Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Robert Maynard]

I'm not sure we have the power to force anything, or the ability to even attempt it. It would be FDev that change any constraints on what effects can be accessed how.

Indeed.

As for what's fair - the argument has been that an unfair situation has perpetuated for a long time that needs to be redressed.

First define "fair" when all players have access to the same ways to affect mode shared game features from any game mode, where PvP is not a requirement of any of those game features.

Noting that "but I can't shoot at them" does not automatically make it unfair.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Indeed.

First define "fair" when all players have access to the same ways to affect mode shared game features from any game mode, where PvP is not a requirement of any of those game features.

Noting that "but I can't shoot at them" does not automatically make it unfair.

Fair would be players in all modes exposed to the same risks. Whether that risk should aim to be identical (everyone in the same mode) or aim to be equivalent (NPCs take on player roles where enemy players are absent) is a second question.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Fair would be players in all modes exposed to the same risks.

Noting that the risk associated with players is entirely optional and always has been, the level of challenge posed by the game is unlikely to ever reach a level of a highly skilled player in an engineered combat ship, much less a wing of them. Where the game offers increased challenge it is context sensitive, i.e. it's appropriate to the situation / mission / etc. - players are not under any such constraint, noting that the players that offer the greatest threat face the least risk to themself.

Whether that risk should aim to be identical (everyone in the same mode) or aim to be equivalent (NPCs take on player roles where enemy players are absent) is a second question.

The risk should reasonably be at a level that Frontier deem sensible in relation to the skill distribution of the player-base as a whole, likely tiered in relation to the level of mission taken.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Noting that the risk associated with players is entirely optional and always has been, the level of challenge posed by the game is unlikely to ever reach a level of a highly skilled player in an engineered combat ship, much less a wing of them. Where the game offers increased challenge it is context sensitive, i.e. it's appropriate to the situation / mission / etc. - players are not under any such constraint, noting that the players that offer the greatest threat face the least risk to themself.

The risk should reasonably be at a level that Frontier deem sensible in relation to the skill distribution of the player-base as a whole, likely tiered in relation to the level of mission taken.

I think the Thargoids and ATR are good examples of FDev creating NPCs that challenge all, or all but a small portion, of engineered players. Noting this, and in the vein of your suggestion, for the Thargoids, "kill 2 hydras" is an entirely different opt-in to "kill 10 scouts". FDev's "sensible" seems very flexible. But given powerplay is an overtly competitive players vs. players feature, there are other major considerations of balance. It should not be possible to reset the difficulty level of the mission by selecting a different mode to do it in.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think the Thargoids and ATR are good examples of FDev creating NPCs that challenge all, or all but a small portion, of engineered players. Noting this, and in the vein of your suggestion, for the Thargoids, "kill 2 hydras" is an entirely different opt-in to "kill 10 scouts". FDev's "sensible" seems very flexible.

Indeed.

But given powerplay is an overtly competitive players vs. players feature, there are other major considerations of balance.

Where the competition does not, at this time, require any player to engage in PvP while affecting Powerplay.

It should not be possible to reset the difficulty level of the mission by selecting a different mode to do it in.

The mission would / should be the same in any game mode, with challenge appropriate NPCs.

 

[Mrc_NorthEast]

But given powerplay is an overtly competitive players vs. players feature

For pp1.0 where has Fdev said that? Power play is in game powers vs other powers, players can choose their favorite power and help out as they see fit. No where does Fdev says it is pvp centric or even that they expect pvp to be a part of it. Pvp is merely an option.

For pp2.0 Fdev has not given any final details, only some vague possibilities

 

[Rubbernuke]

For pp1.0 where has Fdev said that? Power play is in game powers vs other powers, players can choose their favorite power and help out as they see fit. No where does Fdev says it is pvp centric or even that they expect pvp to be a part of it. Pvp is merely an option.

For pp2.0 Fdev has not given any final details, only some vague possibilities

Powerplay is player v player on a gameplay level (in Open), and player v player on a strategic level (in the 'who is higher in the galactic standing?' way).

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Powerplay is player v player on a gameplay level (in Open), and player v player on a strategic level (in the 'who is higher in the galactic standing?' way).

This is what I meant. In practice the majority of players supporting a given power have clustered under central organisations for each power (the collection of discords is even linked in a pinned post in this subforum). While PP2.0 should remove some of the need for centralisation (i.e. the grave detriment for a power whose players act as freelancers, without a coherent plan in PP1.0, should yield to a much more forgiving situation in PP2.0), as long as the players are working for their power to gain control over the same territory that the other powers are also being backed to take control of, then it's players vs. players. Just like a contested BGS war (which can be executed in any mode).

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

The mission would / should be the same in any game mode, with challenge appropriate NPCs.

In your opinion. Then the hope is that the most valuable missions are so hard that mode choice is relatively less of a factor in deciding the mission's difficulty. The goal has to be that mode choice is as little as possible predicated on the control over difficulty that it offers, but rather on personal taste, if task completion is going to count equally regardless of mode.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Just like a contested BGS war (which can be executed in any mode).

...and hopefully without considering the factions' BGS anymore

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Also noting that those obvious bugs were fixed over time.

They were of course, (that static spinning one was of particular irritation for me personally). However by that point the min-max building of engineers was established and in place, leading to the gap between player and equivalent NPC being even wider. This incidentally is what for me drew a line under the effectiveness of entry level small player ships and skill for a lot of folk going forward, as unless you were engineered, you had next to no chance vs. anything that was. Gone were the glory days of whacking a player 'grindaconda' in a CZ with torps from an Eagle and then your wingmates coming in to finish the job.

While some of it may have been that was not all of it, from memory.

I no doubt there was some, but I imagine its level to be relevant to how you experienced it, and your position on the old 'open/solo' divide. Personally I became increasingly irritated that sensible advice (i.e. don't fly unshielded) was treated like some herculean effort/attempt by a 'griefer' (who usually wasn't... for pities sake, I at that point was flying a stripped down Cobra III as a 'trader' of Onionhead or CG Blockade runner in open), to lure unsuspecting victims into open/troll someone who was having problems with the game which was 'totally broken and needed to be fixed ASAP'.

Indeed - noting that Thargoid content is effectively tiered and not a "straight to brick wall level" challenge.

Not at all - as entry level Thargoid content does not seem to pose an insurmountable challenge (as there don't seem to be a massive number of long threads about how difficult it is) - so it can be argued that it already takes into account the skill distribution of the player-base.

That seems to be the way now (tbc, is been a year at least since my Thrustmaster drove my Adder out of Lave Station), but at genus, Thargoid content was pretty brick wall level for a fair bit (I'm fairly sure I recall one of the devs referring to it as end game content at one point), unless you were well invested in the game in terms of engineering, with complaints that they were 'too hard' and needing nerfed.

I think its fair that Powerplay should be treated like Thargoids are/were: in that you need to have some level of investment in the game before putting your toes into it properly, the challenge is great, and reward (both in terms of game and community development) equally so.

 

[Darrack]

Well its a matter of perspective- strategically you gain a bonus in solo for removing peer opponents.

Or you hobble yourself in Open, like you say a matter of perspective

O7

 

[Darrack]

Im going to say it again, anyone who thinks PP2 will be Open only is going to be very disappointed.

O7

 

[Rubbernuke]

Or you hobble yourself in Open, like you say a matter of perspective

O7

So you are saying then solo is easy mode?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Im going to say it again, anyone who thinks PP2 will be Open only is going to be very disappointed.

O7

Its not going to be Open only- the real question is how well NPCs perform. If FD repeat V1s NPC issues it will make weighting / mitigation more of an issue again. For example in PP FC defence- will saboteurs in solo / PG face opposition thats actually functional?

 

[Darrack]

So you are saying then solo is easy mode?

Of course it is, that's the point, not everyone wants hard mode, Solo is for relaxing, exploring, casual mining, gentle PP hauling, nowt wrong with that.

O7

 

[Darrack]

Its not going to be Open only- the real question is how well NPCs perform. If FD repeat V1s NPC issues it will make weighting / mitigation more of an issue again. For example in PP FC defence- will saboteurs in solo / PG face opposition thats actually functional?

More than happy for NPCs to get boosted, however it should still be related to combat rank otherwise new players are just not going to bother.

O7

 

[Rubbernuke]

More than happy for NPCs to get boosted, however it should still be related to combat rank otherwise new players are just not going to bother.

O7

While some NPCs (i.e. NPCs sent after you) should be subject to skill scaling (say, based on effort for the week) others really can't.

In the FC example I gave- it would be silly for half an FCs guns not to fire or have lower patrols.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Of course it is, that's the point, not everyone wants hard mode, Solo is for relaxing, exploring, casual mining, gentle PP hauling, nowt wrong with that.

O7

So if its easier, why is it rewarded the same strategically for Powerplay as well?

 

[Robert Maynard]

So if its easier, why is it rewarded the same strategically for Powerplay as well?

The PvE challenge sets the reward, in all game modes - whereas the PvP challenge is highly variable, i.e. if one actually meets another player at all in Open and if that player is hostile and if that player is skilled enough to pose a threat and if the ship they are in is outfitted sufficiently to pose a threat and if they choose to attack. Noting that any previous rewards designed for contested PvP encounters have been exploited by colluding players to gain the reward uncontested.