I don't like interacting with humans much in RL never mind in a game, so I'd prefer PP to remain as it is.
If only you could go back in time and experience it first hand."Split the forum" is not really the times that I've scanned threads for number of unique players commenting the amount of people for trying to push a more pvp orientated thing are often the same limited number.
I did not say it was presented as PvP. It began with strong PvP elements (like piracy) that got nerfed because they could be exploited though.I would not agree with that perspective, and last I checked like the rest of the game, it was never presented as PvP? correct me if I am wrong.
Module shoppers would have no need to pledge to get what they want.Well it would certainly remove alot of "pledged" players... I do not follow how this make this any less relevant, or as you put it nullified...
I've explained in great detail several times over in this thread how different it would be, however to summarize the main action would be around capitals, prep and combat expansions, with the rest being opportunistic. IMO miles better than Solo or PG because players are spontaneous,So explain how this would change in any meaningful by having it all done in open?
You gather your PP supporters, and do your thing. All of you can by all purposes be working towards the same goal, despite being on different platforms, or you could all be on the same.
So how would any potential response be from the "other" side look like? if they are now on a different platform than you, then there would be NO difference from how it is today. And even if one of your team is on the same platform as where the response is done on, and the rest of you are on other platforms, how would you help your friend in that case?
So your supporting evidence is your own anectdotal experieceny of 5 players doing something... it still does not address core issue you made that response too.... far from most players do not enjoy the freedom to do alot of things just before the tick... because of in what timezone they are located in.
The 3 Open Powerplay Modes across XB, PS and PC. Currently 3 modes x 3 platforms = 9What 3 dynamic conflicts are you talking about? You seems to be confused....I do get where you get the number 3 from... but presenting PC, XBox and PS4 as 3 separate conflicts is just just wrong...
Started well, yes we have 11 powers.So lets see how many conflicts there are likely to be...
What about UM? Thats 4.and we have 3 main activities
The last time I checked Powers don't attack every one else simeltaneously, as fun as that would be.and we can do multiple of each each cycle, so we can safely assume that on average, that all powers have on average atleast one of each activities each cycle, that gives us 11 powers and 3 activities = 33 different locations...
'Top 10 list'- you mean the Preparation list? Expansions?And there is a top 10 list, so that means that the number of potential conflicts each power can have is ALOT more than 1-2 on average... So if we go with that they could be 10 of each, that brings this to be a potetial of 3x10x11 powers = 330 conflicts....
Ever heard of Discord, where teams co-ordinate? The tool that Powerplay communities use week in, week out? And that we have things called 'objectives' where after one or two days it becomes obvious what the other side wants. For example prep races. You may have 10 systems listed (mostly 5C) but via consolidation that often gets down to zero or one. And then, as if by magic you know where your enemy is.Couple this with players do not play 24/7, they have limited time to spend on this, as school,. work, family, etc, also requires their attention. So what is the average play time? 2 hours? 3 hours 4 hours? lets go with 4 hours on average each day, this further limit how many players you are likely to encounter in those 4 hours.
So if I do my 4 hours at 13-17 UTC time, and you play your 4 hours at 18-22 UTC time, we are very unlikely to ever meet ingame. But we still play every day...
And I just outlined why all that is incorrect supposition. There are no 333 conflicts- this is a mathmatical construct does not fit typical (or even hypothetical) Powerplay behaviour.So how many players at any given timeslot is active in PP activities? Lets say we have 10 000 players engaged in this, on all 3 platforms.
For ease of calculations we assume all platforms are split evenly (even you suggested that you have even split of players on each platform)
So on average we have 10000/3 players = 3333 players per platform.
If we assume an evenly spread of play time, that means that we have roughly 24/4 = 6 rolling time slots during any day.
So in each timeslot we then have 3333/6 = 555 PP players online.
These players are now (assuming evenly support between all powers, I know they are not), that gives us 555 players over 33 locations, which give us ~17 players per conflict.
Now if there would be 333 conflicts, then we are looking at ~1.7 player per conflict....
And that players do not need to search for haulers. Since all forting is inbound, and if the opposition are fortifying (looking on the fort tab) you take a holiday in capitals. Your targets come to you and must get past you to 'win' that situation.Add to this that that these tasks mostly is about hauling stuff, so you are moving back and forth further limited the time spent in the system the conflict is over.... further limiting the time to see other PP players. We also assume that there would be no instancing issues at all.
So having these sorts of fights could never mathematically happen?So the likelihood of all that "action" you suggest would happen, is unlikely. So with some very rough estimates, it becomes evident, that your "vision" for dynamic conflicts is unlikely to happen.... as there are probably to few players in doing PP activities at the same time, spread over to many locations. And if other stats are anything to go by, PC platform is probably bigger, so in this regard, PC players are more likely to encounter other players in these conflicts, compared to two other platforms, which in turn then makes it even less likely for them to encounter other PP players...
So quite alot of assumptions, to get some numbersSo quite alot of assumptions, to get some numbers, but I welcome any better sources putting more real numbers in here. But as you have already acknowledged the only ones having those figures are FDev, and they will most likely not disclose those...
The phrasing of the response seemed to suggest that all emergent content was stopped by the pan-modal implementation of features. Thanks for clarifying.And who says it does not have any. I meant a lot of it cannot emerge because powerplay is not open mode exclusive.
All the dynamics Rubbernuke theorized above, the ones you might be subconsciously refusing to read.
This resistance to changing PP to OO is mainly irrational slippery slope material.Yea, we may all do good to consider this. The resistance to changing PP to OO is unreal.
After all, these type of threads should be promoting discussion that could lead to some positive change. Unfortunately, they often turn to platforms where we are just trying to win an argument. I don't think it's possible for anyone to really win this OOPP argument. People are different, they have different points of view, and they enjoy gaming in different ways.
I wonder if FDEV would actually take another game mode into consideration; an Open Only with its own unique rules and identity? It seems like this is the only hope anyone has if they desire to fly their spaceships in the same galaxy as everyone else.
Sandro's repeated statements did not quell the continued demands from those insisting "Powerplay first, BGS next".Sandro said three times point blank this would be for Powerplay only, and yet people descended into emotional ranting and fist pounding saying FD will change it all and we are all doomed.
I seem to remember at least some CGs being on your list at one point. Has that changed?For the record, I want Open Powerplay but I don't want the rest of the game (BGS etc) to be open because its not suitable for it.
Luckily FD are grown ups. I assume if they say something, they stick to it.Sandro's repeated statements did not quell the continued demands from those insisting "Powerplay first, BGS next".
Since past CGs have been Open only (Titan X), whats your point?I seem to remember at least some CGs being on your list at one point. Has that changed?
Indeed. However, at the beginning, Powerplay was implemented for all players....Luckily FD are grown ups. I assume if they say something, they stick to it.
Merely seeking the limits of the scope of the Open only proposal from the userbase.Since past CGs have been Open only (Titan X), whats your point?
It was, and that design failed. FD responded with the best proposal possible given the limitations.Indeed. However, at the beginning, Powerplay was implemented for all players....
Well for clarity, if the CG's premise benefits from that mode, why not? But thats not the issue here. Its all about Powerplay.Merely seeking the limits of the scope of the Open only proposal from the userbase.
So Frontier should stick to what they say only when it suits?It was, and that design failed. FD responded with the best proposal possible given the limitations.
Which could apply to pretty much all CGs (as some players like to oppose CGs using "direct action"). Got it.Well for clarity, if the CG's premise benefits from that mode, why not? But thats not the issue here. Its all about Powerplay.
FD should do what is right for that feature now, and not be bound by the past. We have had years of data and results. We know what works and what does not, and how Powerplay sits with other advanced features.So Frontier should stick to what they say only when it suits?
Depends on your interpretation. The Titan X CG is a good example that is analogous to PP. You have an item that others want to stop you delivering. Can you do that in Solo or PG? Would it been as fun if it was a straight race in solo?Which could apply to pretty much all CGs (as some players like to oppose CGs using "direct action"). Got it.
We'll see which, of the proposals contained in the investigation announced in Sandro's first Flash Topic, Frontier put forward for implementation.FD should do what is right for that feature now, and not be bound by the past. We have had years of data and results. We know what works and what does not, and how Powerplay sits with other advanced features.
You can certainly deliver it in Solo or PG. As to other players stopping the carrier, not so much. Shame that PvP-gating it excluded those who don't enjoy PvP. NPCs could have been used as opposition.Depends on your interpretation. The Titan X CG is a good example that is analogous to PP. You have an item that others want to stop you delivering. Can you do that in Solo or PG? Would it been as fun if it was a straight race in solo?
Thats an interesting question. Since its a design issue, one possible outcome would be (just like the inbound fort change) that some ethos is amended- but in practical terms I don't see that happening. You could also argue that the current setup favours the reverse.How would the yawning imbalance between powers play style be addresses in open only?
Some powers are combat bias. So a pvp ship would work well, at the same time as undertaking PP actions.
Some powers are entirely trade based, meaning a pvp ship would be sub optimal, and PP actions would be impacted.
For those advocating open only PP, how would you address this obvious imbalance?
Any improvement is a move in the right direction.We'll see which, of the proposals contained in the investigation announced in Sandro's first Flash Topic, Frontier put forward for implementation.
But no NPC can be as dynamic and unpredictable as a player though.You can certainly deliver it in Solo or PG. As to other players stopping the carrier, not so much. Shame that PvP-gating it excluded those who don't enjoy PvP. NPCs could have been used as opposition.
However, like the race to Elite that preceded it, it was not normal gameplay - which remains pan-modal with respect to CGs.