Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Shurimal]

It doesn't seem like people are arguing with the idea of solo/PG players being able to play the feature, just questioning what impact they then have on the galaxy.

I think the crux of the issue as it is now is that there is absolutely no risk for a powerplayer in solo or PG. No-one or nothing is trying to oppose them, the NPC-s are toothless and cargo ships aren't ever chased down and interdicted. Which leads to 5C botting and other less than desirable actions. Risks in open are vastly overblown, but at least theoretically players can and will disrupt each other, even though players can't be everywhere, everytime not to mention instancing issues.

Instead of player actions in solo/PG being discounted, I believe adding challenges to them to overcome is more fair. Then it's up to everyone's personal choice: deal with opposing players or deal with progressively more dangerous NPC-s? Or just go open only PP, still better and fairer IMO than discounting actions of some players making them second-class citizens in effect.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

I dont want to play in open because there is little to no reason to do so.
All the game's objectives are pve only and no game objective is asking me to do something directly with or directly against other players, not to mention that any pvp interference is counter productive to the game's goals for both parties.

And when i do play in open, i doit usually because i do like to play coop with other players against thargs, for example, or to fight in a CZ for a common cause but not because i want to fight directly against other players

That's the reality of the game.
The modes are in the game not to increase or to decrease difficulty of the game, to make it challenging or not, nor to punish nor to reward players.
The only reason the modes are in is to filter other players out, so one has the liberty to chose who they play with - and all the gameplay, until now at least, is designed to work with the modes - as in an asynchronous indirect way - Including PP10.

To be clear it's not like i'm against PVP in online games - this is the only online game where i dont feel like engaging in direct pvp - every other game - starting with Quake, Unreal, UT, CS then going mmo like DAoC and Age of Conan then later on Dota2 and more recently World of Warships - i played all of them for the pvp part

But in ED, pvp simply does not make any sense - except for all sorts of make-believe personal fantasies regarding space battles a la Star Wars.
PVP is connected to the game as much as CQC is - and that is precisely zero.





Well, no - that's what i keep saying. PP10 is built as a pure PVE activity

Make it so that all the PP activities are gained by direct PVP and you will be right and PP should be open only - but it's not.
Not even PP20 - it seem to be about supporting factions in game to convince them to join/support a power - factions you are not even related to simply because there is no direct connection between a cmdr and a faction, PMF included.

You may chose to support a faction or not, but you are not a member of that faction - you are still a member of Pilots Federation, like me and everyone else - and yet we are expected to kill eachother on sight - even tho we are members of the same organization and are paid by the same organization?
It's f-ing ridiculous

PP V1 has hardly any PvE in it- its essentially an endless A to B cargo CG or old model CZ. Outside of that, there is supposed to be roving NPCs to hassle you which were dialed back.

You are also wrong regards it not having PvP- on launch (for about 50 cycles) it had piracy with a heavy PvP incentive. The issue with that being the stolen cargo had personal and power benefits which powers used in collusion (for SCRAP) and 5C for UM. And like I said as well, Powerplay has real time features that support PvP not needed in other modes and totally unlike how the BGS operates.

So in effect the paper thin PvE (CG haul / CG shoot) is either wrapped in PvP (other players encountered) or even thinner PvE (roving NPCs). Its why other players are needed to make things interesting or varied, because its empty outside of the themed CZ (old style, not new) or the plain A to B cargo run. As much as you deny it, even FD at the time said this openly in the forums. In FU#4 FD said after U19s release they'll be reacting to feedback and assessing Open only.

In the end PP is an akward blend of features that never gels because it doesn't know what it truly is. PP V1 is at its most engaging with others who replace the almost invisible NPCs outside of PvE areas. If you listen to livestreams its apparent FD are intending PP V2 to be similar- stronghold FC attacks, system fights etc-even the new UI has a 'destroy other commanders' tag which assumes a PvP action (if its worded correctly).

Possibly the worst hauling in the game;
If you're doing Fortifications it's back and forth to the same ports. If you're doing prep it locks up your cargo bay so you're losing credits doing it, having to rely on data missions to get by(which also determine where the prep winds up).
As stated the shooting is clay pigeon level rather than rez bounty hunting.
And that goes on for a month so only a couple of modules are even vaguely worth it.

 

[August Lagrange]

It was was a split of promoting ALD-favored factions and promoting anti-Hudson factions in Federation space… though admittedly more of the latter rather than the former. Since BGS 2.0 removed most of what I liked about BGS 1.0 while fixing its flaws, and switching over to the People’s Princess, my activities in that regard have been all over the place. Promoting non-Imperial factions to improve triggers is antithetical to my character’s pro-Empire beliefs, and pure anti-Hudson activities don’t get me any closer to that iCutter she wants.

Yeah, PowerPlay isn't really conducive to RP. I'd argue that nobody can really play PP for RP purposes, because it just doesn't work that way. The best you can do is, as you did, dip your toes in and be selective about what you do. Although as an individual without a community, the effect you can have will always be massively overshadowed by organised communities that can mobilise when you do something they don't like.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Possibly the worst hauling in the game;
If you're doing Fortifications it's back and forth to the same ports. If you're doing prep it locks up your cargo bay so you're losing credits doing it, having to rely on data missions to get by(which also determine where the prep winds up).
As stated the shooting is clay pigeon level rather than rez bounty hunting.
And that goes on for a month so only a couple of modules are even vaguely worth it.

As I mentioned earlier too its so simplistic people were caught automating it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/855o8r

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/855o8r/scripting_and_automation_an_investigation_into/


The issue with NPCs is (outside not being engineered) they are designed to be system level in scope, when Powerplay is vast areas of systems and territory.

V2 is a step in the right direction as its really a 'per system' local setup that matches how modern NPCs operate in the BGS. There is no need for persistence as all action is decentralized and self contained.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Yeah, PowerPlay isn't really conducive to RP. I'd argue that nobody can really play PP for RP purposes, because it just doesn't work that way. The best you can do is, as you did, dip your toes in and be selective about what you do. Although as an individual without a community, the effect you can have will always be massively overshadowed by organised communities that can mobilise when you do something they don't like.

I beg to differ.

But that’s pretty much academic in my case. As I time poor* player, I doubt I’ll ever have much of an impact, so why shouldn’t I have fun, rather than grind away at a millstone. I like to think that the abrupt shift in the BGS balance along the ALD/Hudson border after I departed on Distant Worlds 2 was due to my absence, but I suspect that BGS 2.0 simply favored a straight influence grind strategy. Far too many players favor a simple but time consuming strategy, over a difficult but fast one.

___
* or more accurately, a player with a very limited window to play this kind of focused-attention and time critical game at home

 

[Rebel Yell]

Yeah, PowerPlay isn't really conducive to RP. I'd argue that nobody can really play PP for RP purposes, because it just doesn't work that way. The best you can do is, as you did, dip your toes in and be selective about what you do. Although as an individual without a community, the effect you can have will always be massively overshadowed by organised communities that can mobilise when you do something they don't like.

Hmmm I don't agree on this... at least for what concerns our powerplay community, we do stick with the Delaine's ethos and play accordingly. On the other side, what we do offer in terms of "directives" and events, isn't mandatory for anyone... except for the "house rules".

 

[Indy Original]

I've seen a couple of people proposing a possible compromise for the Solo / Private Group folks, as an alternative for Open Only, and to be honest it seems like such a good idea that I feel like I should do my part in promoting it!

One of the main arguments in favour of Open Only is that players operating in Solo are essentially untouchable - they can do their thing in their own little instance, and there is nothing that anyone in Open can do to stop them. But what if it was the other way around? What if players in Open could perform actions that would count against the efforts of players in Solo, but players in Solo could not counter the efforts of players in Open?

For example, you're making great trades and increasing your power's bar in the system. The contesting power wants to slow your progress, but you're in solo, so can't attack you directly. BUT, your actions also spawn other NPCs from your power to also trade in their instance, and they can stop them. This will slow down some of your progress if they destroy them.

So if you needed to deliver macguffins to somewhere in order to bolster your Power's hold on a system, you could either do it in Solo (and no doubt reach your destination safely), or you could do it in Open (in which case other players might potentially be able to stop you). But if you do it in Solo, your actions could then be negated by other players hunting down the NPCs that represent you, giving them a way to actively oppose you... whereas if you made the journey in Open, your contribution would definitely count, as long as you actually reached the station and delivered the macguffins.

Thus:
A player making deliveries in Solo can be countered by another player hunting NPCs in Solo;
A player making deliveries in Solo can be countered by another player hunting NPCs in Open;
A player making deliveries in Open can be countered by another player who hunts them down in Open;
But a player making deliveries in Open cannot be countered by a player in Solo!

In essence, this would turn the current 'balance of power' on its head - rather than Open players being at the mercy of their unseen opponents in Solo, the Solo players would be at the mercy of unseen opponents instead. This would quite naturally encourage Solo players to try playing in Open, so that their actions could not be undone so easily... it would not require any contrived incentives or anything, players would just gravitate towards Open as the most efficient choice.

It's such a simple idea, but it's so elegant... and I can't see a reason why it wouldn't work!

 

[August Lagrange]

It's such a simple idea, but it's so elegant... and I can't see a reason why it wouldn't work!

There are a couple of responses I'd make to that. First, there's no issue with the number of ships we have to destroy in order to counter Solo players. We can just do undermining. That still takes a lot of effort though- perhaps you could make it so that it increases the output of undermining, so it's more than 30 merits per ship, but that doesn't seem like a great solution to me. It seems like it would be difficult to implement and probably a balancing issue.
The other response I'd give is that it doesn't solve the concern that we can't see what's happening. We can see merits go in, but we can't see who's doing it. It could be ten players, it could be one, or it could be a bot. We'd have no way of knowing, and certainly no way of stopping them.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Thus:
A player making deliveries in Solo can be countered by another player hunting NPCs in Solo;
A player making deliveries in Solo can be countered by another player hunting NPCs in Open;
A player making deliveries in Open can be countered by another player who hunts them down in Open;
But a player making deliveries in Open cannot be countered by a player in Solo!

A player playing in Solo doesn't play powerplay.

 

[Indy Original]

There are a couple of responses I'd make to that. First, there's no issue with the number of ships we have to destroy in order to counter Solo players. We can just do undermining. That still takes a lot of effort though- perhaps you could make it so that it increases the output of undermining, so it's more than 30 merits per ship, but that doesn't seem like a great solution to me. It seems like it would be difficult to implement and probably a balancing issue.

As I understand it, the idea is that each time someone in Solo delivers some Powerplay commodities, it would prompt the game to spawn an NPC which represents that delivery in other players' instances in that system - so if the Solo player had delivered 200 tons and earned 200 merits, destroying their proxy NPC would effectively be worth 200 merits, not 30.

There was a guy on the Hotel California thread about a month ago proposing this, saying that the NPC could be an exact replica of the ship that made the delivery, so that destroying it is in essence the same as destroying the Solo player's ship itself... but people said that would be needlessly difficult to implement, and since NPCs don't put up much of a fight anyway, there was no point. But just spawning an NPC that was the same type of ship, and then having that ship be worth however many merits the Solo player had delivered, sounds like it should be possible, I think...?

The other response I'd give is that it doesn't solve the concern that we can't see what's happening. We can see merits go in, but we can't see who's doing it. It could be ten players, it could be one, or it could be a bot. We'd have no way of knowing, and certainly no way of stopping them.

If it was ten players, you would see ten times as many NPCs as you would if it was only one player, giving you an idea of what you were up against. And in my mind's eye, I imagine that each NPC would just keep on respawning until somebody interdicted it and destroyed it, at which point it would be gone forever - so you could just keep on hunting them until they stopped spawning, at which point you would know that all of the Solo player's deliveries had been intercepted.

...Another of the biggest complaints about allowing Solo players to participate in Powerplay is that they face essentially no opposition, because the NPCs are so toothless. But under the proposal I'm outlining here, the weakness of NPCs would actually benefit the players in Open, as they would be able to hunt down and destroy the NPC proxies representing the Solo players with ease! And if the Solo players wanted to make sure that their deliveries would actually count, then they could instead start playing in Open... which is exactly what we want to encourage them to do, without explicity penalising or rewarding them.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I've seen a couple of people proposing a possible compromise for the Solo / Private Group folks, as an alternative for Open Only, and to be honest it seems like such a good idea that I feel like I should do my part in promoting it!

One of the main arguments in favour of Open Only is that players operating in Solo are essentially untouchable - they can do their thing in their own little instance, and there is nothing that anyone in Open can do to stop them. But what if it was the other way around? What if players in Open could perform actions that would count against the efforts of players in Solo, but players in Solo could not counter the efforts of players in Open?



So if you needed to deliver macguffins to somewhere in order to bolster your Power's hold on a system, you could either do it in Solo (and no doubt reach your destination safely), or you could do it in Open (in which case other players might potentially be able to stop you). But if you do it in Solo, your actions could then be negated by other players hunting down the NPCs that represent you, giving them a way to actively oppose you... whereas if you made the journey in Open, your contribution would definitely count, as long as you actually reached the station and delivered the macguffins.

Thus:
A player making deliveries in Solo can be countered by another player hunting NPCs in Solo;
A player making deliveries in Solo can be countered by another player hunting NPCs in Open;
A player making deliveries in Open can be countered by another player who hunts them down in Open;
But a player making deliveries in Open cannot be countered by a player in Solo!

In essence, this would turn the current 'balance of power' on its head - rather than Open players being at the mercy of their unseen opponents in Solo, the Solo players would be at the mercy of unseen opponents instead. This would quite naturally encourage Solo players to try playing in Open, so that their actions could not be undone so easily... it would not require any contrived incentives or anything, players would just gravitate towards Open as the most efficient choice.

It's such a simple idea, but it's so elegant... and I can't see a reason why it wouldn't work!

I think if the NPC spawned had a merit value equal to the amount of powerplay cargo the player was carrying then it would be an interesting idea. This could revive interdiction UMing with some players waiting for these juicy piñatas instead of the usual 30 merit ships, and make supercruise in open more interesting. I'm not sure how that would translate to the mechanics introduced in PP2.0 though. The idea of a player in solo carrying 100,000 UM merits becomes trickier too (caveat - also may not exist in PP2.0).

 

[Indy Original]

I'm not sure how that would translate to the mechanics introduced in PP2.0 though.

Yes, we can't really tell yet whether or not this would be compatible with PP2.0... I went back and watched the livestream, and there are times when they seem to imply that virtually any activities will count towards it, which would be a bit too open-ended for this proposal.

But having said that, when they are talking about the new Stronghold Carriers at 31:42, one of the devs specifically says:

"Anyone who's played PP1.0 will know what I'm on about, but basically there are certain commodities and stuff that you can only get from Stronghold Carriers, and then you can take them to other places, and sometimes you will be bringing stuff to the Stronghold Carrier as well."

So it looks like delivering Powerplay Commodities will still be a part of PP2.0, in which case, maybe this proposal could be compatible with it after all!

...They also talk about how the UI will better communicate where the action is, so that you can respond to the actions of other players - and multiple times they say that this will also help you to avoid other players, if you want to try and take over a small star system that no one else ever visits. So, with regard to the whole Solo/NPC idea, it might be that delivering commodities in Solo will be a hopeless endeavour in the busy systems (as there will always be other players there to hunt down your NPC proxies), but in a quiet system where nobody goes, it might still be viable... although of course, in a quiet system you might as well just play in Open anyway!

 

[Shurimal]

it might be that delivering commodities in Solo will be a hopeless endeavour in the busy systems (as there will always be other players there to hunt down your NPC proxies), but in a quiet system where nobody goes, it might still be viable... although of course, in a quiet system you might as well just play in Open anyway!

Maybe turn it around? Proxies not in open, but in solo/PG; not of traders but of combat ships. The more player traffic in a system--all modes combined--the more there will be high(er) level opposing PP NPC-s in Solo and PG. This way the soloers have more agency, feedback about the situation and challenge, and at some point it becomes easier to come out into open where you have allies to help you out.

 

[Indy Original]

Maybe turn it around? Proxies not in open, but in solo/PG; not of traders but of combat ships. The more player traffic in a system--all modes combined--the more there will be high(er) level opposing PP NPC-s in Solo and PG. This way the soloers have more agency, feedback about the situation and challenge, and at some point it becomes easier to come out into open where you have allies to help you out.

Yes, that would work too - although unless the NPCs were a credible threat, the Solo traders would still be able to just breeze past them. But like you say, it would allow players to really 'feel' the presence of the opposition, even through the walls of Solo mode... and if it persuaded some players to make the jump into Open, so much the better!

 

[August Lagrange]

As I understand it, the idea is that each time someone in Solo delivers some Powerplay commodities, it would prompt the game to spawn an NPC which represents that delivery in other players' instances in that system - so if the Solo player had delivered 200 tons and earned 200 merits, destroying their proxy NPC would effectively be worth 200 merits, not 30.

If it was ten players, you would see ten times as many NPCs as you would if it was only one player, giving you an idea of what you were up against. And in my mind's eye, I imagine that each NPC would just keep on respawning until somebody interdicted it and destroyed it, at which point it would be gone forever - so you could just keep on hunting them until they stopped spawning, at which point you would know that all of the Solo player's deliveries had been intercepted.

Those possibilities make it more appealing, but it just seems like the kind of thing that would give rise to unintended consequences or complications in some way. Certainly it seems to not be the kind of thing FDev would do, possibly for the same reason I'm reticent. I doubt we'll see any functionality that is different between Open and Solo or PG.

 

[Indy Original]

Those possibilities make it more appealing, but it just seems like the kind of thing that would give rise to unintended consequences or complications in some way. Certainly it seems to not be the kind of thing FDev would do, possibly for the same reason I'm reticent. I doubt we'll see any functionality that is different between Open and Solo or PG.

To be honest, I am broadly in favour of Open Only myself, so I did hesitate to mention this idea, I didn't want to risk weakening the case for OO by shining a light on this possible alternative. But there are so many people, in this thread and others, who insist that they will never play in Open, and who resent the very idea that they should have to... so I decided to throw my weight behind the Solo/NPC suggestion, just in case Frontier get cold feet, and take OO off the table.

It may not be a perfect solution, but it is at least more 'fair' than what we have now, allowing for a greater sense of interaction between modes - and it should be more palatable than OO to those who want to play in Solo, while also making Open more attractive. I think it's a nice compromise... and in terms of satisfying everybody, well, this is the best idea I've seen.

 

[August Lagrange]

It may not be a perfect solution, but it is at least more 'fair' than what we have now, allowing for a greater sense of interaction between modes - and it should be more palatable than OO to those who want to play in Solo, while also making Open more attractive. I think it's a nice compromise... and in terms of satisfying everybody, well, this is the best idea I've seen.

This idea, while interesting, seems like it would almost inevitably not work as intended and we'd be back where we are now. FDev are not good at testing and fixing bugs. But besides, like I said, they don't want to have any difference between the modes, which I understand because it simplifies things (they don't want to have to test things in multiple modes). I appreciate you trying to find a compromise but I think this is a lot less likely than OOPP, which could be quite simple to implement.

My approach here is to focus on what PP does best, which is pit communities against one another, and find solutions that those communities agree on. Those here who oppose OOPP aren't really representative of the playerbase at large, who aren't on the forum. They're in all the places where those communities are, Discord, or Slack, or wherever.

 

[heathenlamb]

Those here who oppose OOPP aren't really representative of the playerbase at large

Mobius has 40,000 members .... PG. Not suggesting they all oppose it ... just saying is all.

 

[August Lagrange]

Mobius has 40,000 members .... PG. Not suggesting they all oppose it ... just saying is all.

You missed my entire point, which is that we should be listening to those actually play PowerPlay. They're the ones with the knowledge on how it works and how it can be improved.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

You missed my entire point, which is that we should be listening to those actually play PowerPlay. They're the ones with the knowledge on how it works and how it can be improved.

So by this logic the specific ones you should listen to are those who PP in Solo as they stand to be disenfranchised.