Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Rubbernuke]

They are still a limited viewership, only a small subset of people who own the game. So my point still stands, I can just ask the members of my house and post the results - it would have the same meaning and weight to it - NONE.

I'd wager OA and BP are more representative and neutral than asking a group based on a mode do you like gameplay in that mode?

Again, meaningless. For a start, the poll asked a specific question, and it wasn't weighing the system. It was a simple yes/no question.
So people who cannot answer the question they were asked are hardly a great example of anything and should be ignored.


(I'd ignore the 7% as well, as that's an irrelevant answer as well)

Why? The actual question provides options as to what they'd prefer. In this case out of what was suggested its a weighted system rather than Open, no change or people who don't care. It was not a simple yes no poll, because if it was it would be just yes / no.

 

[Jockey79]

Because its not a yes or no question. Y

Well, it clearly reads as a yes or no question in English.

As for the choice of answers, one can only assume someone else picked "Add your own answer", which is a common choice in public polls on social media. And people always add answers that are not relevant to the question being asked. Such as the one pictured.

And if the answer was included by the person making the poll, then they sabotaged their own poll. Either way, that answer it is worthless as it doesn't address the question asked

 

[Rubbernuke]

Because they cannot try and twist absolute results. So they don't like them or use them.

It's like how they keep banging on with their appeal to authority - "Sandro said" to claim all of Frontier wants Open Only (or weighted) content.
They conveniently miss out the part where his boss at the time (Michael Brookes) said no to it, and Michaels' Boss, the CEO David Braben also said no.
Yet somehow a lowly middle manager dev's opinion is more valid than the CEO !?

It's why the link in my Sig annoys them. (fixed it btw, it links to the post again)

The best part is this argument about the mode system started on Kickstarter page. So before the game was released, they were crying over the mode system.
They had the choice to have their pledges back and walk away, but they'd rather sit around and complain they cannot be gankers and be vile towards other players instead of going and playing a real PvP game.
Any argument they make about their rights to be gankers (and I'm sticking with that term as real PvPer's don't want to force people out of Solo or PGs, they want willing players who are not coerced into Open mode) falls flat on its face when you point out the game was designed on purpose so we don't have to put up with unwanted behaviour in our game.

The other game feature being ignored is how if we put someone on block, it also affects the instancing system so you don't have to keep seeing them in the game. So even if we were all forced into Open mode, within a month we'd all have them all blocked and not see them anyway. So they would be back to square one, no unwilling targets for them to bully

In the absence of any information, all we have literally what devs say or said, information provided or polls streamers do.

You also seem to miss that every proposal FD have ever done for PP involves suggesting a weighted or open response. Is that appealing to authority too? Sando suggested weighting or open, and had a second later proposal for open only. Today we have PP V2 where the devs see there is an issue, and will be assessing changes after U19 is released- you can look at it yourself in the FU series.

The best part is this argument about the mode system started on Kickstarter page. So before the game was released, they were crying over the mode system.
They had the choice to have their pledges back and walk away, but they'd rather sit around and complain they cannot be gankers and be vile towards other players instead of going and playing a real PvP game.
Any argument they make about their rights to be gankers (and I'm sticking with that term as real PvPer's don't want to force people out of Solo or PGs, they want willing players who are not coerced into Open mode) falls flat on its face when you point out the game was designed on purpose so we don't have to put up with unwanted behaviour in our game.

The other game feature being ignored is how if we put someone on block, it also affects the instancing system so you don't have to keep seeing them in the game. So even if we were all forced into Open mode, within a month we'd all have them all blocked and not see them anyway. So they would be back to square one, no unwilling targets for them to bully

In the wider game I'm not fussed with modes, the system works well. Its Powerplay where solo and PG lack actual pushback because its stuck in 2015 while Open (against other people directly) has 2024 ships and weapons.

 

[Rubbernuke]

View attachment 398738

Well, it clearly reads as a yes or no question in English.

As for the choice of answers, one can only assume someone else picked "Add your own answer", which is a common choice in public polls on social media. And people always add answers that are not relevant to the question being asked. Such as the one pictured.

And if the answer was included by the person making the poll, then they sabotaged their own poll. Either way, that answer it is worthless as it doesn't address the question asked

The question is Do you want OO? The majority of people said 'no, rather than a forced open V2, open is weighted'.

People who outright said 'no, keep it the same' are in the minority. So, people want change- in this case they'd prefer weighted open activity.

Its only a simple yes or no if you ignore the rest of whats asked.

 

[Jockey79]

In the absence of any information, all we have literally what devs say or said, information provided or polls streamers do.

Streamer polls are still meaningless. They are a subset of players, not the player base.

The Devs have commented on this issue, several times (see the link in my sig).
You didn't like what they said, so you ignored them and carried on.

You also seem to miss that every proposal FD have ever done for PP involves suggesting a weighted or open response.

You mean Sandro, not Frontier. He was the only Dev to ever suggest or support it, shortly afterwards he got moved to another project.
You don't need to be Einstein to see what happened there.

Is that appealing to authority too? Sando suggested weighting or open, and had a second later proposal for open only. Today we have PP V2 where the devs see there is an issue, and will be assessing changes after U19 is released- you can look at it yourself in the FU series.

See above. He ignored his boss, he ignored the CEO and now he isn't on the project. Again, 1 + 1 = 2.
He even went on a livestream and said he spoke out of turn, but again, doesn't fit your narrative so you ignore it.

In the wider game I'm not fussed with modes, the system works well. It's Powerplay where solo and PG lack actual pushback because its stuck in 2015 while Open (against other people directly) has 2024 ships and weapons.

PP is a bean counter, you push back the same way people advance - you don't need to pew pew to push back.

You just want to force unwilling, unarmed people into your sights. If you (general "you" not specifically you as a person in this usage) wanted a fair fight, I wouldn't have to wait so long in the CQC queue.

 

[Jockey79]

The question is Do you want OO? The majority of people said 'no, rather than a forced open V2, open is weighted'.

People who outright said 'no, keep it the same' are in the minority. So, people want change- in this case they'd prefer weighted open activity.

Its only a simple yes or no if you ignore the rest of whats asked.

The "majority" of a minority group.

Let's go ask the Mobius group and see what answer we get, will you accept their answer as being representative of the entire player base?

Again, you're trying to twist the question and the answers to suit yourself. Just proving your trolling.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Streamer polls are still meaningless. They are a subset of players, not the player base.

In your opinion. If anything the subset of players for OA and BP would not be PP, PvP or anything combat related.

The Devs have commented on this issue, several times (see the link in my sig).
You didn't like what they said, so you ignored them and carried on.

From what I remember from FU in April the current dev team will be assessing changes after U19. So some new quotes for your wall.

You mean Sandro, not Frontier. He was the only Dev to ever suggest or support it, shortly afterwards he got moved to another project.
You don't need to be Einstein to see what happened there.

See above. He ignored his boss, he ignored the CEO and now he isn't on the project. Again, 1 + 1 = 2.
He even went on a livestream and said he spoke out of turn, but again, doesn't fit your narrative so you ignore it.

We don't know that, given around this time FD underwent massive internal restructuring which led to the wilderness years of ED.

PP is a bean counter, you push back the same way people advance - you don't need to pew pew to push back.

PP is not an abstracted system, so one person can do as much as they like and destroying that persons ship takes away all those merits. Sadly without ways to directly disrupt you have to grind back the same way, leading to amazing gameplay.

You just want to force unwilling, unarmed people into your sights. If you (general "you" not specifically you as a person in this usage) wanted a fair fight, I wouldn't have to wait so long in the CQC queue.

Powerplay is about conflict. My whole reason for wanting Open (or even weighting) is because solo and PG have no threats, making fortification too easy and making players the attackers / disruptors. Its up to you, someone who pledged to one of eleven powers, to be unarmed. You chose to be a target (or risk being attacked) by being in PP.

I'd be equally happy with an actual NPC threat graded to your standing / effort within the power.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The "majority" of a minority group.

Let's go ask the Mobius group and see what answer we get, will you accept their answer as being representative of the entire player base?

Again, you're trying to twist the question and the answers to suit yourself. Just proving your trolling.

Asking Mobius is like asking fish if they like water.

Its not twisting the answer either if I'm literally quoting the responses back at you. Over double the amount of people who said 'no, no change' said 'no, but I'd prefer weighting'.

 

[Doctor Dread]

Ehhhm... since some push streamer polls as "clearly majority wants the change to Open", I'd like to point out one thing:

26% is YES
67% is NO

so merely a quarter of accounts used for voting is for PP Open Only.


just saying

 

[Rubbernuke]

Ehhhm... since some push streamer polls as "clearly majority wants the change to Open", I'd like to point out one thing:


View attachment 398739

26% is YES
67% is NO

so merely a quarter of accounts used for voting is for PP Open Only.


just saying

I don't understand why people think I'm suggesting this poll is saying the majority wants Open- I haven't said this at all. I've been quite clear about that several times over.

What I am saying is that the polled majority want change of some sort. 26% want OO, 47% want weighted Open. Thats more than 20% who want nothing to change.

To quote myself:

Here the clear majority who voted want weighting which I can understand, given how V2 is closer to the BGS than V1s design.

 

[Doctor Dread]

Because it's in the thread named

Open-Only in PP2.0​

I have no problems with "playing PP in Open will bring 50%-100%-whatever more merits than in Solo/Group", but Open-Only is a dramatic change. Breaking the entire structure of Elite so far.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Because it's in the thread

Open-Only in PP2.0​

I have no problems with "playing PP in open will bring 50%-100%-whatever more merits than in Solo/Group", but Open-Only is a dramatic change.

Last time I checked this thread its discussing Open only, alternatives as well as practicalities.

 

[Rat Catcher]

but Open-Only is a dramatic change. Breaking the entire structure of Elite so far.

You are exactly right, making PP 2.0 OO would be a poor move.

PP 2.0 should have a mode of its own, with no PP activity playable outside of that mode.

Then folk wanting to actually play PP will only meet like-minded indivduals / groups

I'm sure there will be dozens of players in the mode!

 

[Rubbernuke]

You are exactly right, making PP 2.0 OO would be a poor move.

PP 2.0 should have a mode of its own, with no PP activity playable outside of that mode.

Then folk wanting to actually play PP will only meet like-minded indivduals / groups

I'm sure there will be dozens of players in the group!

As I said earlier, OO suits V1 Powerplay given how its set up given the lack of NPCs and their limitations. Its why I find with V2 weighting (or disabling certain INF gains for select activities) better given how close V2 is to the BGS.

The other option is for more graded NPCs (based on various factors) to come after you, given how V2 is at a system level rather than V1 where is over long distances.

 

[Darrack]

I'm sure there will be dozens of players in the mode!

They might even be able to make 2 wings

O7

 

[Rubbernuke]

They might even be able to make 2 wings

O7

Thats more than Utopias got now though

 

[Doctor Dread]

You are exactly right, making PP 2.0 OO would be a poor move.

PP 2.0 should have a mode of its own, with no PP activity playable outside of that mode.

Then folk wanting to actually play PP will only meet like-minded indivduals / groups

I'm sure there will be dozens of players in the mode!

Let's not beat around the bush: it's about having more victims.

Forcing more (or all) people to go where they can be killed. That's all there is to it.

 

[Rat Catcher]

As I said earlier, OO suits V1 Powerplay given how its set up given the lack of NPCs and their limitations. Its why I find with V2 weighting (or disabling certain INF gains for select activities) better given how close V2 is to the BGS.

The other option is for more graded NPCs (based on various factors) to come after you, given how V2 is at a system level rather than V1 where is over long distances.

But you are still missing the point I was making.

If a player wishes to join in PP, in any incarnation, it should exist as a single mode, which isn't Open (for obvious reasons), which will contain solely PP invested players - I'd surmise that those who get their jollies blowing up unarmed traders would not find an actual PvP environment terribly attractive to remain if for long...

Yeah, tough for those who want to do their PP activities in PG or Solo, but, as you have pointed out so often, PP isn't a PvE mode in its design, it is just that FD have been reluctant to alienate players who have no wish to actively play PvP - but, who, strangely, are happy to play (literally) PvP from the security of a mode where other players are unlikey to either exist, or to be hostile to their intentions.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Let's not beat around the bush: it's about having more victims.

Forcing more (or all) people to go where they can be killed. That's all there is to it.

Better tell FD that, then:

 

[Rat Catcher]

Let's not beat around the bush: it's about having more victims.

Forcing more (or all) people to go where they can be killed. That's all there is to it.

No, it isn't.
PP is PvP activities, it is just that FD permits players to use all modes, which was a mistake, in my opinion.

And no, I have little interest in PvP or ganking. before it is suggested I'm looking for new victims also.