Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Rubbernuke]

I expect a "but Powerplayers should not be able to block others pledged to Powerplay" response - and note that Frontier has implemented the block feature for use by a player at any time, for any reason they see fit with no such restrictions - and I doubt that that would change.

And here FD have made a mistake, considering Powerplay is

A) optional
B) adversarial

In Powerplay, the worst player action that can be inflicted on you is you being destroyed- this is part of Powerplay and its pure delusion to allow that to be blocked. Language filters yes, report abuse, definitely.

And that in my suggestion

C) you can do other things within that Power to help it in other modes

Powerplay by part of its design is set up for direct group PvP right now. Overt pledges, simple tasks, clearly defined zones where this happens. Its the opposite of the BGS, where its driven by all of the game. My suggestion unifies both of these logically.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And here FD have made a mistake, considering Powerplay is

A) optional
B) adversarial

In Powerplay, the worst player action that can be inflicted on you is you being destroyed- this is part of Powerplay and its pure delusion to allow that to be blocked. Language filters yes, report abuse, definitely.

And that in my suggestion

C) you can do other things within that Power to help it in other modes

Powerplay by part of its design is set up for direct group PvP right now. Overt pledges, simple tasks, clearly defined zones where this happens. Its the opposite of the BGS, where its driven by all of the game. My suggestion unifies both of these logically.

The block feature only seems to have been strengthened and made easier to use over time - while some players consider its very existence to be a mistake Frontier don't seem to share that stance, in keeping with their player choice philosophy, i.e. they don't require players to play in Open to affect the game.

Powerplay, as implemented, is doubly consensual in terms of PvP - 1) no need to pledge; 2) no need to play in Open to engage in it. The later retcon of what Powerplay "is" does not change how it was consciously implemented in 2015. Well crafted though it may be, your suggestion does not seem to be on Frontier's table for consideration - only a subset of the proposals from the Flash Topic are, according to Will.

What any limitation on blocking those pledged to Powerplay would do is give those more interested in adversely affecting other players than being interested in Powerplay itself a means to stop others being able to block them. I would contend that this would neither be good for Powerplay or Open itself.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The block feature only seems to have been strengthened and made easier to use over time - while some players consider its very existence to be a mistake Frontier don't seem to share that stance, in keeping with their player choice philosophy, i.e. they don't require players to play in Open to affect the game.

And I will say that FD don't understand how one part of the game affects another. They continue to make amateurish judgements that cripple any semblance of subtle play. Night vision, drag munitions, mines, it just goes on and on. Lumpy development and disjointed thinking has left a mess behind.

Powerplay, as implemented, is doubly consensual in terms of PvP - 1) no need to pledge; 2) no need to play in Open to engage in it. The later retcon of what Powerplay "is" does not change how it was consciously implemented in 2015.

So why have from 1.3 in 2015:

Overt pledges that predate squadron IDs by years
Simple cargo (prep or fort)- no need to scan because you can tell via location what the intention is
Overt Powerplay zones of activity
Separate C + P
Near real time feedback on totals

This is not a 'retcon'- its nearly everything needed for adversarial play in Open. Compare that to the BGS:

No overt pledges (to this day as well unless in a PMF squadron)
Any action in game counts
Impossible to tell intention
Any zone of activity counts
Separate C + P
24 hour tick rate for feedback on activity totals

To my mind FD wanted Open to be the dominant mode for Powerplay, but forgot to actually weight the feature that way.

Well crafted though it may be, your suggestion does not seem to be on Frontier's table for consideration - only a subset of the proposals from the Flash Topic are, according to Will.

But, you seem to not see my suggestion is based on that proposal that FD are considering. Carefully read that proposal- nearly all of it relies on Powerplay or part of it being Open. For example, mega UM would make Powerplay an infinite Solo grind without Open. The whole proposal is crafted to condense players together- if you allow modes you defeat the object of the proposal and what remains is....nothing new gameplay wise. You would have extra 5C voting rules. So after 5 years Powerplay would have two updates with both being two whole updates of...voting mechanics. Well count me in for that epic fun.

What any limitation on blocking those pledged to Powerplay would do is give those more interested in adversely affecting other players than being interested in Powerplay itself a means to stop others being able to block them. I would contend that this would neither be good for Powerplay or Open itself.

Blocking makes no sense currently either, considering you can drop to Solo and sidestep everyone. If someone pledges to destroy other pledges- thats not wrong at all, thats what Powerplay is about. Powerplay is not some BGS gardening simulator, its about being #1.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And I will say that FD don't understand how one part of the game affects another. They continue to make amateurish judgements that cripple any semblance of subtle play. Night vision, drag munitions, mines, it just goes on and on. Lumpy development and disjointed thinking has left a mess behind.

Night vision may have been allowed to affect the efficacy of stealth builds because being attacked by an over-powered sneak isn't "fun" for some players.

Remembering the overnight removal of UA bombing as another example of a feature that some enjoyed greatly that Frontier chose to remove with next to no warning - and no discussion.

So why have from 1.3 in 2015:

Overt pledges that predate squadron IDs by years
Simple cargo (prep or fort)- no need to scan because you can tell via location what the intention is
Overt Powerplay zones of activity
Separate C + P
Near real time feedback on totals

Which work in all game modes - for all players pledged, with the option of finding out how they affect encounters with other pledges in either of the multi-player game modes.

This is not a 'retcon'- its nearly everything needed for adversarial play in Open. Compare that to the BGS:

No overt pledges (to this day as well unless in a PMF squadron)
Any action in game counts
Impossible to tell intention
Any zone of activity counts
Separate C + P
24 hour tick rate for feedback on activity totals

Nearly - but not quite - as it retains its pan-modal implementation - just like the BGS.

To my mind FD wanted Open to be the dominant mode for Powerplay, but forgot to actually weight the feature that way.

Some in Frontier may have wanted that - however they didn't get it passed by the ultimate decision makers, noting DBOBE's comments on Powerplayers in Solo during the AMA on the topic.

But, you seem to not see my suggestion is based on that proposal that FD are considering. Carefully read that proposal- nearly all of it relies on Powerplay or part of it being Open. For example, mega UM would make Powerplay an infinite Solo grind without Open. The whole proposal is crafted to condense players together- if you allow modes you defeat the object of the proposal and what remains is....nothing new gameplay wise. You would have extra 5C voting rules. So after 5 years Powerplay would have two updates with both being two whole updates of...voting mechanics. Well count me in for that epic fun.

What constitutes "fun" to one player may be the opposite to another - and Frontier chose from the outset to let each player choose whether they want to play among players who may engage them in PvP, or not, on a session-by-session basis - acknowledging the simple fact that not all players find PvP to be "fun".

Blocking makes no sense currently either, considering you can drop to Solo and sidestep everyone. If someone pledges to destroy other pledges- thats not wrong at all, thats what Powerplay is about. Powerplay is not some BGS gardening simulator, its about being #1.

It makes perfect sense from the "players get to choose who they play with" point of view that Frontier designed their game around - it's simply a more precise method of excising particular players from ones game.

While Powerplay offers players the option to play in game modes where they may encounter opposing pledges it remains their choice, and their choice alone, to do so. If Powerplay required players to present themselves for the opposition to attack then it would have only been implemented in Open - which it very obviously was not.

..... and, in the context of Powerplay, being #1 does not require PvP.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Night vision may have been allowed to affect the efficacy of stealth builds because being attacked by an over-powered sneak isn't "fun" for some players.

Remembering the overnight removal of UA bombing as another example of a feature that some enjoyed greatly that Frontier chose to remove with next to no warning - and no discussion.

Everyone now uses night vision, to the point of it being the default practically, reducing the choice of how people fly and outfit ships- those 'sneak ships' most often were made with compromises (such as reverb torps) which now are difficult to use as ambush weapons. I'd argue LR engineering is more of an issue, since you can be literally miles away and still do 100% damage, making no fire zones a joke.

UAs were removed because FD were embarrassed after they were 'misused', even though that situation could have been avoided with some forethought and care. Again, FD removing choice and emergent gameplay.

Which work in all game modes - for all players pledged, with the option of finding out how they affect encounters with other pledges in either of the multi-player game modes.

Nearly - but not quite - as it retains its pan-modal implementation - just like the BGS.

Which makes no sense given the systems in place.

Some in Frontier may have wanted that - however they didn't get it passed by the ultimate decision makers, noting DBOBE's comments on Powerplayers in Solo during the AMA on the topic.

Then its more evidence Frontier have no clue about Powerplay frankly and how it intersects multiple systems within the game.

It makes perfect sense from the "players get to choose who they play with" point of view that Frontier designed their game around - it's simply a more precise method of excising particular players from ones game.

Which conflicts with "you explicitly pledge to a power thats in competition with another". Powerplay is unique in this regard within ED, no other feature has this scope.

While Powerplay offers players the option to play in game modes where they may encounter opposing pledges it remains their choice, and their choice alone, to do so. If Powerplay required players to present themselves for the opposition to attack then it would have only been implemented in Open - which it very obviously was not.

Which makes no sense again. Why go through all that effort to define who you are, your tasks, set areas if you don't need any of it? This does not even touch how the instanced NPC system in Elite Dangerous totally fails at providing any opposition in Solo.

..... and, in the context of Powerplay, being #1 does not require PvP.

Did I say that? Currently you don't- to be number one is down to grinding more than the other guy, which is why Powerplay is so popular right now. The proposal changes that- PvE then becomes subject to PvP modifiers- in short players take the place of NPCs.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Everyone now uses night vision, to the point of it being the default practically, reducing the choice of how people fly and outfit ships- those 'sneak ships' most often were made with compromises (such as reverb torps) which now are difficult to use as ambush weapons. I'd argue LR engineering is more of an issue, since you can be literally miles away and still do 100% damage, making no fire zones a joke.

UAs were removed because FD were embarrassed after they were 'misused', even though that situation could have been avoided with some forethought and care. Again, FD removing choice and emergent gameplay.

While "everyone" in a subset of the player-base may use night vision, I doubt that all players use it all of the time. I would agree that LR engineering modifications are more of an issue.

Which makes no sense given the systems in place.

Whether it makes sense in the context of a feature implementation in a game where PvP is optional is a matter of opinion.

Then its more evidence Frontier have no clue about Powerplay frankly and how it intersects multiple systems within the game.

.... or maybe evidence that some of those who support Powerplay want something that Frontier don't seem to be prepared to offer.

Which conflicts with "you explicitly pledge to a power thats in competition with another". Powerplay is unique in this regard within ED, no other feature has this scope.

Not really - as the competition is, at least in part, asynchronous and indirect - dependent on each player's preference.

Which makes no sense again. Why go through all that effort to define who you are, your tasks, set areas if you don't need any of it? This does not even touch how the instanced NPC system in Elite Dangerous totally fails at providing any opposition in Solo.

It may make "no sense" from the perspective of subscribers to the "they must play with me" mantra.

NPC challenge is up to Frontier to set, according to their own preference - it is not set at a level preferred by those who insist that others should engage in PvP (or be penalised for not doing so by the NPC challenge being ramped up).

Sandro put it well:

Hello Commander Ozram!

I think you are perhaps conflating two separate issues: the amount of challenge present in each game mode, and player versus player interactions. I think these are so fundamentally different that comparisons might not be particularly useful.

The challenge of playing in solo being too low (without taking sides) is a valid argument to make, although it might better be phrased as "the opportunities for challenge are too low in Elite Dangerous". It's actually something we are interested in looking at.

However, cranking up difficulty will not make Open more enticing. Conflict between actual people, even within a game, is a very different matter to taking on NPC ships. It has many psychological and social elements that would otherwise not be present. Incidentally, increasing the difficulty of NPC engagements would also make Open harder rather than fairer, so there's also that.

Perhaps the bottom line is the different modes are there to enable Commanders to play how they want to. We don't want everyone to play in Open because we want some sort of Armageddon PvP scenario. We just think that playing with other people, both cooperatively and adversarial, can be more fun, which is why we advocate Open play.

So in the context of a karma system, people playing in Private Group or Solo mode are not relevant. Why should folk in Open be interested in what goes on there? This is about making player versus player interactions more equitable in Open, getting more folk in there, surely?

Did I say that? Currently you don't- to be number one is down to grinding more than the other guy, which is why Powerplay is so popular right now. The proposal changes that- PvE then becomes subject to PvP modifiers- in short players take the place of NPCs.

I took it from this bit:
"If someone pledges to destroy other pledges- thats not wrong at all, thats what Powerplay is about. Powerplay is not some BGS gardening simulator, its about being #1."
On reflection, there's an "if" at the beginning - which seems to be an acknowledgement that not all Powerplay pledges do so with the intention of destroying other pledged players.

 

[Rubbernuke]

While "everyone" in a subset of the player-base may use night vision, I doubt that all players use it all of the time. I would agree that LR engineering modifications are more of an issue.

It means you can spot any ship at almost unlimited range in any lighting. Thats a massive advantage with no counter.

Whether it makes sense in the context of a feature implementation in a game where PvP is optional is a matter of opinion.

They are all features that are geared for Open, no judgement required.

.... or maybe evidence that some of those who support Powerplay want something that Frontier don't seem to be prepared to offer.

Then FD need to sit down and actually do some design work. I know they can do it, but they need to have razor focus on what features bring to the game- not try to smear features across modes.

Not really - as the competition is, at least in part, asynchronous and indirect - dependent on each player's preference.

Its the indirect part which is silly- because this is already served with the BGS. Solo mode with NPCs is also easy mode- no NPC in Powerplay or the game works across instances, formulates strategies or plays clever tricks. You can haul without interruption, leading to the issue of why have Open friendly features so dominant in the design in the first place.

It may make "no sense" from the perspective of subscribers to the "they must play with me" mantra.

In a feature thats direct competition- its like footballers all playing by their own rules with teams playing on different pitches in a tournament. Its a design disaster as it stands as you can't build a consensus on playing the feature.

NPC challenge is up to Frontier to set, according to their own preference - it is not set at a level preferred by those who insist that others should engage in PvP (or be penalised for not doing so by the NPC challenge being ramped up).

Its crap. Really, really crap. You farm weak ships in Solo and...no one pushes back. You move cargo....no one pushes back. You take off in total safety, fly in total safety, drop into the stations secure zone, and land safely. All NPCs are weak, lacking persistence in a player driven feature. Players can cross all these boundaries, and generate the adverserial co-op play that elevates Powerplay beyond a BGS pretender.

Sandro put it well:

So in essence Sandro is admitting solo is easier, generating that imbalance. This imbalance is poison in a competitive feature because it nullifies any reason to do a less efficient method of play. Powerplay then becomes a one dimensional grind race- which is odd. FD themselves stopped CGs which are the same mechanic as they thought they were not rich in gameplay- and yet doing that up to 100X more each week in solo Powerplay is 'good'.

I took it from this bit:
"If someone pledges to destroy other pledges- thats not wrong at all, thats what Powerplay is about. Powerplay is not some BGS gardening simulator, its about being #1."
On reflection, there's an "if" at the beginning - which seems to be an acknowledgement that not all Powerplay pledges do so with the intention of destroying other pledged players.

Powerplay is about you being number #1 by wrecking your opponents by any means. Part of your job is to destroy the enemy, which includes other players who are doing all of Powerplays tasks. The NPCs don't do this in the important latter phase of moving about dropping cargo or combat merits. If they did that, you would have far fewer complaints.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Well Night vision has other uses beyound combat. Like it is pretty nice to use it while landing night side of some planet. Meaning seeing where you are going helps terrain avoidance mightily.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It means you can spot any ship at almost unlimited range in any lighting. Thats a massive advantage with no counter.

It's a counter, in and of itself, to stealth.

They are all features that are geared for Open, no judgement required.

.... and function in both multi-player game modes while allowing players to continue to contribute in Solo.

Then FD need to sit down and actually do some design work. I know they can do it, but they need to have razor focus on what features bring to the game- not try to smear features across modes.

One player's "smear features across modes" is another player's "pan-modal features are a core part of the design philosophy of this game".

Its the indirect part which is silly- because this is already served with the BGS. Solo mode with NPCs is also easy mode- no NPC in Powerplay or the game works across instances, formulates strategies or plays clever tricks. You can haul without interruption, leading to the issue of why have Open friendly features so dominant in the design in the first place.

In a feature thats direct competition- its like footballers all playing by their own rules with teams playing on different pitches in a tournament. Its a design disaster as it stands as you can't build a consensus on playing the feature.

It's not an either/or situation - Powerplay was added for all players, not just those who prefer PvP.

While Powerplay can offer direct competition between players, it does not require it. It's like the BGS that all players affect, except participation in Powerplay remains optional. So it's more like track and field in that regard - no contact with opponents; with optional wrestling for those who wish to engage in it.

Its crap. Really, really crap. You farm weak ships in Solo and...no one pushes back. You move cargo....no one pushes back. You take off in total safety, fly in total safety, drop into the stations secure zone, and land safely. All NPCs are weak, lacking persistence in a player driven feature. Players can cross all these boundaries, and generate the adverserial co-op play that elevates Powerplay beyond a BGS pretender.

Frontier don't set the challenge posed by NPCs to the same level as that of players, much less players in engineered meta-combat ships for their own reasons.

So in essence Sandro is admitting solo is easier, generating that imbalance. This imbalance is poison in a competitive feature because it nullifies any reason to do a less efficient method of play. Powerplay then becomes a one dimensional grind race- which is odd. FD themselves stopped CGs which are the same mechanic as they thought they were not rich in gameplay- and yet doing that up to 100X more each week in solo Powerplay is 'good'.

Indeed - I doubt that many players would suggest that NPCs are more challenging than players. He also went on to say this:

"Perhaps the bottom line is the different modes are there to enable Commanders to play how they want to. We don't want everyone to play in Open because we want some sort of Armageddon PvP scenario. We just think that playing with other people, both cooperatively and adversarial, can be more fun, which is why we advocate Open play. "

.... which acknowledges that Frontier understand that PvP isn't fun for all players.

Powerplay is about you being number #1 by wrecking your opponents by any means. Part of your job is to destroy the enemy, which includes other players who are doing all of Powerplays tasks. The NPCs don't do this in the important latter phase of moving about dropping cargo or combat merits. If they did that, you would have far fewer complaints.

We will always have complaints from those who consider that "NPCs are too easy, make them more difficult for everyone" and "they should all have to play with me" - as I very strongly suspect that NPC challenge won't be increased that much nor will players be forced to play with other players.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

NPC behauviour is kind of two edged sword. For some people unless NPC's cheat massively they are always too easy. For some others even current NPC's are fiendishly difficult. We all have seen complaints of latter in these forums. I'd say I'm on the middle in this question. Yes I will get soundly beaten in CZ by them, but against non-cz NPC's I usually can deal with them easily enough. But for me it is kind of expected behauviour, why else I'd had done engineering grind.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's a counter, in and of itself, to stealth.

Its a counter to everything, I doubt FD even thought that far ahead. Stealth is balanced by the compromises it pushes on the design and what the 'victim' decides to build and fly in return.

.... and function in both multi-player game modes while allowing players to continue to contribute in Solo.

But there is no need for them, considering that the path of least resistance does not require them at all. Again its a design failure not foreseeing these issues.

One player's "smear features across modes" is another player's "pan-modal features are a core part of the design philosophy of this game".

Again, its poor design. FD took a weekly CG x control systems + CZs and preparation areas, spread it over three modes and thought it would work. Pan modal Powerplay is a failure as it stands. The proposal shifts Powerplay to Open because by and large Powerplay has been superseded by the ever improving BGS and the unexpected (from FDs POV) uptake of factions via PMFs.

It's not an either/or situation - Powerplay was added for all players, not just those who prefer PvP.

But its an adversarial feature thats totally player driven, that has an easy mode built in.

While Powerplay can offer direct competition between players, it does not require it. It's like the BGS that all players affect, except participation in Powerplay remains optional.

Which makes no sense, given we already have that in a much better form via the BGS. Why have two features do the same thing, except one is achieved playing the game however you like, the other with narrow, fixed tasks that are unsuitable for solo due to repetition and lack of variety?

Frontier don't set the challenge posed by NPCs to the same level as that of players, much less players in engineered meta-combat ships for their own reasons.

Which is nonsense in Powerplay. Without opposition you enable grind, which is not rich gameplay. You need someone or an NPC to push back otherwise one mode is hard, with two being easy in combat or hauling.

Indeed - I doubt that many players would suggest that NPCs are more challenging than players. He also went on to say this:

"Perhaps the bottom line is the different modes are there to enable Commanders to play how they want to. We don't want everyone to play in Open because we want some sort of Armageddon PvP scenario. We just think that playing with other people, both cooperatively and adversarial, can be more fun, which is why we advocate Open play. "

.... which acknowledges that Frontier understand that PvP isn't fun for all players.

Which makes no sense, considering that Open mode provides all the risks and no advantage for taking those risks in the shadow of winning via efficient methods. Unless there is a hard rule to establish a features boundaries, the feature will fail like Powerplay has done. That, and you have a feature (the BGS) which caters for those players.

We will always have complaints from those who consider that "NPCs are too easy, make them more difficult for everyone" and "they should all have to play with me" - as I very strongly suspect that NPC challenge won't be increased that much nor will players be forced to play with other players.

Which is nonsense, considering Powerplay is optional and that it requires NPC opposition to give the modes some semblance of parity.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Which is nonsense, considering Powerplay is optional and that it requires NPC opposition to give the modes some semblance of parity.

Well no need to invent new NPC type, involve those "bulletsponge" types from CZ's in PP

 

[Rubbernuke]

Well no need to invent new NPC type, involve those "bulletsponge" types from CZ's in PP

It depends. You need weak ships to farm for combat powers, but I agree that you need Spec Ops level for general SC interdiction and ATR level for defection.

The problem of where they attack still remains though. Drop distances are too short (so station approaches are safe), and SC interdiction is too rare. Players can get around these issues, whereas NPCs can't.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

.

Well Night vision has other uses beyound combat. Like it is pretty nice to use it while landing night side of some planet. Meaning seeing where you are going helps terrain avoidance mightily.

It does indeed. There should be some sort of fall off in it's range along with falloff in it's clarity. possibly tied to sensor grade?

 

[Cheese Helmet]

The reasons features in elite like power play are poorly designed is because they make all these design choices to achieve a certain outcome and then render that design null by allowing complete circumvention of the design; for example in power play condensing player activity via where you go to turn in merits, foritfy, undermine, etc, along with live feedback on where these are occuring, but then not having solo/pg/open have any role in the activity.

It's common sense that if you build a maze but never make the mouse go in the maze you'll never see how effective the maze is.

Because something is a certain way, or was introduced a certain way, does not automatically means it's was done correctly or effectively.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Its a counter to everything, I doubt FD even thought that far ahead. Stealth is balanced by the compromises it pushes on the design and what the 'victim' decides to build and fly in return.

Stealth favours the sneaky attacker - snipers are quite often derided as "easy mode" in some other games, I expect for good reason.

That a consequence of planetary lighting changes and the introduction of night-vision result in a significant change to stealth may, or may not, be an oversight - it might be looked on, by some, as a synergy.

But there is no need for them, considering that the path of least resistance does not require them at all. Again its a design failure not foreseeing these issues.

I expect those who accept the choices of others still make use of them with willing opponents in Open.

Again, its poor design. FD took a weekly CG x control systems + CZs and preparation areas, spread it over three modes and thought it would work. Pan modal Powerplay is a failure as it stands. The proposal shifts Powerplay to Open because by and large Powerplay has been superseded by the ever improving BGS and the unexpected (from FDs POV) uptake of factions via PMFs.

Whether it's poor design, or not, rather depends on ones acceptance of Frontier's fundamental design for the game. Selective acceptance of one aspect and rejection of others does not make those rejected any less valid.

But its an adversarial feature thats totally player driven, that has an easy mode built in.

Adversarial features need not require any player to engage in PvP.

Which makes no sense, given we already have that in a much better form via the BGS. Why have two features do the same thing, except one is achieved playing the game however you like, the other with narrow, fixed tasks that are unsuitable for solo due to repetition and lack of variety?

From the perspective of a developer making a game with optional PvP, why not?

Which is nonsense in Powerplay. Without opposition you enable grind, which is not rich gameplay. You need someone or an NPC to push back otherwise one mode is hard, with two being easy in combat or hauling.

The game is not balanced around the challenge posed by players who engage in PvP, nor is it balanced around the engineered combat ships that they choose to create, mitigating risk to themselves while doing so.

Which makes no sense, considering that Open mode provides all the risks and no advantage for taking those risks in the shadow of winning via efficient methods. Unless there is a hard rule to establish a features boundaries, the feature will fail like Powerplay has done. That, and you have a feature (the BGS) which caters for those players.

Players choose to engage with other players in this game - so any additional risk posed by potentially meeting players in Open is itself optional.

Which is nonsense, considering Powerplay is optional and that it requires NPC opposition to give the modes some semblance of parity.

Which presupposes that Frontier would consider that Solo and Private Groups to require to be as challenging as encountering players in Open. Sandro's post referred to this:

"The challenge of playing in solo being too low (without taking sides) is a valid argument to make, although it might better be phrased as "the opportunities for challenge are too low in Elite Dangerous". It's actually something we are interested in looking at."

followed by:

"However, cranking up difficulty will not make Open more enticing. Conflict between actual people, even within a game, is a very different matter to taking on NPC ships. It has many psychological and social elements that would otherwise not be present. Incidentally, increasing the difficulty of NPC engagements would also make Open harder rather than fairer, so there's also that.

Perhaps the bottom line is the different modes are there to enable Commanders to play how they want to."

So it seems, to me at least, that players playing how they want to is of a higher priority to Frontier than players being forced to play in a particular way.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Stealth favours the sneaky attacker - snipers are quite often derided as "easy mode" in some other games, I expect for good reason.

That a consequence of planetary lighting changes and the introduction of night-vision result in a significant change to stealth may, or may not, be an oversight - it might be looked on, by some, as a synergy.

I expect those who accept the choices of others still make use of them with willing opponents in Open.

Whether it's poor design, or not, rather depends on ones acceptance of Frontier's fundamental design for the game. Selective acceptance of one aspect and rejection of others does not make those rejected any less valid.

Adversarial features need not require any player to engage in PvP.

From the perspective of a developer making a game with optional PvP, why not?

The game is not balanced around the challenge posed by players who engage in PvP, nor is it balanced around the engineered combat ships that they choose to create, mitigating risk to themselves while doing so.

Players choose to engage with other players in this game - so any additional risk posed by potentially meeting players in Open is itself optional.

Which presupposes that Frontier would consider that Solo and Private Groups to require to be as challenging as encountering players in Open. Sandro's post referred to this:

"The challenge of playing in solo being too low (without taking sides) is a valid argument to make, although it might better be phrased as "the opportunities for challenge are too low in Elite Dangerous". It's actually something we are interested in looking at."

followed by:

"However, cranking up difficulty will not make Open more enticing. Conflict between actual people, even within a game, is a very different matter to taking on NPC ships. It has many psychological and social elements that would otherwise not be present. Incidentally, increasing the difficulty of NPC engagements would also make Open harder rather than fairer, so there's also that.

Perhaps the bottom line is the different modes are there to enable Commanders to play how they want to."

So it seems, to me at least, that players playing how they want to is of a higher priority to Frontier than players being forced to play in a particular way.

Your entire argument is only ever

- PvP is optional
-the game was designed panmodal.
-you think the first two are entirely dependent on no changes to create incentive in open.

With a lot of non commital "maybe some people x" which isn't an argument.

You could save everyone time by just repeating these basic sentences endlessly so people can see through your bull.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Your entire argument is only ever

- PvP is optional
-the game was designed panmodal.
-you think the first two are entirely dependent on no changes to create incentive in open.

The first two are facts made abundantly clear by the design and implementation of the game - in that sense they are useful in any discussion relating to player proposed changes
The last is someone's inference.

With a lot of non commital "maybe some people x" which isn't an argument.

We do not constitute "all people" - and Frontier consider the player-base as a whole. That some may agree and some may not agree is a given in any discussion around a proposal designed to remove content or features from one subset of the player-base in favour of another subset.

That they have not chosen to accede to the "make [feature] Open only" or "remove Solo and Private Groups" demands over the years, along with their comparatively recent restatement of who the BGS is for, is suggestive of their commitment to their design.

That Sandro was at pains to make clear that players could demand what they wanted but Powerplay was the only game feature even being considered for change, maybe, suggests a rather limited scope for change, if such a change were to take place (and it's by no means certain, given the "it's not a fait accompli" reassurance at the start of the investigation contained within the Flash Topic).

 

[Mohrgan]

Your entire argument is only ever

- PvP is optional
-the game was designed panmodal.
-you think the first two are entirely dependent on no changes to create incentive in open.

With a lot of non commital "maybe some people x" which isn't an argument.

You could save everyone time by just repeating these basic sentences endlessly so people can see through your bull.

If the counter argument is strong, and supported by observation, why cook up another one? If the oft repeated counters seem repetitive, what do you think the suggestions seem like? Earth shatteringly unique? Sorry, they're just not. When someone manages to suggest inclusive, pan-modal type changes to improve the game, then you'll get different answers. Until then, Robert's answers will just have to suffice.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

The first two are facts made abundantly clear by the design and implementation of the game - in that sense they are useful in any discussion relating to player proposed changes
The last is someone's inference.

We do not constitute "all people" - and Frontier consider the player-base as a whole. That some may agree and some may not agree is a given in any discussion around a proposal designed to remove content or features from one subset of the player-base in favour of another subset.

That they have not chosen to accede to the "make [feature] Open only" or "remove Solo and Private Groups" demands over the years, along with their comparatively recent restatement of who the BGS is for, is suggestive of their commitment to their design.

That Sandro was at pains to make clear that players could demand what they wanted but Powerplay was the only game feature even being considered for change, maybe, suggests a rather limited scope for change, if such a change were to take place (and it's by no means certain, given the "it's not a fait accompli" reassurance at the start of the investigation contained within the Flash Topic).

The first two are indeed facts as the game sits currently. But everyone knows they are facts and repeating them ad nauseum isn't an argument.

Considering your discussion with rubbernuke was around the single feature where open only had consideration by devs, your donkey mentality of pulling that same plow through that same field in that same pattern like you do is just funny to behold.

But the best part is that your reply to me was exactly the same.

-pvp is optional
-the game is designed panmodal
-you think the first two are entirely dependent on no changes to create incentive in open.
-non commital what about person x