Open-Only in PP2.0?

[WhiteHaulerMan]

The common conflation of "fear" with disinterest is as inaccurate in this instance as it is in the many others.

The point I'm making is that as always, you're assuming the person trying to interdict you is a 'Griefer', which is not always true, particularly in the context of an interaction where Powerplay is involved (which is what this thread is about).

In which case, rather than seeking to take something away from other players (who quite understandably oppose the proposals to PvP-gate existing pan-modal game content that forms part of the base game), put some weight behind the "new permit locked bubble" proposal - as that would give those seeking Open only a volume of the galaxy unaffected by those in the other two game modes.

Because, we are talking right now in an abstract game-design discussion, about what some of us aspire for Powerplay to have been like, or potential 'steps' (such as weighting impact (note I didnt say individual rewards) that might improve the gameplay and move it a step towards what the devs seemed to want it to be, rather than another 'netflix and haul' slog.

As a sidebar, while I personally wouldn't mind it, I genuinely believe the permit locked bubble isn't going to be accepted either by the Forum Status Quo either.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The perspective is one of pure logic. You cannot have a system that functions on players competing with one another, whilst also locking out specifically those who would compete in a more direct means. That doesn't make sense on a rational level.

It is quite obviously possible - as that's the way that Frontier chose to design their game. What it does is to offer like minded players the opportunity to engage in PvP. What it does not do is put PvP in a dominant position whereby every player affecting the game needs to play among other players.

As for the latter point, I have no care whatsoever if people who don't want to touch direct PvP side with it or not. I'm posting so the developers have a coherent argument as to why it shouldn't remain as is.

Given that they've been aware of the dissatisfaction among those who can't accept that players don't need to play with them for well over a decade, I'd not be holding my breath in anticipation of imminent change.

 

[Murky Dregs]

The perspective is one of pure logic. You cannot have a system that functions on players competing with one another, whilst also locking out specifically those who would compete in a more direct means. That doesn't make sense on a rational level.

As for the latter point, I have no care whatsoever if people who don't want to touch direct PvP side with it or not. I'm posting so the developers have a coherent argument as to why it shouldn't remain as is.

It's sad, there's an entire group of people in the game who've been completely discouraged from flying in open purely based on utterly overblown accounts by an incredible few loud voices including in this forum.

A basic bit of engineering, and some basic flying skills renders "ganking," utterly toothless.

I have thousands of hours in open since 2016.

Ganking is an incredibly rare occurrence and is only successful against poorly built and piloted vessels.

I learned how to successfully deny a gank watching a few very short youtube videos. How to build a properly hardnened ship is another matter but once you have the engineers unlocked it's easily attainable and a build can be put together in a day.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The point I'm making is that as always, you're assuming the person trying to interdict you is a 'Griefer', which is not always true, particularly in the context of an interaction where Powerplay is involved (which is what this thread is about).

What they are, and what they want, is not particularly relevant - and is no more important than what their targets want. They can't force interactions on those who choose not to instance with them.

Because, we are talking right now in an abstract game-design discussion, about what some of us aspire for Powerplay to have been like, or potential 'steps' (such as weighting impact (note I didnt say individual rewards) that might improve the gameplay and move it a step towards what the devs seemed to want it to be, rather than another 'netflix and haul' slog.

Reducing the effects of players in modes other than Open on any game feature is a penalty for not playing among those who may engage one in PvP. Noting that the weighting factors proposed by PvP proponents are usually somewhere between insulting and ridiculous.

As a sidebar, while I personally wouldn't mind it, I genuinely believe the permit locked bubble isn't going to be accepted either by the Forum Status Quo either.

I doubt there would be significant opposition - it'd be good to find out if Frontier were to consider implementing it.

 

[Vermin]

It is quite obviously possible - as that's the way that Frontier chose to design their game. What it does is to offer like minded players the opportunity to engage in PvP. What it does not do is put PvP in a dominant position whereby every player affecting the game needs to play among other players.

Given that they've been aware of the dissatisfaction among those who can't accept that players don't need to play with them for well over a decade, I'd not be holding my breath in anticipation of imminent change.

No, what it does is allow one group to make significantly larger changes to the face of these systems whilst heavily limiting those who choose to play with others. Thats a non-functional concept.

For example: A shieldless Cutter in solo, can move 794 tons of cargo to influence the BGS or Powerplay system with little to no risk, a Cutter that can survive in open without risk of being killed by players can only carry around 538 with a Size 8 Prismatic on it.

This disparity might not seem huge on paper initially, but given efficiency is the name of the game with these systems, guess who always comes out on top assuming an equivalent amount of time played? Yes, the solo player over the open player, every single time, bigger hauls, bigger gains and that efficiency drop only adds up more and more in the solo player's favour as the time element is increased. Also adding in the time spent potentially evading interdictions or having to hop system till it cools down and that advantage is only increased further.

This is not a fair or balanced way of designing a system, this is inherently bias towards certain groups.

As for the latter point, I would have said the same about Engineering getting its grind toned back down a couple of years ago, and yet here we are...

This is just the effect it has on PvE players, not even including how it locks PvP players out of the system entirely due to this sort of imbalance.

 

[Doctor Dread]

I'm posting so the developers have a coherent argument as to why it shouldn't remain as is.

How about "this is how this game is designed, marketed and sold to hundreds of thousands players. Why haven't you read the description of the product"?

 

[Robert Maynard]

No, what it does is allow one group to make significantly larger changes to the face of these systems whilst heavily limiting those who choose to play with others. Thats a non-functional concept.

For example: A shieldless Cutter in solo, can move 794 tons of cargo to influence the BGS or Powerplay system with little to no risk, a Cutter that can survive in open without risk of being killed by players can only carry around 538 with a Size 8 Prismatic on it.

This disparity might not seem huge on paper initially, but given efficiency is the name of the game with these systems, guess who always comes out on top assuming an equivalent amount of time played? Yes, the solo player over the open player, every single time, bigger hauls, bigger gains and that efficiency drop only adds up more and more in the solo player's favour as the time element is increased. Also adding in the time spent potentially evading interdictions or having to hop system till it cools down and that advantage is only increased further.

This is not a fair or balanced way of designing a system, this is inherently bias towards certain groups.

Placing content behind a PvP-gate would be biased towards those who enjoy PvP at the expense of those who don't.

As for the latter point, I would have said the same about Engineering getting its grind toned back down a couple of years ago, and yet here we are...

Tweaking Engineering, or adding SCO FSDs, are generally non-contentious improvements to the game.

 

[Vermin]

Placing content behind a PvP-gate would be biased towards those who enjoy PvP at the expense of those who don't.

Tweaking Engineering, or adding SCO FSDs, are generally non-contentious improvements to the game.

Making the system all inclusive, so all playstyles can have influence over these systems should'nt be either.

Like i said initially. You'd have a whole lot less risk of being blown to bits for no reason if you gave the PvP players something to actively participate in.

"PvP bad" isnt an argument that holds any weight when discussing how this system overly favours certain modes to others and locks out specific playstyles whilst doing so.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Making the system all inclusive, so all playstyles can have influence over these systems should'nt be either.

All players have exactly the same levers to pull when affecting game features that are affected by PvE actions, regardless of game mode. That the choices of some may reduce the number of actions that a player manages in a given time is ultimately their choice of how to play. That those players then want to be rewarded extra because of their choices is obvious, and has been for a long time.

Like i said initially. You'd have a whole lot less risk of being blown to bits for no reason if you gave the PvP players something to actively participate in.

Adding something would likely not significantly reduce unwanted forced interactions, however: one way to accommodate the desire of Open only players without adversely affecting other players might be to create a new bubble, permit locked to Open, of currently unpopulated systems that could be seeded with Factions and Powers so that only players in Open can affect the systems inside it. With colonisation around the corner it could be left initially empty and only players in Open could colonise it.

"PvP bad" isnt an argument that holds any weight when discussing how this system overly favours certain modes to others and locks out specific playstyles whilst doing so.

The game does not favour modes, i.e. player actions in the three game modes affect the shared galaxy equally. That some choose to play where they may be impeded by other players is their choice and their choice alone. As to "PvP bad" being an argument, or not as the case may be, it doesn't need to be in relation to the design of this game - as, according to the man behind it, it's not sold as a PvP game:

Source: https://youtu.be/gEtHu3AXw2Q?t=2645

 

[Ozric]

Nothing like a shining beacon of conflict of interest.

If that is supposed to be a dig at volunteer moderators having an opinion, then I suggest you read the forum rules.

Moderators who are involved in an active discussion are not allowed to moderate that discussion.

I'll go even further to tell you that Robert has never touched any reports that are to do with this subject at all, because he doesn't ever his forthright opinion to be questioned in clouding his judgement. Not that it would. He is sensible enough to realise that, even if those who are equally forthright but share an opposing view refuse to believe it.

If you have a problem with us volunteers being allowed to post on these forums then I suggest you follow the forum rules and contact the community team. If you contest moderation again, then your post will be removed.

 

[Mrc_NorthEast]

I am curious what Fdev meant by slowly moving towards more of an open environment or encouraging it over time. I do not remember the exact wording from that Frontier Unlocked livestream. But it sounded like they had plans. I still want them to poll the player base, we own and we purchased the game, whether 1 copy or several.

It would have to be in game somehow, to make sure people responding to the poll are actually valid players. One vote per account, and some interesting options. This may be a very lopsided vote, or not, we will never know until it is done and the results made public.

I am also kinda surprised that Fdev didn't make the Stronghold carriers area open only if that is what they wanted to move towards in the future. To me it could be the new in game CQC. Why CQC cause it is in the game but not, you can use ships, but not your own ships you built and engineered. CQC is all combat, no hauling, no on foot stuff. Stronghold FC's are kinda like that for enemy players.

It would provide one small area in the game, that is all combat and all open only. I think that would be an interesting experiment. Would people like it? Would people go their for fun, merits, etc.? Do the gankers take all the strongholds over day 1? Only one way to find out

 

[Vermin]

All players have exactly the same levers to pull when affecting game features that are affected by PvE actions, regardless of game mode. That the choices of some may reduce the number of actions that a player manages in a given time is ultimately their choice of how to play. That those players then want to be rewarded extra because of their choices is obvious, and has been for a long time.

Adding something would likely not significantly reduce unwanted forced interactions, however: one way to accommodate the desire of Open only players without adversely affecting other players might be to create a new bubble, permit locked to Open, of currently unpopulated systems that could be seeded with Factions and Powers so that only players in Open can affect the systems inside it. With colonisation around the corner it could be left initially empty and only players in Open could colonise it.

The game does not favour modes, i.e. player actions in the three game modes affect the shared galaxy equally. That some choose to play where they may be impeded by other players is their choice and their choice alone. As to "PvP bad" being an argument, or not as the case may be, it doesn't need to be in relation to the design of this game - as, according to the man behind it, it's not sold as a PvP game:

Source: https://youtu.be/gEtHu3AXw2Q?t=2645

We don't want to be rewarded extra, thats a strawman. We want INCLUSION. We want our playstyle to have RELEVANCE.

I've just given you an example of how it favours modes in the Cutter point a few posts back. Its very obvious to anyone willing to give it an even cursory look.

Quite frankly, players willing to engage in direct PvP, should be the biggest wall a potential enemy trader or data seller has to overcome to turn a system over to their faction, we should exist to stop unwanted expansion, as per being better suited to doing so in a direct manner than any other playstyle. This opens up gameplay and the potential for community in the form of alliances or enemies for players or groups to be hired as mercenaries or as a permanent defence force.

Leaving us out because so many are terrified that their unengineered T-9 will just explode is laughable. We should be a deterrent when it comes to Powerplay or BGS based activities. I want to see the playstyle have meaning and not be relegated to randomly killing people. I want some goddamn equality in how things operate.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

What they are, and what they want, is not particularly relevant - and is no more important than what their targets want. They can't force interactions on those who choose not to instance with them.

That to be frank is a very selfish single player 'central protagonist' attitude which is at the root of this problem, and not reasonable in a multiplayer situation in which competitive combat is being encouraged by the developers, bearing in mind they've put themselves in the situation where that is permissible in the first instance.

I doubt there would be significant opposition - it'd be good to find out if Frontier were to consider implementing it.

You say this, and then not only a few posts later use the stock argument that would be the mainstream Forum response to such a proposal if it was actually proposed by FDEV, or came out the mouth of a PvP player/Open Mode Advocate:

Placing content behind a PvP-gate would be biased towards those who enjoy PvP at the expense of those who don't.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That to be frank is a very selfish single player 'central protagonist' attitude which is at the root of this problem, and not reasonable in a multiplayer situation in which competitive combat is being encouraged by the developers, bearing in mind they've put themselves in the situation where that is permissible in the first instance.

It's somewhat ironic when players who can't force others to play their way then go on to call them selfish.

You say this, and then not only a few posts later use the stock argument that would be the mainstream Forum response to such a proposal if it was actually proposed by FDEV, or came out the mouth of a PvP player/Open Mode Advocate:

If the proposal were to affect those disinterested in it then I'd agree, but it doesn't (or if it does it's negligible in terms of rerouting around a permit locked volume, which already exist in-game), so I don't. Maybe I need to get to work on a suggestions forum proposal prior to the launch of Colonisation....

 

[Robert Maynard]

We don't want to be rewarded extra, thats a strawman. We want INCLUSION. We want our playstyle to have RELEVANCE.

I've just given you an example of how it favours modes in the Cutter point a few posts back. Its very obvious to anyone willing to give it an even cursory look.

Quite frankly, players willing to engage in direct PvP, should be the biggest wall a potential enemy trader or data seller has to overcome to turn a system over to their faction, we should exist to stop unwanted expansion, as per being better suited to doing so in a direct manner than any other playstyle. This opens up gameplay and the potential for community in the form of alliances or enemies for players or groups to be hired as mercenaries or as a permanent defence force.

Leaving us out because so many are terrified that their unengineered T-9 will just explode is laughable. We should be a deterrent when it comes to Powerplay or BGS based activities. I want to see the playstyle have meaning and not be relegated to randomly killing people. I want some goddamn equality in how things operate.

In which case it's not a reward that is being sought but PvP-gating of essentially the whole game. In a game where PvP is, by design, an optional extra and every single player bought or backed it on that basis. That's one way to encourage players who accept the game design for what it is to reconsider whether they will continue to play.

Given that Frontier have, over the years, advised us that they are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP, that the "majority" of players play in Open, and much more recently that while "a lot" of players engage in combat (unspecified whether PvP or PvE), "a lot" of players don't get involved in combat "at all", I doubt that they will make changes that would force players to play in Open to affect game features.

It's becoming clearer that the thrust of the argument is to make PvP dominant in the game by forcing players to play among those who want to shoot at them, with no regard to how that would affect the playerbase.

.... and when players adversely affected by proposals are disregarded by those making proposals that would suit their gameplay, those proposals can be equally disregarded (and opposed, of course) by those who would be adversely affected.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

If that is supposed to be a dig at volunteer moderators having an opinion, then I suggest you read the forum rules.

It's a weak and obvious ad hominem because, for some reason, Robert doesn't ever get tired defending his opinion (and that of many others) and arguing against those circular "but, but, but, open only" arguments from those who are unable or unwilling to accept the fundamental game design, like, ever. Me, I'm completely worn out to argue about it. Kudos.

We don't want to be rewarded extra

Yes you do. Possibly not you personally, I can't be bothered to go through the plethora of posts, but in this thread alone we get calls for raising rewards in open, or viewed from the other angle, punishing those who don't want to play in open by diminishing rewards, like by the minute.

 

[Murky Dregs]

If that is supposed to be a dig at volunteer moderators having an opinion, then I suggest you read the forum rules.

Moderators who are involved in an active discussion are not allowed to moderate that discussion.

I'll go even further to tell you that Robert has never touched any reports that are to do with this subject at all, because he doesn't ever his forthright opinion to be questioned in clouding his judgement. Not that it would. He is sensible enough to realise that, even if those who are equally forthright but share an opposing view refuse to believe it.

If you have a problem with us volunteers being allowed to post on these forums then I suggest you follow the forum rules and contact the community team. If you contest moderation again, then your post will be removed.

Please post a link to contact the community team. I'll take you up on this.

 

[Ozric]

Please post a link to contact the community team. I'll take you up on this.

It's literally in the forum rules.

 

[Murky Dregs]

It's literally in the forum rules.

Much obliged!

 

[Darrack]

It's an uncomfortable truth noone on here likely wants to hear, but thats how it is.

Not really, PowerPlay was never intended as Open only PvP otherwise the other modes would not exist.
Again everything you wrote was your opinion, mine is that PP2 is extremely enjoyable as it is intended to play in.
Systems can change hands without direct confrontation as it is designed that way - ALL powers have many folks doing this the PVE way.
Just because those who want to do PvP cant appreciate this doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the system, there isn't.

I still don't get why some people cant get a grasp of the fact that empires can tumble without a shot being fired, history has taught us that.

O7