Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Screemonster]

There used to be a HUD element for cargo insurance - I don't remember players seeking its removal.

Cargo insurance would be great. Either purchased when you buy the commodities or else having it as a 5% rebuy at galactic average. The former would be interesting as you could choose to fly uninsured and take the risk.

Indeed - handily reducing the adverse effects of unwanted PvP while engages in AX combat.

Never mind PvP, just risky behaviour in general. I found myself way more willing to go ham and say "you know what, I'll take that fight" when it was only my rebuy on the line and not 200 million in combat bonds.

For a game called "dangerous" the mechanics have historically trained the playerbase to be amazingly risk-averse.

 

[Doctor Dread]

Its a choice- risk it, gain more or be safe, and progress more slowly. I could argue the opposite too- in this case PvE taking away from PvP.

Again, this aspect is a microcosm of V1- absence of NPCs...in this case, because its all happening before Powers take over.

Here's the core of all these hundreds of pages: you repeatedly call for taking a risk - from a position where you have no risk at all.

Calling all other players to bring their hauling/working ships under your guns, of your organized crews of G5 murderboats. Hawhaw!

There all your arguments of "risk should be rewarded" fail.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Cargo insurance would be great. Either purchased when you buy the commodities or else having it as a 5% rebuy at galactic average. The former would be interesting as you could choose to fly uninsured and take the risk.

Never mind PvP, just risky behaviour in general. I found myself way more willing to go ham and say "you know what, I'll take that fight" when it was only my rebuy on the line and not 200 million in combat bonds.

For a game called "dangerous" the mechanics have historically trained the playerbase to be amazingly risk-averse.

Ultimately time is what is lost - the time spent accruing what was lost on destruction.

It's not lost on non-combative players that Frontier chose to have bonds be retained on destruction while non-combat related things still are not. That being the case it's hardly a surprise that there is risk aversion from those who stand to lose the most time.

 

[Rubbernuke]

requiring PvP for any in-game feature

So why is there only a PvP option as a runner up in expansion fights?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Here's the core of all these hundreds of pages: you repeatedly call for taking a risk - from a position where you have no risk at all.

Calling all other players to bring their hauling/working ships under your guns, of your organized crews of G5 murderboats. Hawhaw!

There all your arguments of "risk should be rewarded" fail.

So what happens when my power is in the top two expanding a system and I have to run the gauntlet, with others attacking me hauling? Am I risking it?

 

[Robert Maynard]

So why is there only a PvP option as a runner up in expansion fights?

It, like PvP itself, is optional.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It, like PvP itself, is optional.

But (which started this all off) how can I fight back an expansion attempt in PvP alone, given thats the only option?

 

[Robert Maynard]

But (which started this all off) how can I fight back an expansion attempt in PvP alone, given thats the only option?

Sounds like it is not possible if the only way is hoping that others want to engage in an optional activity.

Which seems like a design oversight - in that there should be another way to oppose the expansion.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Sounds like it is not possible if the only way is hoping that others want to engage in an optional activity.

Which seems like a design oversight - in that there should be another way to oppose the expansion.

How though, given FD quite enthusiastically talked about all out fights? Seems the oversight is the strategic weighting.

 

[Screemonster]

Ultimately time is what is lost - the time spent accruing what was lost on destruction.

It's not lost on non-combative players that Frontier chose to have bonds be retained on destruction while non-combat related things still are not. That being the case it's hardly a surprise that there is risk aversion from those who stand to lose the most time.

yeah. If it were me personally, instead of losing anything on death, I'd forcibly redeem it instead. Holding onto exploration or exobio data? On respawn, you get handed a fat check for the value of whatever you would have lost, you get all your first discovery tags, whatever. Nothing lost personally except the option to choose where you drop it for powerplay/BGS value.
To the classic "explorer decides to return to jameson memorial in open" scenario, it would make no difference since that system is BGS-locked anyway.

The other angle is the rewards - outside of AX it tends to be the least risky activities that are lucrative (and even AX was pretty poorly paid before odyssey), while risky activities (like anything criminal) tend to get in a death spiral of being unpopular because the rewards aren't worth the risk (indeed, frequently worse than their equivalent legal activities) and thus never getting any dev attention because they're unpopular and the devs want to focus on the things the players spend the most time doing, so the things players are doing already get buffed, and so on...

 

[Robert Maynard]

How though, given FD quite enthusiastically talked about all out fights?

Hoping that players will play the game in a particular way, while at the same time not forcing them.

Seems the oversight is the strategic weighting.

Weighting of what, given that the only way to oppose the expansion may not actually be possible, depending on who is driving the expansion and which game mode(s) they prefer to play in?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Hoping that players will play the game in a particular way, while at the same time not forcing them.

Weighting of what, given that the only way to oppose the expansion may not actually be possible, depending on who is driving the expansion and which game mode(s) they prefer to play in?

But you are not forcing them, just giving actual options.

The haulers competing get the weighting, to reward them for being in Open and applied to the influence.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But you are not forcing them, just giving actual options.

Indeed not - as Powerplay 2.0 will be pan-modal with optional PvP for those inclined.

The haulers competing get the weighting, to reward them for being in Open and applied to the influence.

Given the up to 100% rebuy reduction in own Power systems or when destroyed by opposing Power ships in their systems those engaging in combat will face near or actually zero risk of loss in any game mode, as there is nothing contained in their ship to lose.

Noting the susceptibility of any bonus that is not awarded for actual hostile combative interaction to be able to be gained with zero interaction, a participation award style bonus for simply playing in Open would be poorly targeted.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Any lag is at a minimum going to affect you in a Pvp encounter. It may affect others, but my open play is usually at Titans or Spire sites and if busy those locations always lag so I expect yes you will impact most players.

Also, you can go into your bios and shut off the on board network, this is not working, there should be an enable/disable networking on the board option. Then if you have a free motherboard slot, you could buy a wired networking card from amazon and go back to wired.

Yeah, i could buy a network card, i'm just a bit lazy to do so at the moment.

What i'm angling here at, if it wasn't blatantly obvious, is, if someone in an open-only environment really didn't want to bother with PvP, would one way of messing with it be to induce massive lag?

In my case, its because of a hardware issue, which, if i got off my rear end, i could probably solve. But, maybe this could be taken advantage of.

 

[Mrc_NorthEast]

Yeah, i could buy a network card, i'm just a bit lazy to do so at the moment.

What i'm angling here at, if it wasn't blatantly obvious, is, if someone in an open-only environment really didn't want to bother with PvP, would one way of messing with it be to induce massive lag?

In my case, its because of a hardware issue, which, if i got off my rear end, i could probably solve. But, maybe this could be taken advantage of.

Well if that is what you want, I have heard, but not tried myself, that using an SLF does that. Usually SLF's are prohibited via rules in group play, whether Open or PG, as they cause lag and other issues.

 

[Darkfyre99]

And without a reward, why do it?

Call me crazy, because it's fun? It's the kind of gameplay you enjoy?

Some will do it regardless but for others they'll want something in return.

I don't see the point of doing something that isn't fun, no matter how efficient it may be. I've never understood why some players approach games as if they're full time jobs.

Thats not coercion, given they also have the option of not doing it.

"Play in Open, or you'll lose X" fits my definition of coercion.

And whats the worst that can happen when you have a 100% free rebuy?

You don't have a fun experience. That's why most people not interested in PvP avoid PvP. Not because they'll lose some valueless credits, because they don't enjoy the experience.

And lets remember that its only other 'third party' power pledges that are rivalling what is going on.

And of course, the Open experience is always 100% consistent, isn't it? It's not like players' experiences in Open vary wildly. My normal play window all but guarantees that I'll never be opposed by these hypothetical "third party" power pledges, so their only counter to me is exactly the same as my counter for them: do my PvE activities.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Well if that is what you want, I have heard, but not tried myself, that using an SLF does that. Usually SLF's are prohibited via rules in group play, whether Open or PG, as they cause lag and other issues.

Not saying its what i want, just theorizing.

 

[Jockey79]

just to put any specilations to rest: @Alec Turner 's screenshot is from Sab's stream from today, found here. You can see the system in question at 2:33:25, and the screenshot is clearly not doctored. It's also worth listening to what he is saying. Of course it is all speculation, but the image shows what Archon Delaine can do in that contested systems. Do we have screenies from other powers of contested systems? Does their task list differ? Genuine question. Just because the tasks for Delaine include "go commit crimes" doesn't mean PP 2.0 is designed for criminals. Just sayin'.

Having said that: Maybe it's time to put that fable of "Powerplay is designed for PvP" to rest. I don't know, and frankly don't care, if it was different in PP 1.0, but I have watched a LOT of PP 2.0 preview content, and there is a plethora of tasks given to the player, and virtually NONE says "this is meant for PvP". Alec's screenshot is the only occurence I have seen so far that as much as mentions PvP. And that's possibly because Kumo is a crew of murder hobos by design.

Thanks for providing the source and time code. I stand corrected.
So there is an optional task to intercept other commanders (I notice it didn't say "kill" them, just intercept them)

I hope they are going to fix the choice font and make it blend into the current GUI better because that's awful, it really does look like a bad Photoshop

 

[Rubbernuke]

Call me crazy, because it's fun? It's the kind of gameplay you enjoy?

And for some, they'll say its faster and easier (i.e. its strategically more advantageous) to go in solo where there are no other pledges. Hence the need for a material carrot too.

I don't see the point of doing something that isn't fun, no matter how efficient it may be. I've never understood why some players approach games as if they're full time jobs.

And like I said- some do.

"Play in Open, or you'll lose X" fits my definition of coercion.

Play in Open, and you get more is my definition of fostering competition.

You don't have a fun experience. That's why most people not interested in PvP avoid PvP. Not because they'll lose some valueless credits, because they don't enjoy the experience.

Then don't do it- haul away (or whatever the task is) in other modes for that expansion.

And of course, the Open experience is always 100% consistent, isn't it? It's not like players' experiences in Open vary wildly. My normal play window all but guarantees that I'll never be opposed by these hypothetical "third party" power pledges, so their only counter to me is exactly the same as my counter for them: do my PvE activities.

And thats the price of opportunism. However you don't know who will be there.

so their only counter to me is exactly the same as my counter for them: do my PvE activities.

How can they do that, when they can only do so via PvP? There is no counter gameplay- the PvP is supposed to moderate the final two.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Given the up to 100% rebuy reduction in own Power systems or when destroyed by opposing Power ships in their systems those engaging in combat will face near or actually zero risk of loss in any game mode, as there is nothing contained in their ship to lose.

If players want that system, they risk it. At some point every power will start expanding systems, and face the same. Its just in that phase the tables are turned.

Noting the susceptibility of any bonus that is not awarded for actual hostile combative interaction to be able to be gained with zero interaction, a participation award style bonus for simply playing in Open would be poorly targeted.

Would it be perfect? No. But it would be targeted to a degree, given you can contain it to that system and phase alone.

EDIT: looking at that stream where the screenshot came from, it appears the conflict is decided in CZs, so the players fighting are in combat ships too....and that the CZs are proto PvP areas....neat.