will be applied on you.

Yes you can counter the NPC station effect but can you counter, oppose or stop the player himself though (aka PvP) ?

Congratulations you just described the basis on which Elite is based on!

That is precisely why Powerplay is a failure atm and why it has to be Open only.

You haven't explained why it has to be in Open at all.

Seriously, any talk about changing the game such that Stuff can be 'defended' by means of direct-PvP is tantamount to being meaningless if said game is based on peer-to-peer architecture - like E: D is. That's the reason Frontier had to go down the route of PvEvP - because they chose a P2P architecture. That's why enforcing Open-only is not a solution in a P2P-architectured game

 

[kofeyh]

Congratulations you just described the basis on which Elite is based on!



You haven't explained why it has to be in Open at all.

Seriously, any talk about changing the game such that Stuff can be 'defended' by means of direct-PvP is tantamount to being meaningless if said game is based on peer-to-peer architecture - like E: D is. That's the reason Frontier had to go down the route of PvEvP - because they chose a P2P architecture. That's why enforcing Open-only is not a solution in a P2P-architectured game

Remind me to ramble on about P2P when the next person demands UA bombing become an open only action.

Like it has been a few times now. For pretty much the same reasons. Ah well.

 

[WR3ND]

Top tier echelon NPCs should be more lethal than PVPers. This way there isn't a skill level cap for optional content that can be found only in Open, nor a reason to try and force people into Open for PVP, nor a need for PVP specific content in the context of the game universe and relevance within it.

This way people who want to get their PVP can still do so, but other people who don't aren't limited by it.

PVP exclusive content doesn't really effectively fly in a free-form, open-ended game like this in which the modes are supposed to be equal, in my opinion. Trying to shoehorn it in doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Goose4291]

Remind me to ramble on about P2P when the next person demands UA bombing become an open only action.

Like it has been a few times now. For pretty much the same reasons. Ah well.

The most hillarious bit about that is, every UA bomber (including myself) that I know responds to the demand of those threads with an

'Okay'.

 

[kofeyh]

The most hillarious bit about that is, every UA bomber (including myself) that I know responds to the demand of those threads with an

'Okay'.

Open can be a fickle mistress with that terrible p2p infrastructure I mean really.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Cool. My point was why not offer a solution to those who want the modules and to be non-combatant. Not to insult you and question your honour? Because of course I am not.

Wow guy.

No worries - I don't take anything the internet says personally - it's the internet. And while I don't oppose the idea of alternate means to acquire specialty modules, these are a sort of "for services rendered" award, and I do happen to enjoy providing the services I render. Unlike those who simply wait their 3 weeks, make a couple loads of deliveries, buy a stockpile of modules on Thursday and move on, I actually do take heed of what is going on, what is planned, and provide support as needed, where needed.

I can certainly understand and appreciate the hazards 5th Columnists present, and I don't engage in that sort of behavior - not that I can't... I have certainly played my part in some other rather elaborate schemes in other games, even profited from some of them, but that's just not how I play here. It's not the persona I want to portray.