In PP 1.0 at least we had to account module shoppers (as collateral damage) and randoms pledged to a power because they liked the mugshot on the powerplay UI... but I believe PP 2.0 will be like all vs. all KoS.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
In PP 1.0 at least we had to account module shoppers (as collateral damage) and randoms pledged to a power because they liked the mugshot on the powerplay UI... but I believe PP 2.0 will be like all vs. all KoS.
Well, for those people you can see in open :trollface:
Those were design proposals relating to the PP2.0 overhaul, so its reasonable to assume that such an approach could still have an impact on the system.
For a simplistic 'broad strokes' approach to your question, I'd suggest that the game would 'know' if you're actions would impact on PP mechanics, if the player in question is in a PP held/expanding system.
At least three users after my post pointed out that Solo is just a private group with one player... no need for any salt
It'll depend how the system is structured (as we only have broad strokes atm).
It may be that 'your actions' (i.e. hauling/exploring/what not) generate 'Powerpoint Tokens', in which case it'll be a case of dumping them where needed.
However if not, I suspect the only way to help a faction without helping the PP faction (as thats what I assume you mean) will be to carry out said actions while not pledged to them.
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
How about you all just choose not to post here for a few days? Does it not get emotionally tiring just having the same pointless arguments about hypotheticals, year after year.
If you insist on continuing to post here, then remain civil. People are allowed to have a viewpoint different to your own. And people are allowed to play this game how they want.
If you insist on continuing to post here, then remain civil. People are allowed to have a viewpoint different to your own. And people are allowed to play this game how they want.
As mentioned several times, turn it into an unkillable (by the AI) AFK turretboat.And what would I do with a G5 murderboat in Solo?
The AI are easy enough in an un-engineered murderboat.
Elite Dangerous is most certainly is not an offline game at its core. There are still a lot of folk who post here that are at the least disappointed about this fact, and at the far end of the spectrum very bitter about this.
Last edited:
I guess those proposals were made before we understood more about how PP2 will work and i feel largely irrelevant based on what we now know.
As for your broad stroke, that's fair enough as a general answer, but drilling into it, we can see there is a big question as to how the game would know, and it seems to me, that since almost anything could affect PP, the only solution is to force open at all times if pledged, or at least, if you are in a power system (which will be most of the bubble i guess). Then there is the question, does the mode switch get forced as you jump, with a warning "Switching to open" or does the game refuse you to jump to another system unless you are in open?
A slogan of "Make PP2 open only" is one thing, but the devil is in the details. How would it actually work?
From the perspective of ease of implementation, the simplest solution is if pledged, you must play in open.
Which, as you might imagine, is troubling, and perhaps not desirable even for some open only proponents.
At least three users after my post pointed out that Solo is just a private group with one player... no need for any salt
I may not have read their posts. I responded to yours.
Blearry eyed as I am with a coffee in my hand right now, thinking on it if I (with my extremly limited experience of building large-scale scenarios for ArmA groups that love to exploit AI limitations) was building such a system based on the framework we have seen (and a little bit of peeking under the hood assumption making):
The Weighting Solution
1. Every interaction that impacts on Powerplay systems also generates a 'PP token' if conducted in Open which can be used to further impact PP mechanics than just carrying out the initial interaction.
2. If a player switches to another mode whilst carrying said token, it is deleted from that players inventory. (note: this doesn't impact on the initial interactions impact. That is still retained.
Slightly off-topic, I could only see the 'Warning... you are entering Open' approach you mention only really working in a situation where FDEV decided to make CGs Open only events (due to the extreme choke-point nature of a CG).
That might actually work. I mean, it would flag most things as potentially affecting PP, in which case, i think an even simpler solution would be anything is flagged, potential or not. Might avoid some edge cases the devs might not think of.
Ooof, conversation really moved yesterday!
But as I understand it, the essence of PowerPlay 2.0 is that everything you do is also PowerPlay activity when pledged.
That would work under PowerPlay 1.0. As I understand it, if the two of us are “fighting” over a system, it’s likely that while you’re busy in that conflict zone, I’m busy sitting in a station donating millions of credits to charity, and we’ll each be equally effective.
And that’s what I’m looking most forward to in PowerPlay 2.0: the decoupling of undermining from combat. The application of soft power, rather than brutal mass murder.
And that’s a you problem, because the entire design of the game isaround asynchronous PvE activities. Even in PowerPlay 1.0, that was the case. Since Frontier doesn’t host Frontier instances, to keep their operational costs down, you’ve got a situation where you’re highly unlikely to ever encounter another player unless both parties actively cooperate to maximize their chances of being instanced together.
Doubly so under PowerPlay 2.0, which is going to be far more heavily decentralized than 1.0 is. At least 1.0 had combat expansions, where everyone inclined towards PvP could gather to have fun. The closest you’ll have in 2.0 are strongholds, and it’s very likely that those who value efficiency over fun may decide that the amount of effort required to maintain a stronghold under attack is better spent on shoring up multiple fortified systems instead.
Which is why I don’t fret over what 99% of the playerbase is doing at any particular time. Between game versions, temporal concurrently, physical proximity, most players are always out of my proverbial reach, even if we’re operating in the exact same systems. If I wanted to maximize my chances for hot PvP action, I could move to Europe and work banker’s hours and dedicate my time off to playing PowerPlay, but that’s a silly reason to emigrate 8000 kilometers, even if I was willing to uproot my family to do so.
Eight more days until we finally get the exact details of how this all works.
But as I understand it, the essence of PowerPlay 2.0 is that everything you do is also PowerPlay activity when pledged.
That would work under PowerPlay 1.0. As I understand it, if the two of us are “fighting” over a system, it’s likely that while you’re busy in that conflict zone, I’m busy sitting in a station donating millions of credits to charity, and we’ll each be equally effective.
And that’s what I’m looking most forward to in PowerPlay 2.0: the decoupling of undermining from combat. The application of soft power, rather than brutal mass murder.
And that’s a you problem, because the entire design of the game isaround asynchronous PvE activities. Even in PowerPlay 1.0, that was the case. Since Frontier doesn’t host Frontier instances, to keep their operational costs down, you’ve got a situation where you’re highly unlikely to ever encounter another player unless both parties actively cooperate to maximize their chances of being instanced together.
Doubly so under PowerPlay 2.0, which is going to be far more heavily decentralized than 1.0 is. At least 1.0 had combat expansions, where everyone inclined towards PvP could gather to have fun. The closest you’ll have in 2.0 are strongholds, and it’s very likely that those who value efficiency over fun may decide that the amount of effort required to maintain a stronghold under attack is better spent on shoring up multiple fortified systems instead.
Which is why I don’t fret over what 99% of the playerbase is doing at any particular time. Between game versions, temporal concurrently, physical proximity, most players are always out of my proverbial reach, even if we’re operating in the exact same systems. If I wanted to maximize my chances for hot PvP action, I could move to Europe and work banker’s hours and dedicate my time off to playing PowerPlay, but that’s a silly reason to emigrate 8000 kilometers, even if I was willing to uproot my family to do so.
Eight more days until we finally get the exact details of how this all works.
Last edited:
Aye, that's why powerplayers will have to engage and eliminate any player pledged to a different power, no matter of the rank/ship.
Enemy is enemy!
Unless PowerPlay 2.0 actually makes PvP combat worthwhile, I doubt anyone not already interested in PvP combat is going to do that. It’s a simple cost/benefit and risk/reward analysis. Especially if the 2.0 build meta continues to favor highly specialized ships.
From another point of view, if I’m not working for my Power, then I’m obligated to avoid getting killed by hostile Powers, not stop working for myself and start working for my Power. Doubly so if I’m playing simply for the sheer joy of flying, and thus am not armed.
The tone could be more constructive, but I'll focus on the point. While Elite Dangerous has a strong PvE component, it’s not solely designed for asynchronous activities. Frontier has integrated PvP mechanics and PvE elements that encourage synchronous player cooperation as well. Even if certain design choices are constrained by budget, that doesn’t mean they can’t be improved, with or without additional resources.
A fair point, but I think “integrated” is stretching it a bit, when you have have to leave the game and use 3rd party programs in order to do so.
I’d argue that the popularity of this game is partly thanks to the dedicated community members who have created and maintain those third-party tools. That said, I was referring to more fundamental features. For example, the ability to instance together and engage in PvP combat, even if instancing isn't flawless. There's also the crime and punishment system, which, while not perfect, is specifically designed for Open Play interactions. PvE content, like the Thargoid encounters, offers escalating difficulty, especially in coordinated wing battles.
If the inclination was there, and the player base, every power could hold its own PvP arena championships, and there could be a yearly or 4 yearly galactic championship. The game play would make a superb opening for pilot recruitment, it would also likely solve much of the anti social behaviour in game too, especially when combined with power play. Those wayward trigger fingers could be swept up out of the system gutters and put to some, well, some more directed and channeled form of their innate domineering behaviour.
It's clear that the PvP side has been there from day one, with the games creator speaking passionately about the combat matches in which he partakes amongst the rocks, and also of how geography is so important to adding that extra something to space combat; There is no denying how important an aspect of the game it is.
Heck, with the in station changes by which the powers can display whichever propaganda they want. The winers of championships could be championed all over the game.