Player affecting factions even in Pvt and Solo

[Arguendo]

A "clear majority" of the PvP community; is about the closest, most accurate description you can use.

Nope. I like to think that I have an ok grasp on the PvP community and who's in it. There were names popping up that I've never seen before, because they were Powerplayers. I don't dabble in that, so those names are unknown to me.
Now, who better to listen to than those who actually engage in the activity?

So asking the vocal minority about a major gameplay change isn't helpful.

Asking the ones who actually engage in it is though.
Never done Powerplay and don't intend to? Then you're not the intended audience anyhow.

If FDev want actual feedback, then the most honest thing they can do is put it in the launcher and have it as something to "vote" on before you can log in.
Then all active players get a say.

This is not really a question for all players, as it doesn't affect all players. It only affects those who will engage in Power Play, which is a very very small portion of the playerbase. For everyone else*, it's a non-issue that is largely ignored unless they're trying to get the modules. So a vote would be good, but I would limit it to those who have stayed with a power and worked for it beyond those mandatory weeks and merits to unlock modules. Everyone else has had their say by their gameplay; it's irrelevant to them.
A better option imho, would be for FDev to talk to the groups who are actually active (Strange I know, but there actually are groups that are active in PP) and working for/against a superpower. That's the intended playergroup and the ones who knows best which changes would actually be good or bad for the mechanic.

Putting it to a general vote would mean it's on par with Ship Transfer, which is the only open vote FDev have ever had. Power Play is a long ways away from being that important in the game and to the vast majority of players. It's miniscule compared to the effect Ship/Module Transfer has on the game, as that affects everyone because we all move from A to B.

*With the caveat that module unlocks are removed from Powerplay, which I stated earlier was my main issue against OOPP.

 

[Varp]

Open/Solo/Group arguments have been done to death - the thing to remember is that the BGS is across all instances, all timezones and (importantly) all platforms PC/XBOX/PS4 - this allows a player group on one platform to compete with a player group on another. That's great! All players share a galaxy and it's a form of PvP against an invisible opponent... and that, I believe, is truly where the misconception lies - you can only compete by playing the game more. You can't compete by stopping the other players playing the game/preventing them from acting. Because of timezones, instancing and platforms you never will.

 

[Jockey79]

This is not really a question for all players, as it doesn't affect all players.

This is where you're completely wrong.
As people get to use their Power Play gear versus those who do not do Power Play and do not have any PP gear.

Also, PP moves people about which has an impact on the BGS and system states.

Making changes to PP effects us all be it directly through the ship to ship interactions or through the BGS and system states.
So it is a question for everyone because it does have an effect on everyone.

 

[Arguendo]

This is where you're completely wrong.
As people get to use their Power Play gear versus those who do not do Power Play and do not have any PP gear.

Asterix. Caveat. I think I covered that pretty well. You seem to have missed it though.

Also, PP moves people about which has an impact on the BGS and system states.

Making changes to PP effects us all be it directly through the ship to ship interactions or through the BGS and system states.
So it is a question for everyone because it does have an effect on everyone.

Due to the BGS affecting everyone, every possible thing in the game that affects where people move would be in that category. Would you like a vote for all players on where the next engineers (if any) are placed? Where the next CG / II is held? Where every player-run event is held?
At one point or another you need to let go of "this affects everyone so we need to vote on it" and accept that it's not possible.

Again, ship/module transfer is the only all encompassing vote FDev have ever done. Chances of them doing another one are slim to none, so expecting one before implementing any changes in the game is akin to chasing windmills. But to each their own.

 

[Jockey79]

Asterix. Caveat. I think I covered that pretty well. You seem to have missed it though.

Not really, as you're advocating only those who play PP should have a say about it and we are all affected by it whether we actually play it or not.
So my point stands, making a major change (removing content from people who do not play open mode) like this deserves input from everyone - as everyone is affected.

Due to the BGS affecting everyone, every possible thing in the game that affects where people move would be in that category. Would you like a vote for all players on where the next engineers (if any) are placed? Where the next CG / II is held? Where every player-run event is held?
At one point or another you need to let go of "this affects everyone so we need to vote on it" and accept that it's not possible.

Being silly isn't helping your point.
Making a major change to the game is something players should get a say on.
I paid good money for a game where I can play all the content in any mode, now some people are demanding content be removed from me for no other reason than they want soft targets to shoot at.

The only reason I can see you wouldn't want the community as a whole to have a say on such a massive gameplay change is that you know the answer to the question already and once it's confirmed this topic is put to an end.

Again, ship/module transfer is the only all encompassing vote FDev have ever done. Chances of them doing another one are slim to none, so expecting one before implementing any changes in the game is akin to chasing windmills. But to each their own.

Where is the harm in asking?
They can only say yes or no to the idea.
It's not as if the whole company would grind to a halt because someone asked them to let all of us have a say.
So far only forum users have had a say, why exclude everyone else?

And if they did do it, at least everyone would know what's going on and have the option to respond via casting a vote.

 

[Arguendo]

I paid good money for a game where I can play all the content in any mode, now some people are demanding content be removed from me for no other reason than they want soft targets to shoot at.

I only have one question for you: How much Power Play have you done beyond the mandatory grind to acquire the PP modules?

 

[Jockey79]

I only have one question for you: How much Power Play have you done beyond the mandatory grind to acquire the PP modules?

While I'll answer the question, what has that got to do with anything?

Whether people do PP or not, they still feel the effects, they can still be damaged by the PP guns and may end up fighting someone with PP shields.
They still have to suffer the BGS changes brought on my PP activities even if they are in Solo or a PG.

So why shouldn't they get a say if PP is taken away from Solo and PG?

And to your question, I didn't "grind to acquire" any modules, I pledged to Aisling Duval on release and stayed pledged to her until I went to do my Fed grind for the Corvette last year. And when I'm back in Empire space (I'm just pottering about in Fed space atm) I'll pledge back to her and continue my support work in my Cutter.

 

[Goose4291]

I only have one question for you: How much Power Play have you done beyond the mandatory grind to acquire the PP modules?

The answer is next to zero.

This is why Rubbernuke, Withnail, (both of whom Jockey accused of being griefers with ulterior motives) and even an old hand like myself as well as a few of the others had to constantly tell him how his assertions about how powerplay worked were completely wrong.

Of course since then he's retconned this and he's now he's been a stalwart faithful of the blue haired one since day one, despite not vaguely understanding the fortification mechanic.

 

[Jockey79]

The answer is next to zero.

Clearly ignoring what I've written - nothing new there.

 

[Arguendo]

While I'll answer the question, what has that got to do with anything?

Because I see a lot of people saying "I should not have content taken away from me" while they don't appear to care about the content, but rather a principle of "leave everything alone because I don't like the people asking for the change."

Whether people do PP or not, they still feel the effects, they can still be damaged by the PP guns and may end up fighting someone with PP shields.
They still have to suffer the BGS changes brought on my PP activities even if they are in Solo or a PG.

So why shouldn't they get a say if PP is taken away from Solo and PG?

Because it's a strawman. Everything affects the BGS in one way or another. So every single update of the game would need a vote by all the players. That's a surefire way to get nothing done, and it would be pretty unique for a developer to do.
Or do you just want to have votes on the items that you have strong feelings about?

And to your question, I didn't "grind to acquire" any modules, I pledged to Aisling Duval on release and stayed pledged to her until I went to do my Fed grind for the Corvette last year. And when I'm back in Empire space (I'm just pottering about in Fed space atm) I'll pledge back to her and continue my support work in my Cutter.

So you've been actively engaging in Power Play for Asling Duval since release? Or did you just pledge because she's the blue princess? The former matters in this question, the latter doesn't. The difference for you if FDev ever goes for Open Only is that either you get killed by an enemy because you were actively fighting for something, or you get killed for joining up on something you thought sounded cool.
Or you could decide that it wasn't that important and leave Power Play alone and stay in Solo / PG.

Now, a couple of things to remember here:

• I do not engage in Power Play at all. So I have no stakes in that matter. I do however see a lot of people who are, who are also very supportive of OOPP. I trust their judgment in matters relating to Power Play.
• I am what's affectionately labelled as a White Knight in the PvP world. I don't murderhobo. Except from training I only take part in fights against wanted cmdrs or known murderhobos, so I have no incentive to "drive victims to Open."

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

So this will go with OP's topic and powerplay both.

Specifically based around players attacking what other players represent. Or their assets they control and work for.


Whats the difference between that and powerplay? Why is this okay to go through with powerplay? But in the very same game. The Player Factions fighting through the BGS shouldnt?

I dont get it. Its the exact same thing. One with crime and punishment(Home defense and responsive NPC's with station guns and timers to help you fight wanteds, to be used as leverage for the defending side) and the other, a more simplified version without it.

Im failing to grasp how one is all of a sudden possible and the other is not/shouldnt be done.

I started with the BGS. Powerplay and BGS wars bother suffer from the same problem in why people wanted PP open only. Because of that, I dont have very much time in powerplay either. Why would I go and play that part of the game with the same exact problem.

They are the exact same thing. How people can say otherwise. In the exact same game, is beyond me.


My one and only conclusion is they get to mess with specific player factions they dont like, without consequences or repercussions for themselves as they attack them. They also dont have to be attached to a player group/home system at all to do that either. Literally fighting people with nothing to lose.

So weird people try to justify this type of gameplay. Its embarrassing.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

Here's an interesting thought experiment about the "We're special! We demand our own "Open only" BGS idea :

FDev agrees and splits the BGS up, because different Modes and Platforms were affecting others as by its original design.

The result are multiple new BGS'es operating in parallel, allowing no Mode to affect the other. Which means it needs a separate BGS for all of the following :
PC - Open Play
PC - Private Group
PC - Solo
XBOX - Open Play
XBOX - Private Group
XBOX - Solo
PS4 - Open Play
PS4 - Private Group
PS4 - Solo

T + 1 month :
- Conflicts and Elections are being reported by various Groups, all of which claim victories with evidence - while others deny those victories... with valid evidence

T + 6 months :
- several key Systems and entire areas of Space are claimed, but now fully async between all the different BGS Modes/Platforms, creating an increasing amount of confusion

T + 12 months :

• FDev has severe issues creating even simple things like GALnet stories related to Systems or launch new Initiatives, as affected Systems have as many as 5 different Controlling Factions or key Factions even have retreated in some BGS modes
• the entire BGS is broadly drowned in confusion with only very few of the largest BGS Groups being capable to succeed in al 9 different BGS worlds with some degree of sync
• working the BGS across all Modes/Platforms for those Groups has become a logistical nightmare
• several 3rd party Sites have stopped tracking the BGS entirely due to the drastically increased overhead the additional Data requires

-----------------------------------------------------
So to keep things simple :

• no, it likely won't happen, since there's no valid reason to
• "Open Play" isn't special by any means for the BGS, thus no special treatment is in order (Open Play guys can affect Solo or other Platform guys just as well after all)
• as discussed to death in the past, tons of other Factors will mean : you will not and can not see all other BGS-effective Traffic in your Instance - this is by design and there's nothing anyone could do about it
• BGS isn't called Background Simulation for no reason
• BGS was always meant to be primarily passive PvP/Coop , which also allows BGS Groups to have members fluid across all Modes & Platforms without management nightmares

 

[darkseer]

Here's an interesting thought experiment about the "We're special! We demand our own "Open only" BGS idea :

FDev agrees and splits the BGS up, because different Modes and Platforms were affecting others as by its original design.

The result are multiple new BGS'es operating in parallel, allowing no Mode to affect the other. Which means it needs a separate BGS for all of the following :
PC - Open Play
PC - Private Group
PC - Solo
XBOX - Open Play
XBOX - Private Group
XBOX - Solo
PS4 - Open Play
PS4 - Private Group
PS4 - Solo

then there is also the fact that fdev would also need to split up the pilot data as well so that players would have to grind 3x as much if they wanted to have a pilot in every mode because if a pilot can transfer then all they need to do is land at a station solo flip to open and then be able to affect it

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Here's an interesting thought experiment about the "We're special! We demand our own "Open only" BGS idea :

FDev agrees and splits the BGS up, because different Modes and Platforms were affecting others as by its original design.

The result are multiple new BGS'es operating in parallel, allowing no Mode to affect the other. Which means it needs a separate BGS for all of the following :
PC - Open Play
PC - Private Group
PC - Solo
XBOX - Open Play
XBOX - Private Group
XBOX - Solo
PS4 - Open Play
PS4 - Private Group
PS4 - Solo

T + 1 month :
- Conflicts and Elections are being reported by various Groups, all of which claim victories with evidence - while others deny those victories... with valid evidence

T + 6 months :
- several key Systems and entire areas of Space are claimed, but now fully async between all the different BGS Modes/Platforms, creating an increasing amount of confusion

T + 12 months :

• FDev has severe issues creating even simple things like GALnet stories related to Systems or launch new Initiatives, as affected Systems have as many as 5 different Controlling Factions or key Factions even have retreated in some BGS modes
• the entire BGS is broadly drowned in confusion with only very few of the largest BGS Groups being capable to succeed in al 9 different BGS worlds with some degree of sync
• working the BGS across all Modes/Platforms for those Groups has become a logistical nightmare
• several 3rd party Sites have stopped tracking the BGS entirely due to the drastically increased overhead the additional Data requires

-----------------------------------------------------
So to keep things simple :

• no, it likely won't happen, since there's no valid reason to
• "Open Play" isn't special by any means for the BGS, thus no special treatment is in order (Open Play guys can affect Solo or other Platform guys just as well after all)
• as discussed to death in the past, tons of other Factors will mean : you will not and can not see all other BGS-effective Traffic in your Instance - this is by design and there's nothing anyone could do about it
• BGS isn't called Background Simulation for no reason
• BGS was always meant to be primarily passive PvP/Coop , which also allows BGS Groups to have members fluid across all Modes & Platforms without management nightmares

Not sure any of the open only proponents are clamouring for a separated mode. They just want to restrict stuff to the existing setup. Its my suggestion, or at least question to OOPPers would feel about having a completely seperate moded, leaving the existing structure intact. They mainly want PP to be Open Only, but a few go further and want the BGS and CGs (now IIs) to be open only as well.

I agree FD are highly unlikely to do such a thing, although its not uncommon in the gaming world to have separate servers, usually for PvP and PvE modes.

From a technical aspect there are no major issues that i can see, its quite possible. The main hurdle would be the one about which is considered "official" for lore reasons. Of course, they could have two separate "lores" as well, which would be fine in game, but from outside would be a mess.

And of course, it would probably take more manpower to maintain.

Thing is, if they did it, the new mode would likely have no more than a few hundred people in it, and a lot of OOPPers would not get what they really want.

Therefore my fallback option is should FD decide to do it, they should remove all references to and effect from PP from PG/solo. If its going to be a non-feature for those modes, it should truly be a non-feature to those modes. In order for it to truly have zero impact they would also need to remove the feature from PP that requires flipping systems via the BGS to make them more suitable to PP. If one of the arguments of OOPPers is they don't like people in other modes affecting their BGS/PP, then i think its reasonable for PG/solo players to not want people flipping systems due to a feature they can't take part in.

 

[Rampant]

Not sure any of the open only proponents are clamouring for a separated mode. They just want to restrict stuff to the existing setup. Its my suggestion, or at least question to OOPPers would feel about having a completely seperate moded, leaving the existing structure intact. They mainly want PP to be Open Only, but a few go further and want the BGS and CGs (now IIs) to be open only as well.

I agree FD are highly unlikely to do such a thing, although its not uncommon in the gaming world to have separate servers, usually for PvP and PvE modes.

From a technical aspect there are no major issues that i can see, its quite possible. The main hurdle would be the one about which is considered "official" for lore reasons. Of course, they could have two separate "lores" as well, which would be fine in game, but from outside would be a mess.

And of course, it would probably take more manpower to maintain.

Thing is, if they did it, the new mode would likely have no more than a few hundred people in it, and a lot of OOPPers would not get what they really want.

Therefore my fallback option is should FD decide to do it, they should remove all references to and effect from PP from PG/solo. If its going to be a non-feature for those modes, it should truly be a non-feature to those modes. In order for it to truly have zero impact they would also need to remove the feature from PP that requires flipping systems via the BGS to make them more suitable to PP. If one of the arguments of OOPPers is they don't like people in other modes affecting their BGS/PP, then i think its reasonable for PG/solo players to not want people flipping systems due to a feature they can't take part in.

I kinda agree, but at the same time also partly disagree and this is why there is such a fuss about it.
In your last sentence you mentioned PG players "can't take part in." That is not exactly true - they could if they wanted to by joining Open Play, but this generates the weird issue of - if you remove all aspects of PP from PG and Solo, then your pledge becomes invisible, and your PP modules should either be removed from your ship while in PG or Solo, or just revert to a standard module, or a close match standard module. This all becomes really messy in my view and is clearly a huge reason why FDev would have such a massive headache embodying OOPP.
So which is it?
Do we still allow mode hopping with impunity? With one single BGS? While also not allowing PG and Solo players to affect PP? - Which means you can PP module shop and then take them to PG and use them in non-PP enabled modes? - messy.
There's far more than meets the eye of the average player, because they just don't use their brains to analyse the implications. But then I guess some people never got the notion behind chess - where you predict your opponents next 2,3,4 or 5 moves based on one you're considering right now.

Slàinte Mhath

Mark H

 

[Deleted member 38366]

Making the BGS an Open Play exclusive and shutting it down for all other Modes would be a terribly bad idea.

Why kill it off in favor of a minority?
How would FDev counter the resulting loss of Customers?
Would they be ready for the huge wave of shi()storms?
What alternative Gameplay could they add exclusive to the other Modes to make up for taking the BGS away from them?

There'd be still 3 different Platforms that'd effect each other with no chance to ever see those Players.
Thus - even if implemented - absolutely nothing would be gained with regard to the OP query.

Hence.... it's better left alone and Working as Intended.

 

[Lateralus]

And if they made the BSG or PP open only, you'd just have a different demographic beating their head against a brick wall for the following two years or whatever until they left.

I'd be very surprised if any solo/PG players continued to lobby for PP to return to all modes if it got changed. Most of those against the idea don't seem to care about Powerplay itself it by the looks of it, but are more against the idea of open-only features. If it proved a very successful move, those against it would have a weaker agruement anyway.

Its the general rule of software development (or almost anything), you can't please all the people all the time. For those who open only is a critical feature, they may leave. For those who bought the game based on the premise of parity between modes, should FD change that, some of them will leave.

At the moment you have two systems in the game which relate to territory control, BGS and Powerplay.. neither of which support goal-orientated PvP very well. To me it would be balanced and likely please more people if one were open to all modes (BGS) and one was restricted to open to support and encourage the PvP gameplay Fdevs developers claimed Powerplay was created for.

In short, in order to please one demographic, FD would have to displease a demographic that is currently happy.

Yes, because having one territory control system aimed at PvE players and one aimed at PvPers is fair. Having two for one and none for the other is not. They would get over it. However, Elite has always failed to retain most PvP players long-term due to the lack of purpose PvP has. Keeping PvP groups interested in the game longer is good for Fdev, and by extension, good for PvE players because there will be more money available for development of all areas of the game.

The main question becomes, do FD considering the risk worth it and would such a change bring an overall positive result? And are they ready to handle the threads from those who are displeased that will be "FD lied to us!"..... remember offlinegate?

It doesn't matter if you think the devs never promised mode parity in perpetuity, those threads will exist, and you can be sure some of the gaming press will pick up on it as well. FD need to be certain they would want to do such a thing and have the data or analyses that shows it would be a good thing overall.

If they do a trial of OOPP they can see how well it works and use it to justify any long-term changes. It's hard to argue against facts and figures if going open-only results in a large uptake in interest. If it fails we can all forget about the idea.

 

[EponymousCowherd]

Making the BGS an Open Play exclusive and shutting it down for all other Modes would be a terribly bad idea.

Why kill it off in favor of a minority?
How would FDev counter the resulting loss of Customers?
Would thay be ready for the huge wave of shi()storms?
What alternative Gameplay could they add exclusive to the other Modes to make up for taking the BGS away from them?

There'd be still 3 different Platforms that'd effect each other with no chance to ever see those Players.
Thus - even if implemented - absolutely nothing would be gained with regard to the OP query.

Hence.... it's better left alone and Working as Intended.

It almost certainly will be. Frontier have their work cut out fixing the current bugfest and working on the next big release.

The core problem with implementing this is that the only difference between the three modes is who you can instance with. Solo is just Open with no other players. Splitting off PowerPlay would mean introducing a large number of checks to see what mode players are in and what they are permitted to do. This would have performance, integrity and stability consequences.

It's a lot of work to implement a feature which will anger as many people as if pleases and Frontier are certainly sensible enough to realise that their time is better spent elsewhere.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Do we still allow mode hopping with impunity?

Yes, this is my preferred solution, with nothing restricted to any particular mode. I know some people would prefer PP (and other things) to be restricted to open only, but that's not the game i bought and paid for.

I have presented my alternate solution, which i'd like to see happen should FD decide to make PP open only.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I'd be very surprised if any solo/PG players continued to lobby for PP to return to all modes if it got changed.

You might be. I'm sure there are some who would complan, ranging from theose who do do PP from PP/solo (because if you listen to the OOPP proponents, there are hordes of players affecting PP from PG/solo), to those who remain objectors due to the principle of the matter.

It doesn't matter if you think their opinions are invalid, they will still complain.

At the moment you have two systems in the game which relate to territory control, BGS and Powerplay.. neither of which support goal-orientated PvP very well. To me it would be balanced and likely please more people if one were open to all modes (BGS) and one was restricted to open to support and encourage the PvP gameplay Fdevs developers claimed Powerplay was created for.

Yes, and i think this was a problem with PP in the first instance. Two overlapping territorial games i think was an idiotic idea. PP could have been an extension of the BGS.

If they do a trial of OOPP they can see how well it works and use it to justify any long-term changes. It's hard to argue against facts and figures if going open-only results in a large uptake in interest. If it fails we can all forget about the idea.

That's a fair comment, and should they do it its pretty certain they would look at the involvement of players and how it has affected the gameplay/dynamic.