PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Very true, except mine are based on years of engagement.
.... and others already know that they don't enjoy PvP - and Powerplay is not a feature that requires it. Their opinions are no less valid.
But it does have them? A lot of PP bonuses are inconsequential to the point people forget about them too.
In the simplest possible sense, yes it does have them, as small as they may be.
The content you are taking away: hauling from A to B continuously, and shooting continuously. What do you gain? PP themed missions, freeform BGS, tech broker based modules. You keep the merits (since you are still earning them for ranks) and you keep the perks as they are. Thats pretty fair to me. The unending grind of hauling and shooting then gets uncertain via Open.
It may seem fair from the perspective of one whose merits would count towards the outcome - not so much for those whose merits would be deemed either wirth less or worthless.
Its a shame FD can't poll everyone about it because its holding Powerplay hostage.
Frontier choose what they poll the player-base on - I expect the optional nature of PvP in general in the game and specifically in relation to Powerplay is not a topic that they would create a poll for.
But you are not engaging with it. You are not helping AD at all week after week. Module shopping is just that- shopping. A massacre mission involves more work.
It's up to each player to determine their level of engagement in any game feature. It's a game, not a job....
Thats the problem: FD won't say anything about it, even though 11 self organised groups play it, generate content for it every week year on year and want an answer. Even if its removal, at least its closure.
Wanting something, even if it is under consideration, is not the same as getting something. As Sandro said in the Flash Topic:
Folk can demand whatever they wish, but we are only considering Open only for Powerplay, as we feel it may be uniquely suited to supporting the feature.

In addition, this is far from a done deal, and we're acutely aware of the importance of such a change, which is why we want to get feedback from the user base before committing to anything.
 
As promised (threatened), all are now obligated to read:

Power Play is in need of an overhaul. Here is my proposal to overhaul it:

1. Participation

The way we participate in Power Play, the basis and meaning of it, lies at the foundation of an overhaul, and should be changed as follows:

To begin on the path to Power Play, we first need to understand what it is we are doing. By pledging to support a particular Power, we are embracing the ideals and values of that power. Currently we simply pick a face and pledge fealty to that face. This is rubbish. To join Power Play under this revised system, you will first need to pick a particular faction that is aligned to that Power, and put in some work to demonstrate to those higher up the ladder that you do, indeed, embrace their values and ideals. This means working yourself up to Allied status with that faction. Once you have achieved Allied status, you then receive a Mission to pledge to continue to support that Power. This gives you a vested interest in seeing that Power prosper. This mission is simple: You accept the invitation, fly to that Power’s Capital system, and are then pledged to that Power. This replaces the current Pick a Face and Pledge mechanism.

The logic of it: By doing this, you are demonstrating that you actually want to be a part of this power. That you adhere to their values and ideals. You are proving yourself a loyal minion. At least, you’re going through the motions of demonstrating yourself as a loyal minion. After all, what Government or Corporate Entity would take in just any random person who says “Sure, I’ll support you.” This is an invitation to disaster and makes no sense whatsoever.

2. Supporting Your Power

This already takes a number of forms, be it hauling Power-specific commodities to maintain a Power’s influence in systems they already control, or hauling subversive materials to prospective new systems to prepare them for takeover. This can also include the wholesale slaughter of other players or NPC’s to enforce a Power’s hold, or prevent others from destabilizing a system. There are a vast number of other mechanics that can be added to this as well, to create diversity, enhance the fun factors, as well as give people other means to support their chosen power. Let’s look at this a little closer:

Your Power abhors slavery. You can support this power by hauling anti-slavery propaganda to another system. This campaign makes people start to go “You know, maybe they’re right, and slavery is bad.”, which primes that system for a takeover. However… it’s words, lacking any action. It could be enhanced by Power-Specific Missions, such as “Free Slaves from Somestation”, which would entail picking up a cargo-load of Mission Slaves, to deliver to a location in a “Free” system, where those slaves could be released from servitude. Think “Underground Railroad” here. This same type of mission could also be run by NPC’s, and as such, those NPC’s (along with Players engaging in this particular mission type) would be valid targets for operatives of the controlling Power, and offered as counter-missions (Stop Abolitionist Transports).

3. Points and Values

As it stands, we currently receive special Power-specific vouchers for opposing Power ships destroyed. A slight modification here would improve this aspect of Power Play greatly. Let’s just throw out some arbitrary numbers so we have something we can talk about here. If you destroy a ship of an opposing Power, you get 1 point. This corresponds to the current voucher value we get now. Now, let’s up those stakes. Under this new proposal, if you destroy an opposing power NPC ship, you get 1 point. If you destroy an opposing Power Player Ship, you get 2 points. If you are the Player of the Opposing Power who’s ship is destroyed, you LOSE two points. If you are destroyed BY a player of an Opposing Power, you also LOSE two points, and the other player GAINS two points. Everyone has good cause to stay alive now. Let’s sharpen this edge a bit more: if you are engaged in combat with a ship of an Opposing Power, and you disconnect, either by your action, or because you’ve opted to Power Play with Can-and-String Net, You LOSE two points, just as if you were destroyed. Now you have a real reason not to Combat Log – it will be held against you. You also have a good reason to make sure you’re connection is stable – it will be held against you.

These points and values are why we engage in Power Play related combat – either because we’re blowing up System Authority Ships or other Players to destabilize a system, or because we’re defending our own systems against the same. This proposed change will allow us to continue to do this, as well as give meaning to both PvP and PvE engagements, with all the same sort of benefits, plus a little more for the PvP side of the equation, which encourages play in Open, but also encourages the same play in Private Groups, and by including NPC targets in this, it also ensures Solo players can engage in a meaningful experience as well. Cross-modal play is maintained. Yes, there is a benefit for Human on Human play – but it is not mandatory or exclusive.

4. Defection

Modular tourists do it all the time, but there also comes a time where our own perceptions and values can change. You want something new, or the Kool-Aid has worn off, and you no longer see your old Power as The Place You Want to Be. You want to defect, and take half your current Merits with you, just as you do now. But it requires a bit more. You have to prove yourself to someone else. You have to prove you want nothing more to do with your old “friends”. You may even be called on to Kill Them to prove your loyalties have changed. This means reaching Allied status with a new faction aligned to the Power you are seeking to defect to, and undertaking missions to prove yourself. This might mean it takes a bit longer, and your merits may drop a bit more (perhaps your were a 5-merit when you wanted to leave, and were happy knowing you’d be a 2.5 merit when you switched, but now, it might take you longer and you might only be a 1-merit when you defect). This also makes sense. If Vladimir Putin’s most Trusted Advisor decided he’s had enough of Vladimir and came to your country’s Leaders and said “I want to work for you, I’ve had enough of them.”, do you really think they’d wrap open arms around him and say “Sure, come right in, here’s a Top Secret clearance for you.”? Same thing here. See #1 above. This also affords time for your old “friends” to perhaps change your mind. You are, after all, betraying your oath to them, and they may not take so kindly to that.

5. Get Out Of Here, You [insert appropriate slur] Scum! Aka Politics and Diplomacy

Right now, the only time stations of Opposing Powers are ill-disposed to you is if you’re carrying Power Vouchers. This is fine, to a point. There should come a point, however, where you are recognized for your actions, and Opposing Power stations should turn you away, denying docking. This would have an impact on both any botting, real or imagined, as these automated craft would be prohibited from delivering their propaganda endlessly. It would also introduce a measure of realism. The US would not welcome North Korea’s Secretary of Anti-Western Propaganda to simply wander the streets here. Why would also Power-Aligned station do the same? By limiting the number of times in a given time-span, the same ship can deliver the same materials to the same station, we introduce both a measure of realism as well as a measure of security. It also doesn’t make sense to win over influence of an entire system if only one of, let’s say, seven stations in that system is subject to such a campaign. What the threshold is before a Commander is turned away should be a variable range, say +/- 10%, as this will make it much harder to write any automation to do, and stop existing automation, when a request is denied, but the ship continues on and is reduced to rebuy ash.

That leaves the other avenue of Diplomacy we do not have – Forging Alliances. As it happens now, we do see a rating for Powers – Hostile, Neutral and Friendly, but we don’t have any real bearing on this. This opens up a whole new avenue of Power Play potential, by creating missions to allow us to forge these sorts of bonds. There would be a great deal of work to be done to make this a satisfying experience, as well as something that would span beyond just a single Power Play cycle – it could and should take several cycles to bring a Hostile Power to Neutral, or make a Neutral Power Friendly. It would require coordination between the players especially, and would not, and should not, be applicable to all Powers. Powers whose core values are diametrically opposed should never reach a Friendly status. Neutral would be as far as they get. What’s the purpose of this? For one, it would be far easier to win influence in a system of a Neutral Power than that of a Hostile one, if a Power is looking to expand into someone else’s territory. Of course, this same action could also lead to the degermation of those relations, making a Neutral Power turn Hostile. This is where things like Votes start to take on a new meaning. A vote might be held to Concede a territory to another Power, or exchange control of territories to benefit both Powers. Again, this would require a great deal of work, but would make the whole experience much more meaningful overall. It would also make the Galaxy feel more alive, and give the players more involvement with the overall shape of the galaxy – which is, at the end of the day, what Power Play should have always been about in the first place.

Commentary Welcomed – Please Discuss!
 
.... and others already know that they don't enjoy PvP - and Powerplay is not a feature that requires it. Their opinions are no less valid.

And yet it seems those who don't have a working knowledge of the feature get an equal say over the efficacy of proposed changes? Since its not a total rewrite its based on what we have currently.

In the simplest possible sense, yes it does have them, as small as they may be.

Which means to a lesser degree part of the BGS is gated behind Open already.

It may seem fair from the perspective of one whose merits would count towards the outcome - not so much for those whose merits would be deemed either wirth less or worthless.

But they would not be worthless. Take my idea for example- solo players (via missions) ensuring all Open players have the maximum allocation size (which means faster fortifying / preparation). Thats a big role, and a logical one. The BGS is another. Personal merits would still be the same value- its just each mode has a job to do in that mode. To me at least having that supporting role is fair- one that does not involve player combat, is not tied to modes, can be done at will, has more variety...its a perfect fit.

Frontier choose what they poll the player-base on - I expect the optional nature of PvP in general in the game and specifically in relation to Powerplay is not a topic that they would create a poll for.

The poll would not ask about PvP- it would be asking if certain modes should be for certain features or not.

It's up to each player to determine their level of engagement in any game feature. It's a game, not a job....

But to actually make a power 'work' it requires more than 750 merits in one month.

Wanting something, even if it is under consideration, is not the same as getting something. As Sandro said in the Flash Topic:

Not correct. FD owe it to those groups to give an answer, and to the people who keep it going.
 
As promised (threatened), all are now obligated to read:

Power Play is in need of an overhaul. Here is my proposal to overhaul it:

1. Participation

The way we participate in Power Play, the basis and meaning of it, lies at the foundation of an overhaul, and should be changed as follows:

To begin on the path to Power Play, we first need to understand what it is we are doing. By pledging to support a particular Power, we are embracing the ideals and values of that power. Currently we simply pick a face and pledge fealty to that face. This is rubbish. To join Power Play under this revised system, you will first need to pick a particular faction that is aligned to that Power, and put in some work to demonstrate to those higher up the ladder that you do, indeed, embrace their values and ideals. This means working yourself up to Allied status with that faction. Once you have achieved Allied status, you then receive a Mission to pledge to continue to support that Power. This gives you a vested interest in seeing that Power prosper. This mission is simple: You accept the invitation, fly to that Power’s Capital system, and are then pledged to that Power. This replaces the current Pick a Face and Pledge mechanism.

The logic of it: By doing this, you are demonstrating that you actually want to be a part of this power. That you adhere to their values and ideals. You are proving yourself a loyal minion. At least, you’re going through the motions of demonstrating yourself as a loyal minion. After all, what Government or Corporate Entity would take in just any random person who says “Sure, I’ll support you.” This is an invitation to disaster and makes no sense whatsoever.

2. Supporting Your Power

This already takes a number of forms, be it hauling Power-specific commodities to maintain a Power’s influence in systems they already control, or hauling subversive materials to prospective new systems to prepare them for takeover. This can also include the wholesale slaughter of other players or NPC’s to enforce a Power’s hold, or prevent others from destabilizing a system. There are a vast number of other mechanics that can be added to this as well, to create diversity, enhance the fun factors, as well as give people other means to support their chosen power. Let’s look at this a little closer:

Your Power abhors slavery. You can support this power by hauling anti-slavery propaganda to another system. This campaign makes people start to go “You know, maybe they’re right, and slavery is bad.”, which primes that system for a takeover. However… it’s words, lacking any action. It could be enhanced by Power-Specific Missions, such as “Free Slaves from Somestation”, which would entail picking up a cargo-load of Mission Slaves, to deliver to a location in a “Free” system, where those slaves could be released from servitude. Think “Underground Railroad” here. This same type of mission could also be run by NPC’s, and as such, those NPC’s (along with Players engaging in this particular mission type) would be valid targets for operatives of the controlling Power, and offered as counter-missions (Stop Abolitionist Transports).

3. Points and Values

As it stands, we currently receive special Power-specific vouchers for opposing Power ships destroyed. A slight modification here would improve this aspect of Power Play greatly. Let’s just throw out some arbitrary numbers so we have something we can talk about here. If you destroy a ship of an opposing Power, you get 1 point. This corresponds to the current voucher value we get now. Now, let’s up those stakes. Under this new proposal, if you destroy an opposing power NPC ship, you get 1 point. If you destroy an opposing Power Player Ship, you get 2 points. If you are the Player of the Opposing Power who’s ship is destroyed, you LOSE two points. If you are destroyed BY a player of an Opposing Power, you also LOSE two points, and the other player GAINS two points. Everyone has good cause to stay alive now. Let’s sharpen this edge a bit more: if you are engaged in combat with a ship of an Opposing Power, and you disconnect, either by your action, or because you’ve opted to Power Play with Can-and-String Net, You LOSE two points, just as if you were destroyed. Now you have a real reason not to Combat Log – it will be held against you. You also have a good reason to make sure you’re connection is stable – it will be held against you.

These points and values are why we engage in Power Play related combat – either because we’re blowing up System Authority Ships or other Players to destabilize a system, or because we’re defending our own systems against the same. This proposed change will allow us to continue to do this, as well as give meaning to both PvP and PvE engagements, with all the same sort of benefits, plus a little more for the PvP side of the equation, which encourages play in Open, but also encourages the same play in Private Groups, and by including NPC targets in this, it also ensures Solo players can engage in a meaningful experience as well. Cross-modal play is maintained. Yes, there is a benefit for Human on Human play – but it is not mandatory or exclusive.

4. Defection

Modular tourists do it all the time, but there also comes a time where our own perceptions and values can change. You want something new, or the Kool-Aid has worn off, and you no longer see your old Power as The Place You Want to Be. You want to defect, and take half your current Merits with you, just as you do now. But it requires a bit more. You have to prove yourself to someone else. You have to prove you want nothing more to do with your old “friends”. You may even be called on to Kill Them to prove your loyalties have changed. This means reaching Allied status with a new faction aligned to the Power you are seeking to defect to, and undertaking missions to prove yourself. This might mean it takes a bit longer, and your merits may drop a bit more (perhaps your were a 5-merit when you wanted to leave, and were happy knowing you’d be a 2.5 merit when you switched, but now, it might take you longer and you might only be a 1-merit when you defect). This also makes sense. If Vladimir Putin’s most Trusted Advisor decided he’s had enough of Vladimir and came to your country’s Leaders and said “I want to work for you, I’ve had enough of them.”, do you really think they’d wrap open arms around him and say “Sure, come right in, here’s a Top Secret clearance for you.”? Same thing here. See #1 above. This also affords time for your old “friends” to perhaps change your mind. You are, after all, betraying your oath to them, and they may not take so kindly to that.

5. Get Out Of Here, You [insert appropriate slur] Scum! Aka Politics and Diplomacy

Right now, the only time stations of Opposing Powers are ill-disposed to you is if you’re carrying Power Vouchers. This is fine, to a point. There should come a point, however, where you are recognized for your actions, and Opposing Power stations should turn you away, denying docking. This would have an impact on both any botting, real or imagined, as these automated craft would be prohibited from delivering their propaganda endlessly. It would also introduce a measure of realism. The US would not welcome North Korea’s Secretary of Anti-Western Propaganda to simply wander the streets here. Why would also Power-Aligned station do the same? By limiting the number of times in a given time-span, the same ship can deliver the same materials to the same station, we introduce both a measure of realism as well as a measure of security. It also doesn’t make sense to win over influence of an entire system if only one of, let’s say, seven stations in that system is subject to such a campaign. What the threshold is before a Commander is turned away should be a variable range, say +/- 10%, as this will make it much harder to write any automation to do, and stop existing automation, when a request is denied, but the ship continues on and is reduced to rebuy ash.

That leaves the other avenue of Diplomacy we do not have – Forging Alliances. As it happens now, we do see a rating for Powers – Hostile, Neutral and Friendly, but we don’t have any real bearing on this. This opens up a whole new avenue of Power Play potential, by creating missions to allow us to forge these sorts of bonds. There would be a great deal of work to be done to make this a satisfying experience, as well as something that would span beyond just a single Power Play cycle – it could and should take several cycles to bring a Hostile Power to Neutral, or make a Neutral Power Friendly. It would require coordination between the players especially, and would not, and should not, be applicable to all Powers. Powers whose core values are diametrically opposed should never reach a Friendly status. Neutral would be as far as they get. What’s the purpose of this? For one, it would be far easier to win influence in a system of a Neutral Power than that of a Hostile one, if a Power is looking to expand into someone else’s territory. Of course, this same action could also lead to the degermation of those relations, making a Neutral Power turn Hostile. This is where things like Votes start to take on a new meaning. A vote might be held to Concede a territory to another Power, or exchange control of territories to benefit both Powers. Again, this would require a great deal of work, but would make the whole experience much more meaningful overall. It would also make the Galaxy feel more alive, and give the players more involvement with the overall shape of the galaxy – which is, at the end of the day, what Power Play should have always been about in the first place.

Commentary Welcomed – Please Discuss!

If FD in the end feel a reboot can be done and justified, this sounds a nice idea. My only reservation is with voting- anything that has votes can be 5Ced.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
And yet it seems those who don't have a working knowledge of the feature get an equal say over the efficacy of proposed changes? Since its not a total rewrite its based on what we have currently.
We all bought a say when we bought the game, especially regarding retrospective PvP-gating of a feature that was implemented pan-modally and forms part of the base game. Unless some players assume that they are more equal than others?
Which means to a lesser degree part of the BGS is gated behind Open already.
Not Open, no. Gated behind a completely ignorable out-of-game PvP-only feature with no consequence for loss - it's essentially a demonstration of persistence.
But they would not be worthless. Take my idea for example- solo players (via missions) ensuring all Open players have the maximum allocation size (which means faster fortifying / preparation). Thats a big role, and a logical one. The BGS is another. Personal merits would still be the same value- its just each mode has a job to do in that mode. To me at least having that supporting role is fair- one that does not involve player combat, is not tied to modes, can be done at will, has more variety...its a perfect fit.
Support, as in lesser. Not a meeting of equals. Hence not "fair".
The poll would not ask about PvP- it would be asking if certain modes should be for certain features or not.
Which is functionally equivalent to "should [insert feature here] be PvP-gated" although worded in a way to seem to be less contentious.
But to actually make a power 'work' it requires more than 750 merits in one month.
Indeed - and a Power is not reliant on the efforts of a single player.
Not correct. FD owe it to those groups to give an answer, and to the people who keep it going.
We'll see what the response is, in time.
 
If FD in the end feel a reboot can be done and justified, this sounds a nice idea. My only reservation is with voting- anything that has votes can be 5Ced.

I don’t disagree, and in fact, this should NOT be discouraged by mechanics. This is a very real function of political systems, also called Espionage, and it only serves to enhance the experience. After all, look at the number of dead people who vote every year....
 
We all bought a say when we bought the game, especially regarding retrospective PvP-gating of a feature that was implemented pan-modally and forms part of the base game. Unless some players assume that they are more equal than others?
Informed opinions based on hard-earned experience in the subject matter have more credence than ignorant opinions. If you wish, you can judge the worth of individuals for whatever reason, but it is a meaningless irrelevance.
Support, as in lesser. Not a meeting of equals. Hence not "fair".
When im supporting my partner when she's in need, do I feel lessened by it? No. im enhanced if anything. Its a meeting of equals. It's fair. When im flying top-cover for an explorer bringing valuable data back to buff our BGS, im supporting them. I'm the expendable one. It's the one carrying the valuable cargo of whatever sort which is the important one that matters, theyre the sole reason im there in the first place. Do I feel lessened by this? is it not fair? No, not in the least, Theyre both important roles & each value the other. The same would apply to the BGS work done in control systems. These players would be ensuring those hauling merits in Open would have to haul half the total required to fortify otherwise. This makes them a vital link in the chain. Hopefully you can well understand why saving 7 or 8 long trips in a fully-loaded cutter or t9, for every system to be fortified, is something to be highly valued & appreciated by every participant for a Power. Its not lesser, or unfair, it creates a fair balance between the modes so they all have a place. Unless you believe some modes are more equal than others, which is the sorry situation we have at present.
Which is functionally equivalent to "should [insert feature here] be PvP-gated" although worded in a way to seem to be less contentious.
'PvP-gated' is your own construction, intended to be contentious, surely & which does not reflect a feature where those wishing to avoid PvP for whatever circumstantial reasons, succeed by escaping. PvP-gating suggests a requirement to fight directly and gain advancement only by winning at fighting. This is not what is being requested. OpenOnly calls for acting with consideration for the potential of PvP, and to act at a tactical and strategic level to mitigate, or maximise it, because PvP is undesirable in the hauling capacity. I wont say the 'haulage ROLE', because while I haul a lot of Powerplay & BGS cargo myself, & I know many other players in my power who haul, I dont know any who ONLY haul, and could be said to fit a 'haulage role'. They all fly combat & other roles too. Once you have your 10000 merits for the week secured, along with your 50million wage for rank5, youre better off doing activities to help others get theirs.

I don’t disagree, and in fact, this should NOT be discouraged by mechanics. This is a very real function of political systems, also called Espionage, and it only serves to enhance the experience. After all, look at the number of dead people who vote every year....
5c & collusion exploits are very likely to be overpowered if the mechanics are not heavily weighted against their effectiveness. Left to a natural balance, it's much easier to destroy something through bad choices (5c) than it is to build it up , and much easier to complete many easy wins (collusion) than the same number of contested ones.

It is this collusion aspect that precludes any significant merit value being directly attached to PvP. (collusion here meaning pledging to the opposing power, and dying repeatedly on purpose to score easy points for the other power you really support.)

I think the heavily-weighted voting system suggested in the Powerplay Flash Topic that reflected the value of a given expansion or system to be shedded, based on their profitability & therefore worth to the power, would be the measure needed to resolve the problem of overpowered 5c that currently plagues Powerplay.
 
We all bought a say when we bought the game, especially regarding retrospective PvP-gating of a feature that was implemented pan-modally and forms part of the base game. Unless some players assume that they are more equal than others?

Not Open, no. Gated behind a completely ignorable out-of-game PvP-only feature with no consequence for loss - it's essentially a demonstration of persistence.

Support, as in lesser. Not a meeting of equals. Hence not "fair".

Which is functionally equivalent to "should [insert feature here] be PvP-gated" although worded in a way to seem to be less contentious.

Indeed - and a Power is not reliant on the efforts of a single player.

We'll see what the response is, in time.

Open does not mean "PvP gated" Robert.

As I'm sure you know, escaping combat is massively skewed towards the defending ship, moreover, a good number of would be killers don't have the skills even to kill a trade ship before it high wakes.

Moreover is the idea of players helping push a superpowers agenda not competative gameplay? Almost like it was PvP. Just generally not involving fighting one another directly.

Open needs more incentives and a well built and well thought out powerplay system is the best option to push it. Unless of course FDev doube the payouts in open, but then people would be upset about that now wouldnt they.

Personally the only viable argument against OOPP for me is that console players have to pay a subscription fee. Though even that is a flimsy one with good workarounds avalible already in game, such as the tech brokers.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Informed opinions based on hard-earned experience in the subject matter have more credence than ignorant opinions. If you wish, you can judge the worth of individuals for whatever reason, but it is a meaningless irrelevance.
Not at the polling booth. The experienced may seek to influence a result - however they weren't voted into a position of authority to be able to dictate to the player-base at large.

If the experience of those who have an intimate knowledge was being used to propose improvements for all players then they'd likely be listened to with more care. That some of those players seek to remove access to existing content by restricting it to Open simply because they'd like it that way, not so much.
When im supporting my partner when she's in need, do I feel lessened by it? No. im enhanced if anything. Its a meeting of equals. It's fair.
Not particularly relevant to a gaming example - you choose to be in a relationship, presumably for mutual benefit, and choose to place yourself in a supporting role from time to time. Unlike relegating players who don't want to engage in PvP to a supporting role simply because some players want to shoot at all opposition.
When im flying top-cover for an explorer bringing valuable data back to buff our BGS, im supporting them. I'm the expendable one. It's the one carrying the valuable cargo of whatever sort which is the important one that matters, theyre the sole reason im there in the first place. Do I feel lessened by this? is it not fair? No, not in the least, Theyre both important roles & each value the other. The same would apply to the BGS work done in control systems. These players would be ensuring those hauling merits in Open would have to haul half the total required to fortify otherwise. This makes them a vital link in the chain. Hopefully you can well understand why saving 7 or 8 long trips in a fully-loaded cutter or t9, for every system to be fortified, is something to be highly valued & appreciated by every participant for a Power. Its not lesser, or unfair, it creates a fair balance between the modes so they all have a place. Unless you believe some modes are more equal than others, which is the sorry situation we have at present.
All modes affect the galaxy state - in that they are equal. That players who prefer PvP affect each other's progress in Open (and possibly in Private Groups as PvP is also possible in them) is down to their choice to play in a multi-player mode in a PvP-enabled game. Forcing players to play in Open if they want to participate in a game feature removes choice from those players who would not normally play in Open. Many players who prefer PvP have been keen to remove choice from other players for years - to no avail.

I understand that some players enjoy engaging in a feature in a manner where PvP is a necessary consideration - that is their choice. I also understand that we all bought a game where engaging in PvP is not required when engaging in any game feature (apart from CQC/Arena, of course).
'PvP-gated' is your own construction, intended to be contentious, surely & which does not reflect a feature where those wishing to avoid PvP for whatever circumstantial reasons, succeed by escaping. PvP-gating suggests a requirement to fight directly and gain advancement only by winning at fighting. This is not what is being requested. OpenOnly calls for acting with consideration for the potential of PvP, and to act at a tactical and strategic level to mitigate, or maximise it, because PvP is undesirable in the hauling capacity. I wont say the 'haulage ROLE', because while I haul a lot of Powerplay & BGS cargo myself, & I know many other players in my power who haul, I dont know any who ONLY haul, and could be said to fit a 'haulage role'. They all fly combat & other roles too. Once you have your 10000 merits for the week secured, along with your 50million wage for rank5, youre better off doing activities to help others get theirs.
Naming it in blunt terms does not make it a construct. Requiring to play among players who may engage one's ship in PvP to engage in a particular game feature, regardless of one's preference for PvP, is PvP-gating. Unless a PvP-flag is also being proposed?
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Open does not mean "PvP gated" Robert.

As I'm sure you know, escaping combat is massively skewed towards the defending ship, moreover, a good number of would be killers don't have the skills even to kill a trade ship before it high wakes.
Avoiding combat is part of PvP - one does not need to fire a shot to have been engaged in PvP by another player.

Escaping combat against a player depends massively on one's ship build and evasive skills - and the capabilities of the attacker.
 
I don’t disagree, and in fact, this should NOT be discouraged by mechanics. This is a very real function of political systems, also called Espionage, and it only serves to enhance the experience. After all, look at the number of dead people who vote every year....

From experience its better in the long run to make a system run on positive outcomes, because then every player action can only improve that power- I get what you are aiming for though.
 
Not at the polling booth. The experienced may seek to influence a result - however they weren't voted into a position of authority to be able to dictate to the player-base at large.
Indeed, but Fdev doesnt develop ED democratically. However, when polls were conducted, a large majority voted for OOPP. And when the majority votes for the same changes as proposed by those with the most informed opinion on the matter, theres probably more to it than self-interest eh?
If the experience of those who have an intimate knowledge was being used to propose improvements for all players then they'd likely be listened to with more care. That some of those players seek to remove access to existing content by restricting it to Open simply because they'd like it that way, not so much.
Ive dedicated my time to a Power which stands to lose-out by the proposed changes, there's no two ways about it. It's a change for the benefit of quality of gameplay for all, not for selfish self-interest.
Not particularly relevant to a gaming example - you choose to place yourself in a supporting role. Unlike relegating players who don't want to engage in PvP to a supporting role simply because some players want to shoot at all opposition.
All roles support each other, none are pre-eminent, I already explained how crucial the proposed options for Solo/PG play are. And it isnt "simply because ..(pewpew)" Its to take some of the most monotonous gameplay left in ED, and make it the most dynamic tactical and strategic gameplay instead, for players who want something to do with their fleet of ships once theyve completed their objectives for their commander elsewhere in the game. These are the commanders who buy reams of paintjobs and shipkits, and help foster the interest and engagement of newer players. They are absolutely worth giving something worthwhile to do in the game long-term, and at such a low development cost as well.
Naming it in blunt terms does not make it a construct. Requiring to play among players who may engage one's ship in PvP to engage in a particular game feature, regardless of one's preference for PvP, is PvP-gating. Unless a PvP-flag is also being proposed?
Powerplay pledging is a PvP flag. The lack of C&P bounties for killing pledged opponents confirms this, as does dev comments. So why the opt-out that makes it meaningless and an indulgence instead of a part of Powerplay that can make a difference? Its the opt-out that has been strangling powerplay for years, starving it of the gameplay it was designed to promote, by incentivising doing the opposite. Since efficiency is solo/pg in a shieldless cutter. In this Powerplay context, Pan-modal choice results in no choice for anyone. Open becomes a defacto solo (with rare exceptions) and a lot of those in solo are simply playing powerplay according to the rules in front of them and a desire to be most efficient within them, even though they may prefer a more dynamic open environment if it wasnt the neuteured choice based on all other considerations.
 
We all bought a say when we bought the game, especially regarding retrospective PvP-gating of a feature that was implemented pan-modally and forms part of the base game. Unless some players assume that they are more equal than others?

Well, some players know the system inside out. For example Vectron most likely knows more than the devs regarding PP background maths. Plus, if you don't play a feature, should you get a say? I don't intrude on exploration or mining feedback because I don't do it, I don't know enough about it to make an informed opinion.

Not Open, no. Gated behind a completely ignorable out-of-game PvP-only feature with no consequence for loss - it's essentially a demonstration of persistence.

But it has an effect, and you do need to play with others.

Support, as in lesser. Not a meeting of equals. Hence not "fair".

How would you know? Reducing (and keeping) a trigger from 10,000 down to 3000 is a massive undertaking and very important- and thats duplicated over every control system you own. The same for allocations....In an open situation that reduces your exposure to the enemy drastically and makes a very pronounced difference.

It means you'd spend less time and money loading, and less time fortifying allowing a greater proportion of time to be spent doing offensive things.

Support, as in lesser. Not a meeting of equals.

Which is your own prejudiced view it seems.

Which is functionally equivalent to "should [insert feature here] be PvP-gated" although worded in a way to seem to be less contentious.

But is not the same, despite your view that Open = PvP and the monsters that play in it. Features should be made to play to the strengths of that mode, otherwise you get what we have now, a compromised design that is one giant fudge.

Indeed - and a Power is not reliant on the efforts of a single player.

But it does require a consistent plan and people putting in the time. Even just voting correctly is better than module shopping.

We'll see what the response is, in time.

However time is not what we have. FD keep ignoring PP and hope it goes away, all the time the groups and players that keep it going simply get fed up and go.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Indeed, but Fdev doesnt develop ED democratically. However, when polls were conducted, a large majority voted for OOPP. And when the majority votes for the same changes as proposed by those with the most informed opinion on the matter, theres probably more to it than self-interest eh?
Indeed - it is a benevolent dictatorship.... :)

No official polls were conducted where only players could vote. That said, a large majority might (or might not) be indicative of the opinion of the player-base at large.
Ive dedicated my time to a Power which stands to lose-out by the proposed changes, there's no two ways about it. It's a change for the benefit of quality of gameplay for all, not for selfish self-interest.
Not "for all". For those prepared to engage in PvP or play among those who do, certainly. Not for those who don't enjoy PvP or can't play in the multi-player game modes.
All roles support each other, none are pre-eminent, I already explained how crucial the proposed options for Solo/PG play are. And it isnt "simply because ..(pewpew)" Its to take some of the most monotonous gameplay left in ED, and make it the most dynamic tactical and strategic gameplay instead, for players who want something to do with their fleet of ships once theyve completed their objectives for their commander elsewhere in the game. These are the commanders who buy reams of paintjobs and shipkits, and help foster the interest and engagement of newer players. They are absolutely worth giving something worthwhile to do in the game long-term, and at such a low development cost as well.
I'd expect that Powerplay players are not the only ones who support Frontier through cosmetic purchases - and Frontier could, if they had a notion to, correlate cosmetic spend with in-game activity.
Powerplay pledging is a PvP flag. The lack of C&P bounties for killing pledged opponents confirms this, as does dev comments. So why the opt-out that makes it meaningless and an indulgence instead of a part of Powerplay that can make a difference? Its the opt-out that has been strangling powerplay for years, starving it of the gameplay it was designed to promote, by incentivising doing the opposite. Since efficiency is solo/pg in a shieldless cutter. In this Powerplay context, Pan-modal choice results in no choice for anyone. Open becomes a defacto solo (with rare exceptions) and a lot of those in solo are simply playing powerplay according to the rules in front of them and a desire to be most efficient within them, even though they may prefer a more dynamic open environment if it wasnt the neuteured choice based on all other considerations.
How can Powerplay be a PvP flag when one does not require to engage in PvP to engage in Powerplay?

.... and the type of PvP-flag I was referring to was the type that disables PvP damage.
 

Goose4291

Banned
giphy.gif


Not at the polling booth. The experienced may seek to influence a result - however they weren't voted into a position of authority to be able to dictate to the player-base at large.

In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.

If the experience of those who have an intimate knowledge was being used to propose improvements for all players then they'd likely be listened to with more care. That some of those players seek to remove access to existing content by restricting it to Open simply because they'd like it that way, not so much.

In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.

Not particularly relevant to a gaming example - you choose to be in a relationship, presumably for mutual benefit, and choose to place yourself in a supporting role from time to time. Unlike relegating players who don't want to engage in PvP to a supporting role simply because some players want to shoot at all opposition.

In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.

All modes affect the galaxy state - in that they are equal. That players who prefer PvP affect each other's progress in Open (and possibly in Private Groups as PvP is also possible in them) is down to their choice to play in a multi-player mode in a PvP-enabled game. Forcing players to play in Open if they want to participate in a game feature removes choice from those players who would not normally play in Open. Many players who prefer PvP have been keen to remove choice from other players for years - to no avail.

In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.

I understand that some players enjoy engaging in a feature in a manner where PvP is a necessary consideration - that is their choice. I also understand that we all bought a game where engaging in PvP is not required when engaging in any game feature (apart from CQC/Arena, of course).

In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.

Naming it in blunt terms does not make it a construct. Requiring to play among players who may engage one's ship in PvP to engage in a particular game feature, regardless of one's preference for PvP, is PvP-gating. Unless a PvP-flag is also being proposed?

In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Well, some players know the system inside out. For example Vectron most likely knows more than the devs regarding PP background maths. Plus, if you don't play a feature, should you get a say? I don't intrude on exploration or mining feedback because I don't do it, I don't know enough about it to make an informed opinion.
Not currently playing it does not mean that one might not play it at some point - and it forms part of what every player bought. I expect that some players would be quite delighted if the opinion of a significant portion of the player-base were ignored to suit their change agenda.
But it has an effect, and you do need to play with others.
Miniscule, and the consequences of loss in CQC are less than trivial.
Which is your own prejudiced view it seems.
Few can claim to be without any form of bias.
But is not the same, despite your view that Open = PvP and the monsters that play in it. Features should be made to play to the strengths of that mode, otherwise you get what we have now, a compromised design that is one giant fudge.
Whether PvP should, or should not be a requirement of any feature is a matter of opinion. Frontier's opinion is clear from their game design and implementation. Whether they choose to change that is, as yet, unknown.
But it does require a consistent plan and people putting in the time. Even just voting correctly is better than module shopping.
Weekly orders are trivial to find and follow.
However time is not what we have. FD keep ignoring PP and hope it goes away, all the time the groups and players that keep it going simply get fed up and go.
In which case, at some point, there'll be too few players engaging in it to warrant any development time being expended on it.
 
Not currently playing it does not mean that one might not play it at some point - and it forms part of what every player bought. I expect that some players would be quite delighted if the opinion of a significant portion of the player-base were ignored to suit their change agenda.

But if the current proposal keeps the current design, then only the people who play it now can actually judge its impact. If the design was completely new then no-one could.

I expect that some players would be quite delighted if the opinion of a significant portion of the player-base were ignored to suit their change agenda.

Talking about the silent majority that speaks all the time again?

Miniscule, and the consequences of loss in CQC are less than trivial.

Which is the same for a lot of PP bonuses. Bonuses that would not be lost in the ideas here- in essence you get them whatever you do.

Whether PvP should, or should not be a requirement of any feature is a matter of opinion. Frontier's opinion is clear from their game design and implementation. Whether they choose to change that is, as yet, unknown.

Then FD have a right pickle on their hands then with PP. Unless they give it a massive revamp we have limited options.

Weekly orders are trivial to find and follow.

And yet they need constant input to work. If you ignore 3 plans out of 4 your Power is stuffed.

In which case, at some point, there'll be too few players engaging in it to warrant any development time being expended on it.

Which is where we probably are now, because FD ignored it for too long- and probably why such drastic measures are being considered, and why each change has to do triple work.
 
Top Bottom