Open-Only in PP2.0?

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I can work out how many people play Powerplay (and so can anyone else). Having help run two powers I could (and still can) map effort to people who pledge.

I can tell you with upmost confidence 13 million players do not play V1 as it is. If they did, the fortification numbers, UM, votes would not exactly match activity each week.
How many is it, out of interest?
And again, its still actual numbers on the topic, unlike saying there are 13 million copies sold. How many multiboxes? How many play PP? Of those what is the mode split?
In a self-selecting vote that was not publicised to the whole player-base.

How many multi-boxes is an unknown (or even how many players play more than one CMDR, one at a time).

How many play PP - already seems to have an answer from the quoted post.

Only Frontier know what the mode split is.
 
The Polls are good and can provide ammunition from either side depending how you want to look at it.
I would be more interested to know the split of those polls between folks already doing PP and those who arnt, the whole idea for me is to get more people interested, im sure that's Fdevs idea also, otherwise its a waste of time redoing it.

O7
How?

Every time FD have talked about PP the gambit starts with Open Only or weighting.

Every poll I've seen has the same split- if you combine Open only / weighting into 'wants change' its nearly always a 70 / 30 split.

There is no ammunition for 'both sides', its a clear picture from sources not normally involved with PP- OA and BP are as neutral as they get.
 
I can work out how many people play Powerplay (and so can anyone else). Having help run two powers I could (and still can) map effort to people who pledge.

I can tell you with upmost confidence 13 million players do not play V1 as it is. If they did, the fortification numbers, UM, votes would not exactly match activity each week.

And again, its still actual numbers on the topic, unlike saying there are 13 million copies sold. How many multiboxes? How many play PP? Of those what is the mode split?
But isn't this the point? we need to increase numbers playing PP.
When im in the bubble and concentrating on fortification i can often do around 10 to 15 Systems on my own (or in a wing), i know im in a small Power but doesn't that tell us something about how small the PP population is?

O7
 
How?

Every time FD have talked about PP the gambit starts with Open Only or weighting.

Every poll I've seen has the same split- if you combine Open only / weighting into 'wants change' its nearly always a 70 / 30 split.

There is no ammunition for 'both sides', its a clear picture from sources not normally involved with PP- OA and BP are as neutral as they get.
A clear picture yes, only a small amount want Open only.

O7
 
How?

Every time FD have talked about PP the gambit starts with Open Only or weighting.

Every poll I've seen has the same split- if you combine Open only / weighting into 'wants change' its nearly always a 70 / 30 split.

There is no ammunition for 'both sides', its a clear picture from sources not normally involved with PP- OA and BP are as neutral as they get.
I'm not sure if the words PvP and open game are the same thing. I think (myself sometimes) they are happy to play open game and don't even think about PvP unless they are forced to.
 
The only 'polls' I have heard of were Obsidian Ants, which was a YouTube community poll, which anyone in the world could have voted in. And Sandro's poll in these forums, which includes alot of non active players, and is years old now, so the data and #'s are very unlikely to match the current active players.

Which is why I want to see Fdev in game in Elite do a CG poll/survey where each account can only make 1 choice. This could be a haul CG where the 1st ton of cargo is matched to your choice: Gold: As Is - all modes count the same; Silver: Weighted; Bronze: Open Only. This could still be skewed by those with deep pockets getting new accounts setup during or just before the poll to skew the results. Look at the most recent CG for the size 6 caustic resistant cargo racks, cmdrs used the powerful alts to drag the averages down, which was beautiful.

Second best would be an email to each registered Elite Dangerous account owner. But that could get alot of inactive players voting. So I prefer the in game poll/survey for only those players currently active.

edited: spelling
 
Last edited:
How many is it, out of interest?
To illustrate -when I was in Utopia leadership (a few years back now), the power ran on about 20 people- that is, when each week something needed to be done, the spreadsheet matched almost exactly what was done in the UI. Others: when Utopia was undermined top to bottom it was two players (one Kumo, one Fed). Ben Ryder and myself flipped 95% of all Utopian systems BGS wise. Its why Powers hate PMFs appearing, because they have to spin several plates.

Admittedly the larger powers have many, many more players, but you are talking low thousands (as in < 2000) for total engagement. Things also get woolly with ZYADA since the player pool is shared and smaller Imp powers get 'guided'.

If you want to look yourself you can observe prep races and / by 750 (i.e. max cargo size), do the same for each system fort wise (and pay attention to the 'junk' systems close to a capital) and observe merit bombs.

The thing (for V1) you have to realize is that (unlike the BGS) merits are uncapped- a few people can do insane amounts. If all 13 million players were piling in PP V1 would most likely work better (ironically) since it was always designed to be a 'majority good'- 5C has an outsized effect because the pool of 'good' choices is smaller than what I assume Michael Brookes intended when FD did the maths.

Bear in mind this is just the PP side of things- in recent times Powers have shifted to the BGS, so you may find (ironically) many more PP BGS players than actuall 'pure' PP guys (moreso given the lack of room to expand).

In a self-selecting vote that was not publicised to the whole player-base.

How many multi-boxes is an unknown (or even how many players play more than one CMDR, one at a time).

How many play PP - already seems to have an answer from the quoted post.

Only Frontier know what the mode split is.
Its still a data point though, rough as it is.

You can count the responses yourself on the flash topics posted here- (admittedly its old now, and for a different design).
 
I'm not sure if the words PvP and open game are the same thing. I think (myself sometimes) they are happy to play open game and don't even think about PvP unless they are forced to.
Powerplay is about having explicit rivalries- unlike the wider game destruction has context and useful. An Imperial pledge in Fed territory is not going to be greeted with apple pie and iced tea.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
To illustrate....
Thanks for that.

Which seems to indicate that Powerplay v1 participation is dwarfed by CG participation.
Its still a data point though, rough as it is.

You can count the responses yourself on the flash topics posted here- (admittedly its old now, and for a different design).
One can count responses - on a thread which was advertised off-site and a number of zero day accounts turned up to "vote" - and where, again, there's no requirement to actually own the game to post on the forums.
 
A clear picture yes, only a small amount want Open only.

O7
Well, for V1s changes it was (open / solo) 50% v 25% (OA) and V2 26 v 20% (BP). Weighting is certainly more popular, going from 25% OA to nearly 50% today (essentially reversing).

In all cases, the status quo is the smallest- 25% and 20%.
 
But isn't this the point? we need to increase numbers playing PP.
When im in the bubble and concentrating on fortification i can often do around 10 to 15 Systems on my own (or in a wing), i know im in a small Power but doesn't that tell us something about how small the PP population is?

O7
And FD have made some smart choices- however if you want PP to grow it needs to offer something interesting thats not just the BGS- it needs to have a skill curve that rewards continual development. My hope for this is (with weighting) you have scalable NPCs that (at the top end) finishes in Open where the rewards are the greatest but also provides a home for all those skills you built up.
 
So you are proposing to add another item to the main screen of the game ?
Open-Private-Single-Arena-PP2.
In a V1 context players hold PP vouchers /cargo until cashed in- there is no cap. So shooting down these people would make sense.

V2 (from the dev talk) also has objectives to kill other players, but also to avoid other players to achieve your goals against the odds. ATM its unknown if such activity is INF based (and subject to S curves) or is V1 merit based (i.e. uncapped).
 
V2 (from the dev talk) also has objectives to kill other players, but also to avoid other players to achieve your goals against the odds.

It will be interesting to see how this is designed. Hopefully better than the current parasitic, "heads I win; tails you lose" interaction
 
And FD have made some smart choices- however if you want PP to grow it needs to offer something interesting thats not just the BGS- it needs to have a skill curve that rewards continual development. My hope for this is (with weighting) you have scalable NPCs that (at the top end) finishes in Open where the rewards are the greatest but also provides a home for all those skills you built up.
We have scalable NPCs now tied to rank, which i think is an extremely good system, especially for new players.
I still fail to see why the greater rewards should be for PvP (which is basically what you want in Open) when that's a gameplay that you and others choose.
They are introducing new gameplay with the fleets in systems, they will want everyone to enjoy that which adds to the non forced Open argument.
There isnt a way that will please everyone, but as i see it PP is underplayed, my small team use that XL sheet you mentioned for Utopia and its amazing how fast we can rip through that.
This however is a good thing as we can actually see a reward for our time and feel part of it.

O7
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
And FD have made some smart choices- however if you want PP to grow it needs to offer something interesting thats not just the BGS- it needs to have a skill curve that rewards continual development. My hope for this is (with weighting) you have scalable NPCs that (at the top end) finishes in Open where the rewards are the greatest but also provides a home for all those skills you built up.
Also noting Zac's observation in Frontier Unlocked:
Source: https://youtu.be/76spLQt84TU?t=300

Zac on Frontier Unlocked said:
.... we made the python as a combat ship, we know a lot of players are into combat however Elite dangerous is very much a sort of right yeah "blaze your own trail" so there's a lot of players that don't engage with combat at all and we want to make sure that we're listening to you guys as well and providing content for you, and that is where the
type eight is going to come in as a really good trade ship - so we'll talk about some of the key features....
Given that Frontier seem to be aware that a lot of players don't engage in combat, and the major feature rework has been long awaited, by all players, not just those who engage in combat, it may be that Powerplay 2.0 won't necessarily require combat.
 
Also noting Zac's observation in Frontier Unlocked:
Source: https://youtu.be/76spLQt84TU?t=300


Given that Frontier seem to be aware that a lot of players don't engage in combat, and the major feature rework has been long awaited, by all players, not just those who engage in combat, it may be that Powerplay 2.0 won't necessarily require combat.
Thats very true, however PP V2 is not the entirety of ED, its the top layer of the BGS where combat is likely - as indicated when you can clearly see players listed as a target, and that the two devs talked about dodging fights to keep trading. So while combat is not a requirement, being engaged and escaping is (perhaps why you have a stable SCO trader like the T-8 that runs better than the PMK2.
 
We have scalable NPCs now tied to rank, which i think is an extremely good system, especially for new players.
I still fail to see why the greater rewards should be for PvP (which is basically what you want in Open) when that's a gameplay that you and others choose.
They are introducing new gameplay with the fleets in systems, they will want everyone to enjoy that which adds to the non forced Open argument.
There isnt a way that will please everyone, but as i see it PP is underplayed, my small team use that XL sheet you mentioned for Utopia and its amazing how fast we can rip through that.
This however is a good thing as we can actually see a reward for our time and feel part of it.

O7
As someone who used to regularly play with ATR I can tell you the scaling plateaus very quickly, at least in human NPC terms.

What we have is fine to a point, but needs to be extended far more otherwise you quickly get to a point where NPCs offer nothing more- you soon learn timings, loadouts etc because they never change. It makes perfect sense to have Open as the pinnacle in Powerplay, since you have all that and other players to potentially deal with. You are not forced to do it, but all that time honing skills, ships and risking it all actually pays you back.

If you want PP to grow with people, it needs to allow room for that growth.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Thats very true, however PP V2 is not the entirety of ED, its the top layer of the BGS where combat is likely - as indicated when you can clearly see players listed as a target, and that the two devs talked about dodging fights to keep trading. So while combat is not a requirement, being engaged and escaping is (perhaps why you have a stable SCO trader like the T-8 that runs better than the PMK2.
In which case it's a bit of a shame that the Type-8 Transporter will still be in ARX only early access for two months after Powerplay 2.0 releases (if the September release date holds).
 
Back
Top Bottom