Yes, i like some of the other options Sandro suggested, but those could be implemented with benfit without the open only compnent as well
Powerplay Whatever happened to the Powerplay Open only Proposal (POOP) ?
- Thread starter zarrazee
- Start date
Yes, i like some of the other options Sandro suggested, but those could be implemented with benfit without the open only compnent as well
Wait, don't forget weaponised preparations, such a system would basically break that feature.
Some interesting suggestions. Would need wiser minds than mine to analyse those to determine how good they would be.
I understand you defend open only (no real need to defend it though, just state opinion is fine) because you think it will make it better. That's cool.
As for sticking to topic, i think we largely have, with some deviations, but that's pretty normal. My issues have arisen when instead of simply disagreeing and we could have left it at that, you have resorted to trying to devalue my opinion, which has then resulted in chain responses where we have ended up discussing the validity of various opinions.
Like i said earlier, when i suggested everyone just 5Cing, all you had to say was you didn't like the idea. Perhaps from the point of view that it wouldn't get the attention of FD anyway, or perhaps nobody wants to trash their powers just to make a point, as opposed to diving in saying my opinion is invalid.
If we can focus on topic, then i'm sure we can be a lot more productive and friendly
That's what I asked since the beginning: as you can see, I only do not tolerate when people want to talk about technical stuff without knowing the basis. If somebody want some explanation then I'm more than hanny to explaing things, but if the technical stuff is done to reinforce an opinion (and it's technically wrong) then I can't accept that. Call it a "job-like deviation", there's great difference between opinions and facts (facts can be proved by collectable data and need some basis knowledge to be correctly analyzed).Some interesting suggestions. Would need wiser minds than mine to analyse those to determine how good they would be.
I understand you defend open only (no real need to defend it though, just state opinion is fine) because you think it will make it better. That's cool.
As for sticking to topic, i think we largely have, with some deviations, but that's pretty normal. My issues have arisen when instead of simply disagreeing and we could have left it at that, you have resorted to trying to devalue my opinion, which has then resulted in chain responses where we have ended up discussing the validity of various opinions.
Like i said earlier, when i suggested everyone just 5Cing, all you had to say was you didn't like the idea. Perhaps from the point of view that it wouldn't get the attention of FD anyway, or perhaps nobody wants to trash their powers just to make a point, as opposed to diving in saying my opinion is invalid.
If we can focus on topic, then i'm sure we can be a lot more productive and friendly
Anyway, about the "Open/Pvt/Solo" thing as I told you before I'm not interested in that in a whole-game perspective, but I am in a Powerplay-limited perspective, even considering and accepting the idea to make a dedicated game mode out of it, try to read what I wrote about it in the new thread I started, there's a lot of "opinions" in there considering the gameplay only and the concept of "different gamestyles that should find their place in the game". And that's all about opinions, I promise (only don't tell me the safety of hauling in a dedicated mode and in solo is the same
).That's what I asked since the beginning: as you can see, I only do not tolerate when people want to talk about technical stuff without knowing the basis. If somebody want some explanation then I'm more than hanny to explaing things, but if the technical stuff is done to reinforce an opinion (and it's technically wrong) then I can't accept that. Call it a "job-like deviation", there's great difference between opinions and facts (facts can be proved by collectable data and need some basis knowledge to be correctly analyzed).
Anyway, about the "Open/Pvt/Solo" thing as I told you before I'm not interested in that in a whole-game perspective, but I am in a Powerplay-limited perspective, even considering and accepting the idea to make a dedicated game mode out of it, try to read what I wrote about it in the new thread I started, there's a lot of "opinions" in there considering the gameplay only and the concept of "different gamestyles that should find their place in the game". And that's all about opinions, I promise (only don't tell me the safety of hauling in a dedicated mode and in solo is the same
Sorry, i'm not sure at what point you consider it that i would be stepping beyond the bounds of my knowledge, and as i said time and again, i don't think i made any statements beyond the scope of what i understand unless it was in the form of a query or suggestion. I believe i am allowed to state my opinion of open only without needing to know the minutae of PP mechanics though.
Trust me, you did it here and there, but there's no point in arguing that here and now.Sorry, i'm not sure at what point you consider it that i would be stepping beyond the bounds of my knowledge, and as i said time and again, i don't think i made any statements beyond the scope of what i understand unless it was in the form of a query or suggestion. I believe i am allowed to state my opinion of open only without needing to know the minutae of PP mechanics though.
Let's get back to most interesting things.Trust me, you did it here and there, but there's no point in arguing that here and now.
Agreed. Let's see how long it is before we have to engage in another useless debate over who can say what
Oh, hello: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ed-existing-and-incoming-april-update.508265/
Join me!
Already told my opinion about that, those modules will make it more difficult to spot bots, then FDev should do more to fight botting.
Yes, i like some of the other options Sandro suggested, but those could be implemented with benfit without the open only compnent as well
They could, but then you run the risk with uncapped fortifying of having unending haul races- which is a worse place than now because it does not develop Powerplay into something else.
Nothing irks me more than when a player pledged to an ENEMY power complains when I shoot at them...
I can sort of understand when people want reasons why they were turned inside out in the regular game, but when you pledge & provide that reason it does make me chuckle with the tears. I think its why FD (or Sandro at least) was trying to position Powerplay like he did.
You still need those haul races anyway with open only. But instead of it being a sprint, it becomes more like an obstacle course.
I see what you are saying, but other than that, it would still improve a non-open-only version as well.
I think my issue in relation to this is how its presented. Its kind of presented as like a cold war situation. Nobody is actually at war (except when things like warzones pop up - which kind of perhaps would be reported similarly to Falklands war, where for ages they refused to call it a war - it was a conflict, not a war). When powers raid each others ships for their goods, its presented more like how English and Spanish "privateers" would raid the cargo ships of the opposing nations.
So, looking at it from an in-universe point of view, there is no reason from my perspective why an attacking ship shouldn't get a bounty when attacking an opposing power's ship, unless in anarchy space. Yes, i understand, its a game mechanic, its how its designed to work. I'm just going off at a bit of a tangent here.
If the powers were in an outright state of war, then that would be understandable, but this then leads onto a major gripe of mine regarding powerplay.... how powers aligned to a superpower don't flip control of systems they control to the superpower (or independent) they represent.
I know there is only a loose connection between powers and factions, but this really really irks me. You have Hudson sat in control of an Imperial system (for example) but at the BGS level, its imperial, and if you ignore PP, well, actually, that's the point, you can totally ignore PP, making it largely irrelevant.... which really, i don't think it should be.
I mean, Torval says "I control 20 systems!" and anyone not playing PP can say "LOL, and what?"
I suppose this is even a supporting point for PP going OO, it should be trival to remove all traces of PP from PG/solo. It would largely just be removing some UI elements and NPC spawns. The only remaining annoyance for me would be PPers trying to flip a system to become more in line with their power's requirements. If they removed that element from PP, it could be totally ignored by BGS players as well.
Sorry, for the derail, but at least i did touch on OO a little bit
It would to a lesser extent, but it would disadvantage smaller powers as they could not (at least try to) defend directly and make up the shortfall in skill. But in any case it would be an improvement over now.
The other problem I forgot to mention with Powerplay currently is that each control system reports all undermining, meaning you can't snipe (i.e drop tons of unermining merits at the last minute before tick). This makes the uncapped hauling more of a slog because you can't force the defender to guess how much undermining you've done. If Open was not an option this report (sane and logical as it is) would have to go to allow more uncertainty again.
I think my issue in relation to this is how its presented. Its kind of presented as like a cold war situation. Nobody is actually at war (except when things like warzones pop up - which kind of perhaps would be reported similarly to Falklands war, where for ages they refused to call it a war - it was a conflict, not a war). When powers raid each others ships for their goods, its presented more like how English and Spanish "privateers" would raid the cargo ships of the opposing nations.
So, looking at it from an in-universe point of view, there is no reason from my perspective why an attacking ship shouldn't get a bounty when attacking an opposing power's ship, unless in anarchy space. Yes, i understand, its a game mechanic, its how its designed to work. I'm just going off at a bit of a tangent here.
If the powers were in an outright state of war, then that would be understandable, but this then leads onto a major gripe of mine regarding powerplay.... how powers aligned to a superpower don't flip control of systems they control to the superpower (or independent) they represent.
I know there is only a loose connection between powers and factions, but this really really irks me. You have Hudson sat in control of an Imperial system (for example) but at the BGS level, its imperial, and if you ignore PP, well, actually, that's the point, you can totally ignore PP, making it largely irrelevant.... which really, i don't think it should be.
I mean, Torval says "I control 20 systems!" and anyone not playing PP can say "LOL, and what?"
I suppose this is even a supporting point for PP going OO, it should be trival to remove all traces of PP from PG/solo. It would largely just be removing some UI elements and NPC spawns. The only remaining annoyance for me would be PPers trying to flip a system to become more in line with their power's requirements. If they removed that element from PP, it could be totally ignored by BGS players as well.
Sorry, for the derail, but at least i did touch on OO a little bit
One of my more evil ideas was to make Powerplay systems fort triggers depend on the state of a system rather than its gov type. You could then have whatever gov you wanted, PMFs would have less trouble (like theocracies do, the lepers of PP BGS). The down side is that it would be utter chaos because you'd be really whacking the BGS hard for lockdowns.
Well, undermining seems quite a belligerant behaviour to me.
It's more of a "pvp incentive" you know, something to give meaning as a personal reward to PvP-Powerplay. And it makes sense that it's valid only in Powerplay affected systems, because being pledged means being a "soldier" in some way, if you do outside of Powerplay affected systems the regular c&p kicks in.
Well actually we do to have a tactical advantage (a halved fortification trigger) byt we don't follow superpower alligeance, but governments: another case of bad design by Frontier about Powerplay... did you know that Hudson supports government that are impossible to find in federal factions and Aisling Duval is the same with Imperial factions? The all Powerplay/BGS interaction is a mess. And in Powerplay we do a lot of BGS to obtain a tactical advantage, even against our enemies, considering that if you flip enough systems of an enemy Power you can double their fortification trigger too. So it's related, it's not automatic because you've got to fight for that, but BGS right now is a big part of Powerplay.
In reality Powerplay has some minor effects over systems under its influence: for example if a system is under Archon Delaine influence its security level will be halved, black markets will be opened everywhere and there's a +15% bonus to items sold into the very same black markets. Other Power slightly favour the factions with the same Superpower, making it easier for those faction to move there influences up. But honestly I think that the BGS shouldn't affect Powerplay, even if then players would be free to push factions of a certain Superpower to match them to their Power of choice. But that would be their choice, a choice they could make anyway, but if it's not a necessity anymore I'm quite positive that Powerplayers will stick just to Powerplay (especially if the whole game mechanic will become more BGS-like, with missions and various activities).
THIS is the primary reason I pledge, as I see pledges being the closest thing ED has to a "PvP-enabled flag." When you are clearly marked as my ENEMY (and vice-versa), then that means I can shoot you and you can shoot me.
Granted, just playing in Open is technically a PvP flag, but shooting random people for no reason whatsoever is a bit too Battle Royale for my liking. Now there's some marketing advice - rebrand ED as EBR, it's all the rage these days!
I don't like that either, but there's the c&p which is already pretty harsh especially against seal-clubbers. It is not in anarchy jurisdictions, but you should know that's a very dangerous environment and possibly avoid those systems (the game itself even warns you about that). I usually picture Elite Dangerous as a Far West like environment: where there's no law, people do the worst things.
Soon you'll have a giant warning that you are in danger with Aprils changes.
COVAS will say: Wind up your windows........don't stare and DRIVE!
COVAS will say: Wind up your windows........don't stare and DRIVE!
Thing is, I always pick hero over villain, paragon over renegade, etc. At least with PP I can be the "hero" for my Empress / President. Randomly killing people wild-west style makes me the villain, and I'm just too nice a guy to be badI usually picture Elite Dangerous as a Far West like environment: where there's no law, people do the worst things.
