PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

PvP has been entirely optional from the outset (apart from prize events) and since the events in question - arguably "PvP is optional" has precedence - the prize events themselves were optional.
Even though the piracy in Powerplay was arguably the strongest tool (before it got abused)?
 
Player interactions that are meant to be contested will always be abused by players. Powerplay piracy was also an optional extra for the targets.
Player interactions that are meant to be contested will always be abused by players

So you are saying Open and PG should be removed?

But the piracy it was there, and was one of the most powerful ways to advance. At any rate, Sandros proposal advances Powerplays design further along here giving more choice to those who like this where currently there is none. All players in all modes / pledges can help or hinder control system allegiance, so they are not excluded.
 
Imo fdev should implement all the clauses proposed in the first powerplay flash topic, remove the blocking function and move modules to tech-brokers or similar unlock facility. Theyd need to reduce the player numbers threshold for creating new instances around HQ system stations, or fix pad-blocking in some other way. Systematic instancing failures (all part of the info already collected by fdev) result in a cycle's shadowban, repeated infractions lock account to solo/pg pending end-user explanation.

I think that fixes everything, except the slippery slope. But on that, I was never going to be satisfied by the changes to exploration or mining, but the devs went ahead with the changes regardless. (Outrageous!, I know..) Just because some people will never be satisfied no matter what you do, doesnt mean you should never do anything? (Altho that principle is perhaps a bigger change to Powerplay design philosphy than OpenOnly is)
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Player interactions that are meant to be contested will always be abused by players

So you are saying Open and PG should be removed?
Not at all - the exploits relating to players interacting would seem to have been removed.

However, any proposals that include specific rewards for player interaction would be similarly abused.
But the piracy it was there, and was one of the most powerful ways to advance.
.... and it was abused.
At any rate, Sandros proposal advances Powerplays design further along here giving more choice to those who like this where currently there is none.
.... by removing the game feature from those who don't enjoy PvP.
All players in all modes / pledges can help or hinder control system allegiance, so they are not excluded.
They would be excluded from Powerplay gameplay if they chose not to play in Open.
 
Imo fdev should implement all the clauses proposed in the first powerplay flash topic, remove the blocking function and move modules to tech-brokers or similar unlock facility. Theyd need to reduce the player numbers threshold for creating new instances around HQ system stations, or fix pad-blocking in some other way. Systematic instancing failures (all part of the info already collected by fdev) result in a cycle's shadowban, repeated infractions lock account to solo/pg pending end-user explanation.

I think that fixes everything, except the slippery slope. But on that, I was never going to be satisfied by the changes to exploration or mining, but the devs went ahead with the changes regardless. (Outrageous!, I know..) Just because some people will never be satisfied no matter what you do, doesnt mean you should never do anything? (Altho that principle is perhaps a bigger change to Powerplay design philosphy than OpenOnly is)
Those changes don't go far enough in my opinion (either the first or second set of proposals). Unless powers have the ability to rise and fall dynamically, without the hand of FD, and the mechanics actually support a power being pushed down to zero (which as far as i can tell can't hapen) its all rather moot and remains a never ending game of risk. If people want competitive gameplay, then unless they can lose everything, there is no worthwhile competition, just an endless cycle of monotony.
 
Not at all - the exploits relating to players interacting would seem to have been removed.
Which were?

However, any proposals that include specific rewards for player interaction would be similarly abused.

.... and it was abused.
Because like most of Powerplay it was ill thought out.

.... by removing the game feature from those who don't enjoy PvP.
As I've explained over and over, you are not removing any unique gameplay. You still have BGS actions that underpin certain aspects Powerplay via modes, as well as the rest of the game. Powerplay is a very small part of ED that seems to be inflated to something that is vital to people who ironically never play it.

They would be excluded from Powerplay gameplay if they chose not to play in Open.
Not all of Powerplay is removed from them; plus, its their choice in the end not to get involved. Its not been physically cut away and buried.
 
Those changes don't go far enough in my opinion (either the first or second set of proposals). Unless powers have the ability to rise and fall dynamically, without the hand of FD, and the mechanics actually support a power being pushed down to zero (which as far as i can tell can't hapen) its all rather moot and remains a never ending game of risk. If people want competitive gameplay, then unless they can lose everything, there is no worthwhile competition, just an endless cycle of monotony.
Its here where Powerplay becomes a poor relation to the BGS again. Powers can be pushed into a tiny ball but no further, just as factions retreated back to their home system. Since collapse is out, what else makes Powerplay unique when the current experience duplicates what exists in the BGS? Open repositions Powerplay to be a parallel experience to that of the BGS with one serving everyone in every mode, the other in Open.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Which were?
The cause of the 1M bounty cap - repeatedly scanning a player with illegal goods, resulting in a massive bounty (that the player did not pay) to be collected by another player.

Was Powerplay piracy not changed too?
Because like most of Powerplay it was ill thought out.
How would rewards for player interaction be made collusion proof?
As I've explained over and over, you are not removing any unique gameplay. You still have BGS actions that underpin certain aspects Powerplay via modes, as well as the rest of the game. Powerplay is a very small part of ED that seems to be inflated to something that is vital to people who ironically never play it.
It matters not if it is unique, or not - and I've seen different opinions regarding whether it is. The issue, for me, would be the retrospective PvP-gating of a feature that was implemented for all players three years ago - in a game sold to all players as having optional PvP.
Not all of Powerplay is removed from them; plus, its their choice in the end not to get involved. Its not been physically cut away and buried.
Not strictly accurate - players on consoles without premium platform access can currently engage in Powerplay even though they cannot play in either of the multi-player modes.
 
The cause of the 1M bounty cap - repeatedly scanning a player with illegal goods, resulting in a massive bounty (that the player did not pay) to be collected by another player.

Was Powerplay piracy not changed too?
So called 'collusion' Piracy was changed- it was because stolen materials were worth merits at good ratios that caused problems.

How would rewards for player interaction be made collusion proof?
Give me a job at FD and I'll design a system for you :D

It matters not if it is unique, or not - and I've seen different opinions regarding whether it is. The issue, for me, would be the retrospective PvP-gating of a feature that was implemented for all players three years ago - in a game sold to all players as having optional PvP.

Not strictly accurate - players on consoles without premium platform access can currently engage in Powerplay even though they cannot play in either of the multi-player modes.
Just because it was a way before does not mean that it should be in the future, especially if that design does not work. Within the confines of the proposal Open is the only part that moves it forward.

Not strictly accurate - players on consoles without premium platform access can currently engage in Powerplay even though they cannot play in either of the multi-player modes.
Which is self imposed. Does CQC require subscriptions?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
So called 'collusion' Piracy was changed- it was because stolen materials were worth merits at good ratios that caused problems.
So Frontier have shown that they are prepared to deal with player collusion by amending features as required.
Give me a job at FD and I'll design a system for you :D
Hehe....
Just because it was a way before does not mean that it should be in the future, especially if that design does not work. Within the confines of the proposal Open is the only part that moves it forward.
Same could be said of the lack of an Open-PvE mode....
Which is self imposed. Does CQC require subscriptions?
The reasons why any player might not buy premium access are not known - the game does not require it to be able to be played. As CQC is multi-player, I'd expect so. It is not a feature of the main game, however. Forcing someone to pay for something they don't necessarily want to still be able to engage in a feature that forms part of the game that they bought and exists in all modes seems quite unreasonable, to me at least.
 
So Frontier have shown that they are prepared to deal with player collusion by amending features as required.
But they did not actually replace it with something, it was nerfed into the ground and forgotten about.

Same could be said of the lack of an Open-PvE mode....
I don't support it but if one popped up with segregated modes its better than what we have now.

The reasons why any player might not buy premium access are not known - the game does not require it to be able to be played. As CQC is multi-player, I'd expect so. It is not a feature of the main game, however. Forcing someone to pay for something they don't necessarily want to still be able to engage in a feature that forms part of the game that they bought and exists in all modes seems quite unreasonable, to me at least.
From my perspective, seeing the BGS get a lot of love that works across modes makes the arguement that Powerplay is some unchanging cornerstone of the same a bit pointless. At worst you would have 'Parts of Powerplay require x sub' to play. I can think of many ways how 'free' BGS work would be a great boon in the new system- having the right gov in the right place at the right time is a very useful thing.

Its also ironic that most Powerplay powers have direct representations in the BGS as well. You have the Feds, Imps and Alliance, Sirius, Archons illegitimate son, Antal is there, Torval, Grom, all free to expand as they like all co-coordinated via Squadrons.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But they did not actually replace it with something, it was nerfed into the ground and forgotten about.
Possibly because creating something that could not be gamed in that way was considered to be too much effort for a relatively unpopular game feature.
I don't support it but if one popped up with segregated modes its better than what we have now.
Not sure what you mean by "segregated modes". I would envision an Open-PvE mode as simply one more mode that shares the existing galaxy.
From my perspective, seeing the BGS get a lot of love that works across modes makes the arguement that Powerplay is some unchanging cornerstone of the same a bit pointless. At worst you would have 'Parts of Powerplay require x sub' to play. I can think of many ways how 'free' BGS work would be a great boon in the new system- having the right gov in the right place at the right time is a very useful thing.

Its also ironic that most Powerplay powers have direct representations in the BGS as well. You have the Feds, Imps and Alliance, Sirius, Archons illegitimate son, Antal is there, Torval, Grom, all free to expand as they like all co-coordinated via Squadrons.
Improvements to the BGS work for all players. Gating Powerplay would only appeal to a subset of players - a subset of an already rather small subset of players (from what Sandro previously indicated regarding difficulty in prioritising development time for Powerplay due to lack of player participation).
 
Possibly because creating something that could not be gamed in that way was considered to be too much effort for a relatively unpopular game feature.

Improvements to the BGS work for all players. Gating Powerplay would only appeal to a subset of players - a subset of an already rather small subset of players (from what Sandro previously indicated regarding difficulty in prioritising development time for Powerplay due to lack of player participation).
Only a poor design and project management would see that as a proper outcome. If you have an illness you don't half treat it.

If Powerplay is so small, whats the harm in trying it? The numbers suggest that Powerplay does not work in its current design, its not going to tempt more back as it is, and that it needs a radical overhaul that is cheap dev time wise. Considering how popular and flexible the BGS is (since you have the ability to create PMFs, Squadrons to back them) etc in the face of that there is little to lose. The other option is total removal, which takes it away from everyone.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Only a poor design and project management would see that as a proper outcome. If you have an illness you don't half treat it.

If Powerplay is so small, whats the harm in trying it? The numbers suggest that Powerplay does not work in its current design, its not going to tempt more back as it is, and that it needs a radical overhaul that is cheap dev time wise. Considering how popular and flexible the BGS is (since you have the ability to create PMFs, Squadrons to back them) etc in the face of that there is little to lose. The other option is total removal, which takes it away from everyone.
Some illnesses are treated by excision.

The potential "harm" would be the negative effect that retrospectively PvP-gating an existing feature would have on some of the rest of the player-base - which might possibly outweigh any positive effect among a subset of those who engage in Powerplay.

If Frontier were to go down the total removal route it would at least be equitable - as no-one would have access to a feature long since paid for rather than it being PvP-gated.
 
Some illnesses are treated by excision.

The potential "harm" would be the negative effect that retrospectively PvP-gating an existing feature would have on some of the rest of the player-base - which might possibly outweigh any positive effect among a subset of those who engage in Powerplay.

If Frontier were to go down the total removal route it would at least be equitable - as no-one would have access to a feature long since paid for rather than it being PvP-gated.
But then, you've removed content from everyone, wasted dev time and through this action admit that the feature was a mistake- rather than try and make something of it.

What you are talking about is sacrificing potential gain for the sake of a principle some embittered people hold on a feature most people felt was a joke until it was offered change. And if thats the case, thats sad. But then, parts of the game suffer from the same affliction so whats new?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But then, you've removed content from everyone, wasted dev time and through this action admit that the feature was a mistake- rather than try and make something of it.
That would be the consequence if Frontier chose to go that way, yes.
What you are talking about is sacrificing potential gain for the sake of a principle some embittered people hold on a feature most people felt was a joke until it was offered change.
Potential gain, potential loss - unknown at this time. The principle is what the game we all bought is based on - wanting Frontier to stick to what they have sold us all is hardly an unreasonable position. Some backers / players have been trying to get Frontier to move away from their stance on PvP for well over six years now, variously demanding the complete removal of Solo and Private Groups, removing the effect of Solo and Private Groups on the game, introducing incentives for playing in Open, etc.. Much to the chagrin of those demanding an Open only BGS, the Devs reiterated who the BGS is actually for in the BGS & Scenarios stream of last year.

That notwithstanding, we await Frontier's decision on which changes they are prepared to make to Powerplay based on a subset of those contained in Sandro's first Flash Topic. They will, as always, make their own decision for their own reasons (e.g. removal of UA bombing).
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom