Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Mohrgan]

And then everything is reduced to two unending tasks that never vary in any way. The BGS is well suited to time stretched pan modal conflicts because you have the entire game to achieve your goals with. You can do what you like, because it all counts. Powerplay? Only hauling two cargoes or shooting matters. Over and over, with no opposition from NPCs once you finish your farming. PvP interference opens up tactical play, but having modes shuts that avenue down- while players can be inventive, NPCs simply can't match that.



The modes are not equal- with one full of lethal ships while the others not. I read you did PvP once, I'll let you work out which mode contains which.

Or not. That's life. I don;t see PvP as a solution to anything. It's just another activity you can choose to engage in. Nothing more. From where I sit, PP is designed pretty much exactly like the BGS. Different tasks, same old buckets. Until you get to the added trappings as you pledge. Then it goes right back to filling buckets. PP as THE PvP solution was an afterthought added way way after it received it's buckets.

Your access to the modes is perfectly equal to any other player's access. Choose the one you feel the most inclined to use. I don;t care. I promise.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Or not. That's life. I don;t see PvP as a solution to anything. It's just another activity you can choose to engage in. Nothing more. From where I sit, PP is designed pretty much exactly like the BGS. Different tasks, same old buckets. Until you get to the added trappings as you pledge. Then it goes right back to filling buckets. PP as THE PvP solution was an afterthought added way way after it received it's buckets.

Your access to the modes is perfectly equal to any other player's access. Choose the one you feel the most inclined to use. I don;t care. I promise.

Evidently the only thing you care a out is preventing positive change. If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't be naysaying.

 

[Brrokk]

Or not. That's life. I don;t see PvP as a solution to anything. It's just another activity you can choose to engage in. Nothing more. From where I sit, PP is designed pretty much exactly like the BGS. Different tasks, same old buckets. Until you get to the added trappings as you pledge. Then it goes right back to filling buckets. PP as THE PvP solution was an afterthought added way way after it received it's buckets.

Your access to the modes is perfectly equal to any other player's access. Choose the one you feel the most inclined to use. I don;t care. I promise.

This. Everyone has access to all three modes; the game is fair. When someone wants to control my choice of mode they are actually saying that fairness isn't enough and they want an advantage. I'm to be denied the use of a valid game feature and it'll be at their choice instead. Where will this end? Will they want me to promise never to use boost? Will they want my pitch axis bound to their joystick? Do I have to self-destruct on their say-so?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Or not. That's life. I don;t see PvP as a solution to anything. It's just another activity you can choose to engage in. Nothing more. From where I sit, PP is designed pretty much exactly like the BGS. Different tasks, same old buckets. Until you get to the added trappings as you pledge. Then it goes right back to filling buckets. PP as THE PvP solution was an afterthought added way way after it received it's buckets.

Your access to the modes is perfectly equal to any other player's access. Choose the one you feel the most inclined to use. I don;t care. I promise.

I find this amusing as its a reversal of your own argument: by having modes you are ensuring the most efficient is used, to the detriment of variety and gameplay. The BGS is a totally different animal; you have 24 hour intervals to enact your changes which are taken in aggregation - no such distinction exists in Powerplay- its real time for seven days allowing you to respond. If anything its more like a CG in structure, which was the original inspiration for Powerplay- except in Powerplay that CG is multiplied across control systems you hold.

The trouble is, with modes you can only really respond by filling buckets faster, rather than having the option of kicking another powers buckets over- which is essentially what the old proposal was about, condensing the play area and turning up the heat. My only addition to that was to have solo and PG guys fill those buckets that Open guys carry, so everyone has a focused goal. Mega UM, unified fort direction plus the ability to directly squabble over expansion prep races is a whole new level to consider beyond racing to haul more, which adds nothing to the game because we see it in the BGS, CGs, IIs. Why duplicate that again when you can have something extra too?

In this context PvP is really a misnomer here, because what its doing is making players NPCs. In ED NPCs have virtually no places to ambush players, and lack persistence. Couple that with what is an open ended wing cargo mission and wing massacre mission its easy to see why its faded so much.

 

[Rubbernuke]

This. Everyone has access to all three modes; the game is fair. When someone wants to control my choice of mode they are actually saying that fairness isn't enough and they want an advantage. I'm to be denied the use of a valid game feature and it'll be at their choice instead. Where will this end? Will they want me to promise never to use boost? Will they want my pitch axis bound to their joystick? Do I have to self-destruct on their say-so?

By having 3 modes it forces you to use the most efficient, ironically making choice an illusion rather than providing it.

 

[Mohrgan]

Evidently the only thing you care a out is preventing positive change. If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't be naysaying.

Uh... No. You can't just declare nonsense like that and think you've made a point. I explicitly wrote that positive change I am all for. I explicitly wrote that I don;t see your suggestions as positive change. They force PvP on players that don't want it. In a game that was sold with a solid way to avoid it. They put one play style above another. In a game where PvP doesn't even matter. (Remember? It's all just filling buckets.)

Lets discuss a way to integrate PvP into what we have, rather than take content away from players that currently have the same access as you. PvP is just not that important.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Without structure and limits you don't have a game, you have a chaotic mess where no-one is happy. In ED you have the BGS which is calm and orderly, and Powerplay that was released half baked with no long term vision. Its missing major features like collapse, leading to prolonged periods of exceptional stability where nothing happened, the exact opposite of what it was supposed to be.

You seem to forget too that Powerplay PvP is opportunistic that acts as a brake on PvE activities. The mega UM, fort direction and system condensation are all enablers of this. Without open within the current framework all you are doing is removing safe fortification caps and letting in potentially infinite grinding with no new gameplay. Contrast this with the BGS which has had untold changes and additions making it far more rounded.

Why are you quoting my post when you don't address a syllable of it? was talking about motivators of playing PP in open, you aren't. Please, if you have a reaction to what I said, share, but this is completely not related to what I said.

Just the way you start: Without structure and limits you don't have a game", as if what I'm proposing doesn't have structure of limits. As if Open Only is the only structure or limit available. And "You seem to forget" is an ironic phrase to use.

All we know is FD are happy with some of the proposal going by what I think Will stated, admittedly ages ago now. But from what we know in hindsight, the PP update was caught in the upheaval that was latter day Beyond- remember it was around when carriers were first supposed to be talked about, and mining. I know this because FD envisioned Powerplay being updated Xmas 2019 and around the time were keen to sort out 5C.

Now, as far as what 'being happy with'- this could mean:

1) we have a second anti 5C patch with voting on voting and fixing AD and Hudsons alignments. This would be dissapointing, because it would be then Powerplay has had two small patches adding nothing but 5C guards.

2) we have everything bar Open. This again does not provide any new gameplay, but introduces severe flaws that magnify problems.

3) we have all of it as it is- Open and all. This would replace NPCs with players in opportunistic PvP while PvE is going on. This part does introduce P2P issues as well as blocking inconsistencies, but considering the Powerplay population is below 1000 players (and possibly much, much less than this) FD may have gone for broke.

4) the silence means either its going to be retired, or a full rework. Ages ago Sandro did propose such a thing too, ironically.

Here's my prediction.

Small tweaks and that's your lot. And whenever int the future you might complain Powerplay is a deserted project, they'll point at those tweaks and go: no we didn't. See?

By having 3 modes it forces you to use the most efficient, ironically making choice an illusion rather than providing it.

Now imagine open being the most efficient, because there are PvP mechanism in place, while still having solo and private as options.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Why are you quoting my post when you don't address a syllable of it? was talking about motivators of playing PP in open, you aren't. Please, if you have a reaction to what I said, share, but this is completely not related to what I said.

Just the way you start: Without structure and limits you don't have a game", as if what I'm proposing doesn't have structure of limits. As if Open Only is the only structure or limit available. And "You seem to forget" is an ironic phrase to use.

Because I'm talking about what was proposed in relation to what we have in game now. Despite the chances of it being enacted are remote, its more realistic to talk about than something fanciful that has no basis in the game.

Here's my prediction.

Small tweaks and that's your lot. And whenever int the future you might complain Powerplay is a deserted project, they'll point at those tweaks and go: no we didn't. See?

I expect the same- but then its taken them two years for Fleet carriers from that era so there is always that. The bigger irony is that the whole PP proposal is a small tweak. Its about a quarter of one of the small updates we had previously. Compared to the effort gone into FCs what was offered is minuscule.

And unless they change Powerplay in some meaningful way either by what was posted or otherwise, I'll be on my way- sadly I have to wait four months more to find out.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Without structure and limits you don't have a game, …

Isn't that "no limits, no structure" the main argument for "emerging gameplay"? Players filling the void with their own agenda, their own motivation and their own game?

At it's core it's the old riddle of "do what thou wilt, it shall be the whole of the law".

And now I shall meditate about what I want, what I really want not just now, but what I really, really want …

 

[Rat Catcher]

The modes are not equal - with one both full of lethal ships..

I edited your bit...
As if you had pointed the comment at me

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

I edited your bit...
As if you had pointed the comment at me

Non of the three modes are full of lethal ships. All modes are full of stupid NPCs.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Because I'm talking about what was proposed in relation to what we have in game now. Despite the chances of it being enacted are remote, its more realistic to talk about than something fanciful that has no basis in the game.

Realistic you say? We might disagree on that.

And no basis in game? You mean like how limiting features to a mode has no basis in the game, since the game world is not aware of modes? I'd argue an organic way to incorporate PvP/open play into Powerplay has infinite more basis in the game that a forced mode which has none.

If allegiances shift because you just chased the most prominent member of a powerplay faction out of their home system, that has all the basis in the game.

Sure, It's fanciful, but you have to consider I can only approach this subject academically. From my prespective both the forced mode as the organic mechanisms have the same chance of occurring. But I could be wrong, I have been once before.

 

[Brrokk]

By having 3 modes it forces you to use the most efficient, ironically making choice an illusion rather than providing it.

What? Why does it force me to do that, but not you?

Actually, though, I'm a user of all three modes. I don't select a mode for a play session according to some notion of efficiency, but just according to how sociable I'm feeling, how long I've got and how open I am to unexpected occurrences.

Edit: and game performance, and whether I want screenshots.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Non of the three modes are full of lethal ships. All modes are full of stupid NPCs.

Probably true... The biggest danger to me is actually myself, but then - I suppose in comparison the NPC's are pretty smart, they know when to run away

 

[Mohrgan]

I find this amusing as its a reversal of your own argument: by having modes you are ensuring the most efficient is used, to the detriment of variety and gameplay. The BGS is a totally different animal; you have 24 hour intervals to enact your changes which are taken in aggregation - no such distinction exists in Powerplay- its real time for seven days allowing you to respond. If anything its more like a CG in structure, which was the original inspiration for Powerplay- except in Powerplay that CG is multiplied across control systems you hold.

The trouble is, with modes you can only really respond by filling buckets faster, rather than having the option of kicking another powers buckets over- which is essentially what the old proposal was about, condensing the play area and turning up the heat. My only addition to that was to have solo and PG guys fill those buckets that Open guys carry, so everyone has a focused goal. Mega UM, unified fort direction plus the ability to directly squabble over expansion prep races is a whole new level to consider beyond racing to haul more, which adds nothing to the game because we see it in the BGS, CGs, IIs. Why duplicate that again when you can have something extra too?

In this context PvP is really a misnomer here, because what its doing is making players NPCs. In ED NPCs have virtually no places to ambush players, and lack persistence. Couple that with what is an open ended wing cargo mission and wing massacre mission its easy to see why its faded so much.

Na. Again. You miss the point. Just because you would have blinders on to the Meta, that doesn;t mean others will. Why not just PvP it up with those that want to? I would hope that peeps play a game for fun. So, that they play the game in the funnest way possible. I am not responsible for your choices, and you can't have control over mine.

No. Take responsibility for your own fun. I'm not jumping in my aChief to make you happy. Not on your life. I'm logging in to be entertained by the game. If I wasn't entertained I would do something else. Organize your PvP-PP buddies for a rumble. Use the sandbox to make your fun. But, you can only do that with those that want to join in. The rest of us, you face through the BGS or PP buckets.

I don't see what you see. That should give you pause. Not because my opinion is so important, but that it is different. A different opinion doesn't mean a lack of understanding, or experience. It means this game is also attractive to players who want an experience different to yours. If you want the benefit of all the players we do have, you can't think that disregarding a wide swath of the players can be a good idea.

Come up with suggerstions that respects the choices we all have, and that doesn't rob anyone of existing content. I don;t see that as too much to ask, from a game that included those choices from the get go. I believe that existing design choices are a commitment to the players that bought this game. Games change, but they try not to cut their own throughts.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Isn't that "no limits, no structure" the main argument for "emerging gameplay"? Players filling the void with their own agenda, their own motivation and their own game?

At it's core it's the old riddle of "do what thou wilt, it shall be the whole of the law".

And now I shall meditate about what I want, what I really want not just now, but what I really, really want …

You need to define rules to play within them- one allows direct co-op team action if it was allowed. You have 3 modes, 2 which confer advantages regards efficency at the cost of variety, 1 which may contain lethal ships but the ability to block them.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Actually, though, I'm a user of all three modes. I don't select a mode for a play session according to some notion of efficiency, but just according to how sociable I'm feeling, how long I've got and how open I am to unexpected occurrences.

Edit: and game performance, and whether I want screenshots.

I've used 2 of the 3 modes tonight... PG with a friend doing a bit of exploring out near the Centre, then open doing BGS missions on my main - the only open square I saw was another squadron member... But that is in Colonia

 

[Mohrgan]

By having 3 modes it forces you to use the most efficient, ironically making choice an illusion rather than providing it.

It doesn't force you. It allows you. The 'Conda is arguable the most powerful, easy to acces ship in the game. Does the game force you to use one? The PA does the most outright damage, does the game force you to equip them? Take control of your own fun in game. And, stop looking to mess with mine.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Na. Again. You miss the point. Just because you would have blinders on to the Meta, that doesn;t mean others will. Why not just PvP it up with those that want to? I would hope that peeps play a game for fun. So, that they play the game in the funnest way possible. I am not responsible for your choices, and you can't have control over mine.

No. Take responsibility for your own fun. I'm not jumping in my aChief to make you happy. Not on your life. I'm logging in to be entertained by the game. If I wasn't entertained I would do something else. Organize your PvP-PP buddies for a rumble. Use the sandbox to make your fun. But, you can only do that with those that want to join in. The rest of us, you face through the BGS or PP buckets.

I don't see what you see. That should give you pause. Not because my opinion is so important, but that it is different. A different opinion doesn't mean a lack of understanding, or experience. It means this game is also attractive to players who want an experience different to yours. If you want the benefit of all the players we do have, you can't think that disregarding a wide swath of the players can be a good idea.

Come up with suggerstions that respects the choices we all have, and that doesn't rob anyone of existing content. I don;t see that as too much to ask, from a game that included those choices from the get go. I believe that existing design choices are a commitment to the players that bought this game. Games change, but they try not to cut their own throughts.

Na. Again. You miss the point. Just because you would have blinders on to the Meta, that doesn;t mean others will. Why not just PvP it up with those that want to?

You can't have an optional extra in a competitive feature, because eventually people will just choose the most efficient way- which in Powerplays case is the most boring and generic, which in no way makes it stand apart from the other features that use that same mechanic. Which then begs the question why have PP at all?

 

[Rubbernuke]

It doesn't force you.

But it does, because you are in direct competition with others- not via an abstraction like the BGS, but where you can physically see what others are doing to the very second and reported as such.