Page 13 of 35 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415161723 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 524

Thread: Powerplay should not be made Open-only. Here's why... [EDITED]

  1. #181
    Originally Posted by Ziljan View Post (Source)
    Power play is currently broken and played primary in Solo PG by a tiny group of players. It is essentially a dead mechanic because of this.

    And almost no one in Solo or PG or even Open would care about PP except that suddenly it has been drawn into the old Open vs Solo debate. Now suddenly everyone is lining up behind old battle lines and not seeing the bigger picture.

    The bigger picture is that humans, like all particles in the universe, will always follow the path of least resistance. This is a basic principle of physics and human psychology. Solo/PG is easier, passive, non-competitive, and yet this is also wholly in opposition to the spirit of competition that PP was supposed to support. So is it really surprising that the current "least resistance" path for PP is being in a defecto death-like coma?

    Without direct competition, PP in Solo/PG is like playing chess while opponents pieces are invisible.
    Your analogy is incorrect.

    The chess pieces are always visible; the chess pieces are the Powers. It's the players who aren't. Also, this is a giant game of chess in which direct blowing up of players who can be seen doesn't work as effectively as moving the chess pieces or the 'tokens' sent between the chess pieces. (Yeah it's one weird game of chess! )

    Making Powerplay only playable in open connectivity mode is not the solution, due to E: D being based on p2p. All it'll do is force bot users and unscrupulous players to select Open client connectivity mode but prevent other game clients connecting with theirs. The chess pieces will still be visible, still be moved around, tokens sent between chess pieces will still happen, and ultimately, players will still be invisible.

    Now, this entire conversation would be moot if Powerplay was played in a game with client-server architecture, but until and unless Frontier decide to stop relying on P2P to see other player ships, then I cannot see how Powerplay can possibly be anything other than what it is right now.

  2. #182
    Originally Posted by Maro-Val View Post (Source)
    Why should i read all the thread? I ve had enough reading your same post twice in these forums. You clearly dont like broken promices and you clearly believe that all modes should be equal due to some dead post that you found?
    Well let me tell you that the equal modes promise wasnt the first one broken and i will also tell you that modes were never equal.

    Whos cmdr o9? Is that your other name in your reality?
    lawl.

    *plonk*

  3. #183
    Originally Posted by Ziljan View Post (Source)
    Power play is currently broken and played primary in Solo PG by a tiny group of players. It is essentially a dead mechanic because of this.

    And almost no one in Solo or PG or even Open would care about PP except that suddenly it has been drawn into the old Open vs Solo debate. Now suddenly everyone is lining up behind old battle lines and very few are seeing the bigger picture.

    The bigger picture is that humans, like all particles in the universe, will always follow the path of least resistance. This is a basic principle of physics and human psychology. Solo/PG is easier, passive, non-competitive, and yet this is also wholly in opposition to the spirit of competition that PP was supposed to support. So is it really surprising that the current "least resistance" path for PP is being in a defecto death-like coma?

    Without direct competition, PP in Solo/PG is like playing chess while opponents pieces are invisible. PP needs to be Open for the mechanics to have any meaning, just like chess pieces need to be visible for chess to have any meaning.
    This is the strongest argument I have seen so far on either side of this topic.

    It's a little disappointing to me that Sandro has not made a case as strong as this in favour of the proposed change.

  4. #184
    Originally Posted by Genar-Hofoen View Post (Source)
    Your analogy is incorrect.
    They need to stop seeing this as a MOBA and try an analogy with a noncontact sport. Nobody complains that you're not allowed to bring a gun to the basketball match so the fact that someone else has an inherent advantage of height cant be encountered.

    As some PvPers trying to silence any dissent have said: equal doesn't mean they are all the same, and if solo PP is more effective than Open PP, then that is just the way it is. If you find this unconvincing as to why PP should not be made open only, then try to figure out why it didn't work on why all three modes are equal isn't the same as "the same".

  5. #185
    Originally Posted by Sterling MH View Post (Source)
    Is that
    1. because you do but want to pretend
    2. because you are incapable
    ?
    Incapable, I'm afraid. Just as I said.
    I suspect English might not be your first language, so maybe I'm missing your intended meanings. Or they might be so profound that they are beyond my comprehension.
    I have no doubt about your passion for this subject, however.
    I still say: YES to development and NO to stagnation.
    Any chance you could address the points I made before you snipped my post?

  6. #186
    Originally Posted by Cobra1984 View Post (Source)
    This is the strongest argument I have seen so far on either side of this topic.
    But since none of that argument improves PP from my POV, I can see that the best your side offers is a whole crate load of nothing burgers.

    Originally Posted by Perseus View Post (Source)
    Incapable, I'm afraid. Just as I said.
    Never mind, then. I hope you get better.

  7. #187
    Originally Posted by Ziljan View Post (Source)
    Power play is currently broken and played primary in Solo PG by a tiny group of players. It is essentially a dead mechanic because of this.

    And almost no one in Solo or PG or even Open would care about PP except that suddenly it has been drawn into the old Open vs Solo debate. Now suddenly everyone is lining up behind old battle lines and very few are seeing the bigger picture.

    The bigger picture is that humans, like all particles in the universe, will always follow the path of least resistance. This is a basic principle of physics and human psychology. Solo/PG is easier, passive, non-competitive, and yet this is also wholly in opposition to the spirit of competition that PP was supposed to support. So is it really surprising that the current "least resistance" path for PP is being in a defecto death-like coma?

    Without direct competition, PP in Solo/PG is like playing chess while opponents pieces are invisible. PP needs to be Open for the mechanics to have any meaning, just like chess pieces need to be visible for chess to have any meaning.
    Strange, you wait eons for a chess metaphor, then two come along at once.

    I believe your analogy is actually why it's a bad idea....

    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...=1#post6707473

    What you are advocating, is two separate games based on player choice alone. Ergo, the singular outcome is to have two BGS' (more chance of one of them working) and splitting the game to Open and Solo with Groups.

    This will lead to entropy, and is therefore daft.

  8. #188
    Originally Posted by Genus View Post (Source)
    Strange, you wait eons for a chess metaphor, then two come along at once.

    I believe your analogy is actually why it's a bad idea....

    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...=1#post6707473

    What you are advocating, is two separate games.
    Indeed, and it's a bad analogy anyway, as the chess pieces are the Powers, the pieces being moved are PvE tokens, ultimately, and are being moved by players seen and unseen. And due to the P2P nature of E: D, it can be made such that players can still be unseen, no matter what client connectivity mode is being used.

  9. #189
    Originally Posted by Genar-Hofoen View Post (Source)
    Indeed, and it's a bad analogy anyway, as the chess pieces are the Powers, the pieces being moved are PvE tokens, ultimately, and are being moved by players seen and unseen. And due to the P2P nature of E: D, it can be made such that players can still be unseen, no matter what client connectivity mode is being used.
    Chess doesn't usually include tokens. Do you mean pawns? Because if you are going to mock someone, at least be accurate. Unless you are referring to alternate pieces unusual chess variants can use.

    Presumably you meant to try and asert a superior understanding. It doesn't help your cause, either way

    Powers are kings and queens; well, minor factions are probably more queens, but I digress. We are the pawns. Sacrificial in nature. Frontier included AI as pawns to make up the numbers and ensure undermining (for example) would function across modes.

    Honestly I don't care at this point. Folks just want to be right and win arguments and what ostensibly happens to the game seems to be less important.

    Again, if the developer is unable to progress changes, even with consultation, then that should be a huge concern for the future of the game, it's growth and the ability of the developer to solve the issues they've been asked to address.

  10. #190
    Originally Posted by Genar-Hofoen View Post (Source)
    Indeed, and it's a bad analogy anyway, as the chess pieces are the Powers, the pieces being moved are PvE tokens, ultimately, and are being moved by players seen and unseen. And due to the P2P nature of E: D, it can be made such that players can still be unseen, no matter what client connectivity mode is being used.

    Instancing isn't that bad you can still find opposing players in system.

    If frontier decide that a token moving race doesn't make for engaging gameplay then why shouldn't they change it if that's what most players want? The point, that's been stated in this thread already, is that you can't engage with other players directly if people are doing PP in solo. You're just sitting in system watching the counters go up with nobody there. PP was billed as a way to engage players directly. PP in solo doesn't allow for that becuase, as was stated above, players will always find the path of least resistance ie hauling merits in solo.

    I'm having trouble understanding why people are so upset about this. Yes they're proposing to take away powerplay from solo. But wasn't it always a PvP focused feature? Why should it matter?

  11. #191
    Originally Posted by Ziljan View Post (Source)
    Power play is currently broken and played primary in Solo PG by a tiny group of players. It is essentially a dead mechanic because of this.

    And almost no one in Solo or PG or even Open would care about PP except that suddenly it has been drawn into the old Open vs Solo debate. Now suddenly everyone is lining up behind old battle lines and very few are seeing the bigger picture.

    The bigger picture is that humans, like all particles in the universe, will always follow the path of least resistance. This is a basic principle of physics and human psychology. Solo/PG is easier, passive, non-competitive, and yet this is also wholly in opposition to the spirit of competition that PP was supposed to support. So is it really surprising that the current "least resistance" path for PP is being in a defecto death-like coma?

    Without direct competition, PP in Solo/PG is like playing chess while opponents pieces are invisible. PP needs to be Open for the mechanics to have any meaning, just like chess pieces need to be visible for chess to have any meaning.
    This remains the strongest argument I have seen on either side.

  12. #192
    Originally Posted by Cobra1984 View Post (Source)
    This remains the strongest argument I have seen on either side.
    And I find it holds no merit. Kinda shows how empty the argument on your side is, really.

    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    Chess doesn't usually include tokens.
    Yes it does. Its called "the ranking system". I only score 3900, but I have really bad positional play.

  13. #193
    Originally Posted by vanya234 View Post (Source)
    .... then why shouldn't they change it if that's what most players want?
    True - however as there is no requirement to own the game to create a forum account and that the total number of forum users is small in relation to the number of franchise units sold, simply asking forum users does not necessarily give an accurate picture of what "most players want".

    The method used last time Frontier wanted to find out what the player-base wanted was an official poll - not on the forums. We'll see if they do that again. Arguably this topic is hotter than the last one polled.

  14. #194
    Originally Posted by Genar-Hofoen View Post (Source)
    Indeed, and it's a bad analogy anyway, as the chess pieces are the Powers, the pieces being moved are PvE tokens, ultimately, and are being moved by players seen and unseen. And due to the P2P nature of E: D, it can be made such that players can still be unseen, no matter what client connectivity mode is being used.
    Yes, indeed. But what you're doing is talking about cybernetic open systems relationships.

    Which also just flew over the heads of the Designers.

    As for players, just get more stealth troops. Same for everyone and what Squadrons are for.

  15. #195
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    .".. then why shouldn't they change it if that's what most players want?"
    True - however as there is no requirement to own the game to create a forum account and that the total number of forum users is small in relation to the number of franchise units sold, simply asking forum users does not necessarily give an accurate picture of what "most players want".
    Not to mention that we have no evidence that this IS what most players want. I don't. But I dont pretend to speak for most of the playerbase either.