Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Mr Jack Burton]

This is false.
Beyond a couple of 'popular systems' (which we can actually name off the top of our heads) there is no appreciable difference in risk between modes.

While it might be true that risk can be similar across many systems, the presence of dedicated players or factions changes the dynamic significantly. If my faction or I take an interest in a system, you can expect a noticeable difference in the level of activity and risk. Therefore, it's not entirely accurate to dismiss the idea that some systems are riskier depending on who's there.

Seeing others paintjobs/decals. In a busy instance you might get a flash of another Cmdrs paintjob, (or suit if they're on foot) you won't see their decals and certainly won't see their bobbleheads. The cosmetics are for your appreciation, and making pretty screenshots, nothing more.

Cosmetics, like decals in COD&similar, are purchased for a variety of personal reasons. Self-expression, standing out visually, or simply for aesthetic pleasure. While some players may feel they're just for personal appreciation, marketing around these items often emphasizes customization, uniqueness, and sometimes even status among peers. So, while it might seem that they're only for personal enjoyment, there's a broader appeal tied to them, especially in multiplayer environments.

If you're interesting in marketing around cosmetics topic I have reports with real data assessing how volume changes in single player/pve/multiplayer evninroments.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

If Powerplay 2.0 thrives then it is unlikely to remain "very compressed smaller areas" for long - as there are c.20,000 inhabited systems for the twelve powers to fight over.

Those inclined to attack non-combatants often gravitate to places where non-combatants will be found - it still happens at trade CG destination systems.

Which would represent a blanket bonus for playing the game in Open while pledged (as Powerplay 2.0 seems to simply be "play the game while pledged", until any additional aspects are announced).

It does sadden me a little how you seem desperate to engage in 'word play', possibly hoping that anyone who disagrees with you will walk away from the conversation and

'Very Compressed Small Areas' relates to the fact that all PP activity occurs in (compared to the number of total inhabited systems) a limited number of systems (I am sure Rubbernuke can probably provide more numbers than I can). Systems in which you are going to (if you're in open) have a potential to see players pledged to either the same power as yourself or a rival, working either in tandem with or against you, much like the CG systems.

I don't know where you are getting PP being simply "play the game while pledged", as in the Q&A they have stated in the Q&A "These can all affect Powerplay if performed in the right systems, if you are pledged to a Power.", which again indicates a compression point in the number of potential system for activities.

Again, the bonus that was suggested was something going towards the "Strategic" goals of your faction, which is where Powerplay success is determined, not the precious cr/hr ratio that used to echo through these forums in many discussions.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Cosmetics, like decals in COD&similar, are purchased for a variety of personal reasons. Self-expression, standing out visually, or simply for aesthetic pleasure. While some players may feel they're just for personal appreciation, marketing around these items often emphasizes customization, uniqueness, and sometimes even status among peers. So, while it might seem that they're only for personal enjoyment, there's a broader appeal tied to them, especially in multiplayer environments.

If you're interesting in marketing around cosmetics topic I have reports with real data assessing how volume changes in single player/pve/multiplayer evninroments.

I'm perfectly aware of how many paint jobs, decals, bobbleheads and suits I've bought. None of which I would think were even noticed by other Cmdrs when encountered.
Going back to XBTF players could and did change their ship decals despite it being a single player game.
Same as the Space Marine chapters we invented, the Ork hordes, Eldar Craftworlds, Tyranid broods etc. etc. etc. in any of a whole swathe of 40k games.

 

[Lu-v H8-2020]

I'd be personally up for a small passive % bonus to PP in open and if you encounter an opponent, regardless of who pulls who, escapes wins or die, get a little bonus tag for the sake of interaction; not having a way to main+alt PP open kill effort exploit could be that. Some system of the sort.

PP pledge AND being in PP territory would bypass block ghosting shenanigans. "but some gankers will then join PP" yes but then, you can't call it ganking now can you? The player pledged and even if he does it for kicks, at least there is context form. For the ones that are in PP territory but not pledged > your happy block works. yay. Gankers adressed, open still not as effective (but at least a small bonus will cushion it and make fights/escape a happy moment for parties involved)

Also a kill main+alt thing problem possibly in PP 2.0 if playerbase population defines some form of protection for smaller PP communities a risk of "5c" with inactive pledged players bloating artificially and hitting a threshold via alt moneyfare would be a bit sad if it happened.

Ofc it won't be coded in but I'm just sure that there would be ways to do it (the some-sort-of-compensation part, not the alt one lol).

 

[varonica]

And the emerging answers are saying that Open Only would gate content while weighting seems to be a better compromise

The emerging answer are actually that a lot of players want it to stay the same as it already is, whether it does or not is up to FDEV of course. But why should players compromise? The players who don't want it get....oh you guessed it, nothing and the players who do want it get a bit of what they want, and a new starting line from which to start the argument next time they decide to push for Open Only. It's a similar tactic to shifting the Overton Windows in politics with those who don't agree having to agree to "compromises" that each time pushes it close and closer to the end goal of Open Only all the time!

 

[Mrc_NorthEast]

I don't know where you are getting PP being simply "play the game while pledged", as in the Q&A they have stated in the Q&A "These can all affect Powerplay if performed in the right systems, if you are pledged to a Power.", which again indicates a compression point in the number of potential system for activities.

We will have to wait to see what Fdev delivers (and what actually works), but I think just playing the game, while pledged, in control systems will work. So taking and turning in missions from control systems, ground or space cz's in those same systems etc. PP2.0 should be more spread out vs the current HQ systems being the focus

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

I'm perfectly aware of how many paint jobs, decals, bobbleheads and suits I've bought. None of which I would think were even noticed by other Cmdrs when encountered.
Going back to XBTF players could and did change their ship decals despite it being a single player game.
Same as the Space Marine chapters we invented, the Ork hordes, Eldar Craftworlds, Tyranid broods etc. etc. etc. in any of a whole swathe of 40k games.

While you may be aware of your purchases, marketing data consistently shows that cosmetics sell more in competitive multiplayer environments. Maybe we're going OT anyway. Pm me if you're interested in details.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

The emerging answer are actually that a lot of players want it to stay the same as it already is, whether it does or not is up to FDEV of course. But why should players compromise? The players who don't want it get....oh you guessed it, nothing and the players who do want it get a bit of what they want, and a new starting line from which to start the argument next time they decide to push for Open Only. It's a similar tactic to shifting the Overton Windows in politics with those who don't agree having to agree to "compromises" that each time pushes it close and closer to the end goal of Open Only all the time!

Change is inevitable in evolving games. FDEV will make decisions based on data and community feedback, not conspiracy theories. Compromises are a normal part of large gaming communities, but ultimately, the direction of the game remains in the hands of the developers.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It depends in my opinion how Fdev sets up Pp 2.0. This thread is talking about Open Only play and that is supposedly needs an extra bonus for the extra risk associated. Both of which I disagree with because 'potential' risk is not the same actual risk. A 1v2 Hydra's vs my KMK2 vs 2 scouts for example. Anyone in any ship taking on 2 Hydra's alone did face extra risk and the reward should show that. However just flying through a thargoid controlled system is not a risk the game will reward hopefully. Just look at the recent update to the tharg war, if you help an invasion get beaten back you get rewards. Because you did something useful, ie missions, or killing scouts and interceptors outside of Jameson Memorial. Not for just visiting Shin Dez in Open. I expect the same for PP2.0, and Fdev have all the pieces in place from the current Tharg war

1) There is no extra risk in Open vs PG/Solo depending on how Fdev codes PP2.0. A wing of 4 G5'd killing machines will face no risk from a single opposing pledged commander if they are alone. So potential risk vs actual risk again. The single pledged hot shot pilot if they were to win against 4 opposing powers' pilots whether npc's or other commanders did face extra risk, depending on combat rank. A 1v1 PP2.0 could be risky (combat rank should be used, Elite vs Harmless for example), it depends on the correct load outs, the skills of the opposing Cmdr's, etc. 4v1 is not. I am still against any extra bonus or rewards for an individuals choice to play in Open vs PG/Solo. The only rewards and bonus should be getting something useful done, not which mode you choose to get work done in!

2) Combat is the slowest and least efficient way to farm 'merits' or whatever Fdev chooses as the new PP2.0 currency. Finding others, instancing with others, timezone differences etc all will make combat the least effective way to get work done for your power in any mode potentially. Again in depends what Fdev codes up for us. I expect playing the game, running missions, and getting things done to be rewarded if you are pledged as all of that will help your chosen power. Playing in Open should not add any extra bonus except extra flair, suspense or mystery, which is each players choice

And Fdev has decided all of this long ago. And we only have to wait a few more weeks...

PS:
I really expect Fdev to use the Thargoid war as an example or template. The way system states work and ways to attack/defend and grow/shrink have all now been tested under the Tharg war narrative.
For PP2.0 - Replace the Titan with the new stronghold cap and supporting ships. Replace scouts, interceptors, glaives and hunters with the new as yet unseen PP2.0 power police. They will be the threat in all modes if you are pledged and wander someplace you should not have. Tharg war allows all modes, and rewards in all modes, but no extra 'bonus' because you did anything in Open, that is just another choice the Cmdr made on the path to getting something useful done

I really want hard NPCs for PP, because as you point out thats the only real way to make a proper opposition 'baseline'. I'd point out that NPCs in V1 are sporadic outside of PvE areas and that they themselves barely register- and is why Open was the solution as it augmented these NPCs with opportunistic players.

You still mistake the actual concept of opportunistic encounters in Open as well- there will be times when you see no-one, there will be times when you see one rival or many of them. Thats the risk you take playing. At some point all players fortify as well as attack, because thats part of Powerplay- but in all cases you are having to weigh up more variables than with 2015 era NPCs. From my own experiences timezones don't matter, finding each other is easy (Discord groups organise) and that because Powerplay has areas that focus players if you want to directly oppose you can- but its down to luck if you find someone (plus its an objective in V2). Also remember (at least in V1) effort is merit based and 1:1 effort- so if I destroy someone who has a load of merits, that effort is wiped out.

We won't know what role combat will take- we do know that it will be always in the background when we trespass.

 

[Mrc_NorthEast]

You still mistake the actual concept of opportunistic encounters in Open as well- there will be times when you see no-one, there will be times when you see one rival or many of them. Thats the risk you take playing.

I think we just disagree on that potential 'risk' being worth anything extra. It's each Cmdr's choice to pick the mode they want, based on what they feel like that day and time they have to spend and what they want/need to do. For me no mode choice should get any extra bonus or negative. It is the 'work', the 'results' that should get rewarded, and mode choice should have no bearing on those rewards, in my opinion, just the work (or lack thereof)

Again Tharg war example: Going to a Titan sometimes you get very aggressive nasty goids harassing you constantly when trying to collect people pods or mats, or doing attack runs. Other times you get a quiet instance with the npc guy who wants to repair your ship even though it is at 100% already. Just because I went to the Titan, ie potential risk, doesn't mean I should get extra rewards. Rewards should only be handed out after doing 'work' there, completing missions for getting pods, doing x amount of damage to the heat core, etc. But the potential threat is always there, the actual threat changes in each instance

But yes, the NPC PowerPlay 2.0 space police are very important to this whole feature update. Do you remember why the v1 Power Play space police were turned off previously? I have heard they used to interdict Cmdr's but I never heard why that functionality was turned off

 

[Robert Maynard]

'Very Compressed Small Areas' relates to the fact that all PP activity occurs in (compared to the number of total inhabited systems) a limited number of systems (I am sure Rubbernuke can probably provide more numbers than I can). Systems in which you are going to (if you're in open) have a potential to see players pledged to either the same power as yourself or a rival, working either in tandem with or against you, much like the CG systems.

Maybe in old Powerplay - we don't yet know how widespread Powerplay 2.0 will become.

I don't know where you are getting PP being simply "play the game while pledged", as in the Q&A they have stated in the Q&A "These can all affect Powerplay if performed in the right systems, if you are pledged to a Power.", which again indicates a compression point in the number of potential system for activities.

Which sounded like regular BGS activity, while pledged.

Again, the bonus that was suggested was something going towards the "Strategic" goals of your faction, which is where Powerplay success is determined, not the precious cr/hr ratio that used to echo through these forums in many discussions.

Again, simply applying a bonus because a players plays in Open would be a blanket bonus - it would be a participation award with no reflection of whether the player actually encountered any challenge from other players.

 

[Darkfyre99]

With weighted content your "decision matrix" would be the same while efficiency would be balanced, seems a win/win case to me

And you’d be wrong, because I make my decisions based on fun, not efficiency. It’s why I play by certain house rules that are definitely not efficient, but certainly fun.

Let’s say, for instance, that the most efficient method of undermining a stronghold system is to accept a mission to sabotage and/or rob the stronghold mega ship.

Under the status quo, I’ll visit that ship in Open, in the vague hope of testing my skills and stealth build against other players willingly in Open. If I’m lucky, there’ll be players to for me to sneaky sneak past. If I’m very lucky, I might have able to get an opportunitistic kill. The more PowerPlayers there are in general, the more chances my luck will be favorable.

Under the blanket Open bonus, things change. I won’t even try for an opportunistic kill, because I fully expect them to “gracefully log out” on arrival, by paying attention to the data rate display, and hope for a less risky Open instance. Furthermore, since there will be fewer PowerPlayers in general, my chances of being instanced with anyone will be reduced. So most likely, I’ll get a lot of reward for very little actual risk.

Which is why I favor rewarding actual risk, rather than hypothetical risk. It shouldn't matter if I’m in Open or Solo/PG, if there’s no actual opposition, then I shouldn’t get a bonus, period. The only time I should get a bonus is when there actually are opposing players there. It would even encourage me shift my typical play window to my local prime time to maximize my odds of actually having opposition, so I have a better chance to get that bonus more often.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I think we just disagree on that potential 'risk' being worth anything extra. It's each Cmdr's choice to pick the mode they want, based on what they feel like that day and time they have to spend and what they want/need to do. For me no mode choice should get any extra bonus or negative. It is the 'work', the 'results' that should get rewarded, and mode choice should have no bearing on those rewards, in my opinion, just the work (or lack thereof)

Again Tharg war example: Going to a Titan sometimes you get very aggressive nasty goids harassing you constantly when trying to collect people pods or mats, or doing attack runs. Other times you get a quiet instance with the npc guy who wants to repair your ship even though it is at 100% already. Just because I went to the Titan, ie potential risk, doesn't mean I should get extra rewards. Rewards should only be handed out after doing 'work' there, completing missions for getting pods, doing x amount of damage to the heat core, etc. But the potential threat is always there, the actual threat changes in each instance

But yes, the NPC PowerPlay 2.0 space police are very important to this whole feature update. Do you remember why the v1 Power Play space police were turned off previously? I have heard they used to interdict Cmdr's but I never heard why that functionality was turned off

The thing is the 'work' outcome is attenuated by NPCs and other players are between you and results. Human NPCs (esp. PP NPCs) don't act as a filter like other players do.

In Open you'd be a fool not to make your ship more survivable, meaning you have to build differently beyond what an NPC can do to you. You also have to pay more attention to where you fly- because some places will have people in them. In solo your results are made easier because the opposition is demoted from 2024 to 2015 levels , PG results are x4 as easy due to wing merits, while in Open you can lose everything to other players. This could be a cycle winning number, all lost like data is on destruction.

Its ironic you keep on returning to Thargoids, given other players are more of a menace in those areas.

IIRC NPCs in PP used to have a different AI template where they'd attack pledges on sight. The moans were mainly from non pledges who hated having PP NPCs taking up BGS slots in instances. In any case, as soon as engineers came they were useless.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

While you may be aware of your purchases, marketing data consistently shows that cosmetics sell more in competitive multiplayer environments. Maybe we're going OT anyway. Pm me if you're interested in details.

First thing an accountant learns is never to take anything marketing claims at face value.
Went through a bunch of AXCZs today, I could barely tell what class ships the other Cmdrs had much less what decals they might have had. The only things that stood out were the colours of the vent beams.
For their part they apparently didn't even notice my presence untill the Hydra showed up.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

We will have to wait to see what Fdev delivers (and what actually works), but I think just playing the game, while pledged, in control systems will work. So taking and turning in missions from control systems, ground or space cz's in those same systems etc. PP2.0 should be more spread out vs the current HQ systems being the focus

I can see it being like you say, but based on the wording, purely activity confined to the 'control' systems as we used to refer to them (hence the player bottlenecking), which is where that 'tramsmash' of player activity is going to be seen.

Maybe in old Powerplay - we don't yet know how widespread Powerplay 2.0 will become.

Which sounded like regular BGS activity, while pledged.

Again, simply applying a bonus because a players plays in Open would be a blanket bonus - it would be a participation award with no reflection of whether the player actually encountered any challenge from other players.

As above with Mrc_NorthEast, my reading of the wording is that you're rewarded for conducting activity in what used to be called a 'control' or 'expansion' system, in which case, as above, thats where we'll see player bottlenecks occur. It does sound like regular gameplay, whilst pledged to that faction and in those systems, you are not wrong. That however is why it wouldn't be a blanket bonus, (e.g. Conducting activities which could be regarded as consolidation/fortification outwith the areas that they would actual have an impact on your faction/a rivals ones standing would likely not accrue any bonus under such a system). Again to underline, the idea of this weighting was about 'improving' the standing of the faction, not 'more credits please' individual rewards.

Again has been reiterated several times, the risk which is why some feel this weighting is needed isnt the actual encounter, but the chance of that encounter being present meaning you need to adjust your build/tactics/etc accordingly and be more engaged with the game (rather than shuttling backwards and forth unshielded whilst watching Netflix on your second monitor, with minimal player involvement).

 

[Darkfyre99]

While it might be true that risk can be similar across many systems, the presence of dedicated players or factions changes the dynamic significantly. If my faction or I take an interest in a system, you can expect a noticeable difference in the level of activity and risk. Therefore, it's not entirely accurate to dismiss the idea that some systems are riskier depending on who's there.

The level of risk changes significantly only when the proverbial stars align. For my risk to change significantly, your group would have to be large enough to cover all four of these categories:

• My version of the game
• My play window
• My real world location (near the Great Lakes)
• My in-game location

If you have enough players to affect my risk significantly, then you have enough players to counter my activities period, regardless of my mode choice. If you don’t, then you’re better off trying to counter my PvE activities, regardless of my mode choice.

 

[KKomrade Sylas]

Why you want to promote open? Too starved of victims?

Forum dwellers here really come up with the lamest comebacks and then drop the mic while hallucinating that everyone in the room is clapping.

What I can't wrap my head around is being so... silly as to think any time any player gets killed in any context whatsoever equals griefing. Sure this might be the case if you get blown up in Deciat while flying a DBX, but If you are opposing someone's powerplay and/or BGS efforts and you get blown up by them, you aren't a victim, no matter how desperately you want to portray yourself as one.

Hey maybe try to have a good faith conversation for once, if your reply was a joke well, damn. You had the whole squad laughing

 

[Doctor Dread]

I hope you are just pretending you didn't understood to what I gave that comment. For your sake

 

[varonica]

And you’d be wrong, because I make my decisions based on fun, not efficiency. It’s why I play by certain house rules that are definitely not efficient, but certainly fun.

Yeah same here, I don't play by any rules, see something fun, go and do it. The last few weeks I have been going around permit locked systems in the bubble and unlocking them, not for any BGS or PP purpose, but just to do it, efficiency and all that garbage doesn't matter, it's having fun that does matter, however PP Open Only proponents think that we should be pushed into doing thing s a certain way. PSA here, if I don't enjoy something I simply don't do it, and a lot of players who do take part in PP now may just stop doing it if they had their way.

 

[KKomrade Sylas]

Yeah same here, I don't play by any rules, see something fun, go and do it. The last few weeks I have been going around permit locked systems in the bubble and unlocking them, not for any BGS or PP purpose, but just to do it, efficiency and all that garbage doesn't matter, it's having fun that does matter, however PP Open Only proponents think that we should be pushed into doing thing s a certain way. PSA here, if I don't enjoy something I simply don't do it, and a lot of players who do take part in PP now may just stop doing it if they had their way.

Bonuses for open would be a good compromise, probably. So that people who genuinely would rather not participate than risk the oh so dreadful player interaction can still participate if they want to. Locking players out of an activity seems like the main reason to be hung up about this to be honest, and this solves that.

The main reason people ask for open-only in this is that PP and BGS have actual competition. Open-Only Mining or Trading or Exploring or Bounty hunting or whatever wouldn't make much sense at all, you're just doing your own thing, it's your choice if you want the possibility of other players getting involved for good or bad, and it's respectable if you don't want to choose that. But when doing BGS you are often not just doing your own thing, but undoing someone else's work, someone else's grind, someone else's planning. Now we aren't just talking about your fun, but you are getting involved with the fun of a lot of other players, and it's not really fun for them seeing their work become undone by a player like you when there's no avenue for retaliation or to discourage that.

Even in BGS, when someone gets attacked, it's often by nameless players in Solo. What are they risking if they can't be identified? Why do they get to undo my work while their own faction isn't at risk because you can't tell who's doing what, given they're hiding in Solo? Sometimes - and more often than you'd think - they don't have a faction to speak of that you can hit back. At the very least you'd expect to be able to discourage someone trying to take ownership away from your station by shooting them down, but this apparently infringes on your fun. And it is implied here that your fun is more important than everyone else's. This constant accusation that PvP players want to have fun at the expense of everyone else is actually a confession of what you're already doing. You're pushing them to do things a certain way, and when they propose an alternative to mitigate this, you accuse them of trying to push you to do things their way.

Powerplay specifically is more of a zero-sum game than BGS.