Open-Only in PP2.0

[CMDR M Kozak]

Ah right, the age old fallacy of "BGS is not meant to be played", even though years of FDev changes suggesting the contrary - including the big BGS update (in 3.1?), squadrons tied to factions, as well as player-named minor factions. Right, I understand.

Honestly, at this point I am advocating for two open modes: one for BGS and one for PP, so everyone can denounce each others preferred play style as irrelevant, from their own safe-zones. /s

The original intent was not for it to be played. At lauch in 2014 FD changed how the BGS worked (in the dark even) a number of times to prevent people from figuring it out. Eventually they quit that futile task and it became a "feature".

Its not a fallacy if its true. Know your history.

 

[Hekateh]

The original intent was not for it to be played. At lauch in 2014 FD changed how the BGS worked (in the dark even) a number of times to prevent people from figuring it out. Eventually they quit that futile task and it became a "feature".

Its not a fallacy if its true. Know your history.

It is a fallacy. Even if it wasn't meant to be played in 2014, it is now 2024; and FDev has acknowledged through changes and patches that people play it, and it is now a feature, as well as a valid game play loop within the game.

So arguing the state of the game in 2014 as still relevant in 2024 is a fallacy. By that logic, power play needs to be removed, because it was added in June 5th, 2015 and thus does not reflect the original intent for the game as laid out in 2014. See? Fallacy.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Even better: Different tasks for solo/pg and open. Some tasks are available to anyone, but some (special missions or similar) are only available in Open. This could work with the special carriers as well... only dockable in open.

Tasks in open should come with a big payout in credits for incentive. It's still possbile to avoid open and the resulting PP influence is not different. But the big bucks and opportunities come with a risk of facing opposition from someone doing the same thing for competing powers.

A perk for high ranks/loyalty could be a reduced rebuy when doing PP missions if you die to an opposing player (not npc).

Remember: The chance of actually meeting someone in open is rather slim, as geography and timezones come into play during matchmaking.

Yes, I came up with a similar concept a few years back:

Powerplay Proposal (strong anti 5C, mode specific, plus other tweaks)

This is a Powerplay overhaul proposal that uses all of Sandros ideas plus a few more based on the 3.x BGS rework to enhance the feature, and employ strong anti 5C measures. Sandro Sammarcos proposal changes are included as they were originally. Problem Powerplay does not function well across...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Shurimal]

Ah right, the age old fallacy of "BGS is not meant to be played", even though years of FDev changes suggesting the contrary - including the big BGS update (in 3.1?), squadrons tied to factions, as well as player-named minor factions. Right, I understand.

All this is moot considering that open-world sandboxes like Elite or X series need some sort of a system for player actions to affect the universe, making it dynamic and reactive. Players are very apt at finding ways to use and abuse game mechanics in unintended way, and if you as a dev can't prevent it, embrace it. This does not change fact that a system thats main purpose is to make a multiplayer world dynamic by reacting to player actions must react to all and every player's actions, not just a narrow subset of players who use a particular way to play the game.

 

[August Lagrange]

This does not change fact that a system thats main purpose is to make a multiplayer world dynamic by reacting to player actions must react to all and every player's actions, not just a narrow subset of players who use a particular way to play the game.

Not necessarily. I could see a world in which PG and solo are given a reduced status, like "you can play like this, but you won't affect anything". That would upset a lot of people, due to the original promises made by the devs. But personally I wouldn't think less of FDev if they did break that promise, since a lot of those kinds of commitments don't survive reality.

 

[Hekateh]

All this is moot considering that open-world sandboxes like Elite or X series need some sort of a system for player actions to affect the universe, making it dynamic and reactive. Players are very apt at finding ways to use and abuse game mechanics in unintended way, and if you as a dev can't prevent it, embrace it. This does not change fact that a system thats main purpose is to make a multiplayer world dynamic by reacting to player actions must react to all and every player's actions, not just a narrow subset of players who use a particular way to play the game.

I would counter this by telling you that we BGS players have received so many features to better play the BGS over the years. The latest of which was the 3 week history and graph in the system panel, as well as the overview GUI showing you conflicts in the system. Before that we had the pinning of the security slider for anarchies to 0, so Ody settlement farming doesn't completely wreck their systems. The rework of the BGS as a whole in patch 3 (= unsure on patch number). The whole CG to allow certain people to place their BGS factions into Colonia. The squadrons allowing us to view our allied minor factions entire BGS in one convenient squadron menu, as well as the player named minor factions submission form. New Odyssey settlements to fight over in wars. And so, many, many, many, many, more.

Why would you bother with all of that, if its not meant to be played but is only there to provide a "lively galaxy" for random Joe to enjoy? Because it is meant to be played these days, and it is. I'd even go so far, that BGS v.2.0 - the current state of the BGS, not to be compared with its initial release version - is a better "power play mechanic" than PP v1. It has all of the same features - faction manipulation, inter-player diplomacy, random states, wars, potential for PvP, trading, exploration, mission running - but none of its downsides, i.e. weekly slow ticks, convoluted GUI, mindless hauling of stuff from A to B, stale and uninspired faction heads, and a complete standstill between major powers.

Reject PP v1, embrace its superior variant, the BGS.

 

[Shurimal]

Why would you bother with all of that, if its not meant to be played but is only there to provide a "lively galaxy" for random Joe to enjoy?

Because, as I said, if you can't avoid manipulation, embrace it. Doesn't change the fact that the background system must react to every player's actions, deliberate or not, to make the game world dynamic and everchanging. Or you'll end up with a virtually static, barely changing stalemate like in PP v1.0.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Not necessarily. I could see a world in which PG and solo are given a reduced status, like "you can play like this, but you won't affect anything". That would upset a lot of people, due to the original promises made by the devs. But personally I wouldn't think less of FDev if they did break that promise, since a lot of those kinds of commitments don't survive reality.

I most certainly would be upset. I don't want to be a second-class player.

Let me give some reasoning here.

Sea of Thieves was set up as an open world PvP game. I was always interested in it, but never considered buying it because there was no PvE server. Later it piqued my interest when i heard they were adding a PvE mode. Unfortunately (for me), the PvE mode is limited, you don't get to do the same stuff the people can in the "real" mode. I guess there were elements of the playerbase who were not happy with this move, but i guess they were mollified by the limitations in the PvE mode.

And that's cool with me, its the dev's choice to focus on making a PvP game and sticking to their vision, and i guess their idea was to get more people playing the game and then "graduating" into the PvP world.

Now, if the Sea of Thieves devs said they were making a PvE mode that was fully featured, i can imagine there would be an uproar within their community, that the devs were betraying them, going back on the vision (and i guess from an unspoken fear that the PvP mode would become practically empty).

Anyway, what they did was an inclusive move, bringing more players in (maybe?) without watering down their vision for the "real" game.

Conversely, what FD would be doing here would be an exclusive move, taking existing first-class players and making them second-class players. As someone who would be impacted by this, I can only view it as a bad thing.

The only way i'll accept PG/solo players not having an impact on the PvPers powerplay (or anything) is if FD split the servers into PvP enabled and PvP disabled, like exists with a lot of online games. It was figured out decades ago that forcing players into a particular playstyle they don't want doesn't work and that trying to mix PvPers with PvEers doesn't work.

FD should have known this from the day they started designing the game, but like often happens with devs, they think they can deal with it, come up with mechanics that will please everyone... and it never works.

Of course, we all know the problem with that. The PvP enabled server would be a ghost town.

 

[Hekateh]

Because, as I said, if you can't avoid manipulation, embrace it. Doesn't change the fact that the background system must react to every player's actions, deliberate or not, to make the game world dynamic and everchanging. Or you'll end up with a virtually static, barely changing stalemate like in PP v1.0.

I heard once - and correct me if I am wrong - that it was planned for PP powers to "fall" if they are defeated in PP. And that mechanic didn't quite make it into the game.
MF do fall, its called 1% in their native system. Another reason why BGS is superior to PP 1.0. Powers can fall, and spontaneously pop up, meaning the galaxy is far more dynamic under BGS than it ever was in PP. Just look at Granny Torval with her plot armour, and the occasional Galnet mention every three years when they wheel her out of the retirement home for a public statement.

 

[Shurimal]

I heard once - and correct me if I am wrong - that it was planned for PP powers to "fall" if they are defeated in PP. And that mechanic didn't quite make it into the game.

I haven't been around in Elite for this long to have a first-hand memories of these plans (started playing in 2020 during the COVID lockdown), but from what I've heard, yes, that's true.

MF do fall, its called 1% in their native system. Another reason why BGS is superior to PP 1.0. Powers can fall, and spontaneously pop up, meaning the galaxy is far more dynamic under BGS than it ever was in PP. Just look at Granny Torval with her plot armour, and the occasional Galnet mention every three years when they wheel her out of the retirement home for a public statement.

I wouldn't call it a fall in the sense of failure, just becoming dormant. And making a controlling faction dormant takes some effort—generally the random background activity seems to be enough to stabilize the controllers (especially when they close black markets), with the exception of anarchies. It's the secondary minor factions that are most affected by random players and usually offer the most interesting states like wars, outbreaks etc.

Plus the special case with anarchies that involves taking control of all the assets, then pushing the influence down to 1% as quickly as possible avoiding war states, which completely solidifies their grasp over the system.

That said, random activity in smaller population—less than a few million people—can still destabilize the controllers if the second or third highest influence faction offers interesting missions or some faction in a neighboring system offers missions that affect the controller negatively.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I most certainly would be upset. I don't want to be a second-class player.

Let me give some reasoning here.

Sea of Thieves was set up as an open world PvP game. I was always interested in it, but never considered buying it because there was no PvE server. Later it piqued my interest when i heard they were adding a PvE mode. Unfortunately (for me), the PvE mode is limited, you don't get to do the same stuff the people can in the "real" mode. I guess there were elements of the playerbase who were not happy with this move, but i guess they were mollified by the limitations in the PvE mode.

And that's cool with me, its the dev's choice to focus on making a PvP game and sticking to their vision, and i guess their idea was to get more people playing the game and then "graduating" into the PvP world.

Now, if the Sea of Thieves devs said they were making a PvE mode that was fully featured, i can imagine there would be an uproar within their community, that the devs were betraying them, going back on the vision (and i guess from an unspoken fear that the PvP mode would become practically empty).

Anyway, what they did was an inclusive move, bringing more players in (maybe?) without watering down their vision for the "real" game.

Conversely, what FD would be doing here would be an exclusive move, taking existing first-class players and making them second-class players. As someone who would be impacted by this, I can only view it as a bad thing.

The only way i'll accept PG/solo players not having an impact on the PvPers powerplay (or anything) is if FD split the servers into PvP enabled and PvP disabled, like exists with a lot of online games. It was figured out decades ago that forcing players into a particular playstyle they don't want doesn't work and that trying to mix PvPers with PvEers doesn't work.

FD should have known this from the day they started designing the game, but like often happens with devs, they think they can deal with it, come up with mechanics that will please everyone... and it never works.

Of course, we all know the problem with that. The PvP enabled server would be a ghost town.

At a conceptual level you aren't engaging as much though- yes you are making merits but the NPCs are not good at stopping you. Other players are far more capable than any NPC and until that changes you will circle back to the same issue.

I've just been looking at the FU#4 livestream and much of what they are saying is players hunting other players. For example the action around FC in strongholds. There are some gameplay elements that simply don't work unless others can at least have a direct chance of meeting you head on and not work in solo to counter you.

Sandro suggested weighting but that would be globally punitive across all solo activity- whereas now I think some INF rewards for your power from Open centric aspects should be muted in solo or PG. I think this is really the only middle ground because it creates a distinct line between Open and Solo lacking in V1.

 

[August Lagrange]

I most certainly would be upset. I don't want to be a second-class player.

I'll ask my earlier question again: what would you accept? If FDev said, "we're doing OOPP, give us ideas for how to make it work", would there be a changeset that would make that tolerable? For instance, a passive mode that makes PVP with you impossible, but you're still visible assuming instancing works.

 

[Hekateh]

I haven't been around in Elite for this long to have a first-hand memories of these plans (started playing in 2020 during the COVID lockdown), but from what I've heard, yes, that's true.

I wouldn't call it a fall in the sense of failure, just becoming dormant. And making a controlling faction dormant takes some effort—generally the random background activity seems to be enough to stabilize the controllers (especially when they close black markets), with the exception of anarchies. It's the secondary minor factions that are most affected by random players and usually offer the most interesting states like wars, outbreaks etc.

Plus the special case with anarchies that involves taking control of all the assets, then pushing the influence down to 1% as quickly as possible avoiding war states, which completely solidifies their grasp over the system.

That said, random activity in smaller population—less than a few million people—can still destabilize the controllers if the second or third highest influence faction offers interesting missions or some faction in a neighboring system offers missions that affect the controller negatively.

I have seen many PMFs actually fall - as in, completely wrecked by hostile forces to the point of being practically dead. I am right now, watching two PMFs fall with a piqued interest. One because its my friends falling, and the other because my friends are doing the falling of a third PMF. I have also seen PMFs come back from the dead to try to reclaim their once claimed homeland. I know this, because I personally crushed two, and negotiated with one to return their "home land" to them.
This stuff happens regularly in the BGS. It is one of the main reasons I stuck with BGS, and view the game play dead-end/stalemate that is PP v1 with such a dismissive attitude.

In a perfect world, they'd have given us the chance to elevate BGS powers to regional powers. Those regional powers could then "represent" larger powers like say Kumo Burger Deliveries or Her Majesty the Emperor. Instead of having yet another layer representing a power that is dead lore wise (*cough*Pranav*cough*GrannyTorval), you have 10 powers played via the BGS by squadrons that pledge to a larger entity (Federation, Alliance, Empire or Independent), and if a such a power has no more active BGS support it falls. You support your favourite super-power by joining a squadron that actively plays the BGS under their banner. There is in reality no need to have a completely separate game play layer on top of that, as BGS already offers all the possible game play mechanics (trade, PvE, PvP etc.). In such a system, pointless powers would be long gone - like Granny Torval - and actually interesting powers might rise out of nowhere that have seen a large support from players. Powers like Azimuth (or Anti Azimuth powers), the Marlinists, maybe Jerome Archer's Republican Party of the Feds, the Alliance break-away systems, or even Mordanticus' realm of the Nova Imperium (aka Nova Paresa), could rise and fall reflecting the ever changing narrative, and interest of the player base.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I think the question needs to be asked of those that are so against OOPP why?

Quite simply, there are types of player who are simply not fun to play with. While their motivations may vary, they're currently all in Solo/PG. That leaves a population in Open who generally are fun to play, even when they're playing an antagonistic role to my objectives.

What is it that is so abhorrent?

I don't consider it abhorrent. I simply think that those who most want Open Only are going to be frustrated by the results: not more epic PvP battles, but a lot more instances of "combat loggers" (what Frontier considers a graceful logout as opposed to true combat logging) and other unfun types of behavior.

 

[Kalizandra]

If they do implement some form of OOPP, I do wonder how they will manage block lists etc. Block lists aren't perfect, but whats to stop someone adding shed loads of opposing players to their BL to try to mitigate/game the instances for example? I don't think they can just invalidate folks BL's, or maybe a warning that certain activities, say around the new stronghold carrier thingies, will turn off your BL temporarily.
I'm sure more knowledgeable folks have already proposed solutions to this, so just an idle question on my part.

 

[Rubbernuke]

If they do implement some form of OOPP, I do wonder how they will manage block lists etc. Block lists aren't perfect, but whats to stop someone adding shed loads of opposing players to their BL to try to mitigate/game the instances for example? I don't think they can just invalidate folks BL's, or maybe a warning that certain activities, say around the new stronghold carrier thingies, will turn off your BL temporarily.
I'm sure more knowledgeable folks have already proposed solutions to this, so just an idle question on my part.

You change the functionality, otherwise its a contradiction if devs talk about eliminating other players that can automagically erase you.

Even temporarily shuffling the instance after destruction would be better.

 

[Kalizandra]

Quite simply, there are types of player who are simply not fun to play with. While their motivations may vary, they're currently all in Solo/PG. That leaves a population in Open who generally are fun to play, even when they're playing an antagonistic role to my objectives.



I don't consider it abhorrent. I simply think that those who most want Open Only are going to be frustrated by the results: not more epic PvP battles, but a lot more instances of "combat loggers" (what Frontier considers a graceful logout as opposed to true combat logging) and other unfun types of behavior.

OK, so as a 95% solo player I can maybe give some insight into why I don't personally enjoy Open or PvP gameplay, in any game, not just Elite.
I play games for escapism, like many folks I would imagine, and if I log into Elite I generally want to achieve something within a game session.
That could be getting some engineering done, running some missions, mining, explo/bio etc.
I personally find it extremely frustrating to have my work undone in a moment by some ganker/blowhard flying a ship specifically designed to interdict players flying non-combat builds.
Something that isn't always mentioned: skill ceiling. I personally hit my skill ceiling in elite at least a year ago. I'm not going to get any better. I'm a below average pilot and in fairness im fine with this (I cannot expect to be the Messi or Ronaldo of gaming!) PvPers in general are often much better pilots and so if I fail the interdiction mini game I'm toast. Not much point/fun playing against other players when there is a huge skill level disparity to be honest. In the same way I wouldn't find any enjoyment from blowing up a players ship if they had only just started or if they were at a huge disadvantage to me...
Please note I don't get salty or post profanities in system chat, I simply choose to not be content for PvPers. This for me is the best option. If I'm locked out of content because of my decision, then i'm fine with this...dependant on said content. Have only just gotten started with the BGS game and if they change how I interact with the BGS due to PP2.0 then that will be unfortunate. If so I guess I go back to explo/bio for a bit and hope Fdev give that side of the game some love in the future. No game lasts for ever, nor should I expect it too to be fair.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

At a conceptual level you aren't engaging as much though- yes you are making merits but the NPCs are not good at stopping you. Other players are far more capable than any NPC and until that changes you will circle back to the same issue.

I've just been looking at the FU#4 livestream and much of what they are saying is players hunting other players. For example the action around FC in strongholds. There are some gameplay elements that simply don't work unless others can at least have a direct chance of meeting you head on and not work in solo to counter you.

Sandro suggested weighting but that would be globally punitive across all solo activity- whereas now I think some INF rewards for your power from Open centric aspects should be muted in solo or PG. I think this is really the only middle ground because it creates a distinct line between Open and Solo lacking in V1.

None of what you say changes my feelings on the matter you understand?

FU#4 livestream

Seeing it written like that gave me a chuckle.

 

[Shurimal]

I personally find it extremely frustrating to have my work undone in a moment by some ganker/blowhard flying a ship specifically designed to interdict players flying non-combat builds.

I understand you fully, not having an effective counter for area denial is frustrating. Just one question: what are your thoughts about interdiction mechanics and minigame? If it was more balanced so you have a good chance to win an interdiction would you choose to fly open, knowing that you can run the blockade and make it to your destination more often than not?

Because I have a hunch this here is what many, if not most, solo/PG players have the real beef with

 

[SteveWW57]

"there are types of player who are simply not fun to play with."

The problem is, "not fun" varies with each player. What one may consider fun, others do not.

If someone is not fun to play with, why drive them into open?

Steve