It will be very interesting. My hope is, since it brings more of the BGS into things at least some of V2 will have more against you automatically. But I'm also thinking its this aspect the devs are thinking of when they talked about assessing open after U19 is out.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
Guess you have to use 'Traditional Methods' or sparingly use brute force SCO for a few weeks then.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Noting that those attacking the ships engaged in trade will be able to use the Python MkII - seems to be another baked in attacker's advantage, for a time anyway.
More than happy with increasing difficulty in NPCs, my cutter can handle anything it throws at me, but we need to be careful for those in Open, what if they get attacked by upgraded NPCs and a Player? That would become off-putting very fast for a Solo runner.
O7
Balance would have to certainly be looked at- however even in my most difficult PvE moment (sec Vipers attacking, Adder trying to hatchbreak me, two Pirate Corvettes, a rando pirate Anaconda and IIRC a FAS all while I try to scan a NAV for a planet) its nothing compared to a player who can rip through shields while NPCs slap you a bit.
But if it gets too much you could forgo the open bonus, or do what people normally do and do a runner. In any case, it means evolving away from min/max in spicy areas.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If reward is to be risk / difficulty based, it can be argued that the players in those ships would have next to no impact on the feature - as they face no real risk of destruction and no difficulty in destroying other players (or NPCs for that matter).
Similarly players in Wings (or maybe just in instances with players pledged to the same power) face less individual risk / difficulty than a player facing the same obstacle alone in an instance.
Its an objective in V2 to kill others, especially given that expansion and fortifying do not just involve cargo any longe and is much more varied and important (as in, you have PP hauling but at the end of it maintenance of factions).
In fact a lot of V2 (IIRC) revolves around attacking, especially softening up systems given (I'm assuming) because V2 is a slower pace- it can't have thew situation we have now where its far too easy to defend. Now direct defence actually pays (again, extrapolating from what I've seen) and that direct player attacks have a reason (from what I understand one dev stating attacking a faction to show how weak the power is).
In the end we don't know enough to fully see what the balance will be.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Whether it is, or not, is of no moment to the topic at hand - which is risk / difficulty. The points stand regarding players in meta-engineered combat ships facing little to no risk and no difficulty in destroying other ships. Similarly, those with player allies in the instance face less risk / difficulty when engaged in an objective when compared to a player attempting it in an instance by themself.
The basis of the argument for Open bonus is that engaging in Powerplay v1 or v2 in Open is riskier / more difficult than in Solo or Private Groups - that some in Open face little to none of either would then reasonably reduce their bonus, possibly to less than zero....
That much is certain - just over a month to wait, hopefully.
Last edited:
Its why weighting is IMO a bit crude- but again if its down to the weighting ratio of a kill to what an Open hauler achieves. You could in theory multiply the reward in a dangerous system for haulers as an example- the BGS certainly registers destruction and combat. Similarly kills could count for more (taking down a prepared player Cutter is not easy) and that hunters who don't kill are penalised time wise (as in, they can't be both attacking and doing other things).
In the end it comes down to what you are attacking. If everyone stoically flies T-9s with no shields then its going to be easy. If people sacrifice internals for defences its going to be harder.
I mean, FUC and Winters seem to do it OK, and they haul for everything and do it in Open.
And here you are, AGAIN trying to claim "no response" as a "yes".
That's not how it works at all and you know it, I can claim "no response" means "no" and it would be just as valid as your claim.
We had this chat at the time, do we need to have it again?
As for your echo chamber polls, I'll nip into the Mobius PvE group and ask them...
[a few minutes later]
back, seems there is 90% of the community wants PvP removed, 5% don't care and 5% didn't answer, so we'll just count them as the answer I want - as you seem to like doing that so they are also remove.
There we go, my poll is just as valid as your streamer - so job done, we can now remove PvP and Open Mode as they are useless and only serve to cause stupid arguments like this topic and has been since day 1 of the game and again when they added PP.
No Open Mode = No more problems
?
Echo chamber polls of....Obsidian Ant and Burr, both known hardened PvP PP players, and this forum. Compared to an actual echo chamber
sigh Because, if you read what I said, you'd find the operable sentences further down:
In the context of my post, 'yes' is yes to change (just as I qualified) because the options are:
I even state the numbers and leave out 7% who don't care either way. The mistake you made was reading the yes / no part and not the actual option.
No? It'd only be flawed from your perspective, because BGS is so easy anyone can do it, and it only really takes time and effort, not skill.
The Pareto Principle. In any domain, 20% of people do 80% of the work. Like musicians, 20% make 80% of the music. And of that 20%, 20% makes 80% of THAT music. And of THAT 20%, 20% makes 80% of THAT music.
Translation? Less than 1% of the songmaking population makes over 50% of the music. Also over 50% of the money.
This is a universal constant. 20% of stars make 80% of the light. 20% of social media posters post 80% of the posts. 20% of the wealthy have 80% of the money.
In practice, it means that in most domains, nobody but the very top can possibly compete, unless you deliberately work to be inclusive. Being inclusive is the hard part.
I haven't seen many ideas about how open "weighting" could practically be implemented, but I guess the background assumption is that some multiplier would be applied to rewards / merits / PP2 consequences ("rewards" in the following) when the entirety of gameplay resulting in achieving a PP goal has taken place in open mode? Here's a few speculative thoughts on that assumption..
It would be seen as an abuse if slipping into and out of open at critical moments allowed achieving the goal with relative ease and yet the multiplier was still applied.
So practically this means the entire play from committing to the goal to achieving it ( e.g. from taking a mission to completing it) must take place in open for the weighting to happen "fairly".
But if there are passive, BGS-like, aspects to PP2, such that rewards are incurred for activities which have no definite starting point equivalent to taking a mission, this makes it problematic to apply open weighting globally.
This could be approximated by conditions like "open from entry into the target system" for an attack, or "open for all game time spent in/between source and destination systems" for hauling, but is disruptive for players who have other items on their agenda than powerplay and want to engage in the casual powerplay background activities hinted at during the FDEV PP2 "explainer".
So my idea is: "weighting" could better be achieved by creating highly rewarded PP2 missions which could only be achieved by playing in open.
One way would be by making the missions unavailable when not in open and failing the mission immediately if the mission is still active but the game is not in open mode.
This
Some of these claims may be overstated.
It would be seen as an abuse if slipping into and out of open at critical moments allowed achieving the goal with relative ease and yet the multiplier was still applied.
So practically this means the entire play from committing to the goal to achieving it ( e.g. from taking a mission to completing it) must take place in open for the weighting to happen "fairly".
But if there are passive, BGS-like, aspects to PP2, such that rewards are incurred for activities which have no definite starting point equivalent to taking a mission, this makes it problematic to apply open weighting globally.
This could be approximated by conditions like "open from entry into the target system" for an attack, or "open for all game time spent in/between source and destination systems" for hauling, but is disruptive for players who have other items on their agenda than powerplay and want to engage in the casual powerplay background activities hinted at during the FDEV PP2 "explainer".
So my idea is: "weighting" could better be achieved by creating highly rewarded PP2 missions which could only be achieved by playing in open.
One way would be by making the missions unavailable when not in open and failing the mission immediately if the mission is still active but the game is not in open mode.
This
- is conceptually clearer and simpler to implement than trying to weight the whole of PP2 according to play mode
- would enforce open-only for a subset of PP2 activities
- would allow "weighting" by balancing the relative rewards from this subset against the other mode-agnostic activites available
- would please everyone and so finally settlie all the forum arguments on this thorny question
Some of these claims may be overstated.
Last edited:
Why not just yes or no ? You can read it only 26% said yes 67% said no with 7% not caring or we can read it 26% want open only 27% don't want open only with 47 wanting something in-between ? . With yes and no you get absolutes . Not yes , well no but maybe yes , no absolutely, and you can get rid of what's power play ? Then depending on your followers are they more PvP/ PP centric ??
Echo chamber polls of....Obsidian Ant and Burr, both known hardened PvP PP players, and this forum. Compared to an actual echo chamber
sigh Because, if you read what I said, you'd find the operable sentences further down:
In the context of my post, 'yes' is yes to change (just as I qualified) because the options are:
View attachment 398700
I even state the numbers and leave out 7% who don't care either way. The mistake you made was reading the yes / no part and not the actual option.
Because they cannot try and twist absolute results. So they don't like them or use them.
It's like how they keep banging on with their appeal to authority - "Sandro said" to claim all of Frontier wants Open Only (or weighted) content.
They conveniently miss out the part where his boss at the time (Michael Brookes) said no to it, and Michaels' Boss, the CEO David Braben also said no.
Yet somehow a lowly middle manager dev's opinion is more valid than the CEO !?
It's why the link in my Sig annoys them. (fixed it btw, it links to the post again)
The best part is this argument about the mode system started on Kickstarter page. So before the game was released, they were crying over the mode system.
They had the choice to have their pledges back and walk away, but they'd rather sit around and complain they cannot be gankers and be vile towards other players instead of going and playing a real PvP game.
Any argument they make about their rights to be gankers (and I'm sticking with that term as real PvPer's don't want to force people out of Solo or PGs, they want willing players who are not coerced into Open mode) falls flat on its face when you point out the game was designed on purpose so we don't have to put up with unwanted behaviour in our game.
The other game feature being ignored is how if we put someone on block, it also affects the instancing system so you don't have to keep seeing them in the game. So even if we were all forced into Open mode, within a month we'd all have them all blocked and not see them anyway. So they would be back to square one, no unwilling targets for them to bully
?
Echo chamber polls of....Obsidian Ant and Burr, both known hardened PvP PP players, and this forum. Compared to an actual echo chamber
They are still a limited viewership, only a small subset of people who own the game. So my point still stands, I can just ask the members of my house and post the results - it would have the same meaning and weight to it - NONE.
Again, meaningless. For a start, the poll asked a specific question, and it wasn't weighing the system. It was a simple yes/no question.
So people who cannot answer the question they were asked are hardly a great example of anything and should be ignored.
(I'd ignore the 7% as well, as that's an irrelevant answer as well)
May as well close the thread, this is the winner
Can we sticky this into the Hotel thread?
O7
May as well close the thread, this is the winner
Can we sticky this into the Hotel thread?
O7
They are like Hydra's, you close one thread demanding unwilling people be forced into Open mode, and 2 more appear in its place.
After 10 years of this nonsense, it's about time Frontier grew some stones and shut it down once and for all.
Blizzard is my "go-to" example, for years they had PvP servers and the denizens of those servers complained people could play on PvE servers. Some even went as far as to demand all the PvE servers be shut down, to "help boost the population" of the PvP servers - because the majority of people don't want PvP.
Blizzard's response was epic, they closed the PvP servers and made Open World PvP a toggle. I laughed for a week. Talk about a backfire.
Digital Extremes had the same with Warframe, it uses the same mode system and is open-world PvE with a separate PvP mode.
A certain subset of players started stamping their feet about it not being an open-world PvP game. They soon got put in their place, when DE gutted the PvP system.
Again, I laughed. I love watching gankers and trolls have their behaviour thrown back in their faces.
Frontier needs to learn from these other companies. They added a fair PvP system to the game and of course, those complaining didn't want balance or fair fights and ignored CQC (I loved it, but it became too long of a wait to get any decent gaming in on a night, so I stopped playing it).
They want unarmed hauliers they can bully and make miserable. That's all any of this is, forcing people to be their victims.
Frontier should copy Blizzard, and make PvP a toggle with the threat of removing PvP altogether. Open mode would be busier than it ever has been.
Which is strange then, when we have graded POIs, missions and CZs which is what I'm suggesting, just more of it.
So in essence then, a guess.
Because its not a yes or no question. You have the status quo, or change. In both the majority want change of some sort which I acknowledge (V1 changes OO is the majority, V2 its weighting).