PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[Robert Maynard]

I think the base problem is between those players who want or like segregation of activities against those who want it 'as it comes' bracketed in the billed 'shared galaxy'- with both being simultaneously right and wrong.

Only one of those groups bought a game that does not support their preferred play-style (as others are not required to engage that play-style if they want to engage in particular features).

 

[Rubbernuke]

Only one of those groups bought a game that does not support their preferred play-style (as others are not required to engage that play-style if they want to engage in particular features).

And yet, the devs thought otherwise, retrospectively or not. And the three modes have introduced a measure of inequality that leads to unintended side effects.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And yet, the devs thought otherwise, retrospectively or not. And the three modes have introduced a measure of inequality that leads to unintended side effects.

The Devs started an investigation to see how a potential, acknowledged to be retrospective, change would be received. It's over a year since that investigation launched.

The three modes, in a game where PvP is both entirely optional and largely ineffective in affecting what is, to a vast extent, a PvE game, simply mean that players have a choice of who they play among.

Any perceived inequality between the game modes would seem to be based on an assumption that players should be engaging in that optional play-style to play this game. The fact that all in-game content is available in more than one game mode rather undermines that assumption.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The Devs started an investigation to see how a potential, acknowledged to be retrospective, change would be received. It's over a year since that investigation launched.

But they actually posted it- which means they were / are actively thinking / thought about it and thought that it had merit. It was received very well going by the responses to the thread, and although there were some well thought out counter arguments a lot of hysterical oppositon came from people who never play Powerplay, never will and were concerned more about Open only for the rest of the game.

The three modes, in a game where PvP is both entirely optional and largely ineffective in affecting what is, to a vast extent, a PvE game, simply mean that players have a choice of who they play among.

PvP is largely not effective as you can currently dodge it in a feature that would make decent use of it (as outlined in the proposal). Currently one mode is dominant and forces everyone down into it, reducing the complexity of the feature. And in the end with a very polished BGS whats the point of Powerplay now?

Any perceived inequality between the game modes would seem to be based on an assumption that players should be engaging in that optional play-style to play this game. The fact that all in-game content is available in more than one game mode rather undermines that assumption.

So are you saying then that Solo is the same as Open and the glaring inconsistencies / exploits it beings up don't exist?

 

[Robert Maynard]

But they actually posted it- which means they were / are actively thinking / thought about it and thought that it had merit. It was received very well going by the responses to the thread, and although there were some well thought out counter arguments a lot of hysterical oppositon came from people who never play Powerplay, never will and were concerned more about Open only for the rest of the game.

It was indeed posted - very probably because Sandro had previously discussed it with those who put themselves forward as the leadership groups of the respective Powers. To omit that from the investigation would only have led to it being requested / demanded (as the Devs are, no doubt, well aware of the previous discussions around restricting this or that game feature to Open).

It was well received by some and not by others. Characterising opposition and the concerns of other players as "hysterical" does no favours. While not all players engage in Powerplay (and Sandro acknowledged that the feature was difficult to prioritise for development time due to the lack of participation), it comprises part of what every single player bought, as it forms part of the base game.

PvP is largely not effective as you can currently dodge it in a feature that would make decent use of it (as outlined in the proposal). Currently one mode is dominant and forces everyone down into it, reducing the complexity of the feature. And in the end with a very polished BGS whats the point of Powerplay now?

It's not effective because it is, and always has been, entirely optional. Players who want to engage in it will and those who don't won't. This game does not force any player to engage in it to engage in normal features (apart from the out-of-game add-on that is CQC/Arena).

So are you saying then that Solo is the same as Open and the glaring inconsistencies / exploits it beings up don't exist?

Solo is identical to Open apart from the complete absence of other players (which results in some features that require other players being unavailable). If engaging in any game feature in Solo (or Private Groups, of course) were considered by Frontier to be an "exploit" then I'd expect that they'd have patched it long ago. They have commented on this and have stated that they consider all game modes to be equally valid choices. That some players assume that engaging in game features in Solo/PGs is an exploit is their assumption. That those players want all opposition to be in their preferred, PvP enabled, game mode is obvious.

Sadly for them, Frontier did not design and implement their game to be dominated by those who prefer PvP.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It was indeed posted - very probably because Sandro had previously discussed it with those who put themselves forward as the leadership groups of the respective Powers. To omit that from the investigation would only have led to it being requested / demanded (as the Devs are, no doubt, well aware of the previous discussions around restricting this or that game feature to Open).

It was not. The first (non-public) version was Open only as well. The Open only mode part came as a surprise to everyone as you could tell on the first thread.

It was well received by some and not by others. Characterising opposition and the concerns of other players as "hysterical" does no favours. While not all players engage in Powerplay (and Sandro acknowledged that the feature was difficult to prioritise for development time due to the lack of participation), it comprises part of what every single player bought, as it forms part of the base game.

Take a good hard look at what was posted, and by whom. Hysterical sums up what was being thrown back and with flimsy counter arguments. I agree some were valid, while most were driven by irrational thoughts that Sandro kept on trying to allay to no avail. In the end he became a hate figure which was a shame.

It's not effective because it is, and always has been, entirely optional. Players who want to engage in it will and those who don't won't. This game does not force any player to engage in it to engage in normal features (apart from the out-of-game add-on that is CQC/Arena).

But the reason why its the way it is, is exactly for that reason. Open PP gives it a reason that I've outlined before, and the proposal really builds around that concept.

Solo is identical to Open apart from the complete absence of other players (which results in some features that require other players being unavailable). If engaging in any game feature in Solo (or Private Groups, of course) were considered by Frontier to be an "exploit" then I'd expect that they'd have patched it long ago. They have commented on this and have stated that they consider all game modes to be equally valid choices. That some players assume that engaging in game features in Solo/PGs is an exploit is their assumption. That those players want all opposition to be in their preferred, PvP enabled, game mode is obvious.

So, in Solo you face about 50 -60% of the possible weapons available in Open. No PP NPC uses its own special modules, or has engineering. Thats an instant imbalance. If I take the chance in Open I might meet someone with those extras, while in Solo I might meet an NPC which is weak (i..e unengineered, sub A grade weak)- please also note there is no guarantee of meeting an NPC in Solo either. So in both modes you could face nothing.

Also, do you say then that equipping a T-10 with heal beams and with a wing in PG its OK to farm merits without any effective opposition? Remember PP CZs are in the old style so they simply keep on going as long as you can. This in essence suggests that the tasks are so basic they can be done with no input (and that does not even touch on botting). This on its own shows heal beam balance is wrong (and FD even wanted to look into it), engineering too strong, and that Powerplay needs the new CZ style to cut the food supply.

If engaging in any game feature in Solo (or Private Groups, of course) were considered by Frontier to be an "exploit" then I'd expect that they'd have patched it long ago

This is FD, they have not done effective balancing in the game for years. Most of the changes they have done have made things worse by far (non PP example, the FDL, leaving modules like AMFU / scoop weightless, the Anacondas magic hull). They have left many PP weapons pointless either though neglect or because they simply have not kept pace with engineering.

Even when you defect the PP NPCs are pathetic. They don't even have interdictors, have no engineering, and are weak.

Sadly for them, Frontier did not design and implement their game to be dominated by those who prefer PvP.

But Open PP is not exactly going to 'dominate' anything, just as CQC does not dominate. The only reason anyone is paying attention is because they have an irrational fear about other parts of the game going open because this change might actually work and be popular.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

PvP is largely not effective as you can currently dodge it in a feature that would make decent use of it (as outlined in the proposal). Currently one mode is dominant and forces everyone down into it, reducing the complexity of the feature. And in the end with a very polished BGS whats the point of Powerplay now?

The main issue is that Powerplay was supposed to be a place for consensual PvP. However, someone has to be the target, i.e. the leaflet carriers, and not many players want to fly with a big target on their back.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The main issue is that Powerplay was supposed to be a place for consensual PvP. However, someone has to be the target, i.e. the leaflet carriers, and not many players want to fly with a big target on their back.

But by being a target, you become a player of worth to your team that needs protection. Or, you create ships that are built to get through- ships that have to make defensive compromises. In both cases new gameplay potential has been generated, rather than simply having a T-9 / Cutter with the lowest size shield possible.

 

[Arkadi]

It is obvious that you have a target on your back when you pledge to a power. Your pledge is visible to everyone. Whoever pledges to a power should be aware of that.
Else, what Rubbernuke said.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It was not. The first (non-public) version was Open only as well. The Open only mode part came as a surprise to everyone as you could tell on the first thread.

It did not need to be requested in the Flash Topic as it was included - and, as you acknowledge, had been discussed with those who put themselves forward as the leadership groups of the Powers.

Take a good hard look at what was posted, and by whom. Hysterical sums up what was being thrown back and with flimsy counter arguments. I agree some were valid, while most were driven by irrational thoughts that Sandro kept on trying to allay to no avail. In the end he became a hate figure which was a shame.

The jubilant exultations of some of the Open only proponents were equally visible - as were the demands to make the BGS Open only too. Sandro opened Pandora's Box wide with that Flash Topic - taking a sledge to the wedge in the fundamental rift in the player-base (a rift that pre-dates this game, of course). That his statements regarding the Open only proposal only being considered for Powerplay (and for nothing else) were an afterthought, not included in the OP and therefore easy to miss in a fast moving thread.

But the reason why its the way it is, is exactly for that reason. Open PP gives it a reason that I've outlined before, and the proposal really builds around that concept.

Indeed - the reason it is the way it is is that it is a feature in a game that does not force players to engage in PvP to play any feature of the game. Open only Powerplay simply restricts access to an existing game feature, previously available to all regardless of mode choice, to satisfy a subset of the player-base.

So, in Solo you face about 50 -60% of the possible weapons available in Open. No PP NPC uses its own special modules, or has engineering. Thats an instant imbalance. If I take the chance in Open I might meet someone with those extras, while in Solo I might meet an NPC which is weak (i..e unengineered, sub A grade weak)- please also note there is no guarantee of meeting an NPC in Solo either. So in both modes you could face nothing.

Also, do you say then that equipping a T-10 with heal beams and with a wing in PG its OK to farm merits without any effective opposition? Remember PP CZs are in the old style so they simply keep on going as long as you can. This in essence suggests that the tasks are so basic they can be done with no input (and that does not even touch on botting). This on its own shows heal beam balance is wrong (and FD even wanted to look into it), engineering too strong, and that Powerplay needs the new CZ style to cut the food supply.

Players who prefer PvP don't set the difficulty level of the game in any game mode other than Open. That NPCs (in all modes) are lack significant Engineereing is very probably a consequence of less than half of base game owners having a copy of Horizons - and making the game unplayable without an optional DLC would not be reasonable, in my opinion.

Frontier introduced heal beams - sadly. I have considered them too gamey since they were announced - and would quite happily see them removed from the game - especially as they can be used, in either multi-player game mode, to significantly reduce the risk posed by NPCs.

This is FD, they have not done effective balancing in the game for years. Most of the changes they have done have made things worse by far (non PP example, the FDL, leaving modules like AMFU / scoop weightless, the Anacondas magic hull). They have left many PP weapons pointless either though neglect or because they simply have not kept pace with engineering.

Once ships and modules are out in the wild, players use them when optimising their builds. Given that players can be out in the black for years, adding weight to AFMUs or fuel scoop or changing the Anaconda's hull would adversely impact some players - significantly in some cases (i.e. they might suddenly be "stuck" after a patch).

Even when you defect the PP NPCs are pathetic. They don't even have interdictors, have no engineering, and are weak.

The lack of interdictor sounds like it's either a long standing bug or a conscious decision by Frontier to make the consequences of defection significantly less severe / annoying.

But Open PP is not exactly going to 'dominate' anything, just as CQC does not dominate. The only reason anyone is paying attention is because they have an irrational fear about other parts of the game going open because this change might actually work and be popular.

PvP would be placed in a position to dominate Powerplay if it went Open only. Once Frontier retcon one long-standing design decision there's no going back - any design decision will be assumed to be open to re-consideration, with any assurances that Frontier may give regarding particular features not being considered for change requiring an appended caveat: "at this time".

 

[lenna]

But Open PP is not exactly going to 'dominate' anything, just as CQC does not dominate.

There are fundamental flaws with this reasoning:-

1. PP faction area control does have side effects on the shared universe state for everyone whether they PP or not
2. CQC is completely look-aside mechanics and engaging in it has zero effect on the shared universe state (any CQC exclusive permit unlocks are moot in this regard)
3. Open-Only PP would remove PvE options from non-Open players

Ultimately, though it is not about dominating anything - it is about ensuring everyone retains equal opportunity to affect the universe state regardless of the mode choice. Restricting PP to Open or biasing-Open gameplay would compromise that ethos.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

But by being a target, you become a player of worth to your team that needs protection. Or, you create ships that are built to get through- ships that have to make defensive compromises. In both cases new gameplay potential has been generated, rather than simply having a T-9 / Cutter with the lowest size shield possible.

Oh I agree. However, that needs to be made clear to players. There are far too many people who Min/Max their cargo ships and then wonder why they get their bottom handed to them on a plate in Open. You have to build a ship for the environment you're in and get some friends to escort you if you can. Which takes me back to the missing 'Looking For Wing' function.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The main issue is that Powerplay was supposed to be a place for consensual PvP. However, someone has to be the target, i.e. the leaflet carriers, and not many players want to fly with a big target on their back.

It is doubly consensual, as implemented. What it does not do is force the player to play among those who wish to engage in PvP.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It did not need to be requested in the Flash Topic as it was included - and, as you acknowledge, had been discussed with those who put themselves forward as the leadership groups of the Powers.

You misunderstand- the non public proposal came out of the blue as well. It was FD with the open only angle in both cases with no prompting from us.

The jubilant exultations of some of the Open only proponents were equally visible - as were the demands to make the BGS Open only too. Sandro opened Pandora's Box wide with that Flash Topic - taking a sledge to the wedge in the fundamental rift in the player-base (a rift that pre-dates this game, of course). That his statements regarding the Open only proposal only being considered for Powerplay (and for nothing else) were an afterthought, not included in the OP and therefore easy to miss in a fast moving thread.

Really? Anyone who can comprehend English could see it was for Powerplay only, otherwise it would have said so in the topic to begin with. Players invented monsters and ran with them, making it a bigger issue than it actually is.

Indeed - the reason it is the way it is is that it is a feature in a game that does not force players to engage in PvP to play any feature of the game. Open only Powerplay simply restricts access to an existing game feature, previously available to all regardless of mode choice, to satisfy a subset of the player-base.

A design, which has failed in three modes. And now FD looked at it and reappraised its design and where it fits in ED. They saw a need, and decided that it might be a good fit- even weighted merits does that. Surely a game is about catering for players, and attracting new ones? Or do I detect that PvP is optional therefore should not carry rewards?

Players who prefer PvP don't set the difficulty level of the game in any game mode other than Open. That NPCs (in all modes) are lack significant Engineereing is very probably a consequence of less than half of base game owners having a copy of Horizons - and making the game unplayable without an optional DLC would not be reasonable, in my opinion.

Frontier introduced heal beams - sadly. I have considered them too gamey since they were announced - and would quite happily see them removed from the game - especially as they can be used, in either multi-player game mode, to significantly reduce the risk posed by NPCs.

So arguments that you might never see any opposing PP NPC in Solo are not the same as players in open then?

Plus, you are saying then by stating "set the difficulty" that one mode is more difficult than another. Now, why would FD create an imbalance in the game and yet reward it the same across modes? Missions don't do that, so why should PP?

At the very least then, FD should remove heal beams (or drastically change how they work) and restrict PP to Solo or Open then to close that loophole? But that solution then leaves other problems...so FD look for elegant solutions.

Once ships and modules are out in the wild, players use them when optimising their builds. Given that players can be out in the black for years, adding weight to AFMUs or fuel scoop or changing the Anaconda's hull would adversely impact some players - significantly in some cases (i.e. they might suddenly be "stuck" after a patch).

So you accept FD are bad at balancing then, with poor foresight?

The lack of interdictor sounds like it's either a long standing bug or a conscious decision by Frontier to make the consequences of defection significantly less severe / annoying.

Its a bug, one FD don't seem to care about even though its a rather integral aprt of the game as it stands to balance defection in comparison to simply leaving.

And why would you send a police car with no wheels after a criminal?

PvP would be placed in a position to dominate Powerplay if it went Open only. Once Frontier retcon one long-standing design decision there's no going back - any design decision will be assumed to be open to re-consideration, with any assurances that Frontier may give regarding particular features not being considered for change requiring an appended caveat: "at this time".

No, again you misunderstand. Slippery slope guys think because Powerplay is Open only, its suddenly going to make the entire game a PvP hellhole. Powerplay is one small part of ED, just as CQC is a small part. And within Powerplay, the PvP label suddenly becomes a little less binary, since you can have anything between saying 'o7' to a fellow pledge to fighting another player in a flavoured CZ.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Oh I agree. However, that needs to be made clear to players. There are far too many people who Min/Max their cargo ships and then wonder why they get their bottom handed to them on a plate in Open. You have to build a ship for the environment you're in and get some friends to escort you if you can. Which takes me back to the missing 'Looking For Wing' function.

Since FD have revamped the menu UI (which makes it clear what mode does what) I could see the same for Open PP post change.

 

[Rubbernuke]

There are fundamental flaws with this reasoning:-

1. PP faction area control does have side effects on the shared universe state for everyone whether they PP or not
2. CQC is completely look-aside mechanics and engaging in it has zero effect on the shared universe state (any CQC exclusive permit unlocks are moot in this regard)
3. Open-Only PP would remove PvE options from non-Open players

When I say 'dominate' I was primarily talking about PvP players suddenly becoming the prime influences in ED. But:

1: Which are so slight you'd miss them. With the new BGS they are simply drowned out. Only LYRs bonus is actually felt, and even then with credit inflation its stuck in the shadows. Plus, Powerplay is not exactly popular, so the vast majority of players don't seem to care (as otherwise they'd vote with their feet and play?)

2: I use CQC to show how Powerplay does not dominate the list of features ED has. Since the numbers who play both are low, they are not exactly going to sway the overall ethos of the game.

3: And you can still affect that via the BGS (modifying fort triggers) and the mysterious misisons / favours that might morph into non Open content.

Ultimately, though it is not about dominating anything - it is about ensuring everyone retains equal opportunity to affect the universe state regardless of the mode choice. Restricting PP to Open or biasing-Open gameplay would compromise that ethos.

And unless FD propose something more radical, the proposal is all we have to stop Powerplay simply dying even more than it is now.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

And unless FD propose something more radical, the proposal is all we have to stop Powerplay simply dying even more than it is now.

While accepting that making it open only could be the final nail in the coffin.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You misunderstand- the non public proposal came out of the blue as well. It was FD with the open only angle in both cases with no prompting from us.

Thanks for the clarification.

Really? Anyone who can comprehend English could see it was for Powerplay only, otherwise it would have said so in the topic to begin with. Players invented monsters and ran with them, making it a bigger issue than it actually is.

Then those doing the running and who were quite vocal in their demands for Open only BGS weren't listening - and the signal to noise reduction caused by their repeated demands somewhat obfuscated the issue.

A design, which has failed in three modes. And now FD looked at it and reappraised its design and where it fits in ED. They saw a need, and decided that it might be a good fit- even weighted merits does that. Surely a game is about catering for players, and attracting new ones? Or do I detect that PvP is optional therefore should not carry rewards?

It would seem to have, yes - however all but one of the changes proposed in the first Flash Topic would seem to be non-contentious. They saw repeated demands for Open only content and included Open only as one of the proposals in their investigation. Weighted merits would be a blanket bonus for playing in a game mode where there's no guarantee of meeting with opposition - where friends lists, wing membership and block lists all affect instancing (as do geography and quality of internet connection). In the second Flash Topic it seemed, to me at least, that weighted merits were about as unpopular as they were in March'16.

Why should an optional play-style be specifically rewarded? Bearing in mind that players will collude to receive rewards uncontested where it is at all possible and that Frontier has already removed such exploits in the past....

At the very least then, FD should remove heal beams (or drastically change how they work) and restrict PP to Solo or Open then to close that loophole? But that solution then leaves other problems...so FD look for elegant solutions.

A solution that arbitrarily restricts game content bought by all players to PvP-gate it to a single multi-player game mode is not, in my opinion, an elegant solution. Simple? Certainly. Without issues? Certainly not.

So you accept FD are bad at balancing then, with poor foresight?

Michael is on record as acknowledging that AFMUs having no weight was an oversight - but not one that they were prepared to retcon. I'd suggest that Frontier are conscious that some players would be significantly disadvantaged by some changes - and therefore choose not to implement them.

Its a bug, one FD don't seem to care about even though its a rather integral aprt of the game as it stands to balance defection in comparison to simply leaving.

Have Frontier acknowledged that it is a bug?

And why would you send a police car with no wheels after a criminal?

No need for a car if the miscreant is on foot.

No, again you misunderstand. Slippery slope guys think because Powerplay is Open only, its suddenly going to make the entire game a PvP hellhole. Powerplay is one small part of ED, just as CQC is a small part. And within Powerplay, the PvP label suddenly becomes a little less binary, since you can have anything between saying 'o7' to a fellow pledge to fighting another player in a flavoured CZ.

Not a misunderstanding - simply a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a slippery slope (which would only be a fallacy if it didn't happen - which can only be examined retrospectively - in which case it's too late).

 

[Rubbernuke]

While accepting that making it open only could be the final nail in the coffin.

Well the desire to change it came from somewhere, so FD know something or want to change it that way.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I think the base problem is between those players who want or like segregation of activities against those who want it 'as it comes' bracketed in the billed 'shared galaxy'- with both being simultaneously right and wrong. I think ED sits awkwardly across this, and that Powerplay only makes things worse.

In my experience, the segregation of activities is inevitable. Whether it is on servers, via some form of PvP switch, or by simply being so unappealing to a large segment of the potential player base that most players won't touch it with a ten foot pole, the segregation of activities will happen. The conundrum for game developers has always been how to maximize the size of their player base while minimizing the amount of segregation.

There is a small segment of any game's player base that simply enjoys spewing what comes from the southern end of a north facing bull. They'll do this irregardless of the degree of effort required. An open-PvP environment in a PvE game simply makes it easy for them, because it provides them with a massive captive "audience," and PvP ensures that their actions cannot be ignored.

Elite: Dangerous is an anomaly in my experience, because a significant majority of players are playing on the PvP side of the proverbial fence. It's always been the other way around: a tiny minority on the PvP side of the fence, with everyone else on the PvE side. This is despite the game using a C&P system designed to be fun for criminal PvE players to also control PvP murder. But Elite: Dangerous is also an anomaly because it uses social filters, rather than software filters, to decide who plays on which side of the fence, and more importantly players are allowed to freely move from one side of the fence to the other on a session by session basis. While I'm now convinced that Frontier pulled a Homer when it came to designing this system, I still can't deny it works brilliantly at controlling the jerk population in this game.

It works by removing the unmitigated jerk's preferred audience, leaving them surrounded by actual PvPers and those with PvP tendencies. The former is able to swat them like the annoying flies they are. The latter is either good enough to be a threat to them, or at least savvy enough to not be an easy kill. This creates an environment where they can't get the results they enjoy, so they find other ways of amusing themselves at the expense of others.

My only thought really is that Powerplay needs to be divided, with Open Powerplay being complementary to the BGS side (which would exist for everyone) along with Powerplay themed missions that would be the ideal way to give Powers flavour- so you can then see what Powers do 'behind the curtain' that lead into the Open side. For example Archon could have slave roundups, where you pick up lifepods from recent battles.

This leads us back to the reason why I object to Powerplay - Open Only. Frontier has made it very clear in the past that any feature that isn't played by a good chunk of the player base won't get further development. I think Powerplay has the potential to be enjoyed by a large segment of the player base, it's only hampered by the bad design choices of Frontier. Should Frontier fix the bad design, especially by adding Powerplay missions, we'll see a flourishing of new players to this part of the game... but only if it retains its mode agnosticism.

If Open Only is added to the mix, we'll see the same thing we saw when Powerplay first released: a horde of players eager to use the new content, mostly in Open; followed by a plague of unpledged player-killers eager to prey upon those players; followed a large reduction in the Powerplayer base in Open, as players reach their tolerance level for that kind of crap; followed by the vanishing of the unpledged player-killers. Only this time, when a player reaches the limits of their tolerance for that kind of crap, they won't move into other modes. They'll quit Powerplay entirely.

And when Frontier looks at the numbers, and thinks, "We did all this work, and nobody is still playing it," we'll never get new toys to play with, such as what you list above. I want to see Powerplay succeed. I want this aspect of the game developed further, almost as much as I want Atmospheric Landings and Elite Feet. I just don't see that happening if you gate PvE content behind a PvP wall.