Incrementally Improving PowerPlay - Make PowerPlay Open-Only

Yeah, no. If you gate PP to open only you might as well remove it all together. Further more, by removing merits by going to solo or PG would be the final nail in the figurative coffin for power play as no one besides those who only play in open can have those special prismatic’s or what ever PP module your after. Let's not forget that XB and PS players who bought the game also have a two monthly fee to play online (their IP and their online access with their respective console), so keep that in mind as you literally try and alienate two-thirds of elites community by saying that we must pay more that you just so our actions in power play mean as much as yours.
 
Its a position people take voluntarily in a computer game. If they want my respect, they can go volunteer at the local Oxfam.

Hey, i run a player group. People should respect me! RESPECT ME!!!!!
Sorry, whattaboutery at max?

So would you think the same of other groups in the game like that?

Hey, i run a player group. People should respect me! RESPECT ME!!!!!
These people give their time to create content people play.
 
Yeah, no. If you gate PP to open only you might as well remove it all together. Further more, by removing merits by going to solo or PG would be the final nail in the figurative coffin for power play as no one besides those who only play in open can have those special prismatic’s or what ever PP module your after. Let's not forget that XB and PS players who bought the game also have a two monthly fee to play online (their IP and their online access with their respective console), so keep that in mind as you literally try and alienate two-thirds of elites community by saying that we must pay more that you just so our actions in power play mean as much as yours.
And from what FD have said, modules get moved to tech brokers.

And two thirds? :D Most players are on PC.
 
And from what FD have said, modules get moved to tech brokers.

And two thirds? :D Most players are on PC.
Still doesn't invalidate the fact that you are saying XB and PS players have to pay more just to have the same effect on PP as you. And last I checked Elite Dangerous was pc xbox and playstation therefore pc is only one part of a three system community you're judging by numbers of players while I'm speaking about numbers of systems. So I stand where I did your trying to alienate two-thirds of the community by saying we must pay more to have the same effect as you.
 
Still doesn't invalidate the fact that you are saying XB and PS players have to pay more just to have the same effect on PP as you. And last I checked Elite Dangerous was pc xbox and playstation therefore pc is only one part of a three system community you're judging by numbers of players while I'm speaking about numbers of systems. So I stand where I did your trying to alienate two-thirds of the community by saying we must pay more to have the same effect as you.
Part of me wants console owners to join the 21st century but I do get what you mean. If you check back to the 1st page my version of Open Only Powerplay caters for all modes, just splits things up.

From my own experience of player numbers in Powerplay, most are on PC (about 70%), 20% PS4 and 10% (and rare as anything) XB players. And out of all of them, they all play in Open and all pay a sub.
 
Yeah, no. If you gate PP to open only you might as well remove it all together. Further more, by removing merits by going to solo or PG would be the final nail in the figurative coffin for power play as no one besides those who only play in open can have those special prismatic’s or what ever PP module your after. Let's not forget that XB and PS players who bought the game also have a two monthly fee to play online (their IP and their online access with their respective console), so keep that in mind as you literally try and alienate two-thirds of elites community by saying that we must pay more that you just so our actions in power play mean as much as yours.
Dont you have to have a active account to play elite anyway? What difference does it make?

Also. To the main subject at hand. I personally believe elite should be open only in its entirety anyway. Let alone powerplay.
 
Still doesn't invalidate the fact that you are saying XB and PS players have to pay more just to have the same effect on PP as you. And last I checked Elite Dangerous was pc xbox and playstation therefore pc is only one part of a three system community you're judging by numbers of players while I'm speaking about numbers of systems. So I stand where I did your trying to alienate two-thirds of the community by saying we must pay more to have the same effect as you.
Just buy it on PC instead of buying into a gated, anti-consumer platform that charges you extra for multiplayer features. It's not FDev's fault that Sony and Microsoft charge extra dollar to use the full feature set of the game.
 
Here you are telling console players to pay even more... Gezz master race much.

Not everyone can afford the yearly or biyearly upgrades for a pc. For us console is the most logical choice which allows us to play games without having hardware incompatibility over long periods. Will you please pull your head out of that mentality and talk gamer to gamer.
 
Not only should PP be open-only, PP modules and faction-specific ships should be permanently linked to PP.

Leave your pledge? Lose your modules and ship. Make them either free to purchase or heavily discounted so long as you are maintaining a set amount of merits (with a paid rebuy, of course). Make a real balance pass over all the modules so that they are useful, but have drawbacks.

As for the console paywall argument...there isn't a single console player I know that doesn't have an active multiplayer account. For the solo guys - you purchased a multiplayer game only to play it by yourself, don't get salty if you're missing a couple features.
 
Here you are telling console players to pay even more... Gezz master race much.

Not everyone can afford the yearly or biyearly upgrades for a pc. For us console is the most logical choice which allows us to play games without having hardware incompatibility over long periods. Will you please pull your head out of that mentality and talk gamer to gamer.
I haven't upgraded my PC since I built it 5 years ago and it remains backwards compatible to the games I was playing in 1999. The money I've saved on having far less expensive games, without having to pay the overhead of the licensing fee that Sony and Microsoft charge, plus not having to upgrade anywhere near as regularly as you seem to think, plus not having to pay extra money to use online features. I'm probably spending less on my gaming set up and maintenance than the average console player. Pull the other one.

You weren't obliged to buy into a paywall gated platform, so why should that effect the design choices when it comes to constructing a gameplay mechanic appropriate to its function? FDev had no compunction about deleting support for Mac users when it was found to be a platform that didn't keep pace with their needs for Horizons content.

What's being proposed here about making limited features open only or open weighted to better balance and reward the quality of gameplay it generates, is much less far reaching. Not least because it's an obstacle that a) only effects a limited result of gameplay activity and b) it's an obstacle that can be overcome by purchasing the live subscription - which is a boundary created by the platform you chose to play on not by FDev themselves.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
You weren't obliged to buy into a paywall gated platform, so why should that effect the design choices when it comes to constructing a gameplay mechanic appropriate to its function? FDev had no compunction about deleting support for Mac users when it was found to be a platform that didn't keep pace with their needs for Horizons content.

What's being proposed here about making limited features open only or open weighted to better balance and reward the quality of gameplay it generates, is much less far reaching. Not least because it's an obstacle that a) only effects a limited result of gameplay activity and b) it's an obstacle that can be overcome by purchasing the live subscription - which is a boundary created by the platform you chose to play on not by FDev themselves.
We also aren't obliged to play among other players to engage in game features - the design choices were made in that regard long ago.

What is being proposed here would PvP-gate existing game content that all players bought access to - as it is currently pan-modal game content that forms part of the base game. The "obstacle" would seem to be that Frontier designed their game to make PvP an optional extra while every single player experiences and affects the game and have stuck to that game design.
 
We also aren't obliged to play among other players to engage in game features - the design choices were made in that regard long ago.

What is being proposed here would PvP-gate existing game content that all players bought access to - as it is currently pan-modal game content that forms part of the base game. The "obstacle" would seem to be that Frontier designed their game to make PvP an optional extra while every single player experiences and affects the game and have stuck to that game design.
Which they tried with Powerplay and they themselves had proposed to change later on.
 
No, and that's my point. Its their choice. They do it because they want to do it.
? So what if its their choice? They do it for other peoples enjoyment. One of my peeves is that FD give shoulder rubs for everyone bar them, when its FD that should be doing all that work.
 
Not only should PP be open-only, PP modules and faction-specific ships should be permanently linked to PP.

Leave your pledge? Lose your modules and ship.
Oooh, that's an interesting take on the matter. Its a bit similar to my thoughts on how you should only be able to gain ranks as Empire or Fed, not both!

As for the console paywall argument...there isn't a single console player I know that doesn't have an active multiplayer account.
I'm not a console player of ED, but I have a PS4. I don't pay the Sony tax. If i played ED on console, i still wouldn't pay it. Subscriptions are a curse to gaming. Pay to play, not pay to own.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Which they tried with Powerplay and they themselves had proposed to change later on.
The Open only proposal did form part of an investigation, yes. That the investigation was clearly stated not to be a fait accompli rather suggests that there are no guarantees as to the outcome, and Will's follow-up post mentioned that some of the proposals in the Flash Topics were being considered, i.e. not all of the proposals.
 
? So what if its their choice? They do it for other peoples enjoyment. One of my peeves is that FD give shoulder rubs for everyone bar them, when its FD that should be doing all that work.
Their choice, so nobody should give them respect for doing what they want to do in relation to a computer game.

Like i said, they want to work for a charity, i'll give them all they respect they deserve.
 
Oooh, that's an interesting take on the matter. Its a bit similar to my thoughts on how you should only be able to gain ranks as Empire or Fed, not both!
I completely agree there.



I'm not a console player of ED, but I have a PS4. I don't pay the Sony tax. If i played ED on console, i still wouldn't pay it. Subscriptions are a curse to gaming. Pay to play, not pay to own.
I understand your meaning, but that is the price one pays for a "cheaper" gaming rig.

We won't even get into the other costs associated with console gaming that make it ludicrously more expensive than PCs for the capabilities and features...
 
We also aren't obliged to play among other players to engage in game features - the design choices were made in that regard long ago.

What is being proposed here would PvP-gate existing game content that all players bought access to - as it is currently pan-modal game content that forms part of the base game. The "obstacle" would seem to be that Frontier designed their game to make PvP an optional extra while every single player experiences and affects the game and have stuck to that game design.
It already is PvP. Just people have different preferences for what potential intensity and how that activity is mediated. The proposal doesn't mandate that you take a hardpoints deployed response to your problems. For example, the possibility of interaction with players you encounter opens the door to diplomacy. Which is hard if you never know who your opposition are. I'm sorry if you're so blinkered that anything involving seeing another player means you start panicking at the threat of PvP.
 
Top Bottom