Make Open Play matter - Power Play and BGS should be influenced only in open

[Agony_Aunt]

You forget this is a team game. Its not flailing your arms and screaming, its cold precision.

Until you do it, you'll never know. In the proposal forting is inbound- so just as capitals will be busy with enemies at the same time you'll have defenders interdicting the intruders. Any incoming fortifier would then have to communicate its status to make a window for a run.

To be honest, most PP people avoid these forums mainly due to FD ignoring PP.

Again, until you do it or have the option to do it, you'll never know. But hauling is as important as killing, and PP pledges do the jobs.

I don't think i'm forgetting its a team game. I'm saying though that everyone has their breaking point in terms of risk vs reward. For some this will be very high, but i doubt that will be many.

I agree we will never know, so there is skepticism on my side while hope in yours. Neither of us hold and absoloute truth here, we are simply expressing opinions.

Regarding PP avoiding these forums due to FD ignoring PP, that's simply anecdotal.

And as i've acknowledged, we won't know unless its done. But hauling is 100x more important than killing. Its the hauling that moves most of the PP numbers. You can stop those numbers moving with PP, but that just leads to stalemate if everyone is successful.

We have a number of scenarios possible, for example, where one side has better PvPers yet can still field enough haulers to do their jobs while denying others, leading to more territory while their opponents languish. There is another, which i personally think more likely, if PP is popular, which brings into play the law of averages, and that, on average, each power will have a roughly equal distribution of good PvPers and haulers, so it just is effectively a numbers game, the ones with more supporters will stand the greatest chance of "winning" as long as they have competent leaders/strategy. Of course, bad leadership could undermine having greater numbers.

But even so, what actually changes? Nothing, because nothing will ever change, as long as powers cannot rise and fall, it just remains a never ending grind. Yes, some powers will be bigger than others, woo hoo! Its all meaningless. Its hours and hours of effort with no real risk and no real outcome.

 

[Rubbernuke]

While the thinking is that FD only pay attention to popular features, we can look at mining as a feature that was not popular but got a lot of love. We can also point to multicrew as an opposite example of course, but that might simply be waiting on space legs before they give it any more attention. Exploration is popular and got some love (but then not everyone agrees it was the right sort of love). PvP has had some love as well, a couple of years ago with 2 mini-patches dedicated to it, and yet, in the large scheme of things, PvP isn't that popular.

And like i said, they might see it being popular and say good enough.

I know you are not likely go after the BGS being open only, you'd be happy (or think you would be happy) with PP being open only. However, i think out of open only proponents you are in a minority in respect to this.

FD are in a right pickle with PP, mainly as FD have perfected what they want...just in the BGS. They have abandoned lore, and by extension PP tier 1 characters, no collapse, nothing. I can't see them starting from scratch again, so the only route really is to make it a mirror sibling of the BGS and use open- it then has a role and provides something no other feature has.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

But thats how it would go. Speed and agility at the cost of volume.



It would settle, and that large powers would not be mathematically invincible any more.



Well, thats PP! At least with more conflict more changes and the day to day is more dynamic.



What you want is collapse. You can join my infinite quest to get higher stuff like that in. The seat on the bus is always free next to me

Which is why i've said on multiple occasions, if i were to get into powerplay as a hauler (LOL, no way, tried it, its boring as hell - and don't say open only would help, then it would just be annoying as hell) then i'd fly a Clipper. Over 200 tons of space and fast.

Powers are mathmatically invincible regardless, they can't collapse.

And yes, the ability for powers to rise and collapse. That is absoloutely what is needed to give it a point. Imagine EvE if orgs couldn't be crushed! If they always got to keep their core assets, and an opposing faction couldn't grind them into dust.

The reason why i don't view the BGS the same is because i don't really care about our factions expansion or anything. All i want is a place to call home and a faction to work for. Its good if we have a presence in other systems, gives me more options for missions in the region, but its not essential for me. I know some groups love to play the expansion game, but i don't see the point of it, and its not like you can wipe out any other factions, and i'm fine with that. I don't see the BGS as a competitive game, although we have got into competition with other factions, its not like there is any point to it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't think i'm forgetting its a team game. I'm saying though that everyone has their breaking point in terms of risk vs reward. For some this will be very high, but i doubt that will be many.

I agree we will never know, so there is skepticism on my side while hope in yours. Neither of us hold and absoloute truth here, we are simply expressing opinions.

Indeed.

Regarding PP avoiding these forums due to FD ignoring PP, that's simply anecdotal.

Trust me, they do. Most of the people I talk to on Discord think I'm mad debating like I do.

And as i've acknowledged, we won't know unless its done. But hauling is 100x more important than killing. Its the hauling that moves most of the PP numbers. You can stop those numbers moving with PP, but that just leads to stalemate if everyone is successful.

It depends. You would see important systems being fortified 100%, but with uncapped they would be hot zones.

We have a number of scenarios possible, for example, where one side has better PvPers yet can still field enough haulers to do their jobs while denying others, leading to more territory while their opponents languish. There is another, which i personally think more likely, if PP is popular, which brings into play the law of averages, and that, on average, each power will have a roughly equal distribution of good PvPers and haulers, so it just is effectively a numbers game, the ones with more supporters will stand the greatest chance of "winning" as long as they have competent leaders/strategy. Of course, bad leadership could undermine having greater numbers.

But then you have the added dimensions of communication, organisation and skill, rather than naked hauling power.

But even so, what actually changes? Nothing, because nothing will ever change, as long as powers cannot rise and fall, it just remains a never ending grind. Yes, some powers will be bigger than others, woo hoo! Its all meaningless. Its hours and hours of effort with no real risk and no real outcome.

This has been leveled at the entire game, since nothing truly dies in it. But then its the game in-between that makes the difference.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

FD are in a right pickle with PP, mainly as FD have perfected what they want...just in the BGS. They have abandoned lore, and by extension PP tier 1 characters, no collapse, nothing. I can't see them starting from scratch again, so the only route really is to make it a mirror sibling of the BGS and use open- it then has a role and provides something no other feature has.

But i just see no point to doing that and i don't see the role it provides, its just like the BGS without a collapse mechanic.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Which is why i've said on multiple occasions, if i were to get into powerplay as a hauler (LOL, no way, tried it, its boring as hell - and don't say open only would help, then it would just be annoying as hell) then i'd fly a Clipper. Over 200 tons of space and fast.

Powers are mathmatically invincible regardless, they can't collapse.

And yes, the ability for powers to rise and collapse. That is absoloutely what is needed to give it a point. Imagine EvE if orgs couldn't be crushed! If they always got to keep their core assets, and an opposing faction couldn't grind them into dust.

The reason why i don't view the BGS the same is because i don't really care about our factions expansion or anything. All i want is a place to call home and a faction to work for. Its good if we have a presence in other systems, gives me more options for missions in the region, but its not essential for me. I know some groups love to play the expansion game, but i don't see the point of it, and its not like you can wipe out any other factions, and i'm fine with that. I don't see the BGS as a competitive game, although we have got into competition with other factions, its not like there is any point to it.

Whereas some people are gaga about factions and want them to be everywhere in control.

 

[Rubbernuke]

But i just see no point to doing that and i don't see the role it provides, its just like the BGS without a collapse mechanic.

The BGS provides abstracted strategy, OPP provides near real time (and minimally abstracted) conflict. Lovely!

 

[Velixar]

Trust me, they do. Most of the people I talk to on Discord think I'm mad debating like I do.

Let me guess. It a Discord channel that full of Gankers.

Thing is. It easy when you can get right wing or left wing Hillbillies to agree with you. Shoot if you tried you can make Flat Earth Extremest Discord channel that agree with you.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

The BGS provides abstracted strategy, OPP provides near real time (and minimally abstracted) conflict. Lovely!

Real time without any sort of end to the conflict is just as worthless as abstract conflict.

I'll do you a deal. Let's campaign together for FD to add a collapse and rise mechanic to powerplay, and if they implement that, then it will really be a competitive game, and perhaps worthy of being made open only. Without a win/lose state though, there is nothing worth fighting for, therefore no need for open only.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Let me guess. It a Discord channel that full of Gankers.

I'm going to guess a number of them are banned from the forums anyway. There used to be quite a few open only proponents who couldn't debate without resorting to insults who simply dissappeared from the forums shortly afterwards.

I admire Rubbernukes ability to generally remain polite and calm in the face of what he must view as frustrating and unreasoanble opposition, although I can imagine him sitting at home banging his head on his keyboard and saying some choice words about us

 

[Velixar]

I'm going to guess a number of them are banned from the forums anyway. There used to be quite a few open only proponents who couldn't debate without resorting to insults who simply dissappeared from the forums shortly afterwards.

I admire Rubbernukes ability to generally remain polite and calm in the face of what he must view as frustrating and unreasoanble opposition, although I can imagine him sitting at home banging his head on his keyboard and saying some choice words about us

Well I bet I have a lot of fellow console users who are reading topic like this and asking why. It going to hurt players like my self who could only go for the cheapest setup to play Elite Dangerous solo and we have fools asking to have it taken away from us.

 

[lenna]

Well you just suggested that Powerplay can't have engineered enemies, better AI thats harder, can't use players, only that abstracted grind is permissible.

Its not a matter of per AI difficulty- its that the AI is constrained by hauling mechanics (i.e. one chance of interdiction by a rubbish non engineered NPC) and poor design choices (NFZs being stupidly big). If NFZs were smaller, if AI were more adventurous, if AI could phase your flimsy cargo vessel, or have LR weapons, engage in any area, plan intelligently then things might be different. But they aren't.

I am sorry but your argument is heavily flawed - NPCs do not actually need engineering per se, increasing numbers and have them operating in a wing arguably adds more risk than increasing the strength of a single target. As for the "AI being constrained", I call rubbish on that one. When running cargo missions, I have had multiple interdictions by NPCs both due directly to mission generated wrinkles and free roaming pirate NPCs - the latter tends to only happen when running higher value cargo but the point is still valid.

Its making the most out of Powerplay- pure and simple. Simple PP tasks (haul fort mats, haul prep mats, shoot NPCs) becomes much more complicated when someone is actually trying to stop you doing that, and them doing the same on you. Otherwise, its just grinding. And if there is one universal complaint in ED, its that most of the game revolves around doing the same thing over and over without distraction.

It is not making the most out of PP it is imposing a PvP centric agenda - something FD should not be doing to ANY current element of the main environment.

Powerplay will always be constrained by the mission design system- it will never be the rich branching story we were promised, and in a PP context it would become repetitive almost immediately since you are hauling huge amounts, and hauling not for story but for another purpose (i.e. your power) in a player directed feature.

PP could be changed in lots of different ways, and the mission system is perfectly capable of supporting evolving mission chains - that much is quite clear. Just imposing a PvP agenda on others will not remove repetitiveness nor make it fundamentally any more dynamic. All it will do is address a PvP centric agenda that arguably should be ignored.

Any changes to PP should focus on improving the PvE mechanics and keep PvP as emergent, incidental, and entirely optional.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Well I bet I have a lot of fellow console users who are reading topic like this and asking why. It going to hurt players like my self who could only go for the cheapest setup to play Elite Dangerous solo and we have fools asking to have it taken away from us.

Yes, it tends to overlook those who have limited setups, lower performance machines, poor internet connections, or don't pay the Sony/MS tax for open play.

But can't worry about those people, they are obviously a minority and must be dismissed in order to please a different minority

 

[Velixar]

Yes, it tends to overlook those who have limited setups, lower performance machines, poor internet connections, or don't pay the Sony/MS tax for open play.

But can't worry about those people, they are obviously a minority and must be dismissed in order to please a different minority

If you go though this topic you get ignorant people who has no feeling what so ever. Stuff like If you can't pay to play then you should not even have a console and such. I wish I could report them but it not a violation.

 

[Jockey79]

Yes, it tends to overlook those who have limited setups, lower performance machines, poor internet connections, or don't pay the Sony/MS tax for open play.

But can't worry about those people, they are obviously a minority and must be dismissed in order to please a different minority

Which was my earlier point, amazing how when limiting gameplay hurts some people they are quick enough to call it out as a bad idea.
But as soon they get their setup sorted, they are soon trying to limit other peoples play.

I'm starting to think an earlier idea was the perfect solution to all this Open Only talk.
As Open Mode is so inherently "unfair" and wrought with so many issues for the BGS, CGs and PP then we should just be done with Open Mode.
Remove it as an option in the menu and if people want to play with random strangers then they can make a Group like Mobius did.


It's also the quickest solution for Frontier to fix all these so-called imbalances, just delete 1 item from the menu.
It would take what, 10 minutes to do and there, problem solved. No more issues.
People can still play socially in their PGs or in Solo, CQC is still there and the other improvements for PP may actually get some decent air time.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Which was my earlier point, amazing how when limiting gameplay hurts some people they are quick enough to call it out as a bad idea.
But as soon they get their setup sorted, they are soon trying to limit other peoples play.

I'm starting to think an earlier idea was the perfect solution to all this Open Only talk.
As Open Mode is so inherently "unfair" and wrought with so many issues for the BGS, CGs and PP then we should just be done with Open Mode.
Remove it as an option in the menu and if people want to play with random strangers then they can make a Group like Mobius did.


It's also the quickest solution for Frontier to fix all these so-called imbalances, just delete 1 item from the menu.
It would take what, 10 minutes to do and there, problem solved. No more issues.
People can still play socially in their PGs or in Solo, CQC is still there and the other improvements for PP may actually get some decent air time.

Well, i think we have the perfect solution now, its just some people disagree.

And open is used by many for all sorts of play, from coop to compete, so i don't see why it should be removed from people who enjoy its use as it is. So my preferred solution is give those who want open only exactly what they want. An open only server, completely disconnected from the existing server. One where they can play all day without ever worrying about what another player might be doing on console or in another mode.

I mean, i think we are generous enough to even allow them to have the "official" lore on the open only server. Of course, the lore on that server would stagnate when nobody is actually doing much except shooting each other, but its the thought that counts

 

[Jockey79]

...So my preferred solution is give those who want open only exactly what they want. An open only server, completely disconnected from the existing server. One where they can play all day without ever worrying about what another player might be doing on console or in another mode.

The problem there is, Frontier already ruled out the 2nd server idea.
Which is a shame, as it is a perfect solution.

Removing Open from the main menu, however, solves all the issues with so-called "imbalance" and anyone could create a PG without a password so random people could play in it - just like Open Mode now. Heck it may even encourage Frontier to make that PG browser we've asked for so we can look in-game at PGs to join.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

The problem there is, Frontier already ruled out the 2nd server idea.

Well, you know, some people say FD might change their mind on ideas, for example, they might make PP open only... so if it can apply to one, it can apply to another

 

[Jockey79]

Well, you know, some people say FD might change their mind on ideas, for example, they might make PP open only... so if it can apply to one, it can apply to another

While in essence, this is true there is a slight difference.

Money.

A new open only server costs money.
Money to set up, money to keep it running.

My idea is just getting one of the GUI Devs to remove some lines of code and realign the remaining elements.
They are already paying the Dev and it shouldn't take them too long, so it doesn't cost any extra.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

While in essence, this is true there is a slight difference.

Money.

A new open only server costs money.
Money to set up, money to keep it running.

My idea is just getting one of the GUI Devs to remove some lines of code and realign the remaining elements.
They are already paying the Dev and it shouldn't take them too long, so it doesn't cost any extra.

Not a significant cost if not that many people are using it. They can probably rent out a 486DX4 for the job