Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Rubbernuke]

Not as it is currently, it's indirect with possibility, but no requirement, for direct.

It remains to be seen how it will be for Powerplay 2.0 - we just have to wait until September, I guess.

Currently Solo and PG lack NPCs that are equivalent to other players- so solo allows unfettered runs, while PG allows easy x4 CZ grinding. Because of that, Powerplay only really 'works' as a system when its in Open given the way the threat of other players tempers such min / max gameplay.

This has been made worse over time given Open had a PvP line with piracy (which as you know was taken out).

Its because you have this inconsistency PP does not operate as it should or provide something above the very basics of very early ED PvE.

PP V2 has many nods to PvP- it lists it in the UM area as an objective, strongholds have areas that need defending and that the devs explaining it always spoke in the context of other players. We also have the curious inclusion of SCO ships and drives too.

It remains to be seen how much of a threat NPCs pose- if PP V2 is to be truly pan modal NPCs need to be capable and deadly, otherwise its repeating the same design error. Given how granular V2 seems to be (as in, its a per system fight) its certainly possible design wise. Weighting is also an option, while crude it does offset the risk.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Currently Solo and PG lack NPCs that are equivalent to other players- so solo allows unfettered runs, while PG allows easy x4 CZ grinding. Because of that, Powerplay only really 'works' as a system when its in Open given the way the threat of other players tempers such min / max gameplay.

Which is where the definition of "equivalent to other players" becomes of specific interest, i.e. half of players are at or below median skill, not all players fly engineered combat ships, etc., etc..

This has been made worse over time given Open had a PvP line with piracy (which as you know was taken out).

Its because you have this inconsistency PP does not operate as it should or provide something above the very basics of very early ED PvE.

Indeed - because players cannot be trusted to compete when they can collude instead to gain rewards designed for competition with no actual competition.

PP V2 has many nods to PvP- it lists it in the UM area as an objective, strongholds have areas that need defending and that the devs explaining it always spoke in the context of other players. We also have the curious inclusion of SCO ships and drives too.

I expect that SCO is a means to mitigate the interdictor, without introducing an actual counter measure, to some degree anyway.

It remains to be seen how much of a threat NPCs pose- if PP V2 is to be truly pan modal NPCs need to be capable and deadly, otherwise its repeating the same design error. Given how granular V2 seems to be (as in, its a per system fight) its certainly possible design wise. Weighting is also an option, while crude it does offset the risk.

Somewhat capable, and somewhat deadly, agreed - just as players are. Remembering the skill distribution between players, making Powerplay NPCs more challenging than the median player could effectively remove half of players from the potential player-base interested in Powerplay 2.0.

 

[DemiserofD]

Somewhat capable, and somewhat deadly, agreed - just as players are. Remembering the skill distribution between players, making Powerplay NPCs more challenging than the median player could effectively remove half of players from the potential player-base interested in Powerplay 2.0.

Of course, if you do that you also end up with an NPC skill rating that is below the new average, so you'll need to boost it higher, further removing more players, further raising the average, in a loop until you make NPCs challenging enough for only the highest skill level of players.

In practice, wanting NPCs that offer 'player-level threat' is code for the game to cater specifically to the 1%.

 

[SergMx]

Currently Solo and PG lack NPCs that are equivalent to other players

I'm sorry, I don't believe that! Can you provide a video of you one on one killing at least a Basilisk or Medusa ?

 

[Darrack]

I cant see PP2 being anywhere near Open only or Open biased, far too many folks play Solo or PG for them to want to lose that player base.
Ive said before they need to make PP more inclusive and appealing, open only would have the opposite effect, many like me and my small group would just go off and do other stuff.
No drama's really just not what i think Fdev would want when they are obviously pushing to bring in new players.

O7

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'm sorry, I don't believe that! Can you provide a video of you one on one killing at least a Basilisk or Medusa ?

I never knew Powerplay, from 2015, had Thargoids roving about

Because thats what we are talking about.

Powerplay.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Which is where the definition of "equivalent to other players" becomes of specific interest, i.e. half of players are at or below median skill, not all players fly engineered combat ships, etc., etc..

When I say "equivalent to other players", I'm talking about ship equipment which is the same regardless of player skill. NPCs in PP have no engineering at all- this is a (sort of) benefit since PP NAVs and CZs require massive grind sessions, but also a downside since defector police and roving agents are so underpowered its comical.

Indeed - because players cannot be trusted to compete when they can collude instead to gain rewards designed for competition with no actual competition.

Its a pure design problem. Add a negative to losing cargo and the problem would have been solved.

I expect that SCO is a means to mitigate the interdictor, without introducing an actual counter measure, to some degree anyway.

Indeed- its also a way to scoot about systems very fast.

Somewhat capable, and somewhat deadly, agreed - just as players are. Remembering the skill distribution between players, making Powerplay NPCs more challenging than the median player could effectively remove half of players from the potential player-base interested in Powerplay 2.0.

Again its a design issue- for example FD could use BGS mission templates to price in NPCs with the harder NPCs appearing on difficult missions.

But also:

Powerplay is the human battle version of Thargoid content.

Its strange people don't mind being blown up by Thargoids but seemingly twitchy over Powerplay.

Just as you think it will put people off, a structured conflict layer above the vanilla BGS could actually attract people too.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I cant see PP2 being anywhere near Open only or Open biased, far too many folks play Solo or PG for them to want to lose that player base.
Ive said before they need to make PP more inclusive and appealing, open only would have the opposite effect, many like me and my small group would just go off and do other stuff.
No drama's really just not what i think Fdev would want when they are obviously pushing to bring in new players.

O7

The problem is overlap- activities should not be the same across modes because without opposition, a feature literally about opposition when flying a ship is rendered pointless.

Powerplay V1 failed because the opposition is too abstracted, when V1 itself is the least abstracted part of the game compared to the BGS.

V2 can be 'inclusive' and have an Open focus- its making sure the Open parts can only be done in Open while other modes have suitable jobs but no overlap.

 

[Mrc_NorthEast]

I still want Fdev to survey the player base so that we all know where we all stand on open only, vs as is, vs weighted, etc. I think a CG to deliver goods with only the first hauling CG ton counting as your vote could work. IE Haul Gold from A to B to vote As Is, Haul Beer for Weighted, Haul Tobacco for Open Only, etc.

However I understand Fdev surveyed the players previously once before. It was for instant ship transfers or with a time delay. Anyone who transfers ships around knows the answer on how that one turned out. So I suppose an email to each account registered email address with a link to a voting site would work as well. I still prefer the in game as people who no longer play should not have any say in the vote, but that is just my opinion.

 

[SergMx]

I never knew Powerplay, from 2015, had Thargoids roving about

Because thats what we are talking about.

Powerplay.

I didn't know the Thargoids weren't NPCs.

 

[SergMx]

When I say "equivalent to other players", I'm talking about ship equipment which is the same regardless of player skill. NPCs in PP have no engineering at all- this is a (sort of) benefit since PP NAVs and CZs require massive grind sessions, but also a downside since defector police and roving agents are so underpowered its comical.

Hmm. So you think that the engineering change is coming soon, you need everyone to do it quickly, since the ships in the NPCs in PP2 will already be engineering ?

 

[SergMx]

Its strange people don't mind being blown up by Thargoids but seemingly twitchy over Powerplay.

Just as you think it will put people off, a structured conflict layer above the vanilla BGS could actually attract people too.

Because the war with the Thargoids is a cooperative PvE, everyone wins ! And PP will be PvP content, i.e. someone will win and someone will lose, do you think it will please the losers?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Of course, if you do that you also end up with an NPC skill rating that is below the new average, so you'll need to boost it higher, further removing more players, further raising the average, in a loop until you make NPCs challenging enough for only the highest skill level of players.

In practice, wanting NPCs that offer 'player-level threat' is code for the game to cater specifically to the 1%.

Aaaaannnd, for the millionth time I'm not suggesting making everything spec ops or ATR. The mission route provides a player selected difficulty level but it provides opposition.

So if you want to be the hero thats fine, but you'll have a challenge to get there unlike now where there...is nothing.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I still want Fdev to survey the player base so that we all know where we all stand on open only, vs as is, vs weighted, etc. I think a CG to deliver goods with only the first hauling CG ton counting as your vote could work. IE Haul Gold from A to B to vote As Is, Haul Beer for Weighted, Haul Tobacco for Open Only, etc.

However I understand Fdev surveyed the players previously once before. It was for instant ship transfers or with a time delay. Anyone who transfers ships around knows the answer on how that one turned out. So I suppose an email to each account registered email address with a link to a voting site would work as well. I still prefer the in game as people who no longer play should not have any say in the vote, but that is just my opinion.

The irony is every time FD survey the players the first thing they ask about is making it Open only.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Hmm. So you think that the engineering change is coming soon, you need everyone to do it quickly, since the ships in the NPCs in PP2 will already be engineering ?

Just as the wider game has a spectrum of NPC difficulty, so should PP. You can keep low level unengineered NPCs (like today) but rather than keep it at that level actually scale the risk upwards for a corresponding reward.

 

[SergMx]

Just as the wider game has a spectrum of NPC difficulty, so should PP. You can keep low level unengineered NPCs (like today) but rather than keep it at that level actually scale the risk upwards for a corresponding reward.

I get that, I'm asking what engineering change is made specifically for PP2 ?

Most likely the translation will be bad.
1. FD is making engineering more accessible so that everyone can do it faster with their ships.
2. This is necessary because the NPC enemies in PP2 will also fly on engineering ships.

 

[angusmadmac1]

Thing is the people who are into PP will continue to do it, others who only do it for the modules have no real care for PP it's just one of those things that I have to do( get rid of the modules and the numbers will drop even more) .
It doesn't affect any game play really apart from the odd blackmarket going missing. Its a small minority ( no offense meant to those who are into it) like BGS everyone else goes off and does there own things.
They won't lock off systems because you are from the wrong group , you won't get less for doing trade with the enemies ? Your won't have to pay more for that stuff.
So in my mind it's fairly inconsequential like the thargoids war . But If it's your thing then go for it and I'm happy you have found something that makes your experience better.

 

[Jockey79]

Currently Solo and PG lack NPCs that are equivalent to other players.....

In your opinion.

Some players cannot do combat at all, not even versus NPCs (for various reasons). So your opinion falls flat, just because you don't die to NPCs, doesn't mean they are not a viable threat to anyone else.

As people keep claiming Solo / PG has some unfair "advantage" and you want it mode locking - mode lock it to Solo.
That way, no one gets the multiplayer advantage of PG / Open and we all face off against the same NPCs.

Cannot say fairer than that.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Because the war with the Thargoids is a cooperative PvE, everyone wins ! And PP will be PvP content, i.e. someone will win and someone will lose, do you think it will please the losers?

It depends on what you class as 'loss', given that the personal rewards don't decay and that from exclusively playing for the two smallest powers sometimes being the underdog is appealling.

We also need to know what the reward and perk structure is. In all my time with PP I've never actually befitted from a top 3 bonus- should I be annoyed?

 

[Rubbernuke]

In your opinion.

Some players cannot do combat at all, not even versus NPCs (for various reasons). So your opinion falls flat, just because you don't die to NPCs, doesn't mean they are not a viable threat to anyone else.

As people keep claiming Solo / PG has some unfair "advantage" and you want it mode locking - mode lock it to Solo.
That way, no one gets the multiplayer advantage of PG / Open and we all face off against the same NPCs.

Cannot say fairer than that.

If PP had a proper difficulty curve and the top pilots got the most aggro from capable NPCs I'd be happy with that- because its then actually providing what PP is about- 11 powers vying for supremacy.

Locking it into a mode where even large groups of NPCs can't bother you makes having territory (and powers, honestly) pointless. It devolves into an endless cargo run CG where the only opposition is abstracted away from the flying bits (what ED is about) and into a bar chart.