PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[Rubbernuke]

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.

So stuff like "its ruined my birthday" / whats Sandro playing at etc were what?

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.

playing in a game mode where there's no guarantee of meeting with opposition

Just like solo PP then?

Weighted was unpopular because it was in comparison to open- however either is better than what we have now. Open adds new gameplay potential that makes Powerplay stand out. Unless FD want to invest more in a feature thats unpopular and risk more, its the only part that makes a significant change.

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....

Because its harder? Missions are optional, and yet they are rewarded according to difficulty.

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 have a feature that is not popular because its not one thing or the other has to fail because its held hostage to an outdated concept? Beholden to those same modes that break Powerplay?

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.

So does that mean that every mistake is overlooked? Even ones that they have the power to change?

Have Frontier acknowledged that it is a bug?

Who knows? Maybe you'll have better luck than Powerplay players who keep on about it, along with the litany of other Powerplay issues.

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

Taking it to an extreme then: sending police strapped down with tape, no legs and made of sponge after a criminal who can walk at normal leg speeds?

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).

Which still exists, mainly in the fevered imaginations of players. Sandro himself clarified three times to everyone involved.

 

[Arry]

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

The desire for change (we are talking about the calls for open only power play), came from players constantly demanding it, to fit their own agendas. Whatever that may be.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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.

Powerplays segregation has led to the lowest common denominator gaming, which is grind racing. This is the consequence of imposing EDs design on a system that does not benefit from it. FD repositioning it might (since we don't know) actually be a good thing for its audience.

This is despite the game using a C&P system designed to be fun for criminal PvE players to also control PvP murder.

The C + P is not for this, and never has. Its more to do with capping PvE murder than anything else.

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.

But FD won't put the time in, so we have the cheap option or nothing. One is certain failure, while the other maybe great. We just have to try it.

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.

Again, until its changed we equally don't know if this will happen or what I describe will. You don't know if PP aligned squadrons won't get involved, bringing in more players that way. By keeping it as it is will certainly kill Powerplay to the point no-one cares at all (which is not far away).

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.

The equal modes design has failed, we know because we are living in its ruins. FD are seeing that, and they are attempting change as cheaply as possible. I can only describe open as being the only new toy in that proposals box.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

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

The desire to change is one thing, the result is another.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The desire for change (we are talking about the calls for open only power play), came from players constantly demanding it, to fit their own agendas. Whatever that may be.

FD have notorious cloth ears. Even on the most die hard Open PP Discords it came as a massive surprise. The only agenda is to make PP actually thrive and fill out a niche.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The desire to change is one thing, the result is another.

Well, FD can see the gaps in EDs features, and I imagine they put the issues together weighing up the various probabilities.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Well, FD can see the gaps in EDs features, and I imagine they put the issues together weighing up the various probabilities.

Sure, but they can't predict the outcome, and neither can we. Saying open only WILL make PP better or WILL be the death of PP is going too far. At best we can say that it could work either way.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

What's wrong with give it a try for the length of an update. i.e. Make it open only in the next update and if the Power Play player numbers drop, put it back how it was in the update after that.

It's the only way to see if the change will make or break the game mode because it needs large player number testing.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

What's wrong with give it a try for the length of an update. i.e. Make it open only in the next update and if the Power Play player numbers drop, put it back how it was in the update after that.

It's the only way to see if the change will make or break the game mode because it needs large player number testing.

Well, i think Rubbernuke suggested it would need trialing for at least 3 months? I think that would be reasonable to get a feel for it.

What is wrong with it? Well, on the one hand, the damage would be done. Open only supporters would expect it to remain. Those who are against would probably feel FD have broken promises or whatever. Plus they would still need to develop the code to make PP open only. UI changes depending on mode, mechanics changes, and whatever else is needed to make it work in just one mode.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So stuff like "its ruined my birthday" / whats Sandro playing at etc were what?

Expressions of disappointment that Frontier were prepared to even consider walking back on the decision to implement Powerplay in all three game modes three years beforehand. It elicited one of the responses from Sandro indicating the limited scope of features under consideration for Open only and that it was far from a done deal.

Just like solo PP then?

Are you suggesting a bonus for Powerplay in Solo?

Weighted was unpopular because it was in comparison to open- however either is better than what we have now. Open adds new gameplay potential that makes Powerplay stand out. Unless FD want to invest more in a feature thats unpopular and risk more, its the only part that makes a significant change.

Whether weighting is better, or not, rather depends on one's view of PvP in a game where it is an optional extra.

Because its harder? Missions are optional, and yet they are rewarded according to difficulty.

It is only possibly harder - it would also lead to collusion.

So you have a feature that is not popular because its not one thing or the other has to fail because its held hostage to an outdated concept? Beholden to those same modes that break Powerplay?

PvP being optional in this game may be an outdated concept in the opinion of some - not all share that opinion. Every player bought a game with three game modes - not every player engages in PvP (and there is no requirement to).

So does that mean that every mistake is overlooked? Even ones that they have the power to change?

No, it does not. However just because Frontier have the opportunity to make changes does not mean that they have the desire to, in some cases.

Who knows? Maybe you'll have better luck than Powerplay players who keep on about it, along with the litany of other Powerplay issues.

So the lack of interdictors may not be a bug then.

Taking it to an extreme then: sending police strapped down with tape, no legs and made of sponge after a criminal who can walk at normal leg speeds?

That's certainly extreme.

Which still exists, mainly in the fevered imaginations of players. Sandro himself clarified three times to everyone involved.

Not so much - as Frontier restated that the BGS is for all players, on all platforms and in all game modes in a stream later last year. Clarifying on the one hand after putting forward a retcon of an existing decision would seem to have done little to allay the concerns of at least some of those opposed to PvP-gating the feature.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Well, i think Rubbernuke suggested it would need trialing for at least 3 months? I think that would be reasonable to get a feel for it.

What is wrong with it? Well, on the one hand, the damage would be done. Open only supporters would expect it to remain. Those who are against would probably feel FD have broken promises or whatever. Plus they would still need to develop the code to make PP open only. UI changes depending on mode, mechanics changes, and whatever else is needed to make it work in just one mode.

But how else can you test it? Powerplay itself was dropped on us without testing. A beta would be great, but that would divide an already small population and still cost the dev time.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

Well, i think Rubbernuke suggested it would need trialing for at least 3 months? I think that would be reasonable to get a feel for it.

What is wrong with it? Well, on the one hand, the damage would be done. Open only supporters would expect it to remain. Those who are against would probably feel FD have broken promises or whatever. Plus they would still need to develop the code to make PP open only. UI changes depending on mode, mechanics changes, and whatever else is needed to make it work in just one mode.

But Power Play is perceived as broken. It's one of those subjects whenever people discuss bad things about E: D, it's right up there with CQC and Combat Logging. If you want to breath new life back into it, you've got to try some risks. I'd say implement the two parts of the Sandro Proposal to make it open only

(i.e.
• Powerplay contacts are only available to players in open
• Powerplay vouchers and commodities are destroyed if a player enters solo or private groups
)

and if that get's more players playing and engaging with PP then work on changing the UI and smooth out the rewards for people who can't access open for some reason. If not, have those two conditions flipped back and we're right back to where we are.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Expressions of disappointment that Frontier were prepared to even consider walking back on the decision to implement Powerplay in all three game modes three years beforehand. It elicited one of the responses from Sandro indicating the limited scope of features under consideration for Open only and that it was far from a done deal.

It was childish.

Are you suggesting a bonus for Powerplay in Solo?

If Solo was more difficult then yes. But you can't argue that Open is empty therefore its a fail when Solo is empty as well. One has the potential for lethal enemies, the other ones armed with feather dusters.

Whether weighting is better, or not, rather depends on one's view of PvP in a game where it is an optional extra.

Like I keep on saying- if everyone went full efficency Powerplay would be a set of unexciting CGs, hence why people think its a dull grind. Players collude in PG where they are the most powerful ships in that instance. Either you make Solo much, much more challenging, or you make it Open and let the players be the challenge.

It is only possibly harder - it would also lead to collusion.

So doing a wing mission in a wing is collusion, but doing it solo is OK?

PvP being optional in this game may be an outdated concept in the opinion of some - not all share that opinion. Every player bought a game with three game modes - not every player engages in PvP (and there is no requirement to).

I bought the game not caring, I'm more concerned about a feature right now.

No, it does not. However just because Frontier have the opportunity to make changes does not mean that they have the desire to, in some cases.

So the lack of interdictors may not be a bug then.

OK, so you have Power employed bounty hunters tracking you down when you defect. Most NPC bounty hunters I've seen have them....what are they going to do without one? Give you a stern talking to?

Not so much - as Frontier restated that the BGS is for all players, on all platforms and in all game modes in a stream later last year. Clarifying on the one hand after putting forward a retcon of an existing decision would seem to have done little to allay the concerns of at least some of those opposed to PvP-gating the feature.

[/QUOTE]

But again, its all driven by fear and not actual fact.

 

[lenna]

What is wrong with it? Well, on the one hand, the damage would be done. Open only supporters would expect it to remain. Those who are against would probably feel FD have broken promises or whatever. Plus they would still need to develop the code to make PP open only. UI changes depending on mode, mechanics changes, and whatever else is needed to make it work in just one mode.

Exactly.

Also, the ONLY way for FD to do as suggested would be to either:-

1. Break their commitment to the shared universe state and also make PP locked modules available via other means
2. Remove any effect on the shared universe state, introduce truely comparable alternative mechanics for non-Open players, plus make the current PP locked modules available via other means - essentially making PP have no meaning in any measurable sense of the term outside of PP

Ultimately, any mechanic like PP will inevitably reach an effective stalemate type position at some point given enough time - the reasoning behind this is comparable to historically why countries have established borders, at some point the factions in question will hit a point of natural equilibrium for one reason or another.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If Solo was more difficult then yes. But you can't argue that Open is empty therefore its a fail when Solo is empty as well. One has the potential for lethal enemies, the other ones armed with feather dusters.

I was responding to the notion that a blanket bonus for simply playing in Open would be warranted.

Like I keep on saying- if everyone went full efficency Powerplay would be a set of unexciting CGs, hence why people think its a dull grind. Players collude in PG where they are the most powerful ships in that instance. Either you make Solo much, much more challenging, or you make it Open and let the players be the challenge.

.... or it is changed in ways that are the best compromise for all players, not just those who prefer PvP.

So doing a wing mission in a wing is collusion, but doing it solo is OK?

Not a comparable situation - there's no direct contest between players in a Wing Mission.

I bought the game not caring, I'm more concerned about a feature right now.

Just because some players have bought the game and changed their mind does not mean that change should be forced on to all players.

OK, so you have Power employed bounty hunters tracking you down when you defect. Most NPC bounty hunters I've seen have them....what are they going to do without one? Give you a stern talking to?

Presumably those ships sent after the player will attack if they are in the same normal space instance?

But again, its all driven by fear and not actual fact.

Can't prove a negative - and when there's proof, it's too late.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I was responding to the notion that a blanket bonus for simply playing in Open would be warranted.

.... or it is changed in ways that are the best compromise for all players, not just those who prefer PvP.

But there is a difference, and either via weighted merits or otherwise it has to be seen as rewardable as potentially is more dangerous to you. Otherwise, what incentive is there to do it?

Not a comparable situation - there's no direct contest between players in a Wing Mission.

But missions are based on difficulty, with different rewards though?

Just because some players have bought the game and changed their mind does not mean that change should be forced on to all players.

Even if the developers themselves think it is woth considering?

Presumably those ships sent after the player will attack if they are in the same normal space instance?

Who knows? Without interdictors they can't get you into normal space to find out. The last time I tried this was in the last beta- while the NPC was circling about I simply dropped into normal space and waited. Eventually the Eagle appears and menaces me with pulse lasers. I sat there in my unengineered Mamba and checked out the Powerplay tab for bugs, and then tabbed back out and left.

Can't prove a negative - and when there's proof, it's too late.

Just like how it was done to begin with? We know from the years Powerplay has been going what works and what does not.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Exactly.

Also, the ONLY way for FD to do as suggested would be to either:-

1. Break their commitment to the shared universe state and also make PP locked modules available via other means
2. Remove any effect on the shared universe state, introduce truely comparable alternative mechanics for non-Open players, plus make the current PP locked modules available via other means - essentially making PP have no meaning in any measurable sense of the term outside of PP

Ultimately, any mechanic like PP will inevitably reach an effective stalemate type position at some point given enough time - the reasoning behind this is comparable to historically why countries have established borders, at some point the factions in question will hit a point of natural equilibrium for one reason or another.

• Break their commitment to the shared universe state and also make PP locked modules available via other means

PP modules were touted for moving to brokers. And if that shared state is not good for the feature, then why keep expecting it to work?

• Remove any effect on the shared universe state, introduce truely comparable alternative mechanics for non-Open players, plus make the current PP locked modules available via other means - essentially making PP have no meaning in any measurable sense of the term outside of PP

Like it currently does? Powerplay is already divorced from any meaningful influence right now with few passive bonuses. The effects on the BGS in the proposal would be limited anyway to control systems- and I assume the confusion over exploited system effects would finally be resolved.

introduce truely comparable alternative mechanics for non-Open players,

Such as the BGS, which allows expansion, retreat, custom factions, no 5C etc?

Ultimately, any mechanic like PP will inevitably reach an effective stalemate type position at some point given enough time - the reasoning behind this is comparable to historically why countries have established borders, at some point the factions in question will hit a point of natural equilibrium for one reason or another.

Powerplay always intended to have collapse, and the presumption everyone was going to fight for the top spots because the bottom power at 10th after 3 turns would be removed, freeing space. Since none of that ever happened, expansion is not imperative, and now defending is simply too easy- check out how fast powers can fort top to bottom. These have all manifested in stalemate to the point where the same two systems were fought over endlessly. There is nothing to fight over for many, so they don't play- its far too easy to get a situation where there are no changes, and that flies in the face of a feature that was supposed to be the opposite.

The only true stable state is when a power loses so many systems its CC acts as a cushion and balances out.

Remember Powerplay exists for gaming, and not lore. It not intended to replace the superpower blocks, its meant to be territorial conquest. If it gets to a state (like it is now) where Powers simply do the gardening its failed.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

Exactly.

Also, the ONLY way for FD to do as suggested would be to either:-

1. Break their commitment to the shared universe state and also make PP locked modules available via other means
2. Remove any effect on the shared universe state, introduce truely comparable alternative mechanics for non-Open players, plus make the current PP locked modules available via other means - essentially making PP have no meaning in any measurable sense of the term outside of PP

Ultimately, any mechanic like PP will inevitably reach an effective stalemate type position at some point given enough time - the reasoning behind this is comparable to historically why countries have established borders, at some point the factions in question will hit a point of natural equilibrium for one reason or another.

Then the game mode doesn't fulfil its intended role of 'fundamentally about consensual player versus player conflict.' and will continue to be ignored even by the rest of the community.

I'd have to look for some other kind of End game content.

 

[lenna]

Then the game mode doesn't fulfil its intended role of 'fundamentally about consensual player versus player conflict.' and will continue to be ignored even by the rest of the community.

I'd have to look for some other kind of End game content.

PvP (and/or Open) is not ultimately end-game content - it is just a choice. Yes, there are at least some that make exploit type builds in PvP and by consequence propagate the "alleged" need for said types of uber engineered builds but ultimately that does not make either PvP or PP end-game content.

As for PP being "fundamentally about consensual player versus player conflict" I call tripe on that one - also neither of the options I have referred to would affect the "consensual" or "PvP" aspects that some are looking for.

Ultimately, the only way for any form of "stalemate" to be avoided would be for some form of periodic and totally artificial reset of the associated gameplay state. I get it that the primary driver behind the "Open-Only/Open-Biased PP" proposal is predominantly driven by the apparent need of some to engage in competitive PvP with some kind of persistent/semi-persistent goal at the end but that is not where PP is currently and would perhaps be more appropriately addressed by alternate mechanics that do not affect those that do not participate.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But there is a difference, and either via weighted merits or otherwise it has to be seen as rewardable as potentially is more dangerous to you. Otherwise, what incentive is there to do it?

Presumably PvP is the reward itself - otherwise why would anyone choose to engage in it? When talking about weighted merits the quantum is usually omitted - and I recently read one suggestion that reducing Solo / PG merits to 5% of the weighting of those in Open would be appropriate. Naturally opinions differ.

But missions are based on difficulty, with different rewards though?

Missions pay for co-operation - not collusion.

Even if the developers themselves think it is woth considering?

Something being worth including in an investigation seeking feedback from the player-base (as the topic of Open only features has been raised since the game design was published) is not necessarily something that will be implemented without consideration regarding consequences of its implementation.

Who knows? Without interdictors they can't get you into normal space to find out. The last time I tried this was in the last beta- while the NPC was circling about I simply dropped into normal space and waited. Eventually the Eagle appears and menaces me with pulse lasers. I sat there in my unengineered Mamba and checked out the Powerplay tab for bugs, and then tabbed back out and left.

No-one, apparently.

Just like how it was done to begin with? We know from the years Powerplay has been going what works and what does not.

Only that which is already possible in relation to Powerplay in the game as it is is known. The effect on the feature and on the player-base of PvP-gating existing content (hence removing it completely from some console players and discouraging those who don't enjoy PvP from engaging in it) remains an unknown.