Make Open Play matter - Power Play and BGS should be influenced only in open
- Thread starter Hole in Head
- Start date
- Status
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Powerplay is about direct team based competition. By stretching it over modes you neuter that premise and make it a sub-par BGS clone.
The BGS should be all modes as it is now- you'd have to really change things to make it work and it scales well over time.
But Powerplays design (i.e. one defensive hauling task, one expansion hauling task, direct killing (UM) and either direct killing (combat expansion) / hauling expansion) better support Open, and from this perspective its easy to see why Sandro suggested the things he said on the first proposal. After all, features should be unique in what they offer, and not overlap or duplicate others.
Networking is the weakness, but blocking rules are down to FDs volition in PP to prevent it being misused in a mode about screwing another power.
No, nada ,nyet, afterlife-of-punishment-negative, anti-yes....
Who knows? However until another dev talks about Powerplay its all we really have to go on and for us to gauge what FD are willing to do.
The aforementioned proposal was highly controversial a that time, but I think those who didn't like it simply were louder. Some of the rest are just bad losers.
Part of it was controversial. You could enact 95% of those changes quite happily without rocking the boat. What is disappointing was that FD got spooked by the minority in that one and threw away a lot of goodwill and potential use for PP.
Sandro made some PP openonly proposals like 14-16 months ago.
But then he kinda disappeared from ED forums. That should say something about PP open only proposal.
All modes equal is the moto
If any single game feature will slip to Open Only model, then it will only be a matter of time when other game features will slip to open only.
I would agree with something like that only under the following premises:
1) complete redesign of networking model from p2p to client-server model, along with 24/7 gamemaster presence and strong anticheat/antitemper protection
and
2) subscription based gameplay for open - pretty much like the consoles work now (on consoles one can play in solo for free, but open/pg implies a monthly subscription)
and
3) full refund option for anyone that might feel they don't / can't play a limited ED in solo
Otherwise - No
But then he kinda disappeared from ED forums. That should say something about PP open only proposal.
All modes equal is the moto
If any single game feature will slip to Open Only model, then it will only be a matter of time when other game features will slip to open only.
I would agree with something like that only under the following premises:
1) complete redesign of networking model from p2p to client-server model, along with 24/7 gamemaster presence and strong anticheat/antitemper protection
and
2) subscription based gameplay for open - pretty much like the consoles work now (on consoles one can play in solo for free, but open/pg implies a monthly subscription)
and
3) full refund option for anyone that might feel they don't / can't play a limited ED in solo
Otherwise - No
The thing is this is not a slippery slope. Powerplay has a design that is ideal for Open conflicts but poor when stretched for mode equality. The BGS is the all modes feature that works well whatever you do. Just as CQC never having bots, I really wish people would accept Powerplay as being a massive team based 'in game' version of that.
Fully agree on power play. Bgs manipulation in solo/pg has many of the same issues though. If someone is attacking our factions BGS but they're in solo, we can't do anything to stop them.
In my head you always had PP and the BGS being siblings, offering something the other could not give, otherwise you might as well cull the weaker feature.
I do agree that its difficult when you can't see whos doing though in the BGS. However for that you'd need to know the intent of unknown players, so some sort of mission scanner (or maybe any mission given also tips off rival players maybe).
In the end its all a can of worms of FDs doing, in a thin inconsistent gravy. FD really need to sit down and properly think these features out because as time goes on the problems become compounded.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Frontier were asked about Factions being affected from Solo / PGs about the time that they were introduced:
More recently, Adam BW reiterated Frontier's stance on the BGS in the Beyond Chapter Four - BGS & Scenarios reveal stream:
Sure, but I still think the game suffers because of those decisions.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Some players are of that opinion, no doubt - however it is not a universally shared opinion - and there is no requirement for any player to engage in PvP to engage in any game feature, even though it's a necessary part of the game for some players.
o'really?
Everything they do in solo, you can counter - also in solo if you want to.
Then only thing you cannot if they are in solo, is to engage them in pvp and kill them - but killing them might not help your cause...
Now if only they'd talk about Powerplay as candidly. I imagine it would be like this trying to get devs to talk about it:
DONTMAKEMETALKABOUTTHEBADTHINGLIVE
This impasse could be sorted if FD spent some time and thought about making as design that works for everyone (knowing what we know now) rather than trying to do it as cheaply as possible.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The BGS affects all players whereas, from what Sandro has indicated, Powerplay has fairly low adoption that has made it difficult to prioritise for development time.
What would a "design that works for everyone" look like, given that there's no requirement to engage in PvP in this game, that Frontier have indicated that they are "well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP" and that console players without premium platform access can't play multi-player (but bought Powerplay as part of the base-game scope)?
It would be down to numbers and who benefits balanced against who 'loses', and what they envision for the feature and the game. Personally, I think FD don't know what to do, mainly as its direction has changed too many times and that FD want to now minimise the input they have to expend into their games- its why FD are so vocal on the BGS and silent on CQC and Powerplay. But, the longer this goes on the harder and inconsistent things become as more and more is multiplayer focussed (wings, multicrew, squadrons, FC etc).
Coming in the December update , hold on …
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which suggests that suggestion that Frontier work on a "design that works for everyone" was inaccurate.
The great thing about the multi-player specific features in this game is that they are available in both multi-player game modes, i.e. Wings and Multi-Crew.
Squadrons work in all game modes - and as individual players will be able to purchase a Carrier, so will Carriers.
A counter question to you- what is the BGS for, and what is PP for, as of today? What roles do they fill?
ED is eventually a game of hamster wheels- after a while it becomes a job to do the BGS, Powerplay, anything that requires conflict with others you never see, with FD seemingly incapable of making content that will make that any less dull after a while. The only way that Powerplay could be unlocked without a major overhaul is by player interactions, which would give MC, FC, wings and squadrons some sort of purpose other than being a folder for name lists. As I've written extensively before, only players make emergent content and Powerplay with its simplistic tasks would allow this to happen.
IMO at least, FD need to bite the bullet and at least push Powerplay into the Open only bracket, just as CQC is, and then adjust block rules and see how it goes. It can't be any worse than the decay we have now with no updates on the horizon.
- Status