I know, but its worth repeating for others as a counterpoint.
I was a bit hesitant (for a while I wrote it out in full
)
Open-Only in PP2.0
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
I was a bit hesitant (for a while I wrote it out in full
)And this is normally where a game will have walls that say 'inside this box this happens'
Because sometimes a feature will need constraints and defined walls- ED has too few, and that when things overlap (like inside PP V1) the game is muddled meshing everyones bespoke needs.
If Fdev rebalanced the interdiction mini game then it might go some way to entice players into Open for sure. Skill disparity is always going to be an issue tho in a sandbox game, which is why the option to opt out is always really appreciated. It can be less of an issue in games where there is skill based matchmaking-but that's a whole other kettle of fish...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
Personally, I don't like being frustrated when playing games. Although I do accept that there should be some form of risk otherwise its like playing in 'God Mode'- which is mostly just dull. The possibility of fail-states in gaming are fine and should be encouraged upto a point. Of course where that boundary lies is dependant on the individual-although game developers are becoming much better at designing difficulty levels, story modes etc.
A recent personal anecdote: I was playing Horizon Zero Dawn (got it on sale-fab game!) and was becoming really frustrated with the combat mechanics-until I turned it down onto Story mode. Then I could just treat it like the really good sci-fi narrative that it is, without getting stuck on bosses etc (Well mostly lol). This is about accessibility in gaming which has come on leaps and bounds in the last 5 years or so.
No, it's not meant to be pvp-ed
Everything in bgs revolves around getting and losing influence for the factions. And all this happenss through around pve actions.
It is designed to work asynchronous, mode agnostic, not requiring direct interactions between players.
So Open Only BGS makes no sense whatsoever.
Same is valid for PP10 - open only does not makes sense, no direct interactions are needed between players, all PP objectives revolves around PVE actions not around direct PVP interactions.
It remains to be seen how will FD designs PP20 - however, i will be extremely unhappy if they make any moves that will favor Open versus other modes - because that will make my time spent in solo/pg less valuable/important that someone else that faffs around in open.
Not really true. In the absence of credible NPCs players are required to disrupt other powers. The PvE part is essentially gather merits via shooting or move merits, with very weak NPCs doing a bad job trying to stop you. Because of that PP V1 devolves into grinding races.
The salient point with PP 2.0 is that even if it is open-only and even when someone despises any PvP encounter and wants to fly a shieldless T9, they are not forced to do so in the busiest systems. The big change is decentralization—you can do PP anywhere any time, any system can be undermined, prepared or fortified without potential negative consequences for the power or the player doing so. I know that I will simply shift my shop somewhere else if opposition in one system gets too fierce and denies me the access. Cut the losses and sneakily snatch some other system while the opforce is distracted, or inebriated celebrating their victory
Even with stronghold systems, you can sneak around gathering intel (maybe using Apex taxis and ship transfers to bypass station traffic reports—travelling incognito like a true secret agent) and strike a system that's not under the immediate attention of the owners. Doesn't matter if that system is strategically the most important, at the very least you create a distraction that allows your fellow pledges to strike the stronghold that is strategically important
Even with stronghold systems, you can sneak around gathering intel (maybe using Apex taxis and ship transfers to bypass station traffic reports—travelling incognito like a true secret agent) and strike a system that's not under the immediate attention of the owners. Doesn't matter if that system is strategically the most important, at the very least you create a distraction that allows your fellow pledges to strike the stronghold that is strategically important
The NPC or players "required" to disrupt other player - whos said this?
The game does not ask for it and it does not reward for this "requirement" either.
The game just asks the player to do certain actions that generates merits - none of the actions is "disrupt" the enemy player
Sure, some people might be swayed by that.
It's a real shame that it's more stealthy to sit and do nothing in an Apex than to fly your own ship! Maybe they need a top 5 rider board or somethingThe salient point with PP 2.0 is that even if it is open-only and even when someone despises any PvP encounter and wants to fly a shieldless T9, they are not forced to do so in the busiest systems. The big change is decentralization—you can do PP anywhere any time, any system can be undermined, prepared or fortified without potential negative consequences for the power or the player doing so. I know that I will simply shift my shop somewhere else if opposition in one system gets too fierce and denies me the access. Cut the losses and sneakily snatch some other system while the opforce is distracted, or inebriated celebrating their victory
Even with stronghold systems, you can sneak around gathering intel (maybe using Apex taxis and ship transfers to bypass station traffic reports—travelling incognito like a true secret agent) and strike a system that's not under the immediate attention of the owners. Doesn't matter if that system is strategically the most important, at the very least you create a distraction that allows your fellow pledges to strike the stronghold that is strategically important
And that's what exactly is PP10 - grinding those pve buckets till they fill up
If i ferry credits and you try to prevent me to do so - 9 out of 10 i will still manage to deliver. My time will be productive to the power, yours will be wasted.
The same will happen in PP20 if they dont devise ways to get merits from direct PVP interactions - the problem with this is PVP can be easily exploited.
Running a PVE mission, not.
What do you think is supposed to happen then?
Lets recap: you have a feature that quite clearly states when you are in enemy territory and....you think thats for show?
Whats supposed to happen in all that empty space?
You have a feature that is totally player driven in real time and think that nothing other than volume and time metrics are constraints? What are PP NPCs trying to do then?
Why is it powers send (ineffectual) hit squads after you when you defect? Are they there to wag fingers?
Why do merits vanish and not act like materials when your ship is destroyed? Is it Pikachu face because FD want you to be wary of other ships and fight to survive?
Why is it that a power has a cycle limit?
Sure the feature does not explicitly tell you but the expectation is there.
Not explicitly (in that nowhere in game are you told to go and destroy enemy commanders), but implicitly undermining is disruption of another power, and then that power is entitled to try and disrupt the disrupter in addition to trying to fill the fortification bucket.
And in PP 2.0 disruption is explicit—the shown PP tasks very clearly include destroying enemy commanders and all this talk about carrier groups and sabotaging them while owners try to stop the sabotage is explicit disruption also.
And then what happens when you go outside those PvE areas or traverse territory?
How do you lose merits?
Why sit idle? Taxi time is for perusing the galaxy and system maps trying to put together a picture of what's going on in the neighborhood, who's who and what's whereIt's a real shame that it's more stealthy to sit and do nothing in an Apex than to fly your own ship! Maybe they need a top 5 rider board or something
Nowhere in the game you are told to destroy enemy commanders and nowhere in the game you are told to destroy NPC X which is carrying merits and by doing so you prevent the enemy power gains over your power.
Nope - you just get merits for killing enemy random npc - but if you dont do that, the enemy does get stronger because presumably you failed to interfere with their progress.
So the "disruption" is non existent as a game mechanic
Driven by PVE mechanics - pure PVE
for the same reasons i get pirates on my tail when i carry any cargo, or when i'm in an anarchy, even if i dont have cargo
Everything vanishes when you die - or it used to before FD messed with combat bonds and made them permanent - so it's not something particular to merits only
No, no - the players are having expectations - like the Armstrong moment.
The game is very clear in what it tells you to do.
There's an argument here that I've heard a lot, and it's worth addressing. "Why would you want OOPP with people that will combat log or block?"
For me, it would make it visible. Maybe it wouldn't be fun from a PVP point of view (although maybe some would argue it's more fun that sitting there staring at a blank screen) but that's not my concern. My concern is that we can't see what is happening. If a system sees a massive amount of expansion in GalPow, we want that to be reflected when we go there. We want busy instances, not just... blankness. Even if our PVPers can't do anything because those people immediately clog or block, it just makes it clear what's happening.
And, of course, there's the possibility of people using bots, which have been an issue and would be resolvable by the community. At the very least we could see who these people are and report them if they're doing something they shouldn't, whereas now there's zero visibility.
For me, it would make it visible. Maybe it wouldn't be fun from a PVP point of view (although maybe some would argue it's more fun that sitting there staring at a blank screen) but that's not my concern. My concern is that we can't see what is happening. If a system sees a massive amount of expansion in GalPow, we want that to be reflected when we go there. We want busy instances, not just... blankness. Even if our PVPers can't do anything because those people immediately clog or block, it just makes it clear what's happening.
And, of course, there's the possibility of people using bots, which have been an issue and would be resolvable by the community. At the very least we could see who these people are and report them if they're doing something they shouldn't, whereas now there's zero visibility.
Strange, given players alone can accrue or transport PP vouchers- whats all this 'NPC X which is carrying merits'? NPCs are worth merits.
Doubly strange that you can scan a player and clearly see if they are carrying fort or prep materials too
I wonder what thats for....Triple strange that players also accrue bounties that are claimed by other players......and that stations have reports on losses driven totally by players....
NPC are worth merits indeed, and if you destroy an NPC, YOU get merits.
However the enemy power loses nothing
It has PvE elements with PvP friendly features (explicit pledge, territory, 1:1 effort, low abstraction, dedicated areas, bounties)
It would be better PvE if something actually happened between farming....
What, to make it a game and introduce the possibility you might fail? Or is it because its window dressing?
Merits vanish because you were destroyed- ergo something has to destroy you and create this fail condition (like any mission).
Then why have 10 other powers or PP NPCs?