I am sorry but Discord usage does not define who should or should not participate in PP.
Also there is no good reason why any given individual should not be able to participate in PP - whether operating as part of a collective or not.
The key point is despite protestations from some quarters to the contrary, PP is NOT a PvP focused/centric mechanic and it seems that some like yourself want to mutate it into that.
From its simplistic mechanics its better off as an Open only activity.
Regardless of Sandro's claims, what was delivered was not a PvP mode which means FD's hands are tied in essence.
Not currently, no.
It is clear from the two focused discussions that the Open Only approach is a no go and the Open Biased approach has proven to be also a no go. There were various other improvements discussed in those threads that could be applied but FD seem to have recognised the toxic nature of changing existing gameplay in such a way as to support the PvP centric agenda.
FD have not done anything, at all. They could have done 4 or 5 of the changes, but did nothing.
IYO - reality is somewhat different.
Not really. The whole purpose is for the AI to attack and destroy you. If it has no chance at all, whats the point of it?
As I see it - there may be some bugs with the spawning logic but the long and the short of it is that NPC ships do not need engineering to be effective.
They do, otherwise you have a massive advantage over weak enemies whose role is to kill you.
The only thing your Open agenda supports is a PvP-centric one - it does not improve PP, does not change mechanics, and certainly does not anywhere near guarantee you will spawn in an instance with a player engaging in an activity running counter to your PP desires.
PvP as in what I described: teamwork, skill, ship design, communication in response to proper threats from other players who are employing the same against you. Plus, this is not 1:1 Red Baron dogfights- its any rival pledge. And even if you don't see them that run, you have to be prepared and take them into account which in turn affects how you play.
Mission chains have been implemented as have dynamic wrinkles.
Quite. Go to system x and find y. The wrinkles are simplistic and irritating, and in a PP context would get in the way if they were superimposed over what we have now.
Sorry, but you are demonstrably wrong - PvP in general does not make ANY gameplay more dynamic. So what if you may get interdicted by (or be able to interdict) a player executing an activity that runs counter to yours, it is really not that different to an NPC doing the same.
And as I said before, the AI most often does not interdict you intelligently or otherwise in a ship that would threaten you enough to make you assess your situation. Players do that, I know because I've fought in open Powerplay battles that have been night and day compared to solo only grinding. Unless NPCs can follow you across systems, guess where you might be or be heading, interdict you, interdict you in a ship capable of harming you, interdict other ships intent on harming you, take risks in and around NFZs and other restricted areas, assist you etc then its quite clear AI
cannot do what players do, and that PvP (direct team v team co-op is better) actually does bring more to the table.
Not necessarily, PP does not need to copy the BGS at all and PP is a prime candidate for a Career type mechanic. The basic elements are there to support this but there is still no good reason to constrain any part of PP or the BGS to Open only.
I don't advocate BGS being open at all.
Career or not, it does not answer what role Powerplay supposedly plays- in some form its supposed to be competitive against other players. But it has to be different to the BGS which is the same but across modes.
