Incrementally Improving PowerPlay - Make PowerPlay Open-Only

[Robert Maynard]

What I'm saying is that it might exacerbate current complaints.

It might at that - noting that people have been complaining about how the game permits other players to play for years now.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

If knowing where merits were handed in is so important to player groups that have formed to support Powers, why not request that an optional pledge tier be introduced for those players who only want their merits to be counted towards Powerplay if sourced, transferred, and delivered in Open and have that badge visible on the CMDR information panel and a tally of badged participants and their associated merit totals available for all to view in the Powerplay summary display? If a CMDR signed up to the optional pledge tier was carrying merits gained in Open and started a Solo or Private Group session then the badge would be lost and the CMDR might not be able to re-badge for a period of time. It would not change the game for anyone - just the meta-game.

Apply it to the block function too? I.e. tally those merits earned with a blocklist active. People might have a good reason to block, but an anomalously large proportion in one power would be telling.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Apply it to the block function too? I.e. tally those merits earned with a blocklist active. People might have a good reason to block, but an anomalously large proportion in one power would be telling.

Given that the inclusion of a block feature suggests that Frontier take the pitfalls of multi-player interaction seriously and permit individual players to exclude specific others from their game in a "high resolution" manner (rather than the blunt instrument approach offered by Private Groups and Solo), I doubt that "block list shaming" would be included in the game.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Given that PvP is an optional extra in this game for those so inclined to engage in but is not required to participate in any game feature, yes, in my opinion.

No-one is forced to engage in PvP in this game (apart from CQC) to participate in any game feature - that some choose to is, of course, up to them. They are not in a position to enforce their personal play-style preference on other players though.

So you are saying yes then, in effect. Those who go into Open are risking more because NPCs don't actually do anything of value.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So you are saying yes then, in effect.

Indeed - no-one but the player who chose to play in Open can make them play in Open.

Those who go into Open are risking more because NPCs don't actually do anything of value.

As is their choice in a game where no-one needs to engage in PvP to engage in the feature.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

It might at that - noting that people have been complaining about how the game permits other players to play for years now.

Complaints are important if they are a symptom of a decaying game feature. BGS seems healthy enough, those who've been around long enough indicate this is more of a problem for PP.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indeed - no-one but the player who chose to play in Open can make them play in Open.

As is their choice in a game where no-one needs to engage in PvP to engage in the feature.

So another yes, then- just in a roundabout way. Which means the modes are not equal, meaning the easy path is Solo, making it easier to support large territories, which leads to congestion (like the current situation).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Complaints are important if they are a symptom of a decaying game feature. BGS seems healthy enough, those who've been around long enough indicate this is more of a problem for PP.

The complaints from those wishing to engage in PvP with others being frustrated by the game's design have been ongoing for nearly eight years, i.e. when the design was published.

 

[Northpin]

Cost of a depriving themselves of the fair, competitive victory they subscribed to at the start of the week, and possibility of the slow decay of the meta gane they are committed to as disillusioned players undergo natural wastage.

When people subscribe to ED generally speaking - that's inclusive of BGS, PP etc.- they do it fully knowing that the players involved can chose whatever mode they want to play.
They do it fully aware that all game features are available to all players, no matter the mode they chose to play, because the modes are only a mean to filter players out
Check what is written on the Startup screen when you chose Open or PG or Solo.

If you cannot compete under the terms you agreed upon when starting the game, then don't do it. Nobody is forcing you.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So another yes, then- just in a roundabout way. Which means the modes are not equal, meaning the easy path is Solo, making it easier to support large territories, which leads to congestion (like the current situation).

Frontier's stance rather seems to be that the modes are equally valid choices - they are demonstrably not equal, i.e. one contains other players, one definitely does not, one might.

It was Frontier's choice to make PvP optional in their game - and they don't seem to have changed their mind in that regard.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Given that the inclusion of a block feature suggests that Frontier take the pitfalls of multi-player interaction seriously and permit individual players to exclude specific others from their game in a "high resolution" manner (rather than the blunt instrument approach offered by Private Groups and Solo), I doubt that "block list shaming" would be included in the game.

Well I don't think it'd be marketed as that. It would be as a mitigation of exploitation of a valid multiplayer function for unintended, and most rational players might surely agree, unfair ends. Protecting the function by helping ensure it is not abused as an open play exploit.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Frontier's stance rather seems to be that the modes are equally valid choices - they are demonstrably not equal, i.e. one contains other players, one definitely does not, one might.

It was Frontier's choice to make PvP optional in their game - and they don't seem to have changed their mind in that regard.

Then they have a fundamental problem on their hands- as stated the modes are no equal at all in Powerplay and ironically the two main ways to even them out (Open only, or weighted) had been explored.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Well I don't think it'd be marketed as that. It would be as a mitigation of exploitation of a valid multiplayer function for unintended, and most rational players might surely agree, unfair ends. Protecting the function by helping ensure it is not abused as an open play exploit.

Features FD use in a blanket way are fine for the core of the game- its when you move to the fringe features they become a problem (as with Powerplay) because the features (block / Powerplay / Open) get pushed to extremes.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

When people subscribe to ED generally speaking - that's inclusive of BGS, PP etc.- they do it fully knowing that the players involved can chose whatever mode they want to play.
They do it fully aware that all game features are available to all players, no matter the mode they chose to play, because the modes are only a mean to filter players out
Check what is written on the Startup screen when you chose Open or PG or Solo.

If you cannot compete under the terms you agreed upon when starting the game, then don't do it. Nobody is forcing you.

I understand the principle here, but there has to be room to admit pragmatic concerns. A game or feature that conforms to rigid principles, whether good or not, is a failure if noone plays.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well I don't think it'd be marketed as that. It would be as a mitigation of exploitation of a valid multiplayer function for unintended, and most rational players might surely agree, unfair ends. Protecting the function by helping ensure it is not abused as an open play exploit.

How any "marketing" may spin the intent does not change what it would be used for.

Attempting to imply that those who paid for the game, just like any other player, who don't enjoy PvP, and don't need to to engage in any feature of this game, are in some way "irrational" doesn't make for good PR for the proponents.

The block feature has been a part of the game since launch - and has only ever been strengthened over the years. Other players are optional in this game, as shown by the three game modes and pan-modal game features as well as the existence of a block feature. Excising specific players in Open is as much a part of what the game offers to each players as the ability to shoot at anything one instances with. Selective acceptance of game features does not mean that those that one does not accept are not valid.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I understand the principle here, but there has to be room to admit pragmatic concerns. A game or feature that conforms to rigid principles, whether good or not, is a failure if noone plays.

The issue is that by having three modes the most efficient becomes the problem- solo for hauling (since NPCs are not really an issue) and PG for AFK (for combat expansions due to old CZ mechanics being used). This then exerts pressure downwards and away from the mode that provides the most dynamic and chaotic outcomes (Open) which magnifies the 'grind to win' of Powerplay.

 

[Rubbernuke]

How any "marketing" may spin the intent does not change what it would be used for.

Attempting to imply that those who paid for the game, just like any other player, who don't enjoy PvP, and don't need to to engage in any feature of this game, are in some way "irrational" doesn't make for good PR for the proponents.

The block feature has been a part of the game since launch - and has only ever been strengthened over the years. Other players are optional in this game, as shown by the three game modes and pan-modal game features as well as the existence of a block feature. Excising specific players in Open is as much a part of what the game offers to each players as the ability to shoot at anything one instances with. Selective acceptance of game features does not mean that those that one does not accept are not valid.

But in a game where killing someone else is not 'bad', in a mode that enables that and in a competitive feature (thats what, three gates?) plus having solo currently as well (thats four gates) people still block others in Open Powerplay? How is that logical? Its not.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Then they have a fundamental problem on their hands- as stated the modes are no equal at all in Powerplay and ironically the two main ways to even them out (Open only, or weighted) had been explored.

That the challenge posed by opposing players is only really available in Open, and is therefore an optional extra in any game feature, does not make the other two game modes any less valid a choice.

That the modes are not equal because PvP opposition can be avoided is a part of the game design, i.e. each player's decision who to play with precedes and may over-ride the desire of others to play with them.

The Powerplay Open play mode bonus has been mentioned twice now, once in Mar'16 (and confirmed not to be going forward, but "never say never", in Dec'16) only to be reincarnated as a fall-back position following feedback to the potential change to Open only contained as part of the investigation in the first Flash topic of May'18. Sandro was at pains to make clear that the Flash Topics were investigative only and not a fait accompli. Whether Frontier would consider making Powerplay Open only is, as yet, unknown - as Will's follow-up post on the Powerplay investigation mentioned that some, not all, of the proposals in the first Flash Topic post were being considered for implementation.

 

[Northpin]

I understand the principle here, but there has to be room to admit pragmatic concerns. A game or feature that conforms to rigid principles, whether good or not, is a failure if noone plays.

Sure, after 6 year since launch, for a game that is free to play past initial purchase cost, i find ED pretty well played (and well nurtured by FDev)
People are racking up thousands and thousands of hours and they still go strong.

So where is the failure? Is this another DOOM post/thread?
Change the game how i like it to be or it will DIE?

No, really - i find it going quite nicely, so FD must be doing something right (without resorting to open-only stuff)

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

How any "marketing" may spin the intent does not change what it would be used for.

Attempting to imply that those who paid for the game, just like any other player, who don't enjoy PvP, and don't need to to engage in any feature of this game, are in some way "irrational" doesn't make for good PR for the proponents.

The block feature has been a part of the game since launch - and has only ever been strengthened over the years. Other players are optional in this game, as shown by the three game modes and pan-modal game features as well as the existence of a block feature. Excising specific players in Open is as much a part of what the game offers to each players as the ability to shoot at anything one instances with. Selective acceptance of game features does not mean that those that one does not accept are not valid.

I specifically meant an anonymised tally, as an idea. But if you are saying "no messing with this" then that's that, it is more sensitive. Blocking an opponent from opposing you flying in open not because they have abused you in any way, but because they might oppose you within scope of the meta game you are playing, in open, is hard to rationalise as fair in spirit, as-intended use. Within the strict rules of what is possible and not developer-actionable, it is permitted, however. Perhaps this is straying too far into the realms of philosophy and semantics.

The "shaming" comment earlier was a joke - in character with the banter between opposing PP groups that already occurs, not really meant seriously. It was amusing ironically, because it was your idea, apologies for any offense.