Powerplay How is Powerplay not open only yet?

[00nutzy]

It is end game content if you want to do it well and not burn out. You need good ships (with at least some engineering), decent skills (against other players), know PP mechanics, know BGS mechanics. You can level your argument at anything- Thargoids can be shot at from day 1, but you'll never do anything meaningful until you get skilled.

I am not sure about that. I got loads of enjoyment out of my play (at low peasant levels) did well enough for me and it was all meaningful as any game can be.
PowerPlay is no different than the rest of the game as far as that is concerned, its simply not end game content, even the lowliest player can contribute and play PP thats one of the best things about this game anybody at any level can take part and have a meaningful/fun time, and they should not be derided because they arent as elite as others.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I am not sure about that. I got loads of enjoyment out of my play (at low peasant levels) did well enough for me and it was all meaningful as any game can be.
PowerPlay is no different than the rest of the game as far as that is concerned, its simply not end game content, even the lowliest player can contribute and play PP thats one of the best things about this game anybody at any level can take part and have a meaningful/fun time, and they should not be derided because they arent as elite as others.

And you miss the point I made- Powerplay end game is pretty much people who keep powers running, not the people who do a few hundred merits. High level Powerplay pledges put in tens of thousands of merits a week, plan and execute attacks, co-ordinate and defend with BGS players, as well as do BGS work themselves.

Just pootling around doing 150 random merits is not 'end game', because to do the massive amounts of work required you need high end ships with lots of engineering, access to rank locked ships (Cutter) and kit.

If its so beginner friendly, why is Powerplay not in the Pilots Manual at all? Nothing is explained, and doing random work can just as easily wreck your power. Its not like learning to fly a ship, you have lots of complex systems to learn.

Ironically, if Powerplay had taken off you'd be almost right though, because through strength of numbers 'good' actions would have won out.

 

[00nutzy]

And you miss the point I made- Powerplay end game is pretty much people who keep powers running, not the people who do a few hundred merits. High level Powerplay pledges put in tens of thousands of merits a week, plan and execute attacks, co-ordinate and defend with BGS players, as well as do BGS work themselves.

Just pootling around doing 150 random merits is not 'end game', because to do the massive amounts of work required you need high end ships with lots of engineering, access to rank locked ships (Cutter) and kit.

If its so beginner friendly, why is Powerplay not in the Pilots Manual at all? Nothing is explained, and doing random work can just as easily wreck your power. Its not like learning to fly a ship, you have lots of complex systems to learn.

Ironically, if Powerplay had taken off you'd be almost right though, because through strength of numbers 'good' actions would have won out.

I have no argument that PowerPlay needs some love (like most of the game) however, making the statement that PowerPlay IS end game is still wrong. Its for not just the dedicated top level players but also us lowly casual "pooters".
PowerPlay is for everyone that wants to play it, now maybe it should have been made that way, but it wasn't. Like the rest of the game its for anyone who wants to take part as often as they wish or never even touch it.
Ideas to make it better do not require OpenOnly to be valid. Adding to it making it have parts that are end game or even parts that require direct PvP are great because they are adding to the game rather then removing options for playstyle.
All of this is just my opinion and no offense is intended in any of this.
Take care and stay well

 

[Wookie404]

Compromise solution...... 3x multiplier for merits/PP impact earned in open. People can still do stuff how they want in private, but will be outpaced by people taking the risk in open. That way you can counter undermining via Open without forcing people to play Open.

for the record, I'm all for Open only powerplay, but finding some middle ground is probably more productive.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Compromise solution...... 3x multiplier for merits/PP impact earned in open. People can still do stuff how they want in private, but will be outpaced by people taking the risk in open. That way you can counter undermining via Open without forcing people to play Open.

for the record, I'm all for Open only powerplay, but finding some middle ground is probably more productive.

This could only work if triggers would become competitive, with a big redesign of the whole game. The problem of "pg" in Powerplay is intrinsic in its mechanics, where you can secure a system in a few runs with a shieldless cargo ship. But I think the Open Only factor should be somehow experienced somewhere in the game with a dedicated game mechanic, Powerplay it would be right just because it's basically abandoned by fdev and most of the players right now.

 

[Brrokk]

Compromise solution...... 3x multiplier for merits/PP impact earned in open. People can still do stuff how they want in private, but will be outpaced by people taking the risk in open. That way you can counter undermining via Open without forcing people to play Open.

for the record, I'm all for Open only powerplay, but finding some middle ground is probably more productive.

Blockageddon. :-(

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Blockageddon. :-(

What about this: if you have somebody blocked you cannot pledge. It would be a solution to the problem.

 

[Brrokk]

What about this: if you have somebody blocked you cannot pledge. It would be a solution to the problem.

I guess that could work, but I think shenanigans would still be possible at router level. I can also imagine dodgy things like having an alt with an extensive block list, parking it in system and winging with it.

 

[Wookie404]

Blockageddon. :-(

Haha, very true, at the very least those guys that use bots would have to be actively engaged to deflect new human contacts .... making it a pain (not sure if that's still widespread).

Again, open only would be ideal, I just don't think it's going to happen with these Devs.....I'm willing to settle for incentivizing open play as a compromise.

Side rant , how epic would this game be if they only had the 3 powers and it was a planetside style galactic conquest game ....with real consequences if you are pledged to a power going to an enemy controlled system. Game has the foundation to be a true MMO but all the interactions are sadly just superficial progress bar races with no tangible benefits for winning.

 

[varonica]

What about this: if you have somebody blocked you cannot pledge. It would be a solution to the problem.

Would that also include blocking people who ask how big your {ok I can't use that word but you know what it is, this seems a valid place to use it though} are and what colour underwear you have on? Because I think you may have a problem there with enabling abusers by preventing people who block them from accessing game feature they have paid for!

There is no magic easy fix solution and the more you look for one the worse you make it.

 

[tekwerk]

I'm gonna let you in on a secret: Elite Dangerous is two half finished games stuck together. People who backed the kickstarter expected a rich singleplayer experience like the Elites of old, because that's what Elite had always been, whereas FDev at the time, as well as a sizeable population of people looking for a rich multiplayer experience in space that wasn't as mindnumbingly dull as EVE, wanted to make an MMO. So what we got is neither and no one's happy. Honestly I really wish there was a good way to reconcile these two mindsets but the best I've been able to come up with is give Open and Private/Solo their own BGSs. There's problems with that though which other people would know a lot better than me.

I will say though I've recently been playing FFXIV and that seems like a good model for E to follow and I'll explain why. FFXIV is a single player JRPG with MMO content strapped onto it. If there was a team at FDev who could figure out a way to get a good solid core of narrative quests together that could be strung together to create a "Main Quest", if that makes sense, something that'd guide you through the universe, let you meet the different factions, and give you a goal to complete, it'd really help the singeplayer aspect while leaving the rest of the galaxy to enjoy emergent gameplay and interaction.

 

[Justinian Octavius]

I'm gonna let you in on a secret: Elite Dangerous is two half finished games stuck together. People who backed the kickstarter expected a rich singleplayer experience like the Elites of old, because that's what Elite had always been, whereas FDev at the time, as well as a sizeable population of people looking for a rich multiplayer experience in space that wasn't as mindnumbingly dull as EVE, wanted to make an MMO.

ED was never envisaged as being anything other than a single player game at heart and was planned to be a standalone install. However, It was forced to became an online services game because hard drives at the time couldn't handle the amount of expected game data. When players started to play the BGS as a game in itself and ask for multiplayer features it caught them off guard.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

 

[Jockey79]

ED was never envisaged as being anything other than a single player game at heart and was planned to be a standalone install.

Doesn't matter how many times we point this out, there will always be those same names trying to force PvP down other peoples throats.

Open Only BGS, Open Only CGs, Open Only Power Play.... the same nonsense over and over again. And parading out Sandros singular comment which he took back a few days later because his boss keeps saying no to forced PvP (great how those names ignore the last part). Not to mention Sandro isn't even on this project anymore, so his old comment is worthless.


Plus the P2P nature of the game with how bad Elite is with multiplayer anyway, people just need to throttle their connection and bye-bye multiplayer while playing Open.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Doesn't matter how many times we point this out, there will always be those same names trying to force PvP down other peoples throats.

Open Only BGS, Open Only CGs, Open Only Power Play.... the same nonsense over and over again. And parading out Sandros singular comment which he took back a few days later because his boss keeps saying no to forced PvP (great how those names ignore the last part). Not to mention Sandro isn't even on this project anymore, so his old comment is worthless.


Plus the P2P nature of the game with how bad Elite is with multiplayer anyway, people just need to throttle their connection and bye-bye multiplayer while playing Open.

Hey you forgot to quote the other half, let me help you.

However, It was forced to became an online services game because hard drives at the time couldn't handle the amount of expected game data. When players started to play the BGS as a game in itself and ask for multiplayer features it caught them off guard.

So they basically did a MMO inadvertently, that makes Elite Dangerous NOT a standalone game, even if that wasn't their original plan.

A flawed and bad designed MMO if you want to say that, but still a MMO anyway.

That's the reason why I keep saying that the real solution would be to separate the two experiences once and for all because trust me: you don't want to share the galaxy with me as much as I do not want to share it with you. But right now it would be you that's forcing me to share, not the other way (as you constantly cry about every time we talk about this).

Nobody want to force people play the game differently, only you want for us to grind our way to boredom in the spreadsheet game.

 

[Jockey79]

A flawed and bad designed MMO if you want to say that, but still a MMO anyway.

I remember back when the game came out I had a discussion with someone about Elite being an MMO (I was on the side of it isn't one, due to the mode system, it being P2P networking and the choice of playing alone).

They won the debate purely on the dictionary definition of an MMO, which was basically "any online video game in which a player interacts with a large number of other players." (from https://www.dictionary.com/). And even if everyone were to only ever play in Solo mode, we do interact via the BGS. So it does meet the definition, it barely meets it but it does.

Then again, so does Pokemon GO and no one is forcing you to play that either. You chose to buy a game despite all of the information on the Kickstarter page stating that PvP is an optional extra. Steam and the Frontier websites have also pointed out that direct human interaction is optional. You either knew this and bought the game or you couldn't be bothered to read up before you bought it, in which case Caveat emptor.

So I'm not trying to force anyone to play my way, I'm playing the game the way it was marketed and sold from day one and still is today.
Those demanding Open Only content are the ones trying to force something.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

It's an interesting thread, and reveals some of the hopes, fears and concerns involved around OOPP.

What if for a moment we accept that FDev will "never do open only anything" (plausible). And that really the game is a multiplayer capable game, rather than true MMO; even when everyone is in open it can be frustrating (<ahem> instancing). An alternative has been discussed repeatedly, of harder NPCs replacing the threat of players in closed modes to create a more level playing field across modes. To me, this almost feels the wrong way around, NPCs are commonplace, players are rare, partly due to instancing.

So here's another idea - players replace NPCs, when players are present. This requires that there exist some (opt-in*) NPCs that present an obstruction equivalent to the average player, in terms of being able to successfully interdict, to hold a player in instance, and to require a player in an engineered ship to actively avoid destruction, even at times in no-fire zones. These comprise the real endgame(-ish) PP opposition, with players standing in where available. Harder, not more, NPCs - otherwise they become merit farms, or just bothersome. So:

1. Default threat (and presence at all) of certain new, specialist PP NPCs is progressively increased to average-player-level hazard with increasing PP rating, when a player reaches a rating above 3, *so it remains opt-in, only affecting hardcore merit movers, not module shoppers

2. For every hostile pledged player currently instanced with, the NPC threat is diminished proportionately ("player replaces NPCs"), regardless of mode

3. Default NPC threat level for a player of a given rating is decided as a function of the number of instanceable enemy pledged CMDRs in the same system and cruise level/POI as the player (could be encountered by the player in open or in the same PG; do not have the player blocked in-game or via router) as well as rating, combat rank and loadout of those CMDRs. This could be capped (since player instancing is limited).

4. NPC threats combine in some way if multiple allied CMDRs are instanced together in system, regardless of mode (equivalent to players calling for aid). Again, capped.


It's not all new stuff, and I'm not addressing any technical challenges, and some exploit checks and balances needed, but here are some standout features:

Everything remains optional and opt-in, every mechanic here is pan-modal, and only addresses feature balance. With this, the competitive incentive to avoid open is mitigated, while full merit earning capability is available in all modes.

Module shoppers, casual players and players flying in systems empty of other players are not impacted in any way.

Block function is unaffected, but removes a player's ability to increase NPC threats encountered by players they have blocked. Just as they would not be able to directly attack a player they had blocked.

This requires no other change to the current PP system, and most people won't notice it.

As a confirmed career ganker (= I fly in open), my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined by the fact that I came up with an idea that isn't simply open-only.

This focuses NPC resistance on locations that matter (as decided by players), and has a chance of making the single player experience more varied, interesting and meaningful.

 

[Lateralus]

Fdev will never do anything exclusively for open/PvP players, stop hoping for it... people have tried for years to get this change implemented and have been met with stonewall silence since Sandro left the project.

Fdev just aren't a PvP company, despite having seemingly by-accident made a game with huge PvP potential and a great dog-fighting flight model... sadly they just don't want to know.

They are too scared about backlash, too PC, too averse to aggressive playstyles, too 'everyone's a winner', too worried about 'griefing' (despite that having no dedicated in-game outlet for PvP results in more of it, not less)... They're just not a suitable company for this sort of playstyle, their culture is too soft and fluffy.

 

[varonica]

They are too scared about backlash,

Or, just putting this out there, maybe they know that most people don't do PvP and introducing OOPP will negatively affect the majority of players while benefiting a vanishingly small minority.

 

[Jockey79]

It's an interesting thread, and reveals some of the hopes, fears and concerns involved around OOPP.

What if for a moment we accept that FDev will "never do open only anything" (plausible). And that really the game is a multiplayer capable game, rather than true MMO; even when everyone is in open it can be frustrating (<ahem> instancing). An alternative has been discussed repeatedly, of harder NPCs replacing the threat of players in closed modes to create a more level playing field across modes. To me, this almost feels the wrong way around, NPCs are commonplace, players are rare, partly due to instancing.

So here's another idea - players replace NPCs, when players are present. This requires that there exist some (opt-in*) NPCs that present an obstruction equivalent to the average player, in terms of being able to successfully interdict, to hold a player in instance, and to require a player in an engineered ship to actively avoid destruction, even at times in no-fire zones. These comprise the real endgame(-ish) PP opposition, with players standing in where available. Harder, not more, NPCs - otherwise they become merit farms, or just bothersome. So:

1. Default threat (and presence at all) of certain new, specialist PP NPCs is progressively increased to average-player-level hazard with increasing PP rating, when a player reaches a rating above 3, *so it remains opt-in, only affecting hardcore merit movers, not module shoppers

2. For every hostile pledged player currently instanced with, the NPC threat is diminished proportionately ("player replaces NPCs"), regardless of mode

3. Default NPC threat level for a player of a given rating is decided as a function of the number of instanceable enemy pledged CMDRs in the same system and cruise level/POI as the player (could be encountered by the player in open or in the same PG; do not have the player blocked in-game or via router) as well as rating, combat rank and loadout of those CMDRs. This could be capped (since player instancing is limited).

4. NPC threats combine in some way if multiple allied CMDRs are instanced together in system, regardless of mode (equivalent to players calling for aid). Again, capped.


It's not all new stuff, and I'm not addressing any technical challenges, and some exploit checks and balances needed, but here are some standout features:

Everything remains optional and opt-in, every mechanic here is pan-modal, and only addresses feature balance. With this, the competitive incentive to avoid open is mitigated, while full merit earning capability is available in all modes.

Module shoppers, casual players and players flying in systems empty of other players are not impacted in any way.

Block function is unaffected, but removes a player's ability to increase NPC threats encountered by players they have blocked. Just as they would not be able to directly attack a player they had blocked.

This requires no other change to the current PP system, and most people won't notice it.

As a confirmed career ganker (= I fly in open), my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined by the fact that I came up with an idea that isn't simply open-only.

This focuses NPC resistance on locations that matter (as decided by players), and has a chance of making the single player experience more varied, interesting and meaningful.

I really like this idea.

Special PP NPCs that are an actual threat to people playing PP is perfect. It affects all modes, it would encourage people to wing up for PP and increase teamwork. It doesn't remove any options from the game.

Absolutely spot on.

 

[Lateralus]

Or, just putting this out there, maybe they know that most people don't do PvP and introducing OOPP will negatively affect the majority of players while benefiting a vanishingly small minority.

Vanishing minority indeed, but it wasn't always that way... the PvP community was thriving in the first couple of years in the Lave cluster, but sadly the design direction of the game has pretty much decimated that promising early side of ED and most of those players quit a long time ago.

As someone who has been playing ED since the start, I've pretty much given up on the game providing a satisfying PvP experience, I know Fdev have never or will ever have it on their priority list despite it being an absolutely huge area of potential growth for the game. Remember it's only a small subset of the overall community because of how the game has developed... not because there is no demand for it (there are literally thousands upon thousands of PvPers who have given up on the game and quit for good because of the poor developer support for the playstyle).

But it doesn't matter, I've been here before. I'm not going to get drawn into a never-ending debate with PvP haters.. It's a waste of everyone's time. Every argument for and against OO PP has been stated numerous times. I'm just going to wait for a similar game that supports PvP properly now.