Incrementally Improving PowerPlay - Make PowerPlay Open-Only

[Robert Maynard]

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.

Players can remove other players by means of game mode selection, that they can also remove specific players by use of the block feature does not change that.

While destroying another player's ship or SRV is possible in game, due to the ability for any player to shoot at anything they instance with, blocking any player is equally permissible by using the in-game block feature.

Just because a player enjoys one aspect of the game, i.e. the ability shooting at other players, does not mean that those players require to accept being shot at by other players.

That Frontier did not prioritise PvP in their game says quite a lot, to me, about their approach to player freedom.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

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)

And powerplay specifically? What is your level of observation of PP participation over the age of the game compared to the veteran powerplayers I know who highlight this problem?

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

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.

And this makes the feature less fun, and less likely to maintain the interest of players, making it a less valuable in the game. I think we agree.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

Blocking an opponent in Open is functionally no different from playing in a different mode - the blocked player won't encounter the player that blocked them. That some players create out-of-game rules that they want others to abide by is noted - but does not affect the game itself.

At least one branch of semantics is entirely relevant to discussions - as it is the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

 

[Old Duck]

There are a few constants in the universe. The speed of light is one. The guarantee that Robert will fight tooth-and-claw against any form of "Open only" is another.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And this makes the feature less fun, and less likely to maintain the interest of players, making it a less valuable in the game. I think we agree.

For some players, no doubt - just as arbitrarily removing the ability to affect a game feature in their preferred game mode from other players would make the feature less fun for them.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There are a few constants in the universe. The speed of light is one. The guarantee that Robert will fight tooth-and-claw against any form of "Open only" is another.

Not strictly accurate - I'd be delighted if Frontier were to introduce a new game feature solely for players who prefer PvP - as long as it does not PvP-gate existing pan-modal game content that every player bought as part of the base game or affect those who don't engage in it.

 

[Bashy81]

I dont really see why Rubbernuke's hybrid alternative to OOPP isnt a better solution than full-blown OOPP. Because the hybrid solution doesnt disenfranchise or judge any mode as inappropriate overall, but it does acknowledge and respect the real differences between them.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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.

And on paper (and in limited practice when it happens) its the place that creates the most dynamic and chaotic outcomes. From a dev perspective thats what you want, surely? Minimal effort for maximum gain on a feature that sits in the shadows not justifying the expense put into it.

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.

And in a competitive feature thats poison, frankly. You don't choose to remove opposition to win- its like me deleting six opposing players in a FIFA football game, winning, and saying 'thats fair'.

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.

That they were- and they are viable solutions to the design issue at hand.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I dont really see why Rubbernuke's hybrid alternative to OOPP isnt a better solution than full-blown OOPP. Because the hybrid solution doesnt disenfranchise or judge any mode as inappropriate overall, but it does acknowledge and respect the real differences between them.

Its why I suggested it and for the most ardent detractors was an acceptable compromise- each action works to the strengths of the game rather than trying to make it work overall.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

For some players, no doubt - just as arbitrarily removing the ability to affect a game feature in their preferred game mode from other players would make the feature less fun for them.

From a developer's point of view, which players they alienate or enthuse, and the size of that group, will certainly feature in the basket of concerns they must consider when developing and evolving their game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And on paper (and in limited practice when it happens) its the place that creates the most dynamic and chaotic outcomes. From a dev perspective thats what you want, surely? Minimal effort for maximum gain on a feature that sits in the shadows not justifying the expense put into it.

While some players are seeking that type of gameplay, there's no need for any others to engage in it. Just because something might be minimum effort does not mean that it is lowest "cost" - when the player-base as a whole is considered.

And in a competitive feature thats poison, frankly. You don't choose to remove opposition to win- its like me deleting six opposing players in a FIFA football game, winning, and saying 'thats fair'.

It's a competitive feature that does not require PvP that those who PvP think is unfair because it does not require PvP.

That they were- and they are viable solutions to the design issue at hand.

While they may be considered viable by some, we've yet to find out if Frontier consider them to be (even if they formed part of the investigation).

 

[Robert Maynard]

From a developer's point of view, which players they alienate or enthuse, and the size of that group, will certainly feature in the basket of concerns they must consider when developing and evolving their game.

Given the entirely optional nature of PvP in all game features (except CQC), it may be that the decision was made long ago.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Players can remove other players by means of game mode selection, that they can also remove specific players by use of the block feature does not change that.

While destroying another player's ship or SRV is possible in game, due to the ability for any player to shoot at anything they instance with, blocking any player is equally permissible by using the in-game block feature.

Just because a player enjoys one aspect of the game, i.e. the ability shooting at other players, does not mean that those players require to accept being shot at by other players.

That Frontier did not prioritise PvP in their game says quite a lot, to me, about their approach to player freedom.

You don't get this at all. You have loads of ways to avoid people, and yet the one that makes Open Powerplay a click to vanish feature (making it pointless) has to stay in? At some point the feature has to impose on the player, otherwise its back to football teams all playing by different rules making competition utterly pointless.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Blocking an opponent in Open is functionally no different from playing in a different mode - the blocked player won't encounter the player that blocked them. That some players create out-of-game rules that they want others to abide by is noted - but does not affect the game itself.

Unless a developer responds by changing it. I believe this is what the entire thread concerns. We are straying into the subject of blocking; linked, but covered in an accompanying thread.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Given the entirely optional nature of PvP in all game features (except CQC), it may be that the decision was made long ago.

A decision or decisions was/were made. On what motivation, temporary or permanent, is not clear.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You don't get this at all. You have loads of ways to avoid people, and yet the one that makes Open Powerplay a click to vanish feature (making it pointless) has to stay in?

It's functionally no different from changing game mode.

At some point the feature has to impose on the player, otherwise its back to football teams all playing by different rules making competition utterly pointless.

In the opinion of some, certainly. Others accept it as a PvE driven feature with optional PvP.

 

[Rubbernuke]

While some players are seeking that type of gameplay, there's no need for any others to engage in it. Just because something might be minimum effort does not mean that it is lowest "cost" - when the player-base as a whole is considered.

But you have to engage with it- either NPCs do it or players do- but it has to happen otherwise there is no game to it. With no opposition of any kind its basic collect and go, over and over and over- which is not gameplay when the first run is exactly the same as the twentieth.

It's a competitive feature that does not require PvP that those who PvP think is unfair because it does not require PvP.

The 'competition' is pure one way grind racing with no tactics involved at all.

While they may be considered viable by some, we've yet to find out if Frontier consider them to be (even if they formed part of the investigation).

If they don't do it, or just add in 5C protections then FD will seal PPs fate. Either they make the NPCs incredibly dangerous, let players be those NPCs or remake it totally- but keeping it as it is will just allow it to degenerate with no high level play at all- which will be perfect for you, since dogma seems to trump reason.

 

[Robert Maynard]

A decision or decisions was/were made. On what motivation, temporary or permanent, is not clear.

Reading the design information in the Kickstarter pitch the motivation seems clear - and there's been no change to date - what the BGS is and who it is for hasn't changed at all, as confirmed in a stream that post-dates the Powerplay Flash Topics.

I do, of course, note that the outcome of the investigative Powerplay Flash topics has not yet been published - so we've yet to see what Frontier does with Poweplay.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's functionally no different from changing game mode.

Then why not use the mode? Solo and PG do exist for just that purpose currently.

In the opinion of some, certainly. Others accept it as a PvE driven feature with optional PvP.

And, I have forensically told you how Powerplay is structured. It has a thin PvE shell for CZs and hauling....and nothing else. This second half is where something should happen to moderate how well you do...but NPCs are ineffectual and Open is optional leading to the mess we have- a half game.