Open-Only in PP2.0?

[SergMx]

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.

Just now, I was flying into a conflict zone in space. Killed 3 Cyclops, one Basilisk, a lot of scouts. Closed the zone and got 5 million dollars.
I won.

I've been playing since 2015, now I went into the Codex and looked it up, I have 21 insurance benefits, I don't want it to be 22.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Just now, I was flying into a conflict zone in space. Killed 3 Cyclops, one Basilisk, a lot of scouts. Closed the zone and got 5 million dollars.
I won.

In the past my power did a BGS raid to destabilize several key govs in a larger power while secretly lowering triggers for an expansion. This was all done without being detected and getting tied down with BGS wars. All the time this was going on the power was fortifying systems. We won.

 

[SergMx]

In the past my power did a BGS raid to destabilize several key govs in a larger power while secretly lowering triggers for an expansion. This was all done without being detected and getting tied down with BGS wars. All the time this was going on the power was fortifying systems. We won.

I'm happy for YOU, but imagine losing, and more than once. I think people play games to win and they don't like to lose. In PvP, there will always be a loser.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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.

Why is it bad? Does everyone expect to take on a high threat POI in a Sidewinder?

Parts of V2 will be in high risk areas requiting stout ships. For example, assaults on FC groups in strongholds, as well as UM raids to wreck controlling factions.

 

[SergMx]

Why is it bad? Does everyone expect to take on a high threat POI in a Sidewinder?

Parts of V2 will be in high risk areas requiting stout ships. For example, assaults on FC groups in strongholds, as well as UM raids to wreck controlling factions.

I didn't say it was bad, I thought the translation wouldn't indicate my point.

I kept wondering why exactly now developers are simplifying engineering, you gave me the answer. Thank you.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'm happy for YOU, but imagine losing, and more than once. I think people play games to win and they don't like to lose. In PvP, there will always be a loser.

Do you think everything has gone my way? I've been shot down, my power in turmoil, discovering a snipe too late.

Its interesting that you see PvP as some binary win / flaming death situation. Just retreating keeps you alive- many times I ran away and formulated a new plan. Other times I had people to help me out. In both cases it was better than always having a full hold in a min/ max ship, always getting through and never being attacked at all.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I didn't say it was bad, I thought the translation wouldn't indicate my point.

I kept wondering why exactly now developers are simplifying engineering, you gave me the answer. Thank you.

And to add balance not everything in V2 will be combat. The devs in FU#4 (?) talked about evading fights and trading to victory. However the onus was on evasion, but again V2 allows for expansions into quiet systems- the nature of V2 means players can expand where they like and only contested systems will be dangerous.

 

[Jockey79]

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.

In my opinion, all the game NPCs are underpowered. I remember when SJC was allowed to give us proper NPCs.
For 1 week, I was nervous to fly my T9. I ended up putting shields on it and paying attention to the game for a change. It was a fun week.

Then the complaints came in, some valid, some just utter rubbish. And out came the nerf bat.
I almost cried. Then I took my shields back off and carried on truckin'

As for what PP is about, it's always been a pointless hamster wheel. That's why they put in credit decay, to keep you on the wheel.
There are no real benefits to it, just the bonus toy for each Happy Meal... I mean the faction you signed up to support.

Perhaps if PP was actually tied into the game properly, more people would be interested in it.

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.

It always was just an endless cargo run or NPC farm. PvP has never been a significant part of it.

How about we lock PP to CQC, then you get your PvP and no one else has to put up with it

 

[SergMx]

Do you think everything has gone my way? I've been shot down, my power in turmoil, discovering a snipe too late.

Its interesting that you see PvP as some binary win / flaming death situation. Just retreating keeps you alive- many times I ran away and formulated a new plan. Other times I had people to help me out. In both cases it was better than always having a full hold in a min/ max ship, always getting through and never being attacked at all.

Well for Elite it's a tactical game, there shouldn't be any strategy.
And I like to play alone, not in the sense of a single game, I can play and open game, but not to communicate with anyone, to do what I want and not to adjust to someone else.
I'm a lone mercenary in the galaxy !

 

[Jockey79]

...
And I like to play alone, not in the sense of a single game, I can play and open game, but not to communicate with anyone, to do what I want and not to adjust to someone else.
...

Yup, this is why they updated the chat to work no matter the mode you are in, so you can sit in Solo and chat with people in PGs and Open mode.

 

[Rubbernuke]

In my opinion, all the game NPCs are underpowered. I remember when SJC was allowed to give us proper NPCs.
For 1 week, I was nervous to fly my T9. I ended up putting shields on it and paying attention to the game for a change. It was a fun week.

Then the complaints came in, some valid, some just utter . And out came the nerf bat.
I almost cried. Then I took my shields back off and carried on truckin'

As for what PP is about, it's always been a pointless hamster wheel. That's why they put in credit decay, to keep you on the wheel.
There are no real benefits to it, just the bonus toy for each Happy Meal... I mean the faction you signed up to support.

Perhaps if PP was actually tied into the game properly, more people would be interested in it.

From what FD describe in the FU dives, PP is very much the upper layer of the BGS now where most activity will register.

It always was just an endless cargo run or NPC farm. PvP has never been a significant part of it.

How about we lock PP to CQC, then you get your PvP and no one else has to put up with it

PvP was a significant part of it, with piracy. I can remember people pirating, finding out how valuable it was and then scheming. Sadly loopholes never not filled.

As far as open only content, you can do a number of things- you could have roles for modes where solo and PG can generate material PvP guys move in open. The other is to mute power INF *but keep personal rewards) for certain activities in solo or PG. For example FC assaults.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Well for Elite it's a tactical game, there shouldn't be any strategy.
And I like to play alone, not in the sense of a single game, I can play and open game, but not to communicate with anyone, to do what I want and not to adjust to someone else.
I'm a lone mercenary in the galaxy !

Powerplay is a team game.

 

[SergMx]

Yup, this is why they updated the chat to work no matter the mode you are in, so you can sit in Solo and chat with people in PGs and Open mode.

It's not my native language and I find it difficult to chat. Even when I recruit a crew in a battle, someone joins me and then writes me a text and speaks on the microphone I do not communicate with them.

 

[SergMx]

Powerplay is a team game.

So what?
Soccer is a team game, they paid a player to play on their side. Next time the other side paid more and he played on the other side. Isn't soccer a team game?

 

[Jockey79]

...

PvP was a significant part of it, with piracy. I can remember people pirating, finding out how valuable it was and then scheming. Sadly loopholes never not filled.

Just because a few people did it, doesn't make it a "significant" part of it.
Direct PvP is optional - always has been, right from day 1 I've done PP and never done direct PvP - same goes for anyone else in Solo or PGs.

So no, direct PvP only has a small, unimportant role that can be completely ignored - by design.

As far as open only content, you can do a number of things- .....

Yeah, you can forget it. The game I bought, right from day 1 of the Kickstarter advertised the fact PvP would never be forced on me and that I could play my way.
Locking content to a mode forces me to play that mode if I want the rewards from it. That isn't me playing my game how I want, its me playing how YOU want.

Tell you what then, turn off all PvP. No players can damage / harm / obstruct or inconvenience other players in any way, shape or form and make PvP a toggle you can switch while docked - then you can lock PP to Open and I'll do PP in Open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

If the Powerplay 2.0 NPCs were to mirror players then some of them would have no engineering at all - just like some players.

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

Which would likely have made collusion even more effective rather than less, assuming that the negative applied to the Power as well as the player.

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.

Mission style adversaries would be a good way to not need to lock any Powerplay content to Open - that's a great idea!

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.

Thargoids have fixed loadouts and fixed skill levels - and don't break Wheaton's law.

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

The BGS does not require PvP either....

 

[DemiserofD]

Aaaaannnd, for the millionth time I'm not suggesting making everything spec ops or ATR.

It's unavoidable.

You talk about having different mission difficulties, for example. But I assume the harder missions will reward proportionately better, yes? Or everyone would just farm the easy ones. But that means that in order to be competitive, everyone must be able to do the hardest missions, which means only the top players can compete.

Some things are simply flat-out impossible, and this is one of them. You cannot make a square triangle, and you cannot make AI that is difficult enough to challenge strong players but at the same time allow weaker players to make a meaningful contribution.

---
As I see it, there are basically three possibilities.

Option 1: Open Only. You decide to ignore 98% of the playerbase and let the game be run by the 1% of players who are the best of the best. They kill everyone, everyone gets bored like in CQC, and the game mode dies.

Option 2: Solo Available. PVP remains irrelevant, just like it has been, but the remaining 98% of players can have a good time competing to do more pve against each other. If the gameplay loops are interesting enough, the game mode lives, but if the gameplay loops are boring(like in current powerplay), the game mode dies.

Option 3: Solo Available, but with pvp/pve zones. You allow players to play in solo, but you also add pve objectives that can only be accessed in Open. The solo players get what they want, the pvpers get to do meaningful pvp, and everyone wins.

I think you can tell what my preference is.

---

But to reiterate; it is simply not possible to do what you want. You can talk about it all the day long, but you can't make a square triangle. It's not a matter of developer effort or clever coding, it's a physical impossibility.

 

[Darrack]

But to reiterate; it is simply not possible to do what you want. You can talk about it all the day long, but you can't make a square triangle. It's not a matter of developer effort or clever coding, it's a physical impossibility.

Exactly, can you really see Fdev putting anything into the game that forces PvP when the biggest PGs are PVE only?
I think not.

O7

 

[Rubbernuke]

---
As I see it, there are basically three possibilities.

Option 1: Open Only. You decide to ignore 98% of the playerbase and let the game be run by the 1% of players who are the best of the best. They kill everyone, everyone gets bored like in CQC, and the game mode dies.

Option 2: Solo Available. PVP remains irrelevant, just like it has been, but the remaining 98% of players can have a good time competing to do more pve against each other. If the gameplay loops are interesting enough, the game mode lives, but if the gameplay loops are boring(like in current powerplay), the game mode dies.

Option 3: Solo Available, but with pvp/pve zones. You allow players to play in solo, but you also add pve objectives that can only be accessed in Open. The solo players get what they want, the pvpers get to do meaningful pvp, and everyone wins.

I think you can tell what my preference is.

---

But to reiterate; it is simply not possible to do what you want. You can talk about it all the day long, but you can't make a square triangle. It's not a matter of developer effort or clever coding, it's a physical impossibility.

It's unavoidable.

You talk about having different mission difficulties, for example. But I assume the harder missions will reward proportionately better, yes? Or everyone would just farm the easy ones. But that means that in order to be competitive, everyone must be able to do the hardest missions, which means only the top players can compete.

Some things are simply flat-out impossible, and this is one of them. You cannot make a square triangle, and you cannot make AI that is difficult enough to challenge strong players but at the same time allow weaker players to make a meaningful contribution.

? This is how the BGS operates right now, are you suggesting thats flawed too? We have tiered threat level POIs, CZs, missions......have you not seen those Risk more = greater reward. And in a PP context it actually prices in NPCs that will appear, unlike now.

Plus, without the pathway to a challenge, what will new players strive for? Its unsatisfying in a game about skill that you don't need skill to progress because progression plateaus so early.

Unfortunately for you, this is how V2 seemingly operates, leveraging the BGS.

As I see it, there are basically three possibilities.

Option 1: Open Only. You decide to ignore 98% of the playerbase and let the game be run by the 1% of players who are the best of the best. They kill everyone, everyone gets bored like in CQC, and the game mode dies.

Option 2: Solo Available. PVP remains irrelevant, just like it has been, but the remaining 98% of players can have a good time competing to do more pve against each other. If the gameplay loops are interesting enough, the game mode lives, but if the gameplay loops are boring(like in current powerplay), the game mode dies.

Option 3: Solo Available, but with pvp/pve zones. You allow players to play in solo, but you also add pve objectives that can only be accessed in Open. The solo players get what they want, the pvpers get to do meaningful pvp, and everyone wins.

I think you can tell what my preference is.

---

But to reiterate; it is simply not possible to do what you want. You can talk about it all the day long, but you can't make a square triangle. It's not a matter of developer effort or clever coding, it's a physical impossibility.

Where does the 98% come from- how do you know its ignoring the playerbase? Have you any stats as to the makeup of PP pledges to back any of this up?

And there is an even easier way- just mute any INF solo and PG players make during certain activities that favour open. No need for weighting or forced PvP zones.

 

[Rubbernuke]

If the Powerplay 2.0 NPCs were to mirror players then some of them would have no engineering at all - just like some players.

True, but you don't send elite assassins in clown cars either. In the end they have to pose a threat- but that can be scaled based on many BGS factors like tactical importance (in V2 how many exploited systems depend on the stronghold), stability (as in, is the system regularly under attack). V2 seemingly has this with strongholds IIRC from the FU streams.

Which would likely have made collusion even more effective rather than less, assuming that the negative applied to the Power as well as the player.

I can see your point, but this is applied to commanders only. If you lose too much cargo the power trusts you less, as it should be.

Mission style adversaries would be a good way to not need to lock any Powerplay content to Open - that's a great idea!

Its one way that I'd be very happy with, believe it or not. But only if the threat for the very top is far, far higher than it is now, and that the base level is raised slightly to elevate PP above plain BGS activity (as in, no milk runs- someone somewhere is always ready to pounce). If its to replicate an open like experience it needs a brutal edge- if it did, it would then make working together (against NPC odds) a thing too.

Thargoids have fixed loadouts and fixed skill levels - and don't break Wheaton's law.

And arguably have more devastating weapons than is available to players. The other issue is that fixed loadouts also bake in boredom in a game where you can build what you like. If you can't anticipate what you face, you have to hedge your bets (something I'd love to see in NPCs above a certain level- random loadouts).

Its a bit strange that in a feature about intense rivalry where destruction is a goal, destruction is deemed 'bad'. In V2 commanders are explicit targets, as well as governing factions.

The BGS does not require PvP either....

Which is true, however V2 has aspects that (going by how it was presented) assumed players would directly attack each other.