Modes On Chilling Out About the Modes

[Marra Morgan]

BGS open only. Now that's lame

That's right, it would never work.

And again I agree with Asp Explorer here. Powerplay would work as an Open only feature, especially when you read the accompanying change proposals Sandro put forward and see the wider picture. It's no wonder the Powerplay groups themselves are fully behind them.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Indeed - but I'm fully supportive of Powerplay being Open-Only.

That's right, it would never work.

And again I agree with Asp Explorer here. Powerplay would work as an Open only feature, especially when you read the accompanying change proposals Sandro put forward and see the wider picture. It's no wonder the Powerplay groups themselves are fully behind them.

Personally, I used to oppose the idea of Open Only for Powerplay, but now I'm simply neutral to it. The reason why I opposed it was that I was convinced that Open was pretty much dead (I rarely ever saw anyone in Open, even at CGs or other "hot spots"), and felt that OOPP would be the nail in the coffin for a system that enriched my game, even though I'm primarily a BGS player, and that I really wanted to be improved.

What changed my mind was Sandro's statement that the majority of players played in Open, by a "significant margin." This was so contrary to my experience in Open that I was convinced that Sandro's statement was a "statistical truth." Then I ran the numbers, and started keeping track of the few players I'd encounter at CGs, and "hot spots," as well as doing BGS work in Hudson's capital and what should've been a busy control system, both during my local prime time when I was home sick from work during the weekend, and during my normal play window.

So far, the results have been fairly consistent with the idea that the game's matchmaker considers the quality of a person's connection with whoever is hosting an instance first. IOW, you're much more likely to instanced with someone physically close to you, than you are someone half a world away. If you don't play during your local prime time, the effects are similar to playing in solo, even if you play during global peak players.

So while I think OOPP won't have a huge impact on the size of the Power Playerbase like I'd feared, I also think it won't generate the fun kind of PvP that many OOPP advocates believe it will, nor will it allow them to control 5C activities or botting via PvP. In the case of the latter, 5C players and botters can simply raise their router or firewall's security settings*, and enjoy the benefits of solo in Open. It may stop the lazy or stupid ones, but most will adapt.

As for the former, in my experience the type of player who hasn't already pledged to a power because PP isn't OO, isn't the kind of player who's fun to play with in the first place. They'll pledge, discover that that there aren't any "easy kills" like they hoped, get bored, and quit. Meanwhile, those of us who are interested in actually helping our Power, as opposed to PvPing for the fun of it, will avoid PvP like the plague, because PvP in Powerplay is all risk, for no reward. If we're carrying merits on board, it makes far more sense to disengage and turn them in than to turn and fight, even if we're equipped for combat. And, of course, the type of player who wasn't already playing in Open, but didn't quit due to OOPP, is far more likely to combat log than most.

____________
* We have a tween at home who is far too computer savvy for her own good, so as a result our internet security is very tight. Every time there's an update, I have to re-enable Elite's permissions, because our Firewall treats E: D's ports as high risk.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Personally, I used to oppose the idea of Open Only for Powerplay, but now I'm simply neutral to it. The reason why I opposed it was that I was convinced that Open was pretty much dead (I rarely ever saw anyone in Open, even at CGs or other "hot spots"), and felt that OOPP would be the nail in the coffin for a system that enriched my game, even though I'm primarily a BGS player, and that I really wanted to be improved.

What changed my mind was Sandro's statement that the majority of players played in Open, by a "significant margin." This was so contrary to my experience in Open that I was convinced that Sandro's statement was a "statistical truth." Then I ran the numbers, and started keeping track of the few players I'd encounter at CGs, and "hot spots," as well as doing BGS work in Hudson's capital and what should've been a busy control system, both during my local prime time when I was home sick from work during the weekend, and during my normal play window.

So far, the results have been fairly consistent with the idea that the game's matchmaker considers the quality of a person's connection with whoever is hosting an instance first. IOW, you're much more likely to instanced with someone physically close to you, than you are someone half a world away. If you don't play during your local prime time, the effects are similar to playing in solo, even if you play during global peak players.

So while I think OOPP won't have a huge impact on the size of the Power Playerbase like I'd feared, I also think it won't generate the fun kind of PvP that many OOPP advocates believe it will, nor will it allow them to control 5C activities or botting via PvP. In the case of the latter, 5C players and botters can simply raise their router or firewall's security settings*, and enjoy the benefits of solo in Open. It may stop the lazy or stupid ones, but most will adapt.

As for the former, in my experience the type of player who hasn't already pledged to a power because PP isn't OO, isn't the kind of player who's fun to play with in the first place. They'll pledge, discover that that there aren't any "easy kills" like they hoped, get bored, and quit. Meanwhile, those of us who are interested in actually helping our Power, as opposed to PvPing for the fun of it, will avoid PvP like the plague, because PvP in Powerplay is all risk, for no reward. If we're carrying merits on board, it makes far more sense to disengage and turn them in than to turn and fight, even if we're equipped for combat. And, of course, the type of player who wasn't already playing in Open, but didn't quit due to OOPP, is far more likely to combat log than most.

____________
* We have a tween at home who is far too computer savvy for her own good, so as a result our internet security is very tight. Every time there's an update, I have to re-enable Elite's permissions, because our Firewall treats E: D's ports as high risk.

What did you think of the accompanying proposals for Powerplay and how they will work (or not) with the Open-only mechanic?

 

[Darkfyre99]

What did you think of the accompanying proposals for Powerplay and how they will work (or not) with the Open-only mechanic?

Going from memory:

1) Voting and preparation changes will control 5C activities far more than OOPP will... assuming that the number of honest players pledged to a power outnumber the 5C players by a significant majority. If it's the other way around... :O

2) I love that I will be able to earn merits for helping my Power via mission based BGS manipulation, rather than having to choose between having fun (running missions) and doing activities I don't enjoy (ABA cargo runs or NPC farming). From the sound of things, however, I won't be able to earn undermining merits by running missions for the opposition in Federation space.

3) I have mixed feelings about limiting the affects of the BGS to control systems only. On the one hand, Powerplay based BGS manipulation has had a huge impact on non-Powerplay players. On the other hand, when I'm in the mood for helping brave freedom fighters resist the rule of the evil Galactic Federation, it narrows my choices to control systems if I want to have an impact on Powerplay without earning merits.

4) The possibility of guaranteed undermining success should shake things up a bit.

5) I really wish they'd move Powerplay modules to tech brokers.

edit: Forgot to mention, IMO the other proposed changes will work regardless of whether Powerplay goes Open Only or not. Between how instancing works in this game, the size of the dedicated Power Playerbase, and how large the powers are likely to be even after shedding the unprofitable systems, you're still not likely to be opposed by another Power Player in Open, even during local prime time, unless you're in an expansion system.

Back when Powerplay first came out, and I played during local prime time, I was attacked much more frequently by unpledged gankers than I ever was by opposing pledged Power Players. Even then, the NPCs were the biggest source of annoying interruptions at the time, though it's been toned way down since then. If Powerplay goes Open Only, I think that will remain the biggest threat to non-combat oriented Power Players who play during prime time.

Just not much of one for a prepared Commander.

 

[Parmo]

...
So while I think OOPP won't have a huge impact on the size of the Power Playerbase like I'd feared, I also think it won't generate the fun kind of PvP that many OOPP advocates believe it will, ...

I think that OOPP will reduce the number of players engaging in PP hence there will be no chance of more PvP combat, the fun kind, than is already present.
If this situation occurs then what will players who wish more PvP combat, a very small minority, demand next?

 

[Marra Morgan]

I think that OOPP will reduce the number of players engaging in PP hence there will be no chance of more PvP combat, the fun kind, than is already present.
If this situation occurs then what will players who wish more PvP combat, a very small minority, demand next?

I think that it will increase the number of players engaging in Powerplay. I gave up on it a while ago because I was frustrated by the lack of meaningful competitive game play, but I'll certainly be considering getting back into it if Sandro's proposals are implemented.

And that's all the proposals, not just open-only aspect that many seem to obsess over - one must understand how it all fits together to create a more compelling and entirely optional competitive part of the game.

Going from memory:

1) Voting and preparation changes will control 5C activities far more than OOPP will... assuming that the number of honest players pledged to a power outnumber the 5C players by a significant majority. If it's the other way around... :O

2) I love that I will be able to earn merits for helping my Power via mission based BGS manipulation, rather than having to choose between having fun (running missions) and doing activities I don't enjoy (ABA cargo runs or NPC farming). From the sound of things, however, I won't be able to earn undermining merits by running missions for the opposition in Federation space.

3) I have mixed feelings about limiting the affects of the BGS to control systems only. On the one hand, Powerplay based BGS manipulation has had a huge impact on non-Powerplay players. On the other hand, when I'm in the mood for helping brave freedom fighters resist the rule of the evil Galactic Federation, it narrows my choices to control systems if I want to have an impact on Powerplay without earning merits.

4) The possibility of guaranteed undermining success should shake things up a bit.

5) I really wish they'd move Powerplay modules to tech brokers.

edit: Forgot to mention, IMO the other proposed changes will work regardless of whether Powerplay goes Open Only or not. Between how instancing works in this game, the size of the dedicated Power Playerbase, and how large the powers are likely to be even after shedding the unprofitable systems, you're still not likely to be opposed by another Power Player in Open, even during local prime time, unless you're in an expansion system.

Back when Powerplay first came out, and I played during local prime time, I was attacked much more frequently by unpledged gankers than I ever was by opposing pledged Power Players. Even then, the NPCs were the biggest source of annoying interruptions at the time, though it's been toned way down since then. If Powerplay goes Open Only, I think that will remain the biggest threat to non-combat oriented Power Players who play during prime time.

Just not much of one for a prepared Commander.

Looks like you've got a good grasp of it, and I agree with some of your points. I like that these changes will create flashpoints for players to go head-to-head, I think that's what will make it exciting!

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Instancing is a pain but speaking as a PvP aficionado the headache is often well worth it and wouldn’t dampen my enthusiasm for Open Only PP.

I’d rather try and fail, in this... heh... instance!

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I think that it will increase the number of players engaging in Powerplay. I gave up on it a while ago because I was frustrated by the lack of meaningful competitive game play, but I'll certainly be considering getting back into it if Sandro's proposals are implemented.

And that's all the proposals, not just open-only aspect that many seem to obsess over - one must understand how it all fits together to create a more compelling and entirely optional competitive part of the game.



Looks like you've got a good grasp of it, and I agree with some of your points. I like that these changes will create flashpoints for players to go head-to-head, I think that's what will make it exciting!

Agreed, I've heard a lot of interest in the idea and would engage in more PP myself if that were the case.

To all the OOPP supporters I can only repeat myself: Due to instancing OOPP would never provide this sort of gameplay that many of you seem to have in mind. This sort of 'meaningful' gameplay will very soon show its arbitrary nature - when the first PvPers realize that they not necessarily fighting the "right" ones, even though they are all in Open, just not in your instance. No way to control that.

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

An incremental change can still be beneficial.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

It's astonishing to me how many among the community have access to crystal balls that allow them to so confidently predict the game's demise if x feature is implemented or becomes open-only.

 

[Jockey79]

To all the OOPP supporters I can only repeat myself: Due to instancing OOPP would never provide this sort of gameplay that many of you seem to have in mind. This sort of 'meaningful' gameplay will very soon show its arbitrary nature - when the first PvPers realize that they not necessarily fighting the "right" ones, even though they are all in Open, just not in your instance. No way to control that.

There is a bit of control over the instances/ matchmaker.

Friends list, block list.

Just make sure the only people on your friends list are people who support what you're doing and block those who don't.

It may not be a guarantee, but as Bob says;

An incremental change can still be beneficial.

(this of course is just the in game, "legit" way of influencing your own play time)

It's astonishing to me how many among the community have access to crystal balls that allow them to so confidently predict the game's demise if x feature is implemented or becomes open-only.

Funny, must be the same crystal balls open only people were using in 2014 when they said the game would die in a year if the game wasn't completely open only.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

Funny, must be the same crystal balls open only people were using in 2014 when they said the game would die in a year if the game wasn't completely open only.

It's funny how mode zealots of all stripes tend to be a bit dense, isn't it?

 

[Asp Explorer]

Just for a bit of lulz - I've built a 386sx with 4Mb RAM and a SMC Ethernet card on AUI/Coax on a fully saturated MCA bus.

Who wants to instance through it?

 

[Jockey79]

It's funny how mode zealots of all stripes tend to be a bit dense, isn't it?

Zealots may be entrenched in their opinons, but that does not make them "dense".
There has been some great points raised on both sides that could improve various aspects of the game.
But it is down to Frontier if they want to listen and incorporate any of the ideas properly.

In fact, from what I can tell. One of the main issues is Frontier not implementing any ideas properly to begin with is a major issue.
Calling Power Play a "PvP feature" is about the most stupid thing I've seen (due to it being introduced with the option of Solo play from the start).
Which of course is beaten on the stupid-o-meter by CQC/Arena (which they couldn't even give away for free - which is how my wife got her copy of it).
Even Engineering from the start was a bit of flop for the general player base, but at least it was reworked to attract more players.

In fact, what we need to help the game is for Frontier to actually do something to save those features that are not being used (or remove them).
So far they have just ignored the problems and hoped they'd go away. Creating a toxic atmosphere on the forums from all sides.
They need to buckle up, pick a direction for the game to move in and actually do something.
Skip the "hand grenades" that seem to amuse Sandro, or mess about with feedback threads that the Devs just ignore after a month.

"Dense" is Frontier sitting on the fence for 2 years doing nothing about the weakest parts of the game.

And this reply went on waaaay longer than it should have
Sorry for the mini rant

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

Zealots may be entrenched in their opinons, but that does not make them "dense".
There has been some great points raised on both sides that could improve various aspects of the game.
But it is down to Frontier if they want to listen and incorporate any of the ideas properly.

In fact, from what I can tell. One of the main issues is Frontier not implementing any ideas properly to begin with is a major issue.
Calling Power Play a "PvP feature" is about the most stupid thing I've seen (due to it being introduced with the option of Solo play from the start).
Which of course is beaten on the stupid-o-meter by CQC/Arena (which they couldn't even give away for free - which is how my wife got her copy of it).
Even Engineering from the start was a bit of flop for the general player base, but at least it was reworked to attract more players.

In fact, what we need to help the game is for Frontier to actually do something to save those features that are not being used (or remove them).
So far they have just ignored the problems and hoped they'd go away. Creating a toxic atmosphere on the forums from all sides.
They need to buckle up, pick a direction for the game to move in and actually do something.
Skip the "hand grenades" that seem to amuse Sandro, or mess about with feedback threads that the Devs just ignore after a month.

"Dense" is Frontier sitting on the fence for 2 years doing nothing about the weakest parts of the game.

And this reply went on waaaay longer than it should have
Sorry for the mini rant

That's the thing, though- Powerplay is a legitimate vehicle for PvP-centric ventures- whether it be the direct sort that immediately comes to mind for most or the group vs group dynamic that are the powers clashing against each other. Regardless of if it was available in solo at the time of launch, it really does make sense for it to be restricted to open play.

The fact that the Powerplay communities themselves-i.e., the ones who know the most about and actually play it are overwhelmingly in support of the proposal should be quite telling.

Moving something like Powerplay to open only also addresses another common gripe: that PvP in Elite is shallow and nearly pointless. Sandro's "hand grenade" is, in fact, a golden opportunity to fix a common complaint about PvP. Yet still it's opposed, and curiously by those who have little to no interest in Powerplay at all.

Were I a more cynical man, I would suspect a measure of duplicity among certain of the solo/PG zealots in regards to OOPP: complain endlessly that PvP is a meaningless mechanic in Elite, and then further complain that a proposal designed specifically to give it meaning is somehow a threat to their playstyle. It's a rather negative strategy: raise Cain about the problem and then sabotage the solution, which in turn gives them further ammunition to complain that it hasn't been solved.

I hope I'm mistaken to even speculate such, but we both know how these things work.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

They need to buckle up, pick a direction for the game to move in and actually do something.

This. Even if it's something I end up disliking (I've stuck around this long and still have a blast).

 

[Jockey79]

That's the thing, though- Powerplay is a legitimate vehicle for PvP-centric ventures- whether it be the direct sort that immediately comes to mind for most or the group vs group dynamic that are the powers clashing against each other. Regardless of if it was available in solo at the time of launch, it really does make sense for it to be restricted to open play.

Power Play from the very start has been about indirect PvP.

Moving tokens or killing NPCs, harming players has always been a colossal waste of time and effort.
And with instancing, friends list and block lists - station blockades can never be a thing either. Open only won't solve that.

The fact that the Powerplay communities themselves-i.e., the ones who know the most about and actually play it are overwhelmingly in support of the proposal should be quite telling.

There are people who PP that are against it in being open only as well. So no it's not "telling" at all, as the community is split over it.

Moving something like Powerplay to open only also addresses another common gripe: that PvP in Elite is shallow and nearly pointless. Sandro's "hand grenade" is, in fact, a golden opportunity to fix a common complaint about PvP. Yet still it's opposed, and curiously by those who have little to no interest in Powerplay at all.

Wrong, I was doing power play myself when I objected to it, and so were quite a few others.
Claiming you know people have no interest is a out right lie and diminishes your argument, because you don't know who is or isn't doing PP.
I always do it in my PG and I tend to ignore the whining on the forums and play it as I please. So do many others.
Just because we are not on here whining like everyone else about 5c etc or asking what to do, does not mean we don't do it.

Were I a more cynical man, I would suspect a measure of duplicity among certain of the solo/PG zealots in regards to OOPP: complain endlessly that PvP is a meaningless mechanic in Elite, and then further complain that a proposal designed specifically to give it meaning is somehow a threat to their playstyle. It's a rather negative strategy: raise Cain about the problem and then sabotage the solution, which in turn gives them further ammunition to complain that it hasn't been solved.

I hope I'm mistaken to even speculate such, but we both know how these things work.

Same for open only zealots... oh look, that insult goes both ways.
(there was also no need for it to start with)

 

[Marra Morgan]

That's the thing, though- Powerplay is a legitimate vehicle for PvP-centric ventures- whether it be the direct sort that immediately comes to mind for most or the group vs group dynamic that are the powers clashing against each other. Regardless of if it was available in solo at the time of launch, it really does make sense for it to be restricted to open play.

I find it encouraging that Sandro and the dev team are able to stay open-minded (pun not intended, but there it is!) on how to direct the game. After 2.5 years of Powerplay in its current form, it's good that the devs are looking at it from different angles. Some of the vitriol directed at Sandro for even suggesting such a change has been utterly disgraceful, however.

The fact that the Powerplay communities themselves-i.e., the ones who know the most about and actually play it are overwhelmingly in support of the proposal should be quite telling.

All the Powerplayers I've discussed it with are very enthusiastic about Sandro's proposals. I know that none of us have any stats or anything, so anecdotes are all we can really go by on this.

Moving something like Powerplay to open only also addresses another common gripe: that PvP in Elite is shallow and nearly pointless. Sandro's "hand grenade" is, in fact, a golden opportunity to fix a common complaint about PvP. Yet still it's opposed, and curiously by those who have little to no interest in Powerplay at all.

I would like to see a niche PvP element that is entirely opt-in and takes place across the populated gaalxy, as opposed to some self-contained single-instance bubble outside of the main game. Powerplay does seem to be the obvious vehicle for such a thing, doesn't it!

Were I a more cynical man, I would suspect a measure of duplicity among certain of the solo/PG zealots in regards to OOPP: complain endlessly that PvP is a meaningless mechanic in Elite, and then further complain that a proposal designed specifically to give it meaning is somehow a threat to their playstyle. It's a rather negative strategy: raise Cain about the problem and then sabotage the solution, which in turn gives them further ammunition to complain that it hasn't been solved.

I hope I'm mistaken to even speculate such, but we both know how these things work.

I hope you are mistaken too! I wish more people could adopt the mindset of the OP, and whilst they may prefer one mode over others, be chilled about other players choosing the mode fit for their playstyle and let them get on with it.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, M. Lehman! They were insightful and well reasoned. We should hook up and write fan-fic some time

 

[Marra Morgan]

If you consider someone who calls everyone who disagrees with you a "zealot" as "insightful and well reasoned", you probably have not realized yet that you are just sitting in the same echo chamber.

I looked beyond the word "zealot" and read what he was saying, which I mainly agree with. I chat with him a lot and we've agreed and disagreed over many things. We call it discussion, not an echo-chamber.

The whole thread was indeed insightful and well reasoned - until M. Lehman popped up and turned it into one of the umpteen silly camp wars and forum PvP. Not that I'm surprised, only that it took so long.

That's one way to dismiss his points, I suppose.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Matt’s a good friend of mine. We’ve played together a long time. For what it’s worth, he means well (just like Pico or Jockey).

Part of what I’m trying to do is listen to all voices (like 90sKid and Sylveria, to name two not similar views) and remain emotionally balanced towards them.

You know the saying ‘not my cup of tea?’ We’re all that to someone, know what I mean?

 

[Asp Explorer]

You know the saying ‘not my cup of tea?’ We’re all that to someone, know what I mean?

Indeed - and it's that vibrancy, diversity and acceptance that leads to a flavourful discussion