Exactly - these are the sort of tradeoffs we would love to emphasize with OOPP. Massed space battles would encourage people to have "Q-ships" - ones that look like BFTs but are actually well-armed escorts ready to fight back against interceptors. We do that sometimes just for variety, but with the volume of ships it's typically better just to go for the max hauls and die occasionally. Another interesting config might be hauler-on-hauler battles (or at least interdict and stall while the proper ship-killers arrive), but again if one side just flies shieldless T9s in Solo, that's not going to happen. It's all very frustrating.
Incrementally Improving PowerPlay - Make PowerPlay Open-Only
- Thread starter CMDR Foursyth
- Start date
Totally agree with Darkfyre that there is a whole lot more to the supercruise game than just the interdiction minigame. I have enormous fun taunting interceptors in SC because they don't understand how all those mechanics work and they just can't get a lock on me in my big fat Cutter - and they don't understand because they've never needed to learn because most of their targets don't understand. And why don't THEY know? Because they don't have enough practice! Because we don't have enough PVP interactions to be able to learn. The only reason I see enough of this is because I've been PP hauling for four years. With OOPP, everyone would get a lot more practice evading interdictions, and people would learn the details of SC mechanics. I find them really fascinating myself.
But if folks want to discuss/suggest stuff about SC and the minigame, can you make a new thread about it please.
But if folks want to discuss/suggest stuff about SC and the minigame, can you make a new thread about it please.
Ok, so, as i said, just replace where i said traders with blockade runners or powerplay haulers or whatever you want to call them.
Players joining to gank blockade runners.
Jeebus wept.
Man, whenever I see 'make X open-only' I just involuntarily breathe a deep sigh as people keep trying to force us solo/private players into that toxic mess and ruin our game experience.
Nobody is forcing anybody into anything, your individual progress in power play would be same, but if you want to be worthy for your power, then you have to fly in open, but you are not forced into anything, it's your choice to take risk and get same rewards, you cant develop anything that is more fair AND FUN for MOST players involved in power play, imagine situation that you are hunting enemy underminers, you routed them in open, you patrol system for another 20 mins, and nothing, then one of your friends who dont know any of them send them firend request and found that wing you routed 20 mins ago is now in solo, YES this is happening for real, do you think it's fun and fair gameplay?
Being specific is not the same as being myopic. Everyone else was talking about the minigame part, the difficulty of winning it for defender vs attacker; and then someone comes along contradicting everything they’ve said, acting the expert and being incredibly condescending towards every CORRECT statement that everyone else made prior to that point.
And when he’s caught in the lie he politely explains that he was talking about something else, about the entire long term interplay between haulers and the ships trying to interdict them, and not at all, even a little bit, about the interdiction mechanic itself. Well, say that next time and don’t pretend it’s a counterpoint to the above, otherwise you are a liar.
The rhetorical card trick was bumbling and ineffective, we noticed the sleight-of-hand going on here (because how could we not?), and we had to waste our energy on someone who was attempting to stealth-derail the topic. That’s not us being myopic, but anyone attempting to handwave it all away with some vague “in the larger scheme of things. . .” appeal, sure is being grandiose.
One simple way of nerfing it would be to address the rewards gained (in terms of power play) - solo or private -99.9% open +5% or whatever to give an incentive to play fair.
You're really trying to force people who don't want to, into PvP because of that? Pardon me if I don't feel like sacrificing my single player experience for your hissy fit.
W
What single player part exactly you are missing if your merits in solo will be counted only towards individual record but not towards power?
Yes, and this ironically not break "all modes are equal" drama
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It does, actually, as the actions of players affect the BGS, Powerplay, CGs, etc. equally in all game modes, by design. That some players are made less effective per unit time due to the presence of other players is their choice.
We all bought a game where every player affects the shared galaxy with no requirement to engage in PvP to do so (apart from CQC, although that doesn't really affect the game) - those who prefer the optional play-style that is PvP have no more right to affect game features than any other player.
Last edited:
And as I keep saying- Powerplay has a giant gap which should be filled with either NPCs or players providing an equal possibility of challenge back, making one of the core parts of Powerplay not 100% easy, safe and efficient. Unless this is rectified modes break Powerplay.
Nonsense like this:
Has no place in a competitive mode- its like part of a football team playing on their own and yet their goals count towards a match played between players. You can't have this imbalance, otherwise what you suggest is people play the most boring game possible because its the only way to play.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I'm well aware of that opinion - and would welcome Frontier increasing the NPC challenge in Powerplay (up to a point).
It's a consequence of Frontier's decision to make PvP optional in all features in the game we all bought (apart from CQC, naturally). That some players bought the game expecting others to be available to engage in PvP is obvious - however those others don't need to be, by design. That some players have been petitioning Frontier for years to PvP-gate existing pan-modal content with no success might well suggest that no such PvP-gating is likely to be forthcoming.
Current advertising (Frontier store, Steam) clearly states:
and
.... so it seems that Frontier still haven't changed their stance and that every player who buys the game today can also expect to affect the game's features from any game mode.
Last edited:
Its a consequence of bad design by FD- modes are not equal. NPCs absent in two, rival players present in the other. If NPCs provided a functioning opposition, then you'd have no need for Open only because each mode would be an equal choice.
In effect what is happening is you are removing choice because it favours solo for hauling, PG for combat merits, and Open for...nothing because you have to agree with a fluid enemy that you will be in that mode.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Whether or not PvP being optional is "bad design" is a matter of opinion. It rather depends on what type of game the Developer chose to make. That the game design for this game is built around player freedom, i.e. three game modes and a shared galaxy state, suggests that it's not a PvP game (even though PvP is possible, it is not required for any game feature (except CQC, of course)). See DBOBE's response to a question from the Engineers launch stream:
The choice has not been removed - playing in Open remains a choice for those who wish to engage PvP.
PvP-gating any feature would remove choice, however - as it would remove the choice of whether or not to play among those who may engage them in PvP while engaging in any game feature.
Last edited:
Yet again you miss the real problem. Its lack of opposition outside PvE areas and during Powerplay activities thats the problem. Either NPCs behave like players and actually oppose, or you let players take over from NPCs. Thats the choice, otherwise Powerplay is a grind race and will never actually be anything more than that.
I just explained it to you- Open right now is the worst choice for efficiency, making it redundant in a competitive mode. If you have to get your opponents agree to do it arbitrarily then its pointless. Hence why modes are not equal:
solo is best for hauling because no NPC opposition.
PG is arguably and exploit for combat expansionists because they can wing up with no opposition.
Open requires you to anticipate and combat other players capable of destroying you, costing time in organising and limiting hauling / CZ runs.
If you can't sort out opposition equally between a three mode system then the only way with this current iteration is to limit it to one mode.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In which case the most equitable solution would be to increase the challenge posed by NPCs for all players. Noting that, for some, no level of challenge that Frontier would be prepared to put in place would be enough to satisfy them.
Of course it would, its why I suggested stuff like this
Make Solo Powerplay PvE dangerous (targeted interdcitions using existing mechanics)
Powerplay is split into two distinct phases: a collection phase and delivery phase- combat powers destroy specific ships and hauling powers collect specific cargo. The delivery phase (i.e. traveling about) poses no NPC threat- which means near 100% efficiency and a predictable outcome. While...
But that challenge has to be scaled so that its a constant threat at all levels- and be enough to destroy you otherwise it can't be a credible attenuation on the feature at large. There has to be a high chance of destruction and disruption.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
A tailored challenge that took into account how much risk mitigation a player had engaged in, i.e. choice of ship, outfitting, engineering, as well as their Powerplay rank would be reasonable, in my opinion.Of course it would, its why I suggested stuff like this
Make Solo Powerplay PvE dangerous (targeted interdcitions using existing mechanics)
Powerplay is split into two distinct phases: a collection phase and delivery phase- combat powers destroy specific ships and hauling powers collect specific cargo. The delivery phase (i.e. traveling about) poses no NPC threat- which means near 100% efficiency and a predictable outcome. While...forums.frontier.co.uk
But that challenge has to be scaled so that its a constant threat at all levels- and be enough to destroy you otherwise it can't be a credible attenuation on the feature at large. There has to be a high chance of destruction and disruption.
The bottom line is that it has to be 50/50 if you get through to be functional, and PP NPCs menacing enough all over to disrupt your play.