Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Robert Maynard]

While I agree things like excessively fruity banter should be blockable (I thought it was already?) I'm not exactly getting the 'toying' part- in PP at least because its about efficency. But then I'd be fine if non pledges were blockable.

Players are entirely blockable, I doubt that will change just because Powerplay has been reworked.

Which are? Shoot until they are exploded? The problem PP NPCs have is they inherited EDs weaknesses from the wider game and don't take enough chances.

NPCs don't represent an insurmountable challenge for most players, unlike players in their G5 murderboats. They are also in place to enhance the challenge of the game without taking the fun out of the game - unlike some players.

But how though? To pair you'd need far too many variables- Clipper V Viper Mk 4? FDL V Cutter? Eagle V Hauler? What weapons and TTK would be acceptable / cargo acceptable?

All good questions - for the Devs representing the two groups to haggle over.

 

[Jockey79]

I wonder if the devs considered hardy hauler NPCs for combat oriented Solo PP2 players to snipe?

Better NPCs all around are needed in the game.

In my limited time as a "baddie" I decided to get some practice being a pirate and the NPC hauliers were a joke.
The number of T9's I found in diamond-rich systems (or equivalent) and all they had were 5T of biowaste.

I even had a wing of 3 T9s try and fight me after I hit one with a cargo limpet, favouring the "ram" technique of course - because that makes perfect sense
The entire encounter didn't cover the cost of my limpets with the cargo they had and resulted in the 3 T9s going boom.

The entire NPC system needs to be looked at in my opinion.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Players are entirely blockable, I doubt that will change just because Powerplay has been reworked.

And to maintain consistency in Open (even as it is now) for PP pledges should be unblockable, just as exiting without being 'safe' should result in cargo loss.

NPCs don't represent an insurmountable challenge for most players, unlike players in their G5 murderboats. They are also in place to enhance the challenge of the game without taking the fun out of the game - unlike some players.

Yes, but even a humble player Sidewinder can shoot at a hauler as they drop near a station, unlike an NPC. Over time places where players have to go has dwindled to nothing (like NAVs, around stations, taking off or simply dropping down). Its having more places for players to mix with NPCs is the issue that I hope FD have 'solved'.

There is no challenge if the NPCs don't appear, are far below the capability of the hauler and quit far too early. The other is that haulers can do a multitude of things to either escape, fight or go elsewhere temporarily. They are not forced to sit there, in a weak ship and fly in a straight line.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

The problem I think a lot of folk are potentially overlooking in this very impassioned continuous argument is that in a peversely ironic way, the migration to Solo/PG modes as a way to circumvent interacting with player opposition (be that Powerplay pledged players, a rival BGS supporter in a Combat Zone, or people who might be opposing you in a CG), is that to stay competitive Open Players feel compelled (or forced) to go to those modes. In its clearest example, there's no way I, in a player ship built for hauling in open, can really compete with someone rolling in a type 9 in Solo carrying out the same activities.

It also leads to less 'player interaction'. Watching Powerplay 1.0 discord/teamspeak/reddit engagement and player interactions (i.e. convoy organising and their top cover, kill teams being thrown together to deal with a threat in-house or organising an attack wing to engage in undermining/the PP CZs in another parties turf) slowly wither and die as a player who enjoys the social cooperative (yet competitive) element of multiplayer games, was a disappointing moment (though nowhere near as toxic as when BGS groups began their migrations 3 or 4 months after game launch, and continue to be from my understanding). It is not one that I want to see repeated with PP 2.0

 

[Doctor Dread]

What I find crazy is some here hold the view Powerplay Open is harder and a bloodbath, and yet those in that whirlpool of death should not be rewarded for braving it.

This, exactly this is the problem.

No, the loudest starved crews should not be rewarded "for braving it" because they don't brave anything - they are flying their G5 murderboats, in groups, with absolutely zero risk for themselves. Merely asking for moar victims.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And to maintain consistency in Open (even as it is now) for PP pledges should be unblockable, just as exiting without being 'safe' should result in cargo loss.

Given the fact that players are entirely optional due to the game modes, to maintain consistency players would remain blockable in Open (noting that Frontier introduced the feature before launch, unasked, and have only seemed to strengthen it and make it easier to use since then).

Yes, but even a humble player Sidewinder can shoot at a hauler as they drop near a station, unlike an NPC. Over time places where players have to go has dwindled to nothing (like NAVs, around stations, taking off or simply dropping down). Its having more places for players to mix with NPCs is the issue that I hope FD have 'solved'.

There is no challenge if the NPCs don't appear, are far below the capability of the hauler and quit far too early. The other is that haulers can do a multitude of things to either escape, fight or go elsewhere temporarily. They are not forced to sit there, in a weak ship and fly in a straight line.

The challenge posed by NPCs is for Frontier to decide.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The problem I think a lot of folk are potentially overlooking in this very impassioned continuous argument is that in a peversely ironic way, the migration to Solo/PG modes as a way to circumvent interacting with player opposition (be that Powerplay pledged players, a rival BGS supporter in a Combat Zone, or people who might be opposing you in a CG), is that to stay competitive Open Players feel compelled (or forced) to go to those modes. In its clearest example, there's no way I, in a player ship built for hauling in open, can really compete with someone rolling in a type 9 in Solo carrying out the same activities.

Choice of game mode is the very first decision that each player makes when starting a game session - and each player's decision of which game mode to play in precedes and may over-ride the desire of any other player to instance with them.

That some who prefer PvP choose to move to the other game modes to be competitive is their choice. It has no bearing on the decisions of those who have no interest in PvP while engaged in pan-modal game features (none of which require any player to engage in PvP). Noting that what may turn out to be "indirect PvP" when players engage in pan-modal game features is just that - indirect - and very likely asynchronous too - otherwise known as "playing the game" where every player of the game experiences and affects the mode shared galaxy.

It also leads to less 'player interaction'. Powerplay 1.0 discord/teamspeak/reddit engagement and player interactions (i.e. convoy organising and their top cover, kill teams being thrown together to deal with a threat in-house or organising an attack wing to engage in undermining/the PP CZs in another parties turf) slowly wither and die as a player who enjoys the social cooperative (yet competitive) element of multiplayer games, was a disappointing moment (though nowhere near as toxic as when BGS groups began their migrations 3 or 4 months after game launch, and continue to be from my understanding). It is not one that I want to see repeated with PP 2.0

Players who enjoy the cooperative PvP opportunities of Open may bemoan the fact that players aren't forced to play with them to affect pan-modal game features however the choice of game mode remains the choice of each player, not those who would quite like it if the game was changed to force others to play with them to affect what would then be PvP-gated game features.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

I have a feeling that the only significant change Frontier might consider is adjusting the weighting system. Here’s a possible approach: FDev could monitor activities across open, solo, and private groups for several months. Then, if it turns out that, for example, only 1/10 of a specific activity occurs in open play, that activity would receive a 10x multiplier when completed in open.

That being said, I don’t believe Frontier will go much further than this, despite the high expectations from the community.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Given the fact that players are entirely optional due to the game modes, to maintain consistency players would remain blockable in Open (noting that Frontier introduced the feature before launch, unasked, and have only seemed to strengthen it and make it easier to use since then).

The issue will be for any Open Powerplay mode is that the rules are as consistent as possible to prevent strategic gain.

The challenge posed by NPCs is for Frontier to decide.

It is, but if they want long term interest the need to fully build out a proper difficulty curve to serve all difficulties. In the wider game PvE peaks far too early and PP V2 provides an opportunity to address this gap.

 

[Rebel Yell]

There is no PvP if we never meet.
Players are competing against each other yes, but to call that PvP is a bit of a stretch.

It is not a stretch... it is what it is, but bottom line one's actions are/will affecting others' gameplay. If that's a ship kabooming, or hauling more forts (under PP 1.0) doesn't make a difference.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The issue will be for any Open Powerplay mode is that the rules are as consistent as possible to prevent strategic gain.

Whose strategy - given that it seems to be entirely decentralised?

It is, but if they want long term interest the need to fully build out a proper difficulty curve to serve all difficulties. In the wider game PvE peaks far too early and PP V2 provides an opportunity to address this gap.

While PvE may peak in the game too early for some the game needs to be playable by all players, noting that there is a skill distribution to take into consideration.

 

[Rubbernuke]

This, exactly this is the problem.

No, the loudest starved crews should not be rewarded "for braving it" because they don't brave anything - they are flying their G5 murderboats, in groups, with absolutely zero risk for themselves. Merely asking for moar victims.

And, as I've been discussing, the rewards would not be the same for haulers and attackers, given how different each is.

Plus its odd that you don't consider allies also flying G5 murderboats, or that the most likely attack on a well protected hauler (such as a cutter) would be hatch breaking (to deny the cargo or steal it if its valuable).

 

[Robert Maynard]

I have a feeling that the only significant change Frontier might consider is adjusting the weighting system. Here’s a possible approach: FDev could monitor activities across open, solo, and private groups for several months. Then, if it turns out that, for example, only 1/10 of a specific activity occurs in open play, that activity would receive a 10x multiplier when completed in open.

That being said, I don’t believe Frontier will go much further than this, despite the high expectations from the community.

Which presupposes that the effects of players in Open should (for unspecified reasons) be weighted to affect the feature the same as players in Solo and Private Groups - completely disregarding player numbers in the respective modes.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Whose strategy - given that it seems to be entirely decentralised?

While PvE may peak in the game too early for some the game needs to be playable by all players, noting that there is a skill distribution to take into consideration.

I feel with this post you're being deliberately obtuse Robert, much like with your response to my post.

The Strategic gains of opting to engage in PP or a CG in a hauling context include:

1. Reduced requirements in ship build for provision of encountering someone (or thing) that could actually oppose you and sending you to the rebuy screen.
2. Reduced possibility of your activites being noticed by a rival and acted upon.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Yup, there are ARX rewards.

View attachment 403371

Looks like I'll be supporting either Antal or Granny Torval then

Ethos > rewards

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Which presupposes that the effects of players in Open should (for unspecified reasons) be weighted to affect the feature the same as players in Solo and Private Groups - completely disregarding player numbers in the respective modes.

This is very common in multiplayer game development:

• World of Warcraft - Warmode you get 10-30% more XP
• EVE Online - Low Security Space Incentives - low sec and null sec offer more rewards
• The Division 2 - Dark Zone - better loot
• Destiny 2 - Trials of Osiris & Iron Banner - better rewards
• Black Desert Online - Node Wars and Sieges - better rewards

 

[Robert Maynard]

I feel with this post you're being deliberately obtuse Robert, much like with your response to my post.

The Strategic gains of opting to engage in PP or a CG in a hauling context include:

1. Reduced requirements in ship build for provision of encountering someone (or thing) that could actually oppose you and sending you to the rebuy screen.
2. Reduced possibility of your activites being noticed by a rival and acted upon.

When players are told not to complain when others make their ship go "kaboom" as it is within the rules of the game, it follows that players should not complain about others playing the game by the actual rules of the game rather than their own out-of-game rules that no player needs to take into consideration.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is very common in multiplayer game development:

• World of Warcraft - Warmode you get 10-30% more XP
• EVE Online - Low Security Space Incentives - low sec and null sec offer more rewards
• The Division 2 - Dark Zone - better loot
• Destiny 2 - Trials of Osiris & Iron Banner - better rewards
• Black Desert Online - Node Wars and Sieges - better rewards

Common in other games maybe - however the rare if not unique tri-modal with a single mode shared galaxy nature of this game means that it does not need to follow the tropes of other games. Noting that WoW has PvP flagging - sorely missing from this game. Thankfully this game isn't trying to be EVE Online.

Also noting that the 10% to 30% XP bonus in WoW is miniscule in relation to the suggested 1,000% in the previous post.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Common in other games maybe - however the rare if not unique tri-modal with a single mode shared galaxy nature of this game means that it does not need to follow the tropes of other games. Noting that WoW has PvP flagging - sorely missing from this game. Thankfully this game isn't trying to be EVE Online.

So Open is simultaneously potentially difficult but also not worth rewarding?

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Common in other games maybe - however the rare if not unique tri-modal with a single mode shared galaxy nature of this game means that it does not need to follow the tropes of other games. Noting that WoW has PvP flagging - sorely missing from this game. Thankfully this game isn't trying to be EVE Online.

ED, like any other game, follows the same engagement and commercial rules. Its primary goal, as with any multiplayer title, is to keep its player base active and engaged over the long term. Regardless of its unique tri-modal structure, the game still needs to balance the experience for all types of players and ensure there are incentives to choose certain modes of play.

It’s not about blindly following the tropes of other games, but about recognizing that risk and reward are fundamental in any game system that aims to sustain competition and interest. PvP flagging in WoW or the wars in EVE are not just isolated mechanics, they are part of a broader system that rewards risk and gives players reasons to engage in more complex or dangerous activities. ED is not immune to these dynamics: even here, open competition needs to be incentivized to maintain balance and variety in the gameplay experience.