Powerplay Whatever happened to the Powerplay Open only Proposal (POOP) ?

[Agony_Aunt]

I don't dismiss your opinions because they are yours, I dismiss them (some of them) because there's no logic and depth behind them.

I think there is logic and depth behind them. I could make the same claims against your arguments, but we wouldn't get anywhere with that sort of attitude. How about we discuss actual points raised, rather than random points without direct reference? If you think i have no logic or depth behind a specific point, let's discuss.

About the poll: that would be interesting. But we're not talking about a single game mechanic as happened in the past (fast travel yes/no). This is a much more complicated and vast discussion, and it's the Developers that should simply be clear about what they want for their game to be (because the actual hybrid is inconclusive andit's source of discontent for everybody).

Indeed it is, and FD would have to clarify as part of the poll exactly what was being proposed. Once that is firmed up, a vote could be made.

Rubbernuke showed you how many (many, not all) people opinion is basically founded on the fear that all the game could become Open Only someday.

Indeed, which i already knew and acknowledged. It is also a valid fear. It would be great if he would acknowlege that is not the only arugment being put forward.

Would it be that much of a tragedy for you to ignore a game mechanic because it doesn't fit you as much as I ignore mining or thargoids r exploration at all?

I believe i already answered this, either directly or indirectly. Not at all. Like you, i also ignore Thargoids since FD didn't put any mechanic in to make a peaceful solution to the issue. I also said i could live with open only powerplay if all references and impact of PP were removed from PG/solo. However, this does not change a) my belief that it will not be the solution some people think it will be and b) that i am in favour of it.

Also, please note, in this particular discussion we are going around and around in, when i entered this discussion, i didn't even say anything about wanting or not wanting powerplay to go open only. I came in discussing the idea of a vote.

Because you are fighting so hard to deny people of something. A new game mechanic. Powerplay is simply perfect for the task, because it's there, it's dead or kept hostage by bots and cheaters.

Again, i didn't even enter this discussion with the point of not wanting open only. I entered it to discuss the possibility of a public vote. It is you who kept bringing it back to the discussions we have had in other threads.

Do you ignore CQC already, don't you? Hell, you even ignore Powerplay right now. So what's the matter! Can't we have pretty things because you are telling to us how we should play because "all modes are equal"?

Actually, i quite enjoy CQC, its just i'd rather be playing the main game. I played a few hours just last month though and had lots of fun.

Again, i entered this discussion to discuss the possibility of a public vote, and its you who brought up the discussions we have had in other threads. How about we discuss the vote, or something else related to this? I mean, if you really really really want to discuss my opinion about whether PP should go open, we can do that (again) but we have been around in circles on that one already over several threads, and in each thread you have effectively told me you think my opinions are worthless, so i'm not sure what we would achieve with that.

This is the only thing that matters.
whether or not Sandro is still around for Elite is irrelevant.

Anything aunt is bringing to the table here is utterly pointless and a waste of time. Its basically trolling and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

The only thing we can do is wait to see if their investigation for making it happen is possible.
So we just have to wait.

https://imgur.com/DNsXXq9

Well, apart from your personal attack against me ("which shouldn't be allowed to happen" - but meh, can't be bothered reporting you), the rest of your post is quite valid. Indeed there is nothing for us to do (except banter) and see what FD decides. Like i said though, i agree with Rubbernuke that a public vote might be the way to go.

But hi-res screenshots? That's plain stupid.

Which i said was trivial, but its a point that some people think is worth considering. A very minor point, not something that really needs to be considered in any decision making, but still a valid point.

I still don´t see an Argument against this "Open is only a 32-ship-instance"-thing. As Long as this is not fixed, the discussion will just shift to "But I didnt see all the enemies11one1!!". Theres no reason to waste any Minute of developer time in the Open-Only-PP.

It will look totally different when "Open" really becomes "Open" - but thats a Long way down the list if I may have this optimistic Approach.

While i agree that the arguments will just shift, and of course, if it goes open only people will find new things to rant about in relation to it, or to demand from FD because it doesn't work out the way they thought it would, I personally don't see this as a good reason to not do Open Only for PP. There are a whole range of issues with the networking of ED which means people will be able to make deliveries without ever seeing another player. I think OO proponents would just like the chance of seeing more people in their instances. I think they know they will never see anyone.

 

[Brrokk]

Again: nobody's talking about abandoning the open/pvt/solo coexistence. We're talking about dedicating one single game mechanic to Open Only. Like CQC, but in game. Players will be totally able to ignore that.

And thank you for proving me right about my criticism about the fact that this proposal has become something to fight a battle of modes by principle. Nobody's going to discuss the coexistence of the three different modes for any other game mechanic.

About the instancing comment again: that should improve, but it's not enough to deny completely a game mechanic. The thing is the possibility to be instanced with any enemy: not a particular enemy.

Right now players in all modes can play PP.

With OOPP players in Solo would be unable to play PP.

Therefore OOPP breaks the "all modes equal" design.

Surely that's just simple logic, whether or not you favour the change? You seem to be trying to evade this conclusion by saying that Solo players wouldn't want to PP, but I think that choice is for individual players to make.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Right now players in all modes can play PP.

With OOPP players in Solo would be unable to play PP.

Therefore OOPP breaks the "all modes equal" design.

Surely that's just simple logic, whether or not you favour the change? You seem to be trying to evade this conclusion by saying that Solo players wouldn't want to PP, but I think that choice is for individual players to make.

To be fair they were never really equal.

You certainly cant get away with the ship builds in open as you could in private and solo. Which is the whole point here.

You can move X3 the amount of cargo in a safer mode vs someone that is engineered ready to fight and stop someone else. Shieldless, or even a strictly PVE builds meant to stay in conflict zones for hours. Anyone with 50 hours in the game knows this with community goals right?

AFK Turret Conda's and Healies for Feelies can abuse conflict and powerplay zones quite easily. However if this was done in open. Those builds would be nuked in seconds.

Thats been quite clear for a long time.


Doing ANYTHING in open puts you at a disadvantage. Especially for something made and designed for PVP and interaction with others right?
Hardly balanced, Hardly fair and hardly equal my friend.

Its better to do these things in solo. So even other PVPers ended up doing this just to keep up. And it killed what PP was supposed to be.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Right now players in all modes can play PP.

With OOPP players in Solo would be unable to play PP.

Therefore OOPP breaks the "all modes equal" design.

Surely that's just simple logic, whether or not you favour the change? You seem to be trying to evade this conclusion by saying that Solo players wouldn't want to PP, but I think that choice is for individual players to make.

CQC does the same, still I don't see you fighting against CQC. Would it be that dramatic to leave the Open Play Community a game mechanic to have fun with? No Powerplay modules or other things useful for the single player?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

To be fair they were never really equal.

You certainly cant get away with the ship builds in open as you could in private and solo. Which is the whole point here.

You can move X3 the amount of cargo in a safer mode vs someone that is engineered ready to fight and stop someone else. Shieldless, or even a strictly PVE builds meant to stay in conflict zones for hours. Anyone with 50 hours in the game knows this with community goals right?

AFK Turret Conda's and Healies for Feelies can be abuse conflict and powerplay zones quite easily. However if this was done in open. Those builds would be nuked in seconds.

Thats been quite clear for a long time.


Doing ANYTHING in open puts you at a disadvantage. Especially for something made and designed for PVP and interaction with others right?
Hardly balanced, Hardly fair and hardly equal my friend.

Its better to do these things in solo. So even other PVPers ended up doing this just to keep up. And it killed what PP was supposed to be.

To a certain extent you are correct, and pretty much spot on when it comes to PP. If you want, you can fly in regions without ever seeing another player in open.

However, the point i've often heard from open only proponents is it is a benefit of flying in open, the risk, the chance encounters, the challenge. So, from that point of view, there is a reward there where the trade off is making sacrifices in terms of ship build.

Conversely, with the all modes are treated equally (not equal, but treated equally) design philosophy, those who care more about efficiency than the pleasures of open, are free to play in PG/solo.

Since PP is basically about being as efficient as possible, the grind for A to B deliveries in most cases, it makes logical sense if you want to maximize your results, and especially if you are not so skillful, to play in PG/solo.

On the one hand, this makes it quite understandable that some people want Open only to force direct (rather than indirect) confrontation. To make PP more dependent on PvP encounters (doesn't mean combat of course, PvP can simply be cat and mouse).

On the other hand, it should be equally understandable that some people do not want this, and want to treat PP as a pure PvE mechanic. Something to be enjoyed on that level.

I agree, looking at the forums, it would indicate that a majority who care about PP are of the former group, but the forums are largely self-selecting, and these threads do seem to be dominated by those who love the idea of using PP as a vehicle for combat, rather than the PvE exercise that it is, so it seems we have a largely self-selected group of people who want pew-pew trying to get what they want, and a lesser number of PP haulers who seem to want to be chased by people in gankmobiles What is largely missing from the discussion are those who enjoy PP from PG/solo - and there must be many, otherwise there wouldn't be the concern over all those people who are apparently working in PG/solo, and people like myself, who would prefer FD improve PP without making it open only.

This is perhaps the reason why a public vote might be the way to go.

However, as you noted, its more likely we are simply waiting for FD to announce a decision themselves. Sandro dropped a bomb on the forums, but Sandro has moved on, and we have zero idea how much consideration FD management gave to the whole proposal. We don't even know how committed FD are to improving PP in any way, there are so many other areas of the game which people want improving, and FD could make more people happy by focusing their efforts on things other than PP.

Its been noted, even by some proponents of OO, that OO by itself isn't a solution, and to make PP really decent, there needs to be other things implemented as well. So its not just a case of FD flipping a switch here. We are probably talking months of design decisions, considering and testing scenarios, implementation, and further testing, before such a thing could be released, and even then it might still not be what people want to get involved. In comparison, something like adding base building might win them a lot more fans and even be simpler to implement in some ways... or at least more certain to have a positive result (not saying FD should implement base building, just offering it up as an example).

 

[Agony_Aunt]

CQC does the same, still I don't see you fighting against CQC. Would it be that dramatic to leave the Open Play Community a game mechanic to have fun with? No Powerplay modules or other things useful for the single player?

CQC doesn't break the all modes are equal philosophy. Its as separate from open as it is from PG and solo.

Also, one again, you are speaking like open is berefit of things to have fun with. People can do and have fun in open every day with the mechnaics that exist. People have fun with PP in Open. PvP battles happen, PvE happens, chance encounters happen. I'm doing the Planetary Circumnavigation Expedition in Open (we have a PG avaialble, but its not really needed). We are having fun in open, without the need for FD to ringfence anything.

Open has the same things to do as all other modes. Open and PG have an edge over Solo in that you can wing up, but that's kind of the point of solo, that you don't want to play with others.

Have you considered that by asking for something special for Open, then it would be equally valid for PG/solo players to ask for something for them to have fun with? Something that isn't included in Open?

How about NPC wingmen? Perhaps PG/solo players can have that? How about base building? Could be any number of things, why oh why can't solo players have a fun mechanic all to themselves?

By asking for special treatment for open, you are basically saying Open players are somehow special, are worth more than people who play in other modes.

Personally, i find this objectionable.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

To a certain extent you are correct, and pretty much spot on when it comes to PP. If you want, you can fly in regions without ever seeing another player in open.

However, the point i've often heard from open only proponents is it is a benefit of flying in open, the risk, the chance encounters, the challenge. So, from that point of view, there is a reward there where the trade off is making sacrifices in terms of ship build.

Conversely, with the all modes are treated equally (not equal, but treated equally) design philosophy, those who care more about efficiency than the pleasures of open, are free to play in PG/solo.

Since PP is basically about being as efficient as possible, the grind for A to B deliveries in most cases, it makes logical sense if you want to maximize your results, and especially if you are not so skillful, to play in PG/solo.

On the one hand, this makes it quite understandable that some people want Open only to force direct (rather than indirect) confrontation. To make PP more dependent on PvP encounters (doesn't mean combat of course, PvP can simply be cat and mouse).

On the other hand, it should be equally understandable that some people do not want this, and want to treat PP as a pure PvE mechanic. Something to be enjoyed on that level.

I agree, looking at the forums, it would indicate that a majority who care about PP are of the former group, but the forums are largely self-selecting, and these threads do seem to be dominated by those who love the idea of using PP as a vehicle for combat, rather than the PvE exercise that it is, so it seems we have a largely self-selected group of people who want pew-pew trying to get what they want, and a lesser number of PP haulers who seem to want to be chased by people in gankmobiles What is largely missing from the discussion are those who enjoy PP from PG/solo - and there must be many, otherwise there wouldn't be the concern over all those people who are apparently working in PG/solo, and people like myself, who would prefer FD improve PP without making it open only.

This is perhaps the reason why a public vote might be the way to go.

However, as you noted, its more likely we are simply waiting for FD to announce a decision themselves. Sandro dropped a bomb on the forums, but Sandro has moved on, and we have zero idea how much consideration FD management gave to the whole proposal. We don't even know how committed FD are to improving PP in any way, there are so many other areas of the game which people want improving, and FD could make more people happy by focusing their efforts on things other than PP.

Its been noted, even by some proponents of OO, that OO by itself isn't a solution, and to make PP really decent, there needs to be other things implemented as well. So its not just a case of FD flipping a switch here. We are probably talking months of design decisions, considering and testing scenarios, implementation, and further testing, before such a thing could be released, and even then it might still not be what people want to get involved. In comparison, something like adding base building might win them a lot more fans and even be simpler to implement in some ways... or at least more certain to have a positive result (not saying FD should implement base building, just offering it up as an example).

This is not just about PVP though. In the long term its about grouping in stations, Hanging out in VR, boarding enemy or friendly ships. All sorts of things.

There is a much larger picture here for Open Only content besides PVP. VR is the future of a lot of games.

Hell, I remember watching a guy stand in line for an hour on stream in his bedroom. But, he was in VR standing in line for a ride with all his friends in some carnival game with avatars and all sorts of things. Almost like ready player one.

Just think what Elite would be like 5-10 years from now when technology gets cheaper for the devs and us.

Elite has a long way to go. We're just getting started imo. Open Only is needed for lots of other things besides PVP. PVP will just benefit from it because other people are finally on the playing field.

Cant wait until we can have baller fights inside stations and ships. Steal cargo and all sorts of things.

There is a much bigger picture here besdies worrying about PVP though.

Its gonna be pretty cool if everything Braben said in his videos years ago finally comes to light with the technology thats around the corner.

But a majority of the features have to put people in the same place. Or it wont work

 

[Agony_Aunt]

This is not just about PVP though. In the long term its about grouping in stations, Hanging out in VR, boarding enemy or friendly ships. All sorts of things.

There is a much larger picture here for Open Only content besides PVP. VR is the future of a lot of games.

Hell, I remember watching a guy stand in line for an hour on stream in his bedroom. But, he was in VR standing in line for a ride with all his friends in some carnival game with avatars and all sorts of things. Almost like ready player one.

Just think what Elite would be like 5-10 years from now when technology gets cheaper for the devs and us.

Elite has a long way to go. We're just getting started imo. Open Only is needed for lots of other things besides PVP. PVP will just benefit from it because other people are finally on the playing field.

Cant wait until we can have baller fights inside stations and ships. Steal cargo and all sorts of things.

There is a much bigger picture here besdies worrying about PVP though.

Its gonna be pretty cool if everything Braben said in his videos years ago finally comes to light with the technology thats around the corner.

But a majority of the features have to put people in the same place. Or it wont work

Sure, coop works well as well in Open and PG. But open only isn't required for people to have fun with those mechanics, PvP or PwP.

I agree though on the parts about what Braben said. Not sure all of it will come to pass, but if at least half of what they have said they want to do it will be pretty sweet.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

CQC doesn't break the all modes are equal philosophy. Its as separate from open as it is from PG and solo.

Also, one again, you are speaking like open is berefit of things to have fun with. People can do and have fun in open every day with the mechnaics that exist. People have fun with PP in Open. PvP battles happen, PvE happens, chance encounters happen. I'm doing the Planetary Circumnavigation Expedition in Open (we have a PG avaialble, but its not really needed). We are having fun in open, without the need for FD to ringfence anything.

Open has the same things to do as all other modes. Open and PG have an edge over Solo in that you can wing up, but that's kind of the point of solo, that you don't want to play with others.

Have you considered that by asking for something special for Open, then it would be equally valid for PG/solo players to ask for something for them to have fun with? Something that isn't included in Open?

How about NPC wingmen? Perhaps PG/solo players can have that? How about base building? Could be any number of things, why oh why can't solo players have a fun mechanic all to themselves?

By asking for special treatment for open, you are basically saying Open players are somehow special, are worth more than people who play in other modes.

Personally, i find this objectionable.

You still claim to want to talk about game mechanics but every single time you divert from what is the original request: a game mechanic where the people who want to engage into the Open Play game mechanic can compete against each other.

Your main argument is still the "you're not gonna have fun, trust me, I know better".

An Open Only Powerplay without Powerplay modules would be exactly like a CQC game mechanic, without personal perks desirable for the single player, just the competitive game mechanic per se on the Galaxy Map.

And still you think that's totally unaccettable.

And you even said that the concern that Open Play Powerplay would bring more Open Play mechanics is justified.

But wait a minute: if it truly is, it means that Open Only Powery would have to be successful. And if it is successful then you are fighting voluntarly against a potentially successfull game mechanic just to defend the way you like to play.

Making your opinions even more biased, even admitting that. I'm being logical in here. If you truly think that Open Only Powerplay would be such a disaster you should want to see that tested to make it fail, and have a final nail to the coffin of any kind of Open Only game mechanic.

But you're fighting so hard against it.

Is it that you're just afraid that's gonna be a success? I'm just curious to have something different. I really have no interest in other playstyles. But you are strangely interested in mine, even if you've got basically no experience about that.

And again: if you notice I've been extremly tecnical with other users, even when they had different opinions and rised up serious concerns, even thanking them because I had a possibility to finally get back on topic.

Sadly you didn't ever give me the opportunity to be constructive, because you badly fake a constructive approach with the only goal to demonstrate how this mechanic is simply impossibile just because you're fighting the very idea of something exclusively Open.

As CQC, for example, even if you don't want to accept that.

Just because you don't like the idea of it, then you feel you have to fight that.

That's somehow bigot, you know?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Your main argument is still the "you're not gonna have fun, trust me, I know better".

My belief is that, but i have, on multiple occasions, acknowledged that I might be wrong.

Sadly you didn't ever give me the opportunity to be constructive, because you badly fake a constructive approach with the only goal to demonstrate how this mechanic is simply impossibile just because you're fighting the very idea of something exclusively Open.

I'm sorry, but all it takes for you to be constructive is for you to be constructive. I have no control over your posts. I mean, nobody is forcing you to reply to my posts.

As CQC, for example, even if you don't want to accept that.

You mean I hold a different opinion to you? Yes, i guess i do.

Just because you don't like the idea of it, then you feel you have to fight that.

That's somehow bigot, you know?

Dude, really, you are walking the line of getting very personal multiple times in your responses to me. I suggest you cool your jets.

We're just debating some features of a computer game, and we have zero influence over the outcome.

 

[Rubbernuke]

If you look at Sandros proposal, it comes in two parts. The first are the changes that make the current game tolerable with 5C. Don't get me wrong, any help is great.

But even if those changes went live today Powerplay would still be the same. The map is full, powers still have the use of Solo / PG turretboats, and so on. Thus, Powerplay is not being moved forward like other features like the new BGS changes.

This is where the second aspect of Sandros proposal comes in- make Powerplay Open. P2P/ block feature/c.log issues aside (which also affect other parts of the game), this instantly makes Powerplay unique alongside the BGS and features of ED in general (such as CGs). It adds a layer of uncertainty, making any task much more prone to interference. Take for example this part from Sandros proposal:

Guaranteed undermine if 100% more than fortification

• A control system that is undermined by 100% more than the fortification value will be undermined even if the fortification trigger has been successfully met

Reasoning: We feel that Powerplay rules tend towards stagnation and status quo, which is not something we intended. Despite all the effort in the world, a power that fortifies enough, against values set by the game rather than in opposition to attack, can remain safe. This change allows sheer force of effort (or numbers) to guarantee systems end up being undermined, making deficit more likely. And to stop this happening, a power must directly compete against its enemies.

Without Open, this would result in massed hauling in solo and PG to counter an attacker who has to work harder to keep up. There is a danger that even with the above change nothing would improve.

With Open, suddenly that whole system becomes a battleground- you have:

Haulers trying to get through
Top Cover protecting haulers / looking for underminers
Attackers targeting haulers
Underminers in SC and NAVs
Players protecting underminers

Not to mention:

Enemies in close control systems to pick off merit droppers

Now seeing that, which one sounds better, with more exciting gameplay? Hauling efficiency / farm efficiency or large scale tactical combat?

Timezones don't matter in the end, as Powerplay becomes time constrained the closer to Thursday morning. In popular systems with rival powers the above I describe would be happening all over the place later in the week. Wed night would be conflict night.

Now, one unintended side effect to this is would powers simply allow overfortifying in general? If they did, this reinforces the need for transport cover (or simply better transport) because there is more that could be targeted.

If powers don't haul? System is UMed. Result is more unpredictability, exactly what Powerplay needs. It will be scrappy and chaotic, and large powers will possibly find it hard to maintain their sizes- but thats the point.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

If you look at Sandros proposal, it comes in two parts. The first are the changes that make the current game tolerable with 5C. Don't get me wrong, any help is great.

But even if those changes went live today Powerplay would still be the same. The map is full, powers still have the use of Solo / PG turretboats, and so on. Thus, Powerplay is not being moved forward like other features like the new BGS changes.

This is where the second aspect of Sandros proposal comes in- make Powerplay Open. P2P/ block feature/c.log issues aside (which also affect other parts of the game), this instantly makes Powerplay unique alongside the BGS and features of ED in general (such as CGs). It adds a layer of uncertainty, making any task much more prone to interference. Take for example this part from Sandros proposal:



Without Open, this would result in massed hauling in solo and PG to counter an attacker who has to work harder to keep up. There is a danger that even with the above change nothing would improve.

With Open, suddenly that whole system becomes a battleground- you have:

Haulers trying to get through
Top Cover protecting haulers / looking for underminers
Attackers targeting haulers
Underminers in SC and NAVs
Players protecting underminers

Not to mention:

Enemies in close control systems to pick off merit droppers

Now seeing that, which one sounds better, with more exciting gameplay? Hauling efficiency / farm efficiency or large scale tactical combat?

Timezones don't matter in the end, as Powerplay becomes time constrained the closer to Thursday morning. In popular systems with rival powers the above I describe would be happening all over the place later in the week. Wed night would be conflict night.

Now, one unintended side effect to this is would powers simply allow overfortifying in general? If they did, this reinforces the need for transport cover (or simply better transport) because there is more that could be targeted.

If powers don't haul? System is UMed. Result is more unpredictability, exactly what Powerplay needs. It will be scrappy and chaotic, and large powers will possibly find it hard to maintain their sizes- but thats the point.

Good post, and good to see you acknowlege the possibility that systems might not get fortified due to lack of hauling.

This is pretty much the point i've speculated about regarding it going open only. How many will haul, and how much of an impact it will have on the powers territories?

I know i've banged on a lot about this, but if we consider a future with open only, then one thing i think FD would have to do for the first few months is watch the numbers and rebalance things like fortification/prep/expansion requirements to meet what is actually happening. If they try and stick with current numbers, then i presume there would be massive collapses across most powers.

I hope you agree with this assessment, as one of the claims about it needing to going open only is in open there is less guarantee of making a delivery and you can't go around flying unshielded type 9s, so consequently, even if the number of people hauling went up (which i suspect will not happen, and there would be a massive drop in the numbers of people hauling) they would still be making a lot less unit deliveries per hour.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

My belief is that, but i have, on multiple occasions, acknowledged that I might be wrong.



I'm sorry, but all it takes for you to be constructive is for you to be constructive. I have no control over your posts. I mean, nobody is forcing you to reply to my posts.



You mean I hold a different opinion to you? Yes, i guess i do.



Dude, really, you are walking the line of getting very personal multiple times in your responses to me. I suggest you cool your jets.

We're just debating some features of a computer game, and we have zero influence over the outcome.

It's not "just your opinion", is the foundings of the reason why you'd simply kill all the proposal.
Like I'd propose to kill mining or exploration because I don't find them funny. I'd be terribly close-minded to propose something similar.

You keep talking about how people should have different opinions, and that's wonderful.
But what you say betrays you, showing how you are in here just to sabotage this proposal: you're just looking for excuses to claim "oh no, anything open only would be bad for the game, let's kill this stupidity once and for all".

I literally gave you answers for every single concern you showed about and you told that I was trying to shut up people, you didn't even try to prove me wrong in my answers because you were not able too, let's be honest about it.
I am looking for solutions, because that's what functional adults do during brainstorming, if they have any interest in contributing in a discussion at all of course.
Which is not your concern in this matter, you're just here to sabotage, destroy, oppose. And you're doing that because you just don't want that this game have a single Open Only mechanic, god knows why it is so important to you.
A single idea, a proposal, a surplus to the game that would not deny you anything, just the new mechanic itself, that would be available for every player interested in it.
Because I do not ask Frontier Developments to introduce automated mining because I find it boring but I'd like to have the money from it. So you shouldn't ask Frontier to have anything you want just for you if a game mechanic is not suited for you, just leave other people have fun with it.
That's the adult way to go, you know.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

It's not "just your opinion", is the foundings of the reason why you'd simply kill all the proposal.
Like I'd propose to kill mining or exploration because I don't find them funny. I'd be terribly close-minded to propose something similar.

You keep talking about how people should have different opinions, and that's wonderful.
But what you say betrays you, showing how you are in here just to sabotage this proposal: you're just looking for excuses to claim "oh no, anything open only would be bad for the game, let's kill this stupidity once and for all".

I literally gave you answers for every single concern you showed about and you told that I was trying to shut up people, you didn't even try to prove me wrong in my answers because you were not able too, let's be honest about it.
I am looking for solutions, because that's what functional adults do during brainstorming, if they have any interest in contributing in a discussion at all of course.
Which is not your concern in this matter, you're just here to sabotage, destroy, oppose. And you're doing that because you just don't want that this game have a single Open Only mechanic, god knows why it is so important to you.
A single idea, a proposal, a surplus to the game that would not deny you anything, just the new mechanic itself, that would be available for every player interested in it.
Because I do not ask Frontier Developments to introduce automated mining because I find it boring but I'd like to have the money from it. So you shouldn't ask Frontier to have anything you want just for you if a game mechanic is not suited for you, just leave other people have fun with it.
That's the adult way to go, you know.

Oh dear gods... ok, whatever.

I've created my own thread now, with blackjack, and erm... other things, where we can discuss the idea of a vote.

You just want to keep discussing in circles, i think you can do that by yourself.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Good post, and good to see you acknowlege the possibility that systems might not get fortified due to lack of hauling.

This is pretty much the point i've speculated about regarding it going open only. How many will haul, and how much of an impact it will have on the powers territories?

I know i've banged on a lot about this, but if we consider a future with open only, then one thing i think FD would have to do for the first few months is watch the numbers and rebalance things like fortification/prep/expansion requirements to meet what is actually happening. If they try and stick with current numbers, then i presume there would be massive collapses across most powers.

I hope you agree with this assessment, as one of the claims about it needing to going open only is in open there is less guarantee of making a delivery and you can't go around flying unshielded type 9s, so consequently, even if the number of people hauling went up (which i suspect will not happen, and there would be a massive drop in the numbers of people hauling) they would still be making a lot less unit deliveries per hour.

But this is exactly what Powerplay requires.

So far hauling is 99.99% guaranteed, making expansion without collapse inevitably result in a full galaxy (as we see now). This currently (and without Open / some other destabilizing force) makes Powerplay too stable and maintaining large territories too easy.

I find these parts of your response interesting:

Good post, and good to see you acknowlege the possibility that systems might not get fortified due to lack of hauling.

I know i've banged on a lot about this, but if we consider a future with open only, then one thing i think FD would have to do for the first few months is watch the numbers and rebalance things like fortification/prep/expansion requirements to meet what is actually happening. If they try and stick with current numbers, then i presume there would be massive collapses across most powers.

Remember that Powerplay was intended to be about the continual expansion / contraction of Powers, and not permanent empire building as we see now. Since collapse was not put in, there is no mechanism to clear space quickly and fairly to make Powerplay 'work'.

Going open only, making hauling more difficult injects tactical choices into what gets fortified, when and by whom. It means you might have to risk leaving something unfortified to save another system, putting pressure on large powers and giving leverage to smaller ones.

Without it, as I've said before, fortifying is simply time x capacity. Currently most Powers can fortify everything top to bottom. Utopia fortified 50+ systems in two days, Mahon fortified 100+ in seven. This capability is evidence its too easy to defend. Add on top consolidation bonuses and Powers become impossible to bring down.

I doubt any re-balancing of fortification amounts is needed. The average system thats favourable costs about 3000 merits to do, which is about four T-9s worth. Add to this a control system alone dictates the trigger makes things just about right. With overforting/ super undermining this is in a good place- but it would be prudent to see how it goes.

 

[Bashy81]

I doubt any re-balancing of fortification amounts is needed. The average system thats favourable costs about 3000 merits to do, which is about four T-9s worth. Add to this a control system alone dictates the trigger makes things just about right. With overforting/ super undermining this is in a good place- but it would be prudent to see how it goes.

I would add that individual power benefits such as reduced fortifcation triggers would need to be 'rebalanced' (meaning nerfed into oblivion)

Flavour would be better provided by power-contextual mission-types instead of underlying invisible mechanical benefits (that in a lot of cases are currently non-sensical and marginally beneficial at best)

 

[Darkfyre99]

I understand when you say that it's not gonna be fun for everybody, but you kind of assume that most people are ok with that as it is right now. As I said before this game basically lacks any kind of Open Only game mechanic which isn't a simple "pew-pew" one against the other, as CQC is, and you alwayas talk about BGS, how you find that funny etc, even if you do that in Open Only, which is your choice (as it is mine, btw).

Honestly a renewed Powerplay with the three modes coexistence, with missions etc, would just be a large BGS, and do we really need to copy another game mechanic just... bigger?

I guess this is where we disagree. Powerplay feels nothing like BGS manipulation to me, unless your approach to BGS manipulation is to grind influence ad nauseum. The sole reason why I chose to focus on the BGS aspects of Powerplay, as opposed to helping with fortification or undermining, is that ABA cargo runs and combat farming hold less interest for me than even mining, which is really saying something. Powerplay has a depth that the BGS lacks. It just simply the variety I crave from this game: variety of locations, variety of activities, and even a variety of ships and load-out.

Again: I agree with you that Open Only is not the only solution to solve actual Powerplay problems, I never said differently, I only said it's a further tool for the developers to spot abusers, so it's not a bad thing considering the fight against unlegit behaviours in game, to point it out it's not a valid argument against it. For example: if you have got high cardiovascular risk, you don't go to mcdonald's every day because, to reduce it, a healthy diet is not enough. Just a little example to point out how objectivity must be handled: is it an improvement about a particular problem? Then it's useful. Is it not enough? This doesn't make it useless. If you notice I like to be extremly logical about game mechanics, considering human interaction as a variable and not something absolutely certain.

Again, this is where we disagree. Perhaps in a different game with a different network architecture, that might be the case. But in this game, with this network architecture? It'll be absolutely worthless in solving the problem it purportedly addresses, while exacerbating existing ones. To borrow your analogy, it's like continuing to go to McDonalds every day and thinking a diet Coke will solve your problem, while Supersizing the fries and getting a double-quarter pounder with cheese instead a regular cheeseburger.

Back to the game mechanics, which is what I find interesting, not hollow discussions about "freedom of speech" to hide how little somebody has to say about the argument.

We all agree Powerplay must be something more variable (to avoid botting), possibly mission driven (to make it more enjoyable to play and less repetitive) with game mechanics capable to reduce or even nullify 5C action (no overhead, higher upkeeps, single system turmoils, etc).

The discussion about Open Only is something different. It's giving the game something that it has not right now. I want to be clear about that because I think it's the central point of this thread. Would it help against 5C or botting? Yes. Would it be enough? No.

But let's talk about game mechanics for a while. You keep saying that there's people that wouldn't like that kind of game.

I agree. I do not deny that. But I want to consider the people that would like that kind of game, and these people don't have, right now, any type of game mechanic designed for their gamestyle.

I'm just saying: let's offer something to those people, and let's face the problems that such game mechanic would face with constructive methods, not denying the same game mechanic at all.

Again, here is where we disagree. Powerplay going open only doesn't change the fundamental nature of Powerplay. It is still a subgame where everything is accomplished via PvE, and PvP is, except in those rare moments that the stars align, and Great Cthulhu stirs from his deathless sleep, at best a sideshow. It's the nature of this game's networking architecture.

If players aren't already playing Powerplay in Open, then Powerplay doesn't suit their gamestyle, and it won't even with PPOO. If they are, then they are playing something that suits their gamestyle, and all PPOO will be doing is removing existing gameplay from people for whom it also suits their gamestyle.

If you truly want gameplay that suits the PvP gamestyle, then ask for gameplay that suits the PvP gamestyle!!! Ask for PvP mechanics that allow players to fortify, prepare, undermine, and expand via PvP! Reward the PvP, as opposed to punishing players for not enjoying the things you do.

You talked about your instancing problems. Fair enough, many other people have those at some point. I think that what you described was something related to how the block list works right now, which prevent the instancing with other players. It is possible that some of your contacts had many CMDRs in their Block List, literally making impossible for you to instance with them. And about "blocking your connection with a firewall" I'm quite sure it's against the rules, like: ban-risk-against. But I'd have a fair solution for that too: ban people from Powerplay if found guily of tweaking their connections to avoid other players. That would not affect their game progress singularly.

That's the reason why I think that in an Open Only Powerplay the first thing to change would be how the block channel works, blocking only communications in case of abuse, bad talking etc. I've been part of very huge instances to be honest and during the already nominated war between Antal and Delaine I had nobody of my adversaries in my friend list at the time and trust me: I was seeing them all the time.

If I had a single player on my block list, you might be correct about my instancing "problems"... except for the fact that I don't consider it a problem to not be connected to a host I have poor latency to. And I highly doubt I'm on many people's block lists either, since I tend towards non-combat gameplay myself. Despite playing since the Alpha, I come by my Novice ranking naturally. I might consider it a problem if I relied on random players for my gamestyle, but I don't, so as far as I'm concerned, it's all good.

As for the notion that having a poor connection to random hosts should be a bannable offense...

Seriously, how the heck is Frontier supposed to tell the difference between deliberate tampering of peer-to-peer connections done by the player, similar tampering done by their ISP, a network with appropriate security settings, or simply playing the game over a mobile connection?

Another reasonable concern (which I do not read about very often) would be the problem with landing pads occupied by idle accounts just to slow the operations down. Another fair and reasonable concern, that can be solved by changing how the whole docking works: let's make docked ships go "out of the instance" temporairly to make it free again right after. It would benefit other parts of the game, like go to Engineers in Open (the docking bays are usually all occupied).

I play primarily in Open, and I don't think I've ever had that problem. Then again, I don't play during my local prime time. Still, it's a good idea, and I was surprised the first time I discovered that this wasn't the case... way back during the Alpha. Yet more proof Frontier doesn't have much experience with multi-player gaming.

You see, I know that's gonna be problems, but I'm positive we can find solutions for those problems. As the community found solutions with the many (many) problems affecting BGS, and many other game mechanis.

What I'm asking is something different, more BGS like probably but with the great difference of actual competition with other players, to have something more unpredictable. We've got very fast ships, for example, imagine how that kind of ships would become a decisive factor against other players that wouldn't be able to block you and kill you, making you able to do your part for your Power anyway.

A better Powerplay that would be like a mega-BGS? Well, that would be better than what we have now, but it would be a lost opportunity to give something really different to the community. It would be simply a large BGS. And I don't see anything wrong in giving the game a new layer of complexity, even if it's gonna become a disaster for somebody, it may be what they were looking for in the game by always.

I get that... and quite frankly I wouldn't mind that either.

But what you're asking for isn't something different. It's the same thing you have now (with or without more variety in Merit sources). Something different would be something that made engaging other players desirable. Something that encouraged PvP. That isn't the Powerplay we have today. That isn't Powerplay under the proposed modifications. And that certainly isn't Powerplay Open Only.

There is a very simple solution to that problem: reward the PvP, as opposed to punishing the non-PvPer. Give fortifiers bonuses not for playing in Open, but for successfully running a player-maintained blockade, bonuses which are good enough to make running merits in open desirable. Make killing a player's combat oriented ships have a greater impact on Undermining than spending hours in a combat zone. Change the winning strategy from avoiding PvP at all costs (unless you really like that kind of thing) to actively seeking it out. Make it matter on a daily basis, as opposed to rare occurrences surrounding a desirable expansion, and only when the outcome is in doubt.

I say "simple solution" because the solution is simple. The hard part is how to deal with player collusion, because as 5C aptly demonstrates, frequently it's easier to accomplish your goals by gaming the play, as opposed to playing the game. That's where good multi-player game design comes in, and quite frankly I doubt that Frontier has the expertise needed to do it right, even if they had the inclination to do so.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

One of the things that I loved about the second Sammarco's proposal was the competitive fortification/undermining triggers, with a +/- 100% mechanism. Basically no system would have been safe, making the very decision to invest in a system or another much more dynamic.

I want to make an actual example about that (even if we're going a little bit offtopic, but we're talking about game mechanics and that's what I usually love to do ), for example I will talk about three different systems, one very close to Harma, one at medium distance at finally one that's moderately far away.

DISCLAIMER: I will go very technical, so please brace and enter some Powerplay-math-turbolence.

Matucanth is a very close system to Harma (only 21 upkeep), its regular triggers are 5,202 to fortify and 23,098, with a fortification/undermining ratio of 1:4.4.
Yuror is a medium distanced system to Harma (26 upkeep) and its regular triggers are 6,774 to fortify and 9,390 to undermine, fort/um ratio is 1:1.3
Djabijabus, which is actually one of our most distanced system to Harma (35 income) , has a 8,970 fortification trigger and 7,495 undermining trigger, which would switch the ratio in favour of the attackers, 1.2:1.

Let's try with the ideal defensive triggers:

Matucanth
Fort trigger: 2601
UM trigger: 45777
Fort/UM ratio: 1:17.5

Yuror
Fort trigger: 3387
UM trigger: 14085
Fort/UM ratio: 1:4.15

Djabijabus
Fort trigger: 4485
UM trigger: 11243
Fort/UM ratio: 1:2.5

This looks far better. In an Open Only environment I would probably get rid of "static" triggers, keeping only the ratio between them. No snipes of course, because we don't want snipes in an Open Only environment. And even a relatively small action could be extremly effective, because we want players to move around the Galaxy, to maximise the possibilty to encounter both friends or foes.

Of course closer systems will be easier to protect, for example, if I successfully haul 750 t of marked slaves from Matucanth to Harma, sabouteurs will be forced to do 13,125 merits to "cancel" it, more than 16,250 merits to successfully undermine that very system. Two hauls, 750 t, will make those numbers literally skyrocket.

The real battle would be in far away and "border" systems (as it should be), with factions struggling to defend mostly their borders, or attack closest systems, where the real fight would probably happen, giving possibilities even to players looking to support their Powers for a safer (but not completely safe) way to hep their Power.

Of course triggers, ratios etc could/should be tweaked and polished, but that would be a much more interesting way to play even tactically, and I think it would make room even to more Powers (like an Alliance Admiral, or some important Federal Politician).

Nobody wants a gankfest. I think we all want a decent wargame in here. But Open Only should be the founding stone for all of this. Then there's gonna be hotter and safer zones anyway. But nowhere should be totally safe as private and solo galaxies are right now.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

I guess this is where we disagree. Powerplay feels nothing like BGS manipulation to me, unless your approach to BGS manipulation is to grind influence ad nauseum. The sole reason why I chose to focus on the BGS aspects of Powerplay, as opposed to helping with fortification or undermining, is that ABA cargo runs and combat farming hold less interest for me than even mining, which is really saying something. Powerplay has a depth that the BGS lacks. It just simply the variety I crave from this game: variety of locations, variety of activities, and even a variety of ships and load-out.



Again, this is where we disagree. Perhaps in a different game with a different network architecture, that might be the case. But in this game, with this network architecture? It'll be absolutely worthless in solving the problem it purportedly addresses, while exacerbating existing ones. To borrow your analogy, it's like continuing to go to McDonalds every day and thinking a diet Coke will solve your problem, while Supersizing the fries and getting a double-quarter pounder with cheese instead a regular cheeseburger.



Again, here is where we disagree. Powerplay going open only doesn't change the fundamental nature of Powerplay. It is still a subgame where everything is accomplished via PvE, and PvP is, except in those rare moments that the stars align, and Great Cthulhu stirs from his deathless sleep, at best a sideshow. It's the nature of this game's networking architecture.

If players aren't already playing Powerplay in Open, then Powerplay doesn't suit their gamestyle, and it won't even with PPOO. If they are, then they are playing something that suits their gamestyle, and all PPOO will be doing is removing existing gameplay from people for whom it also suits their gamestyle.

If you truly want gameplay that suits the PvP gamestyle, then ask for gameplay that suits the PvP gamestyle!!! Ask for PvP mechanics that allow players to fortify, prepare, undermine, and expand via PvP! Reward the PvP, as opposed to punishing players for not enjoying the things you do.



If I had a single player on my block list, you might be correct about my instancing "problems"... except for the fact that I don't consider it a problem to not be connected to a host I have poor latency to. And I highly doubt I'm on many people's block lists either, since I tend towards non-combat gameplay myself. Despite playing since the Alpha, I come by my Novice ranking naturally. I might consider it a problem if I relied on random players for my gamestyle, but I don't, so as far as I'm concerned, it's all good.

As for the notion that having a poor connection to random hosts should be a bannable offense...

Seriously, how the heck is Frontier supposed to tell the difference between deliberate tampering of peer-to-peer connections done by the player, similar tampering done by their ISP, a network with appropriate security settings, or simply playing the game over a mobile connection?



I play primarily in Open, and I don't think I've ever had that problem. Then again, I don't play during my local prime time. Still, it's a good idea, and I was surprised the first time I discovered that this wasn't the case... way back during the Alpha. Yet more proof Frontier doesn't have much experience with multi-player gaming.



I get that... and quite frankly I wouldn't mind that either.

But what you're asking for isn't something different. It's the same thing you have now (with or without more variety in Merit sources). Something different would be something that made engaging other players desirable. Something that encouraged PvP. That isn't the Powerplay we have today. That isn't Powerplay under the proposed modifications. And that certainly isn't Powerplay Open Only.

There is a very simple solution to that problem: reward the PvP, as opposed to punishing the non-PvPer. Give fortifiers bonuses not for playing in Open, but for successfully running a player-maintained blockade, bonuses which are good enough to make running merits in open desirable. Make killing a player's combat oriented ships have a greater impact on Undermining than spending hours in a combat zone. Change the winning strategy from avoiding PvP at all costs (unless you really like that kind of thing) to actively seeking it out. Make it matter on a daily basis, as opposed to rare occurrences surrounding a desirable expansion, and only when the outcome is in doubt.

I say "simple solution" because the solution is simple. The hard part is how to deal with player collusion, because as 5C aptly demonstrates, frequently it's easier to accomplish your goals by gaming the play, as opposed to playing the game. That's where good multi-player game design comes in, and quite frankly I doubt that Frontier has the expertise needed to do it right, even if they had the inclination to do so.

Ok but see: you keep focusing on PvP as a way to gain merits, which I'm totally against to because it could be easily exploited, because being killed purposelly would mean spend money and there's plenty of metas to gain ludicrous amount of credits in no time. That's already happened with the first undermining, with people pledged to enemy Powers to give their haul just to speed the process. No: we need tasks to complete for your Power, only positive actions should matter, the very moment you give weight to failure people will exploit that, because it's easier to fail and get negative impact than completing the rightful tasks. The only way to contribute should be being pledged to your Power of choice.
Another example: you kill a player pledged to your Power beause you think it's a smart tactic to gank people? Then you're banned from that Power for a month. Enjoy that first gank, smartass, there's not gonna be more.

Another thing I disagree with you is how you see PvP, as something with the "kill" as the natural and decisive event. A game mechanic need a PvE interaction, or if you like it more, a task to complete to measure the effectivness of a player and the team (the Power in this case) he plays for, the PvP factor would be what makes basically impossible (or at least very hard) to complete that task, or on the other hand would make it very easy to do, if the PvPers playing for your team will be able to repel the attackers. You see a Open Only Powerplay as some kind of PvP-driven Gladiator Arena, I see that as a warfare game, with people trying to kill other people or protect some others.

As I wrote up here, nobody wants a gankfest, even if some people will take this as an opportunity to gank people pledged to other Powers, but if you pledge then you admit that you are ok being attacked by differently pledged players, even now there's no more Security response, Powerplay, as already said, is consensual PvP, and it's simply a nonsense that you can be involved in such activities without the "other player" factor.

And yes, network issues will stay. But they are present for other game mechanics: multicrew mining is broken as hell, but nobody's asking for multicrew to be killed as a whole even if it's terribly botched (yeah, that's the reason why I talk about mining so much, I had to try it to help a friend to verify a bug ), the fact that instancing is not good in this game is not a enough to justify the open/pvt/solo coexistence in Powerplay. If we follow this stream of consciousness until the end, there's no point at all to have Open Play, because networking sucks.

Of course Powerplay should change by its game mechanics. Look at what I wrote above: no more static triggers but competitive fluid triggers, hotter and safer zones, a PvPer would probably go where there's more "action" leaving the rest of the space relatively safe, because it's there that their expertise would be most appreciated, and they'd be able to fight for other players to complete the tasks required to win, as a team. Powerplay missions/scenarios, so you (and I too for example) could roam around our Power bubble doing missions and finding the variability we seek from this game.

PvP shouldn't be ostracized or relegated to a totally different role, it should be part of the game, find its place in the big picture at least in one single game mechanic, in this particular case as a tool for a Power to make an assault possible, or to rebel an assault while other players protect and secure a territory.

Because it's not a matter of single players engaging their personal playstyle: it's about a mechanic that can give sense to a particular gamestyle, even with all the problems that this could bring with.

Sadly like many other aspects of the game, especially when we talk about networking.

 

[Darkfyre99]

If you look at Sandros proposal, it comes in two parts. The first are the changes that make the current game tolerable with 5C. Don't get me wrong, any help is great.

But even if those changes went live today Powerplay would still be the same. The map is full, powers still have the use of Solo / PG turretboats, and so on. Thus, Powerplay is not being moved forward like other features like the new BGS changes.

This is where the second aspect of Sandros proposal comes in- make Powerplay Open. P2P/ block feature/c.log issues aside (which also affect other parts of the game), this instantly makes Powerplay unique alongside the BGS and features of ED in general (such as CGs). It adds a layer of uncertainty, making any task much more prone to interference. Take for example this part from Sandros proposal:



Without Open, this would result in massed hauling in solo and PG to counter an attacker who has to work harder to keep up. There is a danger that even with the above change nothing would improve.

With Open, suddenly that whole system becomes a battleground- you have:

Haulers trying to get through
Top Cover protecting haulers / looking for underminers
Attackers targeting haulers
Underminers in SC and NAVs
Players protecting underminers

Not to mention:

Enemies in close control systems to pick off merit droppers

Now seeing that, which one sounds better, with more exciting gameplay? Hauling efficiency / farm efficiency or large scale tactical combat?

Timezones don't matter in the end, as Powerplay becomes time constrained the closer to Thursday morning. In popular systems with rival powers the above I describe would be happening all over the place later in the week. Wed night would be conflict night.

Now, one unintended side effect to this is would powers simply allow overfortifying in general? If they did, this reinforces the need for transport cover (or simply better transport) because there is more that could be targeted.

If powers don't haul? System is UMed. Result is more unpredictability, exactly what Powerplay needs. It will be scrappy and chaotic, and large powers will possibly find it hard to maintain their sizes- but thats the point.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What you wrote above sounds great in theory... but I've seen that kind of thing attempted before with "PvE enhanced" games, and in practice it results in a frustrating experience for most of players involved, to the point where the developers bite the bullet and put in some form of a PvP switch, simply to stop the game from hemorrhaging players. And these were games that used a client-server architecture.

The reason for this that players haven't fundamentally changed over the last 40 years. The kind of "eco-system" you're describing above isn't really sustainable in a game played for entertainment. Most of the players attracted to this kind of thing want to be Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader. Very few are content to be the faceless stormtrooper or unnamed rebel trooper. Most of the players attracted to this kind of thing want to be proactive when they play. Very few are content to sit idly by, and hope something exciting happens. Most of the players attracted to this kind of thing want to be the lightbulbs. Very few are content to be the batteries.