Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Rubbernuke]

has 'an ulterior motive'

ITWASYOUALLALONGHARRY

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I'm using light-hearted and colourful language to try to emphasise the point some of us posting here now are in our 50's (tbc, I'm not, Im still a spring chicken). I'm ascribing the word 'fear' to it loosely, based on this weird underlying suggestion that a lot of these posts have, that anyone who is a proponent of Open, Weighting, or anything that isn't the Forum Consensus, has 'an ulterior motive'

I'm in my 50s. My PvP skills are way less than they used to be (and i was never that good at PvP, my aim was always too wonky). My kids kick my rear end when we play PvP arena games.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

ITWASYOUALLALONGHARRY

The real friends we made were the Forum Alts we made along the way, Rinzler.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

I'm in my 50s. My PvP skills are way less than they used to be (and i was never that good at PvP, my aim was always too wonky). My kids kick my rear end when we play PvP arena games.

I think Starlink or whatever Im connected to lost half the reply (as well as your quotation) I sent to you earlier.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Thats not the issue at hand, though. Its making the effort in each mode match the strategic gains. Open Only was a V1 suggestion because you had the situation where hardly anything went after you in two modes.

If "strategic gains" is the new euphemism for "player effects on pan-modal game features" then the answer remains the same - all players affect the galaxy equally in this game. It's not a "broken PvP game", it's a PvE game where players who can choose to instance with other players can shoot at anything/one they instance with and where doing so is completely optional.

Teamplay in PP is you and chums undertaking a task. In Open in wings that means facing off against other teams undertaking tasks. Why do you think NAV harvesting was done in wings?

Indeed - and that task may not involve PvP for those disinclined to engage in it.

I stated wing bonus like a bazillion times, and explained the reasoning.

OK. Ta. It would still represent double the reward / effect compared to players in Private Groups though, so still at insulting levels.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I think Starlink or whatever Im connected to lost half the reply (as well as your quotation) I sent to you earlier.

Blame Elon Musk!

 

[Rubbernuke]

The real friends we made were the Forum Alts we made along the way, Rinzler.

By extension that does mean the Forum God From Wish™ is the most evil player alive....

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Isn't that what it will effectively mean for PP2 to be open only? If pledged, you have to be in open? If not, open only won't work for PP2, since how should the game determine when you have to be in open and when you can play in PG/solo?

There were two broad ways of working it (from what I recall):

The original FDEV OO PP Proposal was that when players are engaging in powerplay, and carrying associated PP tokens (be they cargo, merits, bonds or whatever) carrying them locked the commander into open (with transferring to other modes resulting in them being lost) until they were handed in.

The other FDEV Proposal was that again, when the player is engaging in Powerplay, if it is done in Open, the impact on PP mechanics would be weighted greater than it would if conducted using other modes.

Personally, I am very much in favour of the second, as its accounting for the additional potential risk of playing in open, without outright locking folk out of conducting it in one of the other modes if they so chose, and negating the 'meta' strategy that in my mind, killed Powerplay 1.0 in terms of engaged player numbers (i.e. running hauls etc in solo with zero risk of encountering a threat that could undo your work).

 

[Rubbernuke]

If "strategic gains" is the new euphemism for "player effects on pan-modal game features" then the answer remains the same - all players affect the galaxy equally in this game. It's not a "broken PvP game", it's a PvE game where players who can choose to instance with other players can shoot at anything/one they instance with and where doing so is completely optional.

No. its the opposite- a broken PvE feature balanced by PvP. NPCs are there to at least provide opposition and were absent.

Indeed - and that task may not involve PvP for those disinclined to engage in it.

PvP quite often drove off people harvesting- something you could not do in PG.

OK. Ta. It would still represent double the reward / effect compared to players in Private Groups though, so still at insulting levels.

Why? Having any number of allied wings uncontested is IMO unbalanced compared to open where at least you can counter.

You hate wing bonuses anyway, and this is for PP alone. Having the full multiplier is having your cake and eating it, and I've outlined many times where it made AFK turretboats, NAV harvesting, collusion piracy much easier.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm using light-hearted and colourful language to try to emphasise the point some of us posting here now are in our 50's (tbc, I'm not, Im still a spring chicken).

Tone is sometimes difficult to gauge accurately in text only communication.

 

[Jockey79]

PowerPlay should be Open-Only. At now - today - all activities are result of endless NPC grind. No one can disturb what you're doing in system by other way than stronger grind.

PowerPlay should be Solo-Only. So no one can disturb the game time that I'm paying to have.

 

[Rubbernuke]

There were two broad ways of working it (from what I recall):

The original FDEV OO PP Proposal was that when players are engaging in powerplay, and carrying associated PP tokens (be they cargo, merits, bonds or whatever) carrying them locked the commander into open (with transferring to other modes resulting in them being lost) until they were handed in.

The other FDEV Proposal was that again, when the player is engaging in Powerplay, if it is done in Open, the impact on PP mechanics would be weighted greater than it would if conducted using other modes.

Personally, I am very much in favour of the second, as its accounting for the additional potential risk of playing in open, without outright locking folk out of conducting it in one of the other modes if they so chose, and negating the 'meta' strategy that in my mind, killed Powerplay 1.0 in terms of engaged player numbers (i.e. running hauls etc in solo with zero risk of encountering a threat that could undo your work).

Nice summary.

The most important aspect of V2 will be its NPCs, and was the reason OO was suggested for V1 since the gulf between modes was stark. If FD close the gap in a sensible way the need for weighting / perks is reduced.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No. its the opposite- a broken PvE feature balanced by PvP. NPCs are there to at least provide opposition and were absent.

In the opinion of some, certainly. No problem with NPCs being actually made a challenge though - that's old ground well covered.

PvP quite often drove off people harvesting- something you could not do in PG.

Indeed - noting that they also chose to play in Open.

Why? Having any number of allied wings uncontested is IMO unbalanced compared to open where at least you can counter.

.... because it's a co-operation bonus, not a PvP bonus.

You hate wing bonuses anyway, and this is for PP alone.

Entirely incorrect. As they are they are not an issue at all.

Having the full multiplier is having your cake and eating it, and I've outlined many times where it made AFK turretboats, NAV harvesting, collusion piracy much easier.

Given that it's not a PvP bonus, it's just reward - for playing co-operatively.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

There were two broad ways of working it (from what I recall):

The original FDEV OO PP Proposal was that when players are engaging in powerplay, and carrying associated PP tokens (be they cargo, merits, bonds or whatever) carrying them locked the commander into open (with transferring to other modes resulting in them being lost) until they were handed in.

The other FDEV Proposal was that again, when the player is engaging in Powerplay, if it is done in Open, the impact on PP mechanics would be weighted greater than it would if conducted using other modes.

Personally, I am very much in favour of the second, as its accounting for the additional potential risk of playing in open, without outright locking folk out of conducting it in one of the other modes if they so chose, and negating the 'meta' strategy that in my mind, killed Powerplay 1.0 in terms of engaged player numbers (i.e. running hauls etc in solo with zero risk of encountering a threat that could undo your work).

You're talking about PP1. We need to discuss PP2.

In PP2, if you are pledged, and doing a very wide range of activities, you can make the numbers move. There can always be a potential impact on PP.

So, the only way for this to work is if pledged, you have to be in open, regardless of what you are doing.

Let me give an example with exploration data. If handing in exploration data can move the PP numbers, then the argument is that has to be done in open. Opposing powers have to have the ability to stop you gathering data, they have to have the ability to stop you handing in that data, so, based on the arguments presented, you have to do exploration in open and be in open when docking at any station which could affect the PP numbers changing - except how does the game then decide you're about to do something that might affect PP? Block those options in stations? Ok, switch to open when docked! Refuse docking? What the hell? I'm just handing in exploration data, am i meant to know every single station i'll be blocked at from handing my data in? But wait, i just want to help the BGS, not Powerplay, even though i'm pledged... sorry, tough luck, can't help the BGS for your faction if its in a power affected system!

Do you see what i'm getting at here?

How is the game to determine when you can and cannot be in open given the range of activities available?

 

[Rubbernuke]

In the opinion of some, certainly. No problem with NPCs being actually made a challenge though - that's old ground well covered.

Well it was. Once engineering came in even the old style PP CZs posed no problem. Bear in mind this was also when the defection police ran around with no interdictors for months.

Indeed - noting that they also chose to play in Open.

Some did. Many a time Discords would chuckle and groan at footage inside Grom PGs.

.... because it's a co-operation bonus, not a PvP bonus.

What about the anemic NPCs in PG? Combat is combat and for even hauling powers 1/3 of V1 is shooting.

Entirely incorrect. As they are they are not an issue at all.

A few pages back you were happy if they were taken out.

Given that it's not a PvP bonus, it's just reward - for playing co-operatively.

Who said it was exclusively PvP? For example if you had four haulers you could maximise your time balanced by the risk of being in Open. Why should PG have the same when they face less and can have any number of wings doing the same?

One of the reasons weighting was suggested was because of PG turretboating- its why many including myself hated the idea because the reductions required (for V1) were highly punitive to the point of making it pointless. So a 50% reduction in wing effectiveness for V2 is entirely reasonable.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What about the anemic NPCs in PG? Combat is combat and for even hauling powers 1/3 of V1 is shooting.

Expected to be different in 2.0 than in v1.

A few pages back you were happy if they were taken out.

If the only alternative was them being fiddled with to favour PvP, yes. Leaving them as is? No problem whatsoever.

Who said it was exclusively PvP? For example if you had four haulers you could maximise your time balanced by the risk of being in Open. Why should PG have the same when they face less and can have any number of wings doing the same?

If it was a bonus for simply playing in Open then it's effectively a PvP bonus, or at least the possibility of it (unless the members of the wing have blocked all possible opponents).

One of the reasons weighting was suggested was because of PG- its why many including myself hated the idea because the reductions required (for V1) were highly punitive to the point of making it pointless. So a 50% reduction in wing effectiveness for V2 is entirely reasonable.

Weighting was a reduction in scope in the second Flash Topic from the Open only possible change proposal made in the first one. Noting that weighting was also proposed in the 2016 "hand grenade".

What is "reasonable" or not varies with players. It's unsurprising that PvP proponents variously favour an Open bonus, Open only, and / or the removal of Solo and Private Groups. Just as it is unsurprising that there is opposition from those with no inclination to engage in PvP to being penalised for not engaging in an entirely optional aspect of the game.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Expected to be different in 2.0 than in v1.

We will have to see- noting that in some expansions you may repeat the problem because they'll be no indirect way to prevent players 'working' until the system is claimed (in theory, at least).

If the only alternative was them being fiddled with to favour PvP, yes. Leaving them as is? No problem whatsoever.

Again, how do you know it will be used for PvP?

If it was a bonus for simply playing in Open then it's effectively a PvP bonus, or at least the possibility of it (unless the members of the wing have blocked all possible opponents).

'possiblity' and crazed edge cases doing a lot of lifting there. What about players simply working together in Open in remote unoccupied space? Are they PvPing too?

Weighting was a reduction in scope in the second Flash Topic from the Open only possible change proposal made in the first one. Noting that weighting was also proposed in the 2016 "hand grenade". What is "reasonable" or not varies with players. It's unsurprising that PvP proponents variously favour an Open bonus, Open only, and / or the removal of Solo and Private Groups. Just as it is unsurprising that there is opposition from those with no inclination to engage in PvP to being penalised for not engaging in an entirely optional aspect of the game.

Weighting was suggested before that IIRC. But when escalating merit bombs became normal and AFK turretboats the 'cause' (due to PG and lacking NPCs), it was one of the complaints aired to devs. It was unreasonable because to be effective it had to scale back retroactively (to an average of what a R5 player might do), rather than with a wing bonus reduction which is front loaded and 'flat'.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Again, how do you know it will be used for PvP?

The proposal was to give Wings in Open, a PvP enabled mode, double what players in PG would get. "PvP bonus" is shorthand for "a bonus simply for playing in Open due to the added risk that might possibly be encountered, independent of whether the players actually encounter any players in ships that might possibly pose an additional risk".

'possiblity' and crazed edge cases doing a lot of lifting there. What about players simply working together in Open in remote unoccupied space? Are they PvPing too?

There's no certainty that players will encounter hostile opposition, even in either of the Open modes available to some of them.

 

[Rubbernuke]

There's no certainty that players will encounter hostile opposition, even in either of the Open modes available to some of them.

And as such, its a more balanced perk than now. The possibility of PvP just moderates it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And as such, its a more balanced perk than now.

Whether it would be, or not, remains an opinion.