Incrementally Improving PowerPlay - Make PowerPlay Open-Only
- Thread starter CMDR Foursyth
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed they did - however both the BGS and Powerplay form part of what they bought, as both features are pan-modal and don't care which game mode the player plays in.
All players bought the right to affect game features - and can choose to play among other players, or not, as they see fit. That some players can't accept that others don't need to play with them to affect the game is no fault of those who choose not to play with them.
Last edited:
They have knowingly bought the game that wouldn't require online subscription to access all the content. Changing it later would be just a D-move
Deleted member 192138
D
Multicrew and multiplayer instances are locked out already. So they do already require a subscription to access all the content.
You're right. Let's put everything else behind paywall then. Wanna see thargoids? that's 5€ per month. How about engineers for another 5€? Just cause they already had multiplayer function behind paywall, let's start locking them out from other stuff too
Best idea ever
From all the arguments against Open Only, the subscription on consoles one is the weakest. If you don't pay a subscription you can't play any of your multiplayer games, Powerplay is just a weird exception because the "networked Solo" thing Elite does. Honestly, Powerplay is about warfare between groups of players, if you don't like multiplayer Powerplay isn't for you.You're right. Let's put everything else behind paywall then. Wanna see thargoids? that's 5€ per month. How about engineers for another 5€? Just cause they already had multiplayer function behind paywall, let's start locking them out from other stuff too
First of all, given this is indeed the subject I've been waiting for, and I want to get in my proverbial $1.95 before the inevitable lock, I want to address this:
Congratulations... you just killed any chance to have a profitable conversation regarding PowerPlay: Open Only. The people who show up to this topic are already convinced that PPOO is just to get a foot in the door to turn this entire game into Open Only, and you've just gave them them more evidence that this is in fact the case.
That being said, the purpose of the Background Simulation is exactly that: to simulate background activity in this game. It is the aggregate results of player activities, across all time zones and modes, that breathes life into the galaxy. Frontier chose to pin this upon player activity, rather than, say, a sim-city style modeling of persistent NPCs, was to avoid requiring a subscription to play this game.
The fact that a sizable portion of the player-base uses the BGS as a proxy for territorial conflict gameplay doesn't suddenly invalidate that purpose, anymore than players who use it as a proxy for espionage gameplay, political gameplay, economic gameplay, villainous gameplay, or any of the other myriad reasons why players choose to consider how their actions will affect the BGS in their day-to-day activities.
I'll go into my thoughts on the rest of this subject in another post...
Congratulations... you just killed any chance to have a profitable conversation regarding PowerPlay: Open Only. The people who show up to this topic are already convinced that PPOO is just to get a foot in the door to turn this entire game into Open Only, and you've just gave them them more evidence that this is in fact the case.
That being said, the purpose of the Background Simulation is exactly that: to simulate background activity in this game. It is the aggregate results of player activities, across all time zones and modes, that breathes life into the galaxy. Frontier chose to pin this upon player activity, rather than, say, a sim-city style modeling of persistent NPCs, was to avoid requiring a subscription to play this game.
The fact that a sizable portion of the player-base uses the BGS as a proxy for territorial conflict gameplay doesn't suddenly invalidate that purpose, anymore than players who use it as a proxy for espionage gameplay, political gameplay, economic gameplay, villainous gameplay, or any of the other myriad reasons why players choose to consider how their actions will affect the BGS in their day-to-day activities.
I'll go into my thoughts on the rest of this subject in another post...
Luckily, things evolve. Years ago Frontier said players will never own stations, and here we are today, we can have our own mobile stations!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
"Availability of giant ‘executive control’ ships to players" has been part of the game design for a long time, see this newsletter from June 2014, i.e. six months before the game launched:
BGS Open-Only would not only be wrong, it would also (probably) be impossible.
With PP, you have a specific commodity (PP merits) that you could control the value of. Converting carried merits into the same quantity of Solo-merits if you log into Solo/PG while carrying them would be feasible.
With the BGS, there is no equivalent. Anything that can be delivered at a station that would affect a faction, could be carried in Solo by a player who then flips to Open within the station for the final delivery. Even if you replaced INF points for carried INF missions, what would you do about the value of carried trade commodities? And so on.
With PP, you have a specific commodity (PP merits) that you could control the value of. Converting carried merits into the same quantity of Solo-merits if you log into Solo/PG while carrying them would be feasible.
With the BGS, there is no equivalent. Anything that can be delivered at a station that would affect a faction, could be carried in Solo by a player who then flips to Open within the station for the final delivery. Even if you replaced INF points for carried INF missions, what would you do about the value of carried trade commodities? And so on.
FC's have landing pads and ATC, commodity market, outfitting, shipyard... I'd say it fits better in the station category, but that's me.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There's also the inconvenient fact that the BGS (along with all other game features) was specifically excluded from any potential change even if changes were made to Powerplay. Sandro was quite clear that Frontier consider Powerplay to be the only game feature worth even considering for Open only (or to offer an Open play bonus, as per the second Powerplay Flash Topic (and a re-run of the "hand grenade" of March'16)).
.... then there's Frontier's restatement of what the BGS is, in the Background Simulation and Scenarios stream which came some time after both Power Flash Topics.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... and it moves under player direction - which stations don't.
If I was a mod I'd make these topics kill on sight, along with the OPs of said topics.
Almost as bad as people requesting newtonian physics.
Almost as bad as people requesting newtonian physics.
... and that's why I said "mobile stations" in my first reply. I mean, you can see them as a big ship if you want, it's fine.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Stations host Factions and offer missions. Fleet Carriers don't.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While being able to see other players in an instance still requires playing in a multi-player game mode, the line between Solo and the other two modes has been blurred somewhat with the introduction of pan-modal system chat - Solo isn't as isolated as it once was in that regard.
Mode agnostic Powerplay is impossible given the constraints of the game. NPCs don't fight back enough in Solo or PG to affect outcomes, leaving haul races that become soul killing since you are doing fifty to over one hundred of them each week.
Like I always say: for Powerplay to be something, either NPCs become like players, or players become like NPCs.
Like I always say: for Powerplay to be something, either NPCs become like players, or players become like NPCs.