Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Ian Doncaster]

Yep, and I doubt anyone would have issue with that outcome as you describe it, however the problem is of course, when they see the opposition, and switch to another mode to avoid it, which is what PP1.0 slowly slid into.

Sure - though if PP2 has "solved" that problem by expanding the playable area to 10,000+ systems, minimal bottlenecks, and a much looser weekly cycle, so that anyone chased off can just do something almost guaranteed to be somewhat productive somewhere else, that's still not going to lead to much in the way of interesting PvP fights. I'm not even sure it's strategically sensible to get into a big PvE fight over the tug-of-war bar; both sides can probably achieve more in many cases by putting the same merits elsewhere. Certainly the tiny number of contested systems as compared with the number a single Power is pushing hard suggests the big groups are thinking that way.

That's then combined with the large number of PP2 activities which - completely distinct from PP1 - are either impossible to interrupt or inefficient to interrupt even if the person doing them only ever uses Open, especially if that person isn't interested in doing more than sticking to the precise letter of "all merits must be earned in Open".

It certainly looks to me like Frontier have (intentionally or otherwise) developed PP2 to "solve" the "Open-only problem" by making it largely irrelevant.

 

[Rebel Yell]

That's then combined with the large number of PP2 activities which - completely distinct from PP1 - are either impossible to interrupt or inefficient to interrupt even if the person doing them only ever uses Open, especially if that person isn't interested in doing more than sticking to the precise letter of "all merits must be earned in Open".

It certainly looks to me like Frontier have (intentionally or otherwise) developed PP2 to "solve" the "Open-only problem" by making it largely irrelevant.

My stance is different, because the at the base of PP1 and PP2 there's always a kind of race, but in PP1 "disruption" was potentially having much bigger relevance (i.e. consider the case of one heavy-hitter being kaboomed and losing 20k merits at once). Fortifications were following different dynamics (due to their binary feature), but closer expample to current PP 2.0 were the turmoils situations, as the HQ or certain "core" systems worked as choke points for the various players' groups.

All those situations where totally skewed on downside: not offering much upside to both parties, like a prisoners' dilemma, so that the best/best for everyone was logically to select solo/PG (and well, I consider me a loser in the dilemma, with close to 9k hours in open only).

PP 2.0 on the other side is worth to be played in open because downside risk is minimal, there are no choke points (except may be strongholds) and there's no downside risk at all for most situations. Not even the rebuy cost at high rank! Merits are earned real time, so the risk for a heavy-hitter is close to zero... wings can do undermining all in open as the busy beacon is not a limiting factor anymore. Reinforcements can be done with combat, among other methods, so it's not hauler vs murder boat because reinforcers can engage underminers and viceversa... and dozens of other situations you can imagine.

Bottom line, PP 2.0 is worth to be played in open because there's litterally almost zero downside risk and all the upside (including fun).

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

How sure are you that they all switched to other modes? I'm not saying nobody did, but in my experience it's hard enough to get instanced with people you want to be instanced with. As near as I can tell, most players quit playing PowerPlay 1.0 altogether except to acquire the PowerPlay modules, simply due to the lack of PvE variety. Others, like me, switched exclusively to BGS manipulation, and didn't bother to earn merits for similar reasons.

I was in much more danger from unpledged gankers trying to kill empty cargo ships at the capital than I ever was at the end of my cargo run.

edited due to using the wrong word that completely alters what I was trying to say

I'm not saying they all did, just highlighting that was usually the outcome I observed of either merely encountering Powerplay opposition in Open (or being sent to the rebuy screen by them) while pledged, followed by encouraged peer-pressure to follow the meta to maximise 'winning' that I saw in the initial powerplay period.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

My stance is different, because the at the base of PP1 and PP2 there's always a kind of race, but in PP1 "disruption" was potentially having much bigger relevance (i.e. consider the case of one heavy-hitter being kaboomed and losing 20k merits at once). Fortifications were following different dynamics (due to their binary feature), but closer expample to current PP 2.0 were the turmoils situations, as the HQ or certain "core" systems worked as choke points for the varios players' groups.

All those situations where totally skewed on downside: not offering much upside to both parties, like a prisoners' dilemma, so that the best/best for everyone was logically to select solo/PG (and well, I consider me a loser in the dilemma, with close to 9k hours in open only).

PP 2.0 on the other side is worth to be played in open because downside risk is minimal, there are no choke points (except may be strongholds) and there's no downside risk at all for most situations. Not even the rebuy cost at high rank! Merits are earned real time, so the risk for a heavy-hitter is close to zero... wings can do undermining all in open as the busy beacon is not a limiting factor anymore. Reinforcements can be done with combat, among other methods, so it's not hauler vs murder boat because reinforcers can engage underminers and viceversa... and dozens of other situations you can imagine.

Bottom line, PP 2.0 is worth to be played in open because there's litterally almost zero downside risk and all the upside (including fun).

Been mentioned a few times, but I think as battle lines get drawn, we'll see the old issues emerge. The current situation is very much a 'kicking the can down the road' moment for me.

I mean, we're only a month in and the Imp factions I believe are alreadt fighting over their border regions

 

[Dragsham]

I think it's amazing to watch the powerplay 2.0 power grab unfold.
My home system was way outside of the original 1.0, now there's a presence + another power undermining it hugely successfully. Which suits us as its our pledged power. So we're helping it along hehe. Having a huge power overseeing us is kinda weird. But welcome.
Just hope they're OK with our quirkiness.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

PP 2.0 on the other side is worth to be played in open because downside risk is minimal, there are no choke points (except may be strongholds) and there's no downside risk at all for most situations. Not even the rebuy cost at high rank! Merits are earned real time, so the risk for a heavy-hitter is close to zero... wings can do undermining all in open as the busy beacon is not a limiting factor anymore. Reinforcements can be done with combat, among other methods, so it's not hauler vs murder boat because reinforcers can engage underminers and viceversa... and dozens of other situations you can imagine.

Bottom line, PP 2.0 is worth to be played in open because there's litterally almost zero downside risk and all the upside (including fun).

I agree with all of that - it's part of what I mean by "Open-only is irrelevant" (which is not "Open is irrelevant")

Put another way: because downside risk is essentially zero, shooting someone often doesn't actually slow them down significantly, so from a merit-earning perspective it's not clear that it's worth it.

If the patrol had caught me ... well, Acquisition system, so they get a token bounty for doing so, and I don't at that point get one for returning fire even if I do land some shots, so when they kill me I get teleported to the nearest friendly station in that system, which probably has enough credit donations on the board and adverts to hack outside that my side comes out ahead. I wish I'd thought of that at the time, now - might try to remember it for next month's excitement.

I mean, we're only a month in and the Imp factions I believe are alreadt fighting over their border regions

Certainly for Acquisition there have been plenty of same-superpower contests for systems - I've seen examples for all three superpowers, which is mostly inevitable given how much they share in terms of border regions.

Less that I can see for same-superpower Undermining, but then it's not like there's a lot of Undermining of any sort going on. I'm sure if it was incentivised a bit more those borders would get a lot more messed up.

 

[Darrack]

Open should never have a bonus, many of us have proved its no more dangerous than crossing the street.

O7

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Certainly for Acquisition there have been plenty of same-superpower contests for systems - I've seen examples for all three superpowers, which is mostly inevitable given how much they share in terms of border regions.

Less that I can see for same-superpower Undermining, but then it's not like there's a lot of Undermining of any sort going on. I'm sure if it was incentivised a bit more those borders would get a lot more messed up.

At the moment, that's the case as it's easier to just expand elsewhere if someone snaffles your turf in an expansion conflict.

But I suspect in 6 months once that is potentially not an option, it'll be a different ballgame

 

[Ian Doncaster]

But I suspect in 6 months once that is potentially not an option, it'll be a different ballgame

Oh yes. With the "Beyond Frontline Penalty" making attacks on non-neighbours very inefficient there's very definitely an incentive to divide Powers into:
- us
- enemy (nearby)
- vaguely unfriendly (too far away to care, though)

And if the higher participation levels keep up "but our group had an agreement not to attack them" isn't going to mean a lot either.

 

[Rebel Yell]

I agree with all of that - it's part of what I mean by "Open-only is irrelevant" (which is not "Open is irrelevant")

Put another way: because downside risk is essentially zero, shooting someone often doesn't actually slow them down significantly, so from a merit-earning perspective it's not clear that it's worth it.

...because what is worth is the players' antagonism. And it's where the stories (= players' content) are made.

 

[Jockey79]

Switching game mode from open to non-open to AVOID interaction and do things in same system... well sounds like an emerging cringe-play.

Sounds like someone wasn't paying attention when they loaded the game up to me.

I've been known to click in the wrong mode and did not notice until I suddenly had players on my scanner.
After the initial confusion settles, I'll dock up and swap to the mode I thought I was supposed to be in.

Good job mode switching is a legitimate part of the game.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Oh yes. With the "Beyond Frontline Penalty" making attacks on non-neighbours very inefficient there's very definitely an incentive to divide Powers into:
- us
- enemy (nearby)
- vaguely unfriendly (too far away to care, though)

And if the higher participation levels keep up "but our group had an agreement not to attack them" isn't going to mean a lot either.

It's partially why, with PP1.0, having met some of the Devs I'm surprised they didn't treat it as a RPG experience for themselves, with a member of FDEV representing each PP character and giving some sort of encouragement to achieve an objective they've laid out (e.g. extra credits/merits to achieve a specific objective, or maybe locking contribution to those systems only as quasi-mini CGs)

 

[Agony_Aunt]

It's partially why, with PP1.0, having met some of the Devs I'm surprised they didn't treat it as a RPG experience for themselves, with a member of FDEV representing each PP character and giving some sort of encouragement to achieve an objective they've laid out (e.g. extra credits/merits to achieve a specific objective, or maybe locking contribution to those systems only as quasi-mini CGs)

One week later, Frontier Developments closed their offices for good, after inter-department warfare broke out due to the QA department claiming the toilets as their controlled territory.

 

[Jockey79]

Open should never have a bonus, many of us have proved its no more dangerous than crossing the street.

O7

Whenever a bonus for open is mentioned, [insert favoured deity here * ] cries.
People are making [ ** ] sad. Shame on them, I hope one day [ ** ] forgives you.

[ * = If you do not believe in a deity, please insert the name of your favourite superhero or legendary person]
[ ** = deity, superhero or legendary person's name]

 

[SamSlade]

So PP2.0 is going to be the same passive-aggressive snooze-fest as their first effort?

It would appear that they are still allowing people to manipulate Powerplay from solo/pg?


Has anything been suggested to bring Open up to the efficacy level of solo/pg 'players'?

 

[anShpan]

It would appear that they are still allowing people to manipulate Powerplay from solo/pg?

BTW "they" paid by people from solo/pg, thus you are not allowed to manipulate "their" opinions/decisions on your own.

Has anything been suggested to bring Open up to the efficacy level of solo/pg 'players'?

More or less on every other page of previous 206, which none dares to read.

 

[Darrack]

It would appear that they are still allowing people to manipulate Powerplay from solo/pg?

All modes are viable, that's the way its always been.

O7

 

[angusmadmac1]

So PP2.0 is going to be the same passive-aggressive snooze-fest as their first effort?

It would appear that they are still allowing people to manipulate Powerplay from solo/pg?


Has anything been suggested to bring Open up to the efficacy level of solo/pg 'players'?

It would appear that open play is basically a serious of PG instances as you basically host your instance .
So even in open play you are playing in the wrong instance and then don't forget 4.0 who live will never instance with ??
I wonder how many instances of open there is ?? Oh that's right Fdev ain't saying.
So say you get a max of what 20 people in your instance ( number is pulled out of thin air )
How many people are playing in your timezone?
How many are playing in open ( Fdev have said the majority so play in open ) ?
How many are in that particular system ?
The cry always is I can't see them so they must be hiding in Solo and PG , but they are also hiding in other Open instances that you can't see because your instance won't allow it .

 

[Darkfyre99]

So PP2.0 is going to be the same passive-aggressive snooze-fest as their first effort?

Unless Frontier raises undermining both the efficacy and rewards to exceed that of reinforcement, every eligible system will eventually be Strongholds in a few years.

It would appear that they are still allowing people to manipulate Powerplay from solo/pg?

Yes, players still get to freely choose who is allowed to play with them.

Has anything been suggested to bring Open up to the efficacy level of solo/pg 'players'?

There’s no need, because the advantages of Open far outweigh its extremely overblown disadvantages. Yes, there is the teeny tiny risk of encountering a hostile player, but that is balanced by the huge pool of potentially cooperative players you gain access to. Playing cooperatively, even in a pickup group, is far more effective than playing alone, regardless of what mode you’re alone in. PG’s coop pool is tiny, and Solo’s is non-existent by definition.

And then there’s the opportunity cost of PvP.

Before rares were shut off as a source of merits, supporters of Mahon blockaded George Lucas to stop enemy PowerPlayers. I made numerous attempts to run that blockade in Open, both before and after learning of the blockade. I encountered opposition about 10% of the time, and died only during my first attempt, solely due to inexperience with that new scenario.

Of all the players I encountered at George Lucas, hostile players made up less than two percent of them. Those players maintaining the blockade let through far more merits than they stopped, and earned even fewer merits than the worst PvE rates.

I do hope they had fun with their blockade, though. I certainly had fun running it, even though most of the time I encountered zero opposition. Players should engage in PvP because they enjoy it, not due to its efficacy. It’s far more fun for everyone that way.

The same goes with mode choice. Some players are simply not fun to play with, and the usual suspects are relatively rare compared to similar games I’ve played in the past. I’d much rather have fun in Open with like minded players, than deal with the negative effects of unwilling players coerced into Open. I’ve played that game before. It’s not my definition of fun.

A significant majority of the general playerbase voluntarily chooses Open to play in. I would expect the Power Playerbase to meet or exceed that rate. If PowerPlayers who would naturally play in Open are choosing Solo/PG for its ephemeral “efficacy,” despite near universal claims to the contrary during 1.0, why would anyone trust them not to act in a similar manner once coerced into Open?

 

[SamSlade]

Bottom line, PP 2.0 is worth to be played in open because there's litterally almost zero downside risk and all the upside (including fun).

I would say the same could have been true of PP1, but then we had to abandon power based subreddits because other players would undermine any system we mentioned in solo…

Maybe the community has matured into the game a bit since then, one can only hope I suppose.

Taking Colonia for Antal way back when was great fun