PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

We all bought a say when we bought the game, especially regarding retrospective PvP-gating of a feature that was implemented pan-modally and forms part of the base game. Unless some players assume that they are more equal than others?

Not Open, no. Gated behind a completely ignorable out-of-game PvP-only feature with no consequence for loss - it's essentially a demonstration of persistence.

Support, as in lesser. Not a meeting of equals. Hence not "fair".

Which is functionally equivalent to "should [insert feature here] be PvP-gated" although worded in a way to seem to be less contentious.

Indeed - and a Power is not reliant on the efforts of a single player.

We'll see what the response is, in time.
Open does not mean "PvP gated" Robert.

As I'm sure you know, escaping combat is massively skewed towards the defending ship, moreover, a good number of would be killers don't have the skills even to kill a trade ship before it high wakes.

Moreover is the idea of players helping push a superpowers agenda not competative gameplay? Almost like it was PvP. Just generally not involving fighting one another directly.

Open needs more incentives and a well built and well thought out powerplay system is the best option to push it. Unless of course FDev doube the payouts in open, but then people would be upset about that now wouldnt they.

Personally the only viable argument against OOPP for me is that console players have to pay a subscription fee. Though even that is a flimsy one with good workarounds avalible already in game, such as the tech brokers.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Informed opinions based on hard-earned experience in the subject matter have more credence than ignorant opinions. If you wish, you can judge the worth of individuals for whatever reason, but it is a meaningless irrelevance.
Not at the polling booth. The experienced may seek to influence a result - however they weren't voted into a position of authority to be able to dictate to the player-base at large.

If the experience of those who have an intimate knowledge was being used to propose improvements for all players then they'd likely be listened to with more care. That some of those players seek to remove access to existing content by restricting it to Open simply because they'd like it that way, not so much.
When im supporting my partner when she's in need, do I feel lessened by it? No. im enhanced if anything. Its a meeting of equals. It's fair.
Not particularly relevant to a gaming example - you choose to be in a relationship, presumably for mutual benefit, and choose to place yourself in a supporting role from time to time. Unlike relegating players who don't want to engage in PvP to a supporting role simply because some players want to shoot at all opposition.
When im flying top-cover for an explorer bringing valuable data back to buff our BGS, im supporting them. I'm the expendable one. It's the one carrying the valuable cargo of whatever sort which is the important one that matters, theyre the sole reason im there in the first place. Do I feel lessened by this? is it not fair? No, not in the least, Theyre both important roles & each value the other. The same would apply to the BGS work done in control systems. These players would be ensuring those hauling merits in Open would have to haul half the total required to fortify otherwise. This makes them a vital link in the chain. Hopefully you can well understand why saving 7 or 8 long trips in a fully-loaded cutter or t9, for every system to be fortified, is something to be highly valued & appreciated by every participant for a Power. Its not lesser, or unfair, it creates a fair balance between the modes so they all have a place. Unless you believe some modes are more equal than others, which is the sorry situation we have at present.
All modes affect the galaxy state - in that they are equal. That players who prefer PvP affect each other's progress in Open (and possibly in Private Groups as PvP is also possible in them) is down to their choice to play in a multi-player mode in a PvP-enabled game. Forcing players to play in Open if they want to participate in a game feature removes choice from those players who would not normally play in Open. Many players who prefer PvP have been keen to remove choice from other players for years - to no avail.

I understand that some players enjoy engaging in a feature in a manner where PvP is a necessary consideration - that is their choice. I also understand that we all bought a game where engaging in PvP is not required when engaging in any game feature (apart from CQC/Arena, of course).
'PvP-gated' is your own construction, intended to be contentious, surely & which does not reflect a feature where those wishing to avoid PvP for whatever circumstantial reasons, succeed by escaping. PvP-gating suggests a requirement to fight directly and gain advancement only by winning at fighting. This is not what is being requested. OpenOnly calls for acting with consideration for the potential of PvP, and to act at a tactical and strategic level to mitigate, or maximise it, because PvP is undesirable in the hauling capacity. I wont say the 'haulage ROLE', because while I haul a lot of Powerplay & BGS cargo myself, & I know many other players in my power who haul, I dont know any who ONLY haul, and could be said to fit a 'haulage role'. They all fly combat & other roles too. Once you have your 10000 merits for the week secured, along with your 50million wage for rank5, youre better off doing activities to help others get theirs.
Naming it in blunt terms does not make it a construct. Requiring to play among players who may engage one's ship in PvP to engage in a particular game feature, regardless of one's preference for PvP, is PvP-gating. Unless a PvP-flag is also being proposed?
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Open does not mean "PvP gated" Robert.

As I'm sure you know, escaping combat is massively skewed towards the defending ship, moreover, a good number of would be killers don't have the skills even to kill a trade ship before it high wakes.
Avoiding combat is part of PvP - one does not need to fire a shot to have been engaged in PvP by another player.

Escaping combat against a player depends massively on one's ship build and evasive skills - and the capabilities of the attacker.
 
I don’t disagree, and in fact, this should NOT be discouraged by mechanics. This is a very real function of political systems, also called Espionage, and it only serves to enhance the experience. After all, look at the number of dead people who vote every year....
From experience its better in the long run to make a system run on positive outcomes, because then every player action can only improve that power- I get what you are aiming for though.
 
Not at the polling booth. The experienced may seek to influence a result - however they weren't voted into a position of authority to be able to dictate to the player-base at large.
Indeed, but Fdev doesnt develop ED democratically. However, when polls were conducted, a large majority voted for OOPP. And when the majority votes for the same changes as proposed by those with the most informed opinion on the matter, theres probably more to it than self-interest eh?
If the experience of those who have an intimate knowledge was being used to propose improvements for all players then they'd likely be listened to with more care. That some of those players seek to remove access to existing content by restricting it to Open simply because they'd like it that way, not so much.
Ive dedicated my time to a Power which stands to lose-out by the proposed changes, there's no two ways about it. It's a change for the benefit of quality of gameplay for all, not for selfish self-interest.
Not particularly relevant to a gaming example - you choose to place yourself in a supporting role. Unlike relegating players who don't want to engage in PvP to a supporting role simply because some players want to shoot at all opposition.
All roles support each other, none are pre-eminent, I already explained how crucial the proposed options for Solo/PG play are. And it isnt "simply because ..(pewpew)" Its to take some of the most monotonous gameplay left in ED, and make it the most dynamic tactical and strategic gameplay instead, for players who want something to do with their fleet of ships once theyve completed their objectives for their commander elsewhere in the game. These are the commanders who buy reams of paintjobs and shipkits, and help foster the interest and engagement of newer players. They are absolutely worth giving something worthwhile to do in the game long-term, and at such a low development cost as well.
Naming it in blunt terms does not make it a construct. Requiring to play among players who may engage one's ship in PvP to engage in a particular game feature, regardless of one's preference for PvP, is PvP-gating. Unless a PvP-flag is also being proposed?
Powerplay pledging is a PvP flag. The lack of C&P bounties for killing pledged opponents confirms this, as does dev comments. So why the opt-out that makes it meaningless and an indulgence instead of a part of Powerplay that can make a difference? Its the opt-out that has been strangling powerplay for years, starving it of the gameplay it was designed to promote, by incentivising doing the opposite. Since efficiency is solo/pg in a shieldless cutter. In this Powerplay context, Pan-modal choice results in no choice for anyone. Open becomes a defacto solo (with rare exceptions) and a lot of those in solo are simply playing powerplay according to the rules in front of them and a desire to be most efficient within them, even though they may prefer a more dynamic open environment if it wasnt the neuteured choice based on all other considerations.
 
We all bought a say when we bought the game, especially regarding retrospective PvP-gating of a feature that was implemented pan-modally and forms part of the base game. Unless some players assume that they are more equal than others?
Well, some players know the system inside out. For example Vectron most likely knows more than the devs regarding PP background maths. Plus, if you don't play a feature, should you get a say? I don't intrude on exploration or mining feedback because I don't do it, I don't know enough about it to make an informed opinion.

Not Open, no. Gated behind a completely ignorable out-of-game PvP-only feature with no consequence for loss - it's essentially a demonstration of persistence.
But it has an effect, and you do need to play with others.

Support, as in lesser. Not a meeting of equals. Hence not "fair".
How would you know? Reducing (and keeping) a trigger from 10,000 down to 3000 is a massive undertaking and very important- and thats duplicated over every control system you own. The same for allocations....In an open situation that reduces your exposure to the enemy drastically and makes a very pronounced difference.

It means you'd spend less time and money loading, and less time fortifying allowing a greater proportion of time to be spent doing offensive things.

Support, as in lesser. Not a meeting of equals.

Which is your own prejudiced view it seems.

Which is functionally equivalent to "should [insert feature here] be PvP-gated" although worded in a way to seem to be less contentious.
But is not the same, despite your view that Open = PvP and the monsters that play in it. Features should be made to play to the strengths of that mode, otherwise you get what we have now, a compromised design that is one giant fudge.

Indeed - and a Power is not reliant on the efforts of a single player.
But it does require a consistent plan and people putting in the time. Even just voting correctly is better than module shopping.

We'll see what the response is, in time.
However time is not what we have. FD keep ignoring PP and hope it goes away, all the time the groups and players that keep it going simply get fed up and go.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Indeed, but Fdev doesnt develop ED democratically. However, when polls were conducted, a large majority voted for OOPP. And when the majority votes for the same changes as proposed by those with the most informed opinion on the matter, theres probably more to it than self-interest eh?
Indeed - it is a benevolent dictatorship.... :)

No official polls were conducted where only players could vote. That said, a large majority might (or might not) be indicative of the opinion of the player-base at large.
Ive dedicated my time to a Power which stands to lose-out by the proposed changes, there's no two ways about it. It's a change for the benefit of quality of gameplay for all, not for selfish self-interest.
Not "for all". For those prepared to engage in PvP or play among those who do, certainly. Not for those who don't enjoy PvP or can't play in the multi-player game modes.
All roles support each other, none are pre-eminent, I already explained how crucial the proposed options for Solo/PG play are. And it isnt "simply because ..(pewpew)" Its to take some of the most monotonous gameplay left in ED, and make it the most dynamic tactical and strategic gameplay instead, for players who want something to do with their fleet of ships once theyve completed their objectives for their commander elsewhere in the game. These are the commanders who buy reams of paintjobs and shipkits, and help foster the interest and engagement of newer players. They are absolutely worth giving something worthwhile to do in the game long-term, and at such a low development cost as well.
I'd expect that Powerplay players are not the only ones who support Frontier through cosmetic purchases - and Frontier could, if they had a notion to, correlate cosmetic spend with in-game activity.
Powerplay pledging is a PvP flag. The lack of C&P bounties for killing pledged opponents confirms this, as does dev comments. So why the opt-out that makes it meaningless and an indulgence instead of a part of Powerplay that can make a difference? Its the opt-out that has been strangling powerplay for years, starving it of the gameplay it was designed to promote, by incentivising doing the opposite. Since efficiency is solo/pg in a shieldless cutter. In this Powerplay context, Pan-modal choice results in no choice for anyone. Open becomes a defacto solo (with rare exceptions) and a lot of those in solo are simply playing powerplay according to the rules in front of them and a desire to be most efficient within them, even though they may prefer a more dynamic open environment if it wasnt the neuteured choice based on all other considerations.
How can Powerplay be a PvP flag when one does not require to engage in PvP to engage in Powerplay?

.... and the type of PvP-flag I was referring to was the type that disables PvP damage.
 


Not at the polling booth. The experienced may seek to influence a result - however they weren't voted into a position of authority to be able to dictate to the player-base at large.
In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.

If the experience of those who have an intimate knowledge was being used to propose improvements for all players then they'd likely be listened to with more care. That some of those players seek to remove access to existing content by restricting it to Open simply because they'd like it that way, not so much.
In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.

Not particularly relevant to a gaming example - you choose to be in a relationship, presumably for mutual benefit, and choose to place yourself in a supporting role from time to time. Unlike relegating players who don't want to engage in PvP to a supporting role simply because some players want to shoot at all opposition.
In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.

All modes affect the galaxy state - in that they are equal. That players who prefer PvP affect each other's progress in Open (and possibly in Private Groups as PvP is also possible in them) is down to their choice to play in a multi-player mode in a PvP-enabled game. Forcing players to play in Open if they want to participate in a game feature removes choice from those players who would not normally play in Open. Many players who prefer PvP have been keen to remove choice from other players for years - to no avail.
In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.

I understand that some players enjoy engaging in a feature in a manner where PvP is a necessary consideration - that is their choice. I also understand that we all bought a game where engaging in PvP is not required when engaging in any game feature (apart from CQC/Arena, of course).
In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.

Naming it in blunt terms does not make it a construct. Requiring to play among players who may engage one's ship in PvP to engage in a particular game feature, regardless of one's preference for PvP, is PvP-gating. Unless a PvP-flag is also being proposed?
In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Well, some players know the system inside out. For example Vectron most likely knows more than the devs regarding PP background maths. Plus, if you don't play a feature, should you get a say? I don't intrude on exploration or mining feedback because I don't do it, I don't know enough about it to make an informed opinion.
Not currently playing it does not mean that one might not play it at some point - and it forms part of what every player bought. I expect that some players would be quite delighted if the opinion of a significant portion of the player-base were ignored to suit their change agenda.
But it has an effect, and you do need to play with others.
Miniscule, and the consequences of loss in CQC are less than trivial.
Which is your own prejudiced view it seems.
Few can claim to be without any form of bias.
But is not the same, despite your view that Open = PvP and the monsters that play in it. Features should be made to play to the strengths of that mode, otherwise you get what we have now, a compromised design that is one giant fudge.
Whether PvP should, or should not be a requirement of any feature is a matter of opinion. Frontier's opinion is clear from their game design and implementation. Whether they choose to change that is, as yet, unknown.
But it does require a consistent plan and people putting in the time. Even just voting correctly is better than module shopping.
Weekly orders are trivial to find and follow.
However time is not what we have. FD keep ignoring PP and hope it goes away, all the time the groups and players that keep it going simply get fed up and go.
In which case, at some point, there'll be too few players engaging in it to warrant any development time being expended on it.
 
Not currently playing it does not mean that one might not play it at some point - and it forms part of what every player bought. I expect that some players would be quite delighted if the opinion of a significant portion of the player-base were ignored to suit their change agenda.
But if the current proposal keeps the current design, then only the people who play it now can actually judge its impact. If the design was completely new then no-one could.

I expect that some players would be quite delighted if the opinion of a significant portion of the player-base were ignored to suit their change agenda.

Talking about the silent majority that speaks all the time again?

Miniscule, and the consequences of loss in CQC are less than trivial.
Which is the same for a lot of PP bonuses. Bonuses that would not be lost in the ideas here- in essence you get them whatever you do.

Whether PvP should, or should not be a requirement of any feature is a matter of opinion. Frontier's opinion is clear from their game design and implementation. Whether they choose to change that is, as yet, unknown.
Then FD have a right pickle on their hands then with PP. Unless they give it a massive revamp we have limited options.

Weekly orders are trivial to find and follow.
And yet they need constant input to work. If you ignore 3 plans out of 4 your Power is stuffed.

In which case, at some point, there'll be too few players engaging in it to warrant any development time being expended on it.
Which is where we probably are now, because FD ignored it for too long- and probably why such drastic measures are being considered, and why each change has to do triple work.
 
Powerplay pledging is a PvP flag. The lack of C&P bounties for killing pledged opponents confirms this, as does dev comments.
Agreed.

This should be the biggest point regarding the issue. It's not always direct PvP, but it is PvP.

Considering people who don't like the concept or idea of powerplay are quite so vocal about it not going open only does make me question both thier motives and thier reasoning.

Equality of modes means nothing if you don't utilise all modes avalible, or indeed all the avalible content. In fact, it more or less renders the point moot.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But if the current proposal keeps the current design, then only the people who play it now can actually judge its impact. If the design was completely new then no-one could.
Whether or not Open only is on the list of features that Frontier are considering, as Will indicated that only some of the proposals in the first Flash Topic were being proposed, remains to be seen.
The feedback on the other proposals would seem, from cursory inspection, to be fairly positive.
Talking about the silent majority that speaks all the time again?
Not really - referring to a minority who seek to PvP-gate existing game content.
Then FD have a right pickle on their hands then with PP. Unless they give it a massive revamp we have limited options.
Indeed they do - I'm of the opinion that they are currently facing a lose-lose scenario with regard to Powerplay where, whatever they do, there will be an adverse reaction among elements of the player-base.
And yet they need constant input to work. If you ignore 3 plans out of 4 your Power is stuffed.
Which would suggest that Powerplay needs as many participants as possible.
Which is where we probably are now, because FD ignored it for too long- and probably why such drastic measures are being considered, and why each change has to do triple work.
What "triple work"?
 
Whether or not Open only is on the list of features that Frontier are considering, as Will indicated that only some of the proposals in the first Flash Topic were being proposed, remains to be seen.
The feedback on the other proposals would seem, from cursory inspection, to be fairly positive.
All of it - even Open - was.

Not really - referring to a minority who seek to PvP-gate existing game content.
A minority that could be a majority within PP..we simply don't know.

Indeed they do - I'm of the opinion that they are currently facing a lose-lose scenario with regard to Powerplay where, whatever they do, there will be an adverse reaction among elements of the player-base.
Then they can't be timid with changes. Its go big or go home time.

Which would suggest that Powerplay needs as many participants as possible.
It requires people to actually participate in all of Powerplay. I.e. each day do something- vote, UM, prep, fort, BGS. Just waiting 3 weeks and doing a wing missions worth of kills / spend 7.5 million is not doing anything to benefit that power.

What "triple work"?
Each change needs to have as many benefits as it can. Open for example, brings dynamism and unpredicatability that NPCs lack but also is a mild 5C counter.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
All of it - even Open - was.
We'll see. I took the deliberate use of "some" to be a clear expectation limiter, i.e. not all of the proposals would be under consideration for implementation.
A minority that could be a majority within PP..we simply don't know.
.... and a majority in Powerplay would still be a small minority among the player-base, given what Sandro has indicated about the relative size of the Powerplayerbase.
Then they can't be timid with changes. Its go big or go home time.
They can - they don't need to do anything radical simply to satisfy a few players.
It requires people to actually participate in all of Powerplay. I.e. each day do something- vote, UM, prep, fort, BGS. Just waiting 3 weeks and doing a wing missions worth of kills / spend 7.5 million is not doing anything to benefit that power.
Which in turn requires Powerplay to be a draw for enough players to sustain it.
Each change needs to have as many benefits as it can. Open for example, brings dynamism and unpredicatability that NPCs lack but also is a mild 5C counter.
Whether Open only constitutes a benefit is a matter of opinion - and Frontier would seem to be well aware that, while a significant majority of players play in Open (at least some of the time), the majority of players don't get involved in PvP (or Powerplay for that matter).
 
We'll see. I took the deliberate use of "some" to be a clear expectation limiter, i.e. not all of the proposals would be under consideration for implementation.
At this point FDs commitment is like nailing jelly to a wall.

.... and a majority in Powerplay would still be a small minority among the player-base, given what Sandro has indicated about the relative size of the Powerplayerbase.
And we don't know its makeup. For all you know it could be a majority Open.

They can - they don't need to do anything radical simply to satisfy a few players.
Your weighted example is one way, but in the long term it simply keeps the design where it is, static and dull because PP NPCs don't offer anything back.

Which in turn requires Powerplay to be a draw for enough players to sustain it.
Hence it needs to stand out from its failed design- simply shoring up that design is not going to attract more people. Something bold will.

Whether Open only constitutes a benefit is a matter of opinion - and Frontier would seem to be well aware that, while a significant majority of players play in Open (at least some of the time), the majority of players don't get involved in PvP (or Powerplay for that matter).
Well, I've detailed the new gameplay it would introduce- and despite some drawbacks it is tangible.

I still find it odd people play in Open and seek to avoid each other if PvP is not widespread. Does FD even know what PvP is going on, or what they define it as?
 
Just to chime in, I think Powerplay should be open only.

I realise that PvE players feel they would be missing out, though you'd hope the system would allow you to play solo the rest of the time and only if you have PP assets aboard would you be forced to log in open.

The BGS is essentially weighted as PvE though and while I'm not sure how much PP is driven by any economy simulation in the back end, my perception of it is it is - or should be - much more about direct conflict between player groups. For that the players need to be able to interact with each other or the motivation to do it pretty much vanishes.
 
Top Bottom