Powerplay How is Powerplay not open only yet?

If they can play in solo they can't be caught. People shouldn't be able to wage war without opponents.

So put something in solo that can catch them redesigning the endpoint activity so that it provides a realspace location to take the interaction out of interdiction where NPCs are too avoidable, and setting the level of the NPCs such that they can provide some challenge that needs to be accounted for (which can be done, and is in CZ spec ops wings/wing assassinations).

See, this is the sort of thing you need to do. Ditch the albatross and think about solutions that operate within Elite Dangerous' network and mode model.
 
If they can play in solo they can't be caught. People shouldn't be able to wage war without opponents.
You got the wrong impression regarding ED
I fight for an NPC against other NPC

Meeting You - as another human player - is purely optional since ED is built in a such way that i do not have to play directly with you or against you.
So, you fill your buckets, i fill mine. At the end of the week, the buckets are counted... This is PP.

*(Generic you, nothing personal)


If the PP is retconned so all the merits are coming from direct PVP combat, then yes, you'd have a point (and i used to like this idea), but then again, PP would have to be removed from the main game and put in the same place as CQC... simply because ED is not a PVP game.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But is a moderator always supposed to have a say? Or as a forum moderator should he be impartial and manage communication and intervene only when necessary?
Moderators enjoy the same privilege as other forum users do, i.e. the ability to express their opinions when participating in threads they choose to participate in (noting that moderators do not moderate threads that they participate in). Like other forum users, they don't require to participate in every thread, of course.
 
Or maybe it's because that's the part they object to. (and it's the specific subject of this thread....)
Naaa you don't believe that yourself don't you. It's just a part of a crusade, and Powerplay is just victim of the crossfire. Again: check all the technicalities in that thread: not sure you will catch half of them and it's good: I would be totally aimless in a Thargoid balancement thread. Difference is I am well aware I am, you, on the other hand...
More or less punitive than proposing to actively exclude players in Solo and Private Groups from existing pan-modal game features that all players currently share?
A lot more! You are basically making people go away of "your" systems because they just want a different kind of competition. When it would be possible with a different layer that doesn't affect people playing differently (and again: you sure you want no more 15% discount from LYR? :p Because I could dig that, not sure about the rest of the community... :p )
Proposals which contain an Open only requirement don't seek co-existence, they seek to exclude players from engaging in game features from their preferred game mode (if that preferred game mode is not Open) or force them to play in Open if they wish to continue to engage in the game features in question.
Why not? We couldn't we just fly in the same systems with a different layer, different goals,different objectives? It's some kind of coexistence, understand that we have such different playstyles that would make private and solo dominant over open (because of how easier is to grind in such play modes). And that's an element that you can cannot deny: in open you should have different loadouts to survive the casual pvp encounter. Or just accept the consequences of a wrong loadout to survive a pvp encounter. Efficiency in this case is very different, to be completely honest all modes have never been equal, in that aspect.
Imagine buying a game where:

"Experience the connected galaxy alone in Solo mode or with players across the world in Open Play" and
"every player’s story influences the unique connected gaming experience and handcrafted evolving narrative. Governments fall, battles are lost and won, and humanity’s frontier is reshaped, all by players’ actions"

are actual selling points and then complaining when players can choose how they interact with the connected galaxy.

I purchased Elite Dangerous to have the choice in how I interacted with the galaxy and player base. I understand that ship combat is the preferred counteraction for some wrt PP/BGS, but it is not the only way. Your preference does not outweigh what I paid for. I will back PP/BGS changes that do not exclude or penalize SOLO/PG players because they paid for mode choice. It's a selling feature from day 1.
Many other things are not the same as day one: we want from "unknown probes" to thargoid vessels shooting stations, exploration is far different than what it used to be, BGS too etc. The game wouldn't change for the regular player, maybe only for the "solo powerplayer" that exploits the free invisibility to keep its Power safe and sound (exploiting the current mechanics that favours defence over offense that much). The game is pretty big actually, and all the leaderships have, at some time, rooted for at least a different weight for open and solo actions for Powerplay itself. That must mean something. So... are you a proud solo powerplayer that will not tell for what Power he plays because solo fortifiers are quite shameful in the Powerplay community or are you just hypothetically telling, as a non-powerplayer, that you would like to have the possibility to play powerplay in solo? :p
The pan-modal implementation undermines that contention somewhat.
Actually that kind of implementation is being discussed in the past, by Sammarco for example (I bet you are quite happy he disappeared :p ) and Garrido very recently. You knows, maybe tables will turn in the next few months. :)
The fun of it is supposed to be the power vs power metagame of system control though. Which is an asynchronous competition that does not require any two players to ever meet.
Nobody here is asking for that kind of approach to disappear "in toto" from the game: BGS could remain the same, what people is asking here is an alternative. And you are denying this to them because of a personal crusade you all are running, honestly with no reason at all. Only thing I could think about is that in some way you could be afraid that this could be so successful that FDev could change the whole game at some point. And even if true, this would be quite immature.
Then answer is you can play the game they way it is fun for you.
If you think it's fun to load your ship with merits then play hare-vs-fox in the destination system, you can enjoy your idea of fun.

Others might have a different idea of fun and you cannot force your kind of fun over them

In a game where the modes are designed to filter out other players and not the game features.
I'm ok with being fun, and I think people could have plenty of fun with BGS, with their spreadsheet wars. Not my thing but hey: who am I here to judge.
And now I ask you: who are YOU to judge. Why not let people have something for them too?

It's like tyou'd go in a thargoid thread complaining about thargoids being too difficult, to people that actually find them easy to kill.

In that particular case I bet that you don't even try because they are hard to kill, maybe you are not a combat oriented CMDR and so you don't go against them. And it's GOOD. You folks keep talking about "accessibility". Key word here is AVAILABILITY. Give people different ways to have fun, conceptually speaking.

Grindy/non-pvp CMRs? The should totally have their thing. PvE/PvP mixed CMDRs? Damn, they should have their thing too! ;) Nobody wants for you to have to deal with open play. At the same time I keep asking myself why so many people are so invested in making ME having to deal with solo. Let's separate the two things, we could be more than happy both!
It would by really hilarious if the so called 5c are (more often than not) independent commanders that do their own stuff disregarding orders spewed by some internet stranger
Totally agree: problem in there is about game mechanics mostly. Part of my proposal would nullify 5C as even a concept. But hey: apparently people just read "open only" and just lose their minds. :)
At least be honest: this proposal is based on Open Only, which disqualifies it from the start. But if I am wrong (which I doubt), I wonder why the two are not better discussed separately.
Another proof you don't care about the proposal itself but only part of it: it's just a crusade, and as such it's irrational and illogic. Which actually kind of works at favour of the other guys asking for "something different".

Ooops, can't write anymore, GF just told me it's late and I've got to work. No Odyssey for me today, fracking night shift.
 
Moderators enjoy the same privilege as other forum users do, i.e. the ability to express their opinions when participating in threads they choose to participate in (noting that moderators do not moderate threads that they participate in). Like other forum users, they don't require to participate in every thread, of course.
This is not true.
On more than one occasion you have done so.
You have blocked, edited and deleted threat.
When I created a post myself with a screen shot you deleted it and banned me from the forum for 15 days.
Your method is known by many and there is no way to talk to anyone about your method because you are not heard.
But let's get back to the subject of PowerPlay because we don't win against you anyway.
 
So put something in solo that can catch them redesigning the endpoint activity so that it provides a realspace location to take the interaction out of interdiction where NPCs are too avoidable, and setting the level of the NPCs such that they can provide some challenge that needs to be accounted for (which can be done, and is in CZ spec ops wings/wing assassinations).

See, this is the sort of thing you need to do. Ditch the albatross and think about solutions that operate within Elite Dangerous' network and mode model.
You got the wrong impression regarding ED
I fight for an NPC against other NPC

Meeting You - as another human player - is purely optional since ED is built in a such way that i do not have to play directly with you or against you.
So, you fill your buckets, i fill mine. At the end of the week, the buckets are counted... This is PP.

*(Generic you, nothing personal)


If the PP is retconned so all the merits are coming from direct PVP combat, then yes, you'd have a point (and i used to like this idea), but then again, PP would have to be removed from the main game and put in the same place as CQC... simply because ED is not a PVP game.
You're forgetting, it's not NPC vs NPC. The figureheads are NPCs but all the pledgers are humans. When you fight for or against one of the powers you're fighint with or against the other humans. You and they should all be able to defend their powers, systems, and selves. Solo takes away that ability to defend against other powers. It takes away from the dynamic competition that it was designed to be.

Saying that solo or open is purely optional is just reiterating the problem. Solo being an option for powerplay means that is the lowest common denominator and the advantage is in solo. This is why the game mode is gutted and holow.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
A lot more! You are basically making people go away of "your" systems because they just want a different kind of competition. When it would be possible with a different layer that doesn't affect people playing differently (and again: you sure you want no more 15% discount from LYR? :p Because I could dig that, not sure about the rest of the community... :p )

Why not? We couldn't we just fly in the same systems with a different layer, different goals,different objectives? It's some kind of coexistence, understand that we have such different playstyles that would make private and solo dominant over open (because of how easier is to grind in such play modes). And that's an element that you can cannot deny: in open you should have different loadouts to survive the casual pvp encounter. Or just accept the consequences of a wrong loadout to survive a pvp encounter. Efficiency in this case is very different, to be completely honest all modes have never been equal, in that aspect.
If the layer in question was a new layer, that had no effect on players that cannot themselves affect it from their chosen game mode (if that game mode is not Open), then I'd have no issue. The fact that Powerplay forms part of the base game that everyone bought and was consciously implemented in all three game modes is the issue, for me. I don't see why some players should lose access to content simply because they don't want to engage in PvP, in a game sold to all with other players being an optional extra while also offering all players the ability to affect the galaxy.
 
If the layer in question was a new layer, that had no effect on players that cannot themselves affect it from their chosen game mode (if that game mode is not Open), then I'd have no issue. The fact that Powerplay forms part of the base game that everyone bought and was consciously implemented in all three game modes is the issue, for me. I don't see why some players should lose access to content simply because they don't want to engage in PvP, in a game sold to all with other players being an optional extra while also offering all players the ability to affect the galaxy.
Because as a matter of fact Powerplay was designed originally to be a competitive different layer of the game. The Sammarco proposal is proof how the mixed mode choice was part of Powerplay failure. So: let's give something new to the players. Let's see if it works. Maybe it will be a failure too. Maybe not. What I do not understand is the fierce resistance about something which is crystal clear it doesn't work as it is right now. It's something new. Never tested. Will it have issues? Of course it will! As the original conflict mechanics proved wrong in the original BGS design. Or the old CZs were exploitable to turret boating. But let's give this thing to the people and let's see what will come out of it. And btw: I am totally aware that being us a relatively small Power we could have great issues. But who cares about winning or losing: it's about the game being better. And plurality always makes something better. Again: the same way I am happy about the game giving the players game mechanics I ignore.
 
Many other things are not the same as day one: we want from "unknown probes" to thargoid vessels shooting stations, exploration is far different than what it used to be, BGS too etc. The game wouldn't change for the regular player, maybe only for the "solo powerplayer" that exploits the free invisibility to keep its Power safe and sound (exploiting the current mechanics that favours defence over offense that much). The game is pretty big actually, and all the leaderships have, at some time, rooted for at least a different weight for open and solo actions for Powerplay itself. That must mean something. So... are you a proud solo powerplayer that will not tell for what Power he plays because solo fortifiers are quite shameful in the Powerplay community or are you just hypothetically telling, as a non-powerplayer, that you would like to have the possibility to play powerplay in solo? :p
False equivalency since none of the things you mentioned as "not the same as day one" were made mode specific. The discussion is about taking a current activity and making it mode specific, which is completely against what this game was designed and sold to be. If you researched the game before you bought/backed it, then you would have known that and could have avoided buying it since it doesn't suit your playstyle. Being able to engage with the connected galaxy in Solo or Open does suit my playstyle which is why I bought the game and have been playing it for some time now. The fact that I can choose my level of player interaction was instrumental in my purchase. I should not have core structures of the game changed because you didn't read up on the game you were buying. Ship combat is not everyone's desired activity.

And it doesn't matter if I play PP or play it in solo. I support anyone who chooses to do so since that is what the game is founded on. There are other options to address PP issues other than Open only, which doesn't address instancing, blocking, platform, network limitations, subscriptions, etc. If the idea of Open only (including bonus) were pulled off the table, I'm certain there is so much common ground to improve PP in this community your head would spin. Open only anything is a major violation to many in the community who bought in on the connected galaxy across modes.
 
This old chestnut again? It was decided long ago by frontier that all gameplay mechanics/loops/assets would be available to all modes of play. So while nothing is technically impossible, it is extremely unlikely that anything, including power play, will ever be "open only".
 
Hush, get out of here dude!
signed
your GF
More like "didn't you have to go to work tonight?".

"Yeas ma'am!" :p
Yea, his proposal could also had a role in his departure from ED team.
Not sure what that proves, but it may prove something.
Well I remember that many times it's been said THAT was not the reason why he did. That's speculation and, actually, kind of a megalomaniac one... so you are able to make FDev employees to be fired if they propose anything Open Only or if they publicly say they agree with that? Stay alert @Bruce G , apparently you are next! :p
Indeed, the reference to Sandro is a very thin board. IIRC the only Frontier employee who left without a lengthy and pathetic valediction. Even if that doesn't really prove anything, still better than his "proof".
Only thing it proves is that's the "all modes are equal" mantra is probably discussed in FDev even today. We will see what happens, It's not up to me or you decide of course. It's just up to us give relevant feedback about game mechanics which could even involve an Open Only layer for the game, to make it appealing for a larger market (or make people come back to the game too, for example). Then there's you, just repeating how open only is poop. :p
 
False equivalency since none of the things you mentioned as "not the same as day one" were made mode specific. The discussion is about taking a current activity and making it mode specific, which is completely against what this game was designed and sold to be. If you researched the game before you bought/backed it, then you would have known that and could have avoided buying it since it doesn't suit your playstyle. Being able to engage with the connected galaxy in Solo or Open does suit my playstyle which is why I bought the game and have been playing it for some time now. The fact that I can choose my level of player interaction was instrumental in my purchase. I should not have core structures of the game changed because you didn't read up on the game you were buying. Ship combat is not everyone's desired activity.

And it doesn't matter if I play PP or play it in solo. I support anyone who chooses to do so since that is what the game is founded on. There are other options to address PP issues other than Open only, which doesn't address instancing, blocking, platform, network limitations, subscriptions, etc. If the idea of Open only (including bonus) were pulled off the table, I'm certain there is so much common ground to improve PP in this community your head would spin. Open only anything is a major violation to many in the community who bought in on the connected galaxy across modes.
Many other things were different, again. The modes thing cannot be the only exception. ;) Hey, even QCQ is Open Only, in some way. :p
 
. so you are able to make FDev employees to be fired if they propose anything Open Only or if they publicly say they agree with that? Stay alert @Bruce G , apparently you are next! :p

I never said that.
I just said it could be related. It's an as good speculation as the ones you keep clinging onto at every powerplay suggestion.

And nope, IIRC Sandro moved to other projects inside FD, he was not fired.
 
I never said that.
I just said it could be related. It's an as good speculation as the ones you keep clinging onto at every powerplay suggestion.

And nope, IIRC Sandro moved to other projects inside FD, he was not fired.
Honestly quite a funny speculation. You guys for real think that everything Sammarco proposed was his doing and his alone? In a modern company?

Hilarious. :)
 
Many other things were different, again. The modes thing cannot be the only exception. ;) Hey, even QCQ is Open Only, in some way. :p
Not sure what QCQ is so I will assume (apologize if I'm incorrect) that you mean CQC. I'm all for additional game modes that expand the playing experience of Elite. I wish CQC was implemented better. I would like to see daily or week long BGS/PP battles run in CQC similar to CG's in the main game, where the outcome of the battle would have PP/BGS affects in the main game. It would help with instancing and perhaps Frontier could make that mode crossplay. Actual rewards would be required too.

I just don't support mode specific content. It's not what this game was founded on and there is no precedent for it. PP and CQC should both be improved to be what they were intended. And PP can have mechanics added to address mode, platform, and instancing that doesn't involve mode specific content.
 
Not sure what QCQ is so I will assume (apologize if I'm incorrect) that you mean CQC. I'm all for additional game modes that expand the playing experience of Elite. I wish CQC was implemented better. I would like to see daily or week long BGS/PP battles run in CQC similar to CG's in the main game, where the outcome of the battle would have PP/BGS affects in the main game. It would help with instancing and perhaps Frontier could make that mode crossplay. Actual rewards would be required too.

I just don't support mode specific content. It's not what this game was founded on and there is no precedent for it. PP and CQC should both be improved to be what they were intended. And PP can have mechanics added to address mode, platform, and instancing that doesn't involve mode specific content.
Woops sorry for the mistake but you understood anyway. :p

See? "I just don't support mode specific content."

Cool. Don't play to that. But denying it to people asking for that? Totally different things mate. :)
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Because as a matter of fact Powerplay was designed originally to be a competitive different layer of the game.
Indeed it seems to have been - just not one that requires any participant to engage in PvP to compete.
The Sammarco proposal is proof how the mixed mode choice was part of Powerplay failure.
When the proposal was contained in an investigative thread that was very clearly stated, a few times in the thread, not to be a fait accompli, I'm not sure that the existence of the proposal proves what some would like it to prove.
So: let's give something new to the players.
Who is "we" in this context? Those who stand to gain from the change, or those who stand to lose access to a game feature in their preferred game mode?
What I do not understand is the fierce resistance about something which is crystal clear it doesn't work as it is right now.
The resistance to one aspect of change proposals is not equivalent to opposing all change. The feature could be improved for all players without restricting access to it to a single game mode, in my opinion.
 
Interesting how you put your own ridiculous speculations above others. It was mostly an illustration of the thin ice you walk on. But your EGO is apparently impenetrable. What a striking deficit of self-awareness.
Yup, try to make it personal because you have no other arguments. Try to win the argument sticking to the argument itself.

And about what sammarco's doing right now... Wasn't me who speculated he was removed from ED because he, all by himself, proposed open only powerplay. Come on. :)
 
Indeed it seems to have been - just not one that requires any participant to engage in PvP to compete.

When the proposal was contained in an investigative thread that was very clearly stated, a few times in the thread, not to be a fait accompli, I'm not sure that the existence of the proposal proves what some would like it to prove.

Who is "we" in this context? Those who stand to gain from the change, or those who stand to lose access to a game feature in their preferred game mode?

The resistance to one aspect of change proposals is not equivalent to opposing all change. The feature could be improved for all players without restricting access to it to a single game mode, in my opinion.
Yup, in your opinion. And this is veeery important.

Question: let's say tomorrow Powerplay becomes open. Would it be that terrible? Would you stop to play the game?
 
Back
Top Bottom