PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[Voracity_T]

I agree. Powerplay open only would e a fantastic step forward Fleshing out the game mechanics that go along with it too would make the PvP community actually have something to work towards. After all, Powerplay is basically a PvP concept.

I guess the BGS is too.. As soon as you start taing territory from another PF then you are engaging in indirect PvP.

As much as some members here dislike that little titbit, it is the truth.

 

[lenna]

After all, Powerplay is basically a PvP concept.

False - as has been pointed out numerous times already.

 

[Arry]

Not entirely true but I get where you are coming from


Is that necessarily a bad thing? I agree that some take engineering too far resulting in ganker builds but ultimately it is the players that are the problem not the engineers themselves.


Even pre-engineers Open was still vulnerable to ganking behaviours, but ultimately the problem is less with the range of options and threat identification but more to do with the behaviours of individuals.

Agreed: The players and their (to put it politely) style of playing, is the issue. These guys 'will' grind for the best options open to them and take any advantage, that they can find; but then this takes us back to the crime and punishment issues.

 

[szopin]

What if they made a pvp/open-only component within PP? At least people could get the 'real' thing there? Shadow government within each PP (as all powerplaying players will go anyways for the prismatics, something that impacts pvp instead of cosmetics other factions got), so players can engage in some kind of open-only activities where even though they are from the same power they are allowed/expected to compete? If they advertise it as 'pvp only' from start they can avoid all the 'all modes equal' backlash (as if arena/cqc works in pve) and people could get their dose of pvp to become the shadow president/councillor/whatevers within their squadrons (and probably doing PP tasks while at it)

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Like I said, NPCs would have to fight like players- i.e. fight dirty, not respect NFZs, have engineered weapons / ships, fight intelligently, be unpredictable. ED so far has not achieved seamless NPC pursuit like that. If they do, fantastic!

The other is to stop NPCs cheating- jumping with no FSD, jumping through planets etc, ships that magically restore themselves, and so on at the same time.

Ok, cool, so if NPCs could be made as tricky as players, problem solved!

 

[lenna]

Agreed: The players and their (to put it politely) style of playing, is the issue. These guys 'will' grind for the best options open to them and take any advantage, that they can find; but then this takes us back to the crime and punishment issues.

Long and the short of it: "locks are for honest people" and those that "perpetrate the crime will normally be willing to do the time". There are really no measures that FD can implement without becoming overly draconian in the first place - even then that is far from a guarantee.

 

[Darkfyre99]

And how does that square when all fortifying would go to one system, potential fort races in mega UM systems, prep races between powers in the same system etc?

As I understand Sandro's proposal, the "efficiency" difference between modes should cancel each other out, so that if the contest is in doubt, it is the action in Open, which, according to Sandro, is where a significant majority of the player base plays in, that decides things. If the Power Playerbase does indeed primarily play in Solo/PG (edited to complete thought) then they're even less likely to play Powerplay if it goes Open Only.

This, of course, assumes that Frontier will actually do something about the botting problem the game.

You don't know that though- just as I get lambasted for making everything up, this is just guessing.

True, I don't know that, just like I don't know that this red, glowing circle at the top of my stove on my immediate left is extremely hot. But I'm not about to lay my hand upon it to see of it's actually cool to the touch. Experience has taught me that touching red glowing circles on the top of stoves is a very bad thing, just as experience has taught me that open-PvP in a PvE game hemorrhages players. There is a reason why almost all successful MMO developers wall up PvP behind a software gate, well away from the rest of the player base. And that's because players who enjoy ruining the experience of other players have found PvP the best tool to do so.

Have some games managed to make it work? Certainly. EvE's the first one that comes to mind. But the successes were done by teams with experience in multi-player gaming and MMO design, those games were designed with that feature in mind, the networking architecture was designed with that feature in mind, the development team aggressively targets cheating within their games, and those games were marketed to appeal to a certain type of gamer.

Does this describe Frontier Developments in any way?

There is certainly a remote chance that events will proceed as you think they will. If it does happen, I'll probably still enjoy the game...

... from my bunker under the iron hills, where I'll be hoping to avoid the notice of the Great Old Ones.

 

[Arry]

Ok, cool, so if NPCs could be made as tricky as players, problem solved!

NPCs, in all their forms, will always become predictable. It is just a matter of fighting them often enough; to learn the moves and counter moves they make. It is often the same, as a chess player. After playing a few game against someone, you can 'play them' and not the game.

 

[szopin]

NPCs, in all their forms, will always become predictable. It is just a matter of fighting them often enough; to learn the moves and counter moves they make. It is often the same, as a chess player. After playing a few game against someone, you can 'play them' and not the game.

Doesn't seem like the 'always' applies to chess anymore, or our world chess champions would not assume they will lose everytime they play modern computers without handicap

 

[Darkfyre99]

The proposal as is only works as a whole- that is, everyone channeled into the same spaces. If one element is left out it renders the rest impotent, creating a feedback loop that makes Solo worse- more grind, with nothing actually new.

And that is where we disagree.

Solo will balance Solo. PG will balance PG, and Open will balance Open. Any way you cut it, it's a PvE contest, determined primarily by how much time each side has available to them. Let players enjoy that time in a manner that is most pleasurable to them, including the significant majority of players who enjoy Open. I would much rather have a large population in Open, even if it means a small population in other modes, than a tiny population in Open only.

 

[lenna]

Doesn't seem like the 'always' applies to chess anymore, or our world chess champions would not assume they will lose everytime they play modern computers without handicap

In a game of chess, there are opportunities for mistakes and errors in judgement. Some players are predictable, others less so.

What Arry is getting at is essentially true though, while there is room for error on the part of the human opponent the AI controlled opponent will typically be far more predictable. A human opponent can also be predictable too but humans do make mistakes as well, and in some cases can be pushed into making mistakes.

In the context of combat and ED, any "PvP v. PvE skill" arguments are at least slightly flawed.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I understand how to use my thrusters, one of the things I like with this game, over the 84 game; are the extra thruster options. out runing them, is out ranging them. Most engineered ships will do over 500ms, all the dodging etc, in a Clipper that tops out at 440ms, is going to die; especially if the guy doing the chasing, has also engineered their weapons.

I'll agree with Rubberduke on this one.

The best way to avoid being killed by an interdictor isn't outrunning them. It's paying attention in Supercruise, not letting them into your six, and never throttling down to avoid the inappropriately named, "Loop of Shame."

If that doesn't work, then it's best to stay out of their line of sight... preferrably by staying in their six while your FSD spools up for either a high wake or a low wake. If that isn't feasable, at least boost perpendicular to their LOS to minimize their firing window. In my experience, the type of player who enjoys destroying non-combat ships isn't actually very good at maneuvering, but will have very good aim. As long as you don't deliberately make it easy for them by running for it, you're relatively safe.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't see PP as a "competitive" feature, and I am sure many others feel the same way. Sure there is an element of competition (same can be said of many elements of ED) but it is far from being the same thing as "competitive" in true PvP terms and was never designed that way. The barn door is open and horse has long since bolted on that one.

Then why does it have a top 11 with semi secret criteria to gain or lower places? If Collapse was included, this would be vital. In the early days Powers would be paranoid about the last 3 paces because staying there too long would mean removal. It was revealed that if it had been in, Torval and Archon would most likely not be here today.

Not entirely true, CGs/IAs are different from PP in both approach and intent. Any similarities are superficial in nature.

CG: collect something, haul something or shoot something over and over and watch a bar go up. Powerplay: (haul or shoot, watch bar go up) x as many control systems you have.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

NPCs, in all their forms, will always become predictable. It is just a matter of fighting them often enough; to learn the moves and counter moves they make. It is often the same, as a chess player. After playing a few game against someone, you can 'play them' and not the game.

Just need to add some RNG! FD are masters at RNG!

 

[Rubbernuke]

I understand how to use my thrusters, one of the things I like with this game, over the 84 game; are the extra thruster options. out runing them, is out ranging them. Most engineered ships will do over 500ms, all the dodging etc, in a Clipper that tops out at 440ms, is going to die; especially if the guy doing the chasing, has also engineered their weapons.

More reason to fly at and over them so they can't shoot you as easily and keep on doing that- it forces them to turn and face you again. If you run away, you become easier to snipe because fixed weapons microgimbal and are steady. At the same time you should practice your escape drill and HW.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Ok, cool, so if NPCs could be made as tricky as players, problem solved!

Yes, exactly. Until that happens you'll always have this dichotomy.

 

[Rubbernuke]

And that is where we disagree.

Solo will balance Solo. PG will balance PG, and Open will balance Open. Any way you cut it, it's a PvE contest, determined primarily by how much time each side has available to them. Let players enjoy that time in a manner that is most pleasurable to them, including the significant majority of players who enjoy Open. I would much rather have a large population in Open, even if it means a small population in other modes, than a tiny population in Open only.

In reality it does not self balance, because being competitive people often choose the easy path that allows the fastest delivery- in the end it forces others to compete by doing the same. For example, who is taking more risks: AFK turretboat in Open, or one in PG?

Should time be the only metric for victory? Why not have more metrics?

 

[Rubbernuke]

In a game of chess, there are opportunities for mistakes and errors in judgement. Some players are predictable, others less so.

What Arry is getting at is essentially true though, while there is room for error on the part of the human opponent the AI controlled opponent will typically be far more predictable. A human opponent can also be predictable too but humans do make mistakes as well, and in some cases can be pushed into making mistakes.

In the context of combat and ED, any "PvP v. PvE skill" arguments are at least slightly flawed.

Its more than that: I know who is a bounty hunter, PP NPC, sec ship etc just by how they appear and when. I know the number of sec kills trigger ATR. I don't know what that player is doing though.Then I actually have to pay attention. The battle is won on the radar half the time by thinking out whats going on.

 

[Darkfyre99]

In reality it does not self balance, because being competitive people often choose the easy path that allows the fastest delivery- in the end it forces others to compete by doing the same. For example, who is taking more risks: AFK turretboat in Open, or one in PG?

Should time be the only metric for victory? Why not have more metrics?

And here's another area where we disagree.

I don't believe that players are gaming masochists, and will deliberately choose a mode that isn't suited to them, just to "win." If that were the case, then nobody would be playing in Open in Powerplay. You're a prime example of that, pursing an inefficient Powerplay strategy, in a "disadvantaged" mode, because you find PvP fun.

Are there players who play in Solo because its more efficient that way? Certainly, but that kind of player was already inclined to not play in Open already, and very likely combat logged when they did.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Look for Rinzlers Git Gud guide to the type 7 trading in open for advice too. Its swear laden, hence no linky here just in case.