PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

Every player bought a game that is in continual development, which means features change. Having an entirely opt-in feature where PvP is not entirely optional would be a new string to the bow for a game that caters to a lot of different play-styles and which, afterall involves shooting things much of the time and has 'dangerous' in the title.
For a new feature maybe. For something already established over a number of years, to be remove from 3 out of 3 modes, is not on.
 
So I get the impression that a some people here don't agree with the evaluation that Powerplay was supposed to be 'Endgame Content' where consensual PvP and Power vs Power conflict is supposed to happen. The question I have to ask is what do you think Powerplay is supposed to be?

And to the people who play powerplay, why do you play?
What is it that makes you come back to it?
Is it the Power's Player community?
The Rewards?
The fact you like Dyed Blue Hair?
For me it was the last; when it was first added to the game.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
How is it then for a number of years the plans that these reddits (mine included) played out exactly as they were planned, with no shadow group fighting for control? The only outliers are 5C, and even then they are transparent in aims and are not actually having parallel plans for Powers.

Having been one of the leaders of Utopia for a number of years I have never seen any other group of the same size come along and attempt any other plans.
Fair enough - good to know.
So you then have two modes with no direct structured opposition at all - the only pan modal opposition that can be done is outgrinding each other, which is like eating cardboard and why PP is seen as it is.
Which is the case for all game features that can be construed as having any potential for indirect PvP.
PvP is not only conflict. Its running away, supporting your team, as well as shooting.
True, however conflict in this game need not be direct.
If the whole game revolves around PvE, why have a mode that duplicates what already exists? If everything tastes of vanilla no-one is really going to care. Powerplay is about intelligent opposition, which is stuck in one gear (grind here or grind there). At least with Open PP the chance exists to make that much more dynamic.
Powerplay as a feature is not a simple duplication - it works on a much reduced list of protagonists, i.e. eleven rather than tens of thousands.

While with Open Powerplay the chance exists to make it more dynamic (i.e. require hostile PvP, in the context of the discussion), the chance also exists that the hostile PvP requirement will drive off current participants who don't enjoy PvP (and the fact that some players, who can't play in multi-player will definitely lose access to it). It would be a step into the unknown - where the full extent of the consequences are similarly unknown.
 
Why this thread keeps opening on page 1, I'll never know... Lol

Anyhoo, PowerPlay Open only would be cool, IF PowerPlay weapons/modules were removed (and placed behind tech brokers, to remove CMDRs just module hunting from PowerPlay), and replaced with more generic rewards, like materials, money, even ships and modules (nothing new, just free or heavily discounted ships or modules).
A heavily discounted or free ship/module would significantly lower your rebuy, making a death significantly cheaper, making PvP sting less when dying.

Then the PvP community can have something more structured to get behind other than ganking/enforcing(which barely works due to dodgy C&P), or "gentlemens agreement" PvP in Shinrarta Dezhra.

Of course, PowerPlay also needs a complete overhaul to remove the 2 ultra repetitive gameplay loops, and replace them with varied missions, conflicts, and long term objectives, basically the BGS, but just for the PowerPlay factions. Lol

It's very easy to make it open only. Simply prevent pledging in solo/PG, and prevent logging in to solo/PG when pledged.

This also sort of solves the Botting problem, in two ways.
First, it's Open only, so we can all thoroughly enjoy shooting bots.
Second, swapping the god awful pamphlet grind, with more varied and fun gameplay will making Botting more difficult to do.
The only remaining issue is traffic shaping, but if FD can detect it, it can be a bannable offence similar to cheating.

Of course, I can understand people not wanting this. But I'd consider joining for more than just modules if it gave PvP something to fight for.
 
Which is the case for all game features that can be construed as having any potential for indirect PvP.
But in a feature about opposing directly or indirectly thats crazy. There is no consistent opposition to stop you in solo other than time.

True, however conflict in this game need not be direct.
And PP generally suffers for it.

Powerplay as a feature is not a simple duplication - it works on a much reduced list of protagonists, i.e. eleven rather than tens of thousands.
Much reduced, but at the same time the BGS has much more to actually do. PPs simplicity makes it far better suited to direct opposition than any other part.

While with Open Powerplay the chance exists to make it more dynamic (i.e. require hostile PvP, in the context of the discussion), the chance also exists that the hostile PvP requirement will drive off current participants who don't enjoy PvP (and the fact that some players, who can't play in multi-player will definitely lose access to it). It would be a step into the unknown - where the full extent of the consequences are similarly unknown.
It is a step into the unknown, its why I'm trying to highlight that by making content like the BGS and missions available for solo PP you then leave the open parts discussed at length to open players- both are catered for with better fitting features for minimal FD expense.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But in a feature about opposing directly or indirectly thats crazy. There is no consistent opposition to stop you in solo other than time.
Complaints were made when player supported Factions were introduced that they could be affect by players who couldn't be shot at - Frontier don't seem to see the need for mandatory direct opposition in their game, in any feature.
And PP generally suffers for it.
It's a consequence of every player being sold a game where hostile PvP is an option when engaging in any game feature.
It is a step into the unknown, its why I'm trying to highlight that by making content like the BGS and missions available for solo PP you then leave the open parts discussed at length to open players- both are catered for with better fitting features for minimal FD expense.
Players who want Open only features have been discussing the possibilities for over six-and-a-half years - Frontier have not yet chosen to acquiesce to their demands.
 
Complaints were made when player supported Factions were introduced that they could be affect by players who couldn't be shot at - Frontier don't seem to see the need for mandatory direct opposition in their game, in any feature.
Which is different here- mainly as Powerplay is vestigial duplication of an outdated feature, and outshone by the BGS.

It's a consequence of every player being sold a game where hostile PvP is an option when engaging in any game feature.
And is why this part needs an overhaul, or Open mode made essential for at least part of it.

Players who want Open only features have been discussing the possibilities for over six-and-a-half years - Frontier have not yet chosen to acquiesce to their demands.
True, but each time FD have come back to us they say roughly the same things- its reflected in Sandros topic. More and more intelligent divisions of features within Powerplay give it new life, as well as not excluding anyone. Solo guys get new stuff, and so do Open players, all under the same roof.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Which is different here- mainly as Powerplay is vestigial duplication of an outdated feature, and outshone by the BGS.
Different in detail, not in philosophy.
And is why this part needs an overhaul, or Open mode made essential for at least part of it.
Whether the game "needs" hostile PvP to be a requirement of participation in any feature is an opinion not shared by all.
True, but each time FD have come back to us they say roughly the same things- its reflected in Sandros topic. More and more intelligent divisions of features within Powerplay give it new life, as well as not excluding anyone. Solo guys get new stuff, and so do Open players, all under the same roof.
Roughly the same things included "no ETA, no guarantees" - in the latest incarnation pains were taken to reassure those opposed to the proposals, included in what was pitched as "an investigation", that it was by no means a fait accompli and that no decisions had already been made. We'll see, in time, which of the proposals Frontier are prepared to implement within the resource allocation available.

Something for everyone would be the ideal, rather than gating existing base game content to Open (and therefore introducing a requirement for hostile PvP).
 
None of which is Powerplay- if that was FDs ultimate aim for ED PP would never fit and should be removed in that case.
I don't know if it was. Considering competitive gameplay, it doesn't make sense. What's the point if anyone could as well do it in solo. It could be Frontier thought there would be enough players choosing to play in open, and participating in powerplay in this way anyway, so it would look good enough, at least superficially. Pledging to a power in this way is more like roleplaying, with optional pvp elements, like a personal narrative.

However, I would believe the current situation was not their ultimate aim for powerplay. I think they had wished for a more engaging, and more serious-minded aspect for this game, but at some point something went wrong, they got scared of open, they realized they couldn't handle what would come with it, and managing a competitive multiplayer environment.
 
Different in detail, not in philosophy.
But people play for that detail, and not philosophy though.

Whether the game "needs" hostile PvP to be a requirement of participation in any feature is an opinion not shared by all.
Thats why not all of it is about that.

Roughly the same things included "no ETA, no guarantees" - in the latest incarnation pains were taken to reassure those opposed to the proposals, included in what was pitched as "an investigation", that it was by no means a fait accompli and that no decisions had already been made. We'll see, in time, which of the proposals Frontier are prepared to implement within the resource allocation available.

Something for everyone would be the ideal, rather than gating existing base game content to Open (and therefore introducing a requirement for hostile PvP).
In the end its not about gating, its about providing something that suits what we have if FD won't put in the time needed. BGS and missions suit all modes, leaving the haul and shoot part Open, which is great because that part is mechanically simple letting players fill in the blanks.

But looking at all of what Sandro posted re PP, none of it was a total rewrite, and none of it was at the level of engineers, exploration or mining in FD dev time.
 
I don't know if it was. Considering competitive gameplay, it doesn't make sense. What's the point if anyone could as well do it in solo. It could be Frontier thought there would be enough players choosing to play in open, and participating in powerplay in this way anyway, so it would look good enough, at least superficially. Pledging to a power in this way is more like roleplaying, with optional pvp elements, like a personal narrative.

However, I would believe the current situation was not their ultimate aim for powerplay. I think they had wished for a more engaging, and more serious-minded aspect for this game, but at some point something went wrong, they got scared of open, they realized they couldn't handle what would come with it, and managing a competitive multiplayer environment.
Very much so. You can see the wreckage all over; half finished Powers in game files, unreleased bobbleheads, half finished manuals, unfixed bugs, vestigial menu items...not to mention FD simply being incapable of even talking about it.
 
Different in detail, not in philosophy.

Whether the game "needs" hostile PvP to be a requirement of participation in any feature is an opinion not shared by all.

Roughly the same things included "no ETA, no guarantees" - in the latest incarnation pains were taken to reassure those opposed to the proposals, included in what was pitched as "an investigation", that it was by no means a fait accompli and that no decisions had already been made. We'll see, in time, which of the proposals Frontier are prepared to implement within the resource allocation available.

Something for everyone would be the ideal, rather than gating existing base game content to Open (and therefore introducing a requirement for hostile PvP).
Which might be the main reason why all communications ran thin meanwhile. That (Sandro's) was probably the last attempt of an 'open' discussion with this broken community. Cool headed stuff immediately meets expectations, dreams and wild fantasies and that's what people make out of their words while consequently skipping the unwanted parts. I for one, as a developer or community manager, wouldn't bother to repeat such an 'experiment'. That's where we are now...
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But people play for that detail, and not philosophy though.
I'd suggest that those that participate in Powerplay but don't enjoy PvP are currently playing it for both.
Thats why not all of it is about that.
One proposal would gate content behind a hostile PvP barrier. Not every player agrees that that is a desirable outcome.
In the end its not about gating, its about providing something that suits what we have if FD won't put in the time needed. BGS and missions suit all modes, leaving the haul and shoot part Open, which is great because that part is mechanically simple letting players fill in the blanks.
It's entirely about gating - that is the whole point of making any game feature Open only. It's about making all participants play in a manner that only some choose at the moment.
But looking at all of what Sandro posted re PP, none of it was a total rewrite, and none of it was at the level of engineers, exploration or mining in FD dev time.
Probably because the lack of participation in the feature made it difficult to prioritise in terms of features competing for resource allocation. Engineers, exploration and mining are available to all players (who own Horizons, in the case of Engineering), in any mode. Open only Powerplay would not be available in all game modes and would therefore cut its likely playerbase before any development began.
 
I'd suggest that those that participate in Powerplay but don't enjoy PvP are currently playing it for both.
People play if its good. The people that have stayed in the feature are the ones who see its potential. The people I chat to from my leadership days don't care about modes, they see that as baggage rather than scripture.

One proposal would gate content behind a hostile PvP barrier. Not every player agrees that that is a desirable outcome.
But its not gating it; you are splitting down logical chunks in ways that work. CQC is gated, part of PP would be Open. But you would still have a lot of it available still with missions and the BGS.

It's entirely about gating - that is the whole point of making any game feature Open only. It's about making all participants play in a manner that only some choose at the moment.
Its making parts work the best way they can with FD spending as little time doing it as possible. Thats the heart of the issue- if FD won't put the time in, then this is as much as can be done.

Probably because the lack of participation in the feature made it difficult to prioritise in terms of features competing for resource allocation. Engineers, exploration and mining are available to all players (who own Horizons, in the case of Engineering), in any mode. Open only Powerplay would not be available in all game modes and would therefore cut its likely playerbase before any development began.
You don't know that, just as I can't definitely say otherwise.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
People play if its good. The people that have stayed in the feature are the ones who see its potential. The people I chat to from my leadership days don't care about modes, they see that as baggage rather than scripture.
Different players' ideas of what constitutes "potential" vary. It causes no surprise whatsoever to read that those who want content to be gated behind a hostile PvP barrier see Frontier's continued stance regarding multi-modal access to features as "baggage" to be overcome - just as it should come as no surprise that Frontier's stance is a selling point of the game for other players.
But its not gating it; you are splitting down logical chunks in ways that work. CQC is gated, part of PP would be Open. But you would still have a lot of it available still with missions and the BGS.
CQC / Arena remains, in my opinion, an out-of-game feature that provides a few credits and a single system permit for a system where players may receive a 3% discount (rather than the 10% for Founders and 15% for LYR, plus a 2.5% compounding discount for achieving Elite rank). It remains as the remnant of a short-lived stand-alone game and, from what I can gather, a short term exclusive launch extra for players on XBox One. Yes, CQC / Arena is PvP-gated - that's all there is to do in a feature that is in no way connected to the BGS, Powerplay, etc., it is, therefore, an irrelevance in terms of the game.

We'll see, in time, if any parts of Powerplay become gated to Open.
Its making parts work the best way they can with FD spending as little time doing it as possible. Thats the heart of the issue- if FD won't put the time in, then this is as much as can be done.
Forgive me for not sharing the opinion that gating anything behind a hostile PvP barrier constitutes "making parts work the best way they can".
You don't know that, just as I can't definitely say otherwise.
Frontier have indicated that they are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP while, at the same time, a "significant majority" of players play in Open and "significant portions" play in Solo / Private Groups.

The latter does not mention what proportion of players play exclusively in Open. The former indicates that there may be a significant majority of players who don't PvP. Gating a feature behind a play-style preference that the majority of players don't engage in constitutes a reduction in potential playerbase.
 
Robert, Do you consider Powerplay Fit for purpose?
Considering weather something is 'fit for purpose', is often dependent, on what an individual thinks that purpose is. In other words, it is a personal thing.

Robert, has answered this over the last 70 pages or so.

We all agree: That P/P needs improvements, to become more popular.
 
Going over this thread, almost a month old now. It seems that any alternative idea to the present state is shot down, so it's a bit pointless carrying on any conversation about it.

It's not as if Fdev are going to do anything about it anyway.
 
Different players' ideas of what constitutes "potential" vary. It causes no surprise whatsoever to read that those who want content to be gated behind a hostile PvP barrier see Frontier's continued stance regarding multi-modal access to features as "baggage" to be overcome - just as it should come as no surprise that Frontier's stance is a selling point of the game for other players.
And from 'inside' Powerplay quite a lot of people can see the design does not work, and each week see more bits of the ceiling fall down. Its not baggage if that tenet has made a part of ED dull and is quite frankly being used as rope to hang any progress.

CQC / Arena remains, in my opinion, an out-of-game feature that provides a few credits and a single system permit for a system where players may receive a 3% discount (rather than the 10% for Founders and 15% for LYR, plus a 2.5% compounding discount for achieving Elite rank). It remains as the remnant of a short-lived stand-alone game and, from what I can gather, a short term exclusive launch extra for players on XBox One. Yes, CQC / Arena is PvP-gated - that's all there is to do in a feature that is in no way connected to the BGS, Powerplay, etc., it is, therefore, an irrelevance in terms of the game.
But it does have an effect in the game though- until that changes you can't deny it just as Powerplay has effects that some have over others.

We'll see, in time, if any parts of Powerplay become gated to Open.
If its a fair distribution of things to do, whats the harm?

Forgive me for not sharing the opinion that gating anything behind a hostile PvP barrier constitutes "making parts work the best way they can".
Again, if its a fair division, and that it makes PP more popular for the least amount of work, whats the problem? Everyone gets a slice of something rather than trying to stretch something that does not work over 3 modes.

Frontier have indicated that they are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP while, at the same time, a "significant majority" of players play in Open and "significant portions" play in Solo / Private Groups.
Of that, do we know how many play in Open and are active in Powerplay? Saying the majority don't get involved in PvP is meaningless because you are not defining what PvP is, or what it is within Powerplay.

The latter does not mention what proportion of players play exclusively in Open. The former indicates that there may be a significant majority of players who don't PvP. Gating a feature behind a play-style preference that the majority of players don't engage in constitutes a reduction in potential playerbase.
PP is not a mainstream feature of ED, or is played by a significant majority so how does that relate to anything? Since we don't know or have specifics this sort of statement is futile guesswork.
 
Top Bottom