PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[WR3ND]

Every time I read this nonsense, it winds me up.

It is correct for those 'hardened' top ranking players, but not for the newer players, or the ones that have little experience of game combat.

Your statement: Which you have made a number of times, basically says, that you have NEVER lost a ship, to an NPC. Is that correct?

For what it's worth (not much, I'm sure), I haven't lost a ship in the game since 2015. That being said, I go out of my way not to, preferring to play the game as a survivalist as one of my priorities. In terms of the game mechanics and game progression, not minding so much about losing a few ships now and then might actually be a more effective strategy overall.

 

[Kaocraft]

Neither is PvP-gating of content in the main game.

CQC is not particularly relevant as it has negligible impact on the game and does not form part of the main game.

The main distinction is that nothing in game is restricted to a single game mode.

.... but what it really boils down to is that PvP is entirely optional in the game and has been from the outset.

The PowerPlay proposal is not, and never has been, about PvP "gating" anything. No part of the proposal demands that anyone engage in PvP combat to accomplish PowerPlay objectives. The structure of PowerPlay would be the same. The request is that all of these objectives must be carried out in Open; a shared environment where all actors are able to be present and can be opposed, deterred, or delayed by other players. That's it.

Appeals to Parity of the Modes, as well as handwringing about console surcharges, are unhelpful (and seemingly dishonest) attempts to derail the topic. Scratch the surface of Mode Parity Principles, and we get excuses excuses excuses for all the other exceptions that have come before, or weird revisions like "CQC is tacked on and therefore doesn't count!" or "2 out of 3 ain't bad!"

The facts:
• Console players have to pay a surcharge for Wings, CQC, and Multicrew, including any attendant sub-features like extra power pips or the ability to use two SLFs at once, and this is considered normal and fine.

• None of these features is available in Solo.
• One of these features has an entire Pilot Federation Rank tied to it, and yet is entirely PvP-gated AND requires a console surcharge.

• All of this is fine and reasonable but open PowerPlay (a near-dead mode that people have regularly suggested be removed from the game) is apparently bridge too far. Yeah OK. I don't think the issue is really The Issue here.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The PowerPlay proposal is not, and never has been, about PvP "gating" anything. No part of the proposal demands that anyone engage in PvP combat to accomplish PowerPlay objectives. The structure of PowerPlay would be the same. The request is that all of these objectives must be carried out in Open; a shared environment where all actors are able to be present and can be opposed, deterred, or delayed by other players. That's it.

Requiring a player to play in Open to engage in as feature is PvP-gating as it requires the player to play among players who can engage in PvP even if they themselves don't want to engage in PvP.

If PvP in some form was not the aim of the Open only Powerplay proposal then there's no reason to restrict the feature to a PvP enabled game mode, is there?

Appeals to Parity of the Modes, as well as handwringing about console surcharges, are unhelpful (and seemingly dishonest) attempts to derail the topic. Scratch the surface of Mode Parity Principles, and we get excuses excuses excuses for all the other exceptions that have come before, or weird revisions like "CQC is tacked on and therefore doesn't count!" or "2 out of 3 ain't bad!"

Simpler than that. Powerplay was implemented in all game modes and forms part of the base game that every player bought. That a subset of the player-base seek to PvP-gate it is obvious - however it's not theirs alone to take. All three game modes have access to features that are possible in them.

The facts:
• Console players have to pay a surcharge for Wings, CQC, and Multicrew, including any attendant sub-features like extra power pips or the ability to use two SLFs at once, and this is considered normal and fine.

• None of these features is available in Solo.
• One of these features has an entire Pilot Federation Rank tied to it, and yet is entirely PvP-gated AND requires a console surcharge.

• All of this is fine and reasonable but open PowerPlay (a near-dead mode that people have regularly suggested be removed from the game) is apparently bridge too far. Yeah OK. I don't think the issue is really The Issue here.

Indeed, console players would require to pay a surcharge for Wings, CQC and multi-crew - and have done so since those features were implemented. Powerplay, on the other hand, does not require them to pay that surcharge and never has. So it's a false equivalence.

CQC was a freebie given to owners of the main game - it was not popular and was removed from stand-alone sale some time ago.

While Wings, Multi-Crew and CQC are not available in Solo (for rather obvious reasons), neither are they restricted to only one of the two multi-player game modes.

Some have no doubt suggested that Powerplay be removed - just as some insist that it must be PvP-gated to Open. Opinions differ on Powerplay.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Five minutes before the tick everyone is scanning forts, expansions and prep / consolidation. Like I said, join in and find out, Powerplay like this is the only part of the game that makes you wake up early to see the master plan come to fruition.

The only people who will ever know is FD. I'd love to see what data they have.

Sorry.

For me, the tick now falls right in the middle of my new sleep schedule. I'm not about to wake up in the middle of the night, just for the sake of Powerplay. Now, if I still had my old work schedule, and the rest of the Powerplay changes Sandro proposed were implemented, I might've been tempted to wake up 45 minutes early... depending on how Powerplay missions actually worked. But for the first time in almost four years, night time is now properly sleepy time, and asleep I'll be.

 

[Arry]

For what it's worth (not much, I'm sure), I haven't lost a ship in the game since 2015. That being said, I go out of my way not to, preferring to play the game as a survivalist as one of my priorities. In terms of the game mechanics and game progression, not minding so much about losing a few ships now and then might actually be a more effective strategy overall.

It's all about knowing when to stand and when to run; with the NPCs, I feel.

 

[Arry]

The PowerPlay proposal is not, and never has been, about PvP "gating" anything. No part of the proposal demands that anyone engage in PvP combat to accomplish PowerPlay objectives. The structure of PowerPlay would be the same. The request is that all of these objectives must be carried out in Open; a shared environment where all actors are able to be present and can be opposed, deterred, or delayed by other players. That's it.

Appeals to Parity of the Modes, as well as handwringing about console surcharges, are unhelpful (and seemingly dishonest) attempts to derail the topic. Scratch the surface of Mode Parity Principles, and we get excuses excuses excuses for all the other exceptions that have come before, or weird revisions like "CQC is tacked on and therefore doesn't count!" or "2 out of 3 ain't bad!"

The facts:
• Console players have to pay a surcharge for Wings, CQC, and Multicrew, including any attendant sub-features like extra power pips or the ability to use two SLFs at once, and this is considered normal and fine.

• None of these features is available in Solo.
• One of these features has an entire Pilot Federation Rank tied to it, and yet is entirely PvP-gated AND requires a console surcharge.

• All of this is fine and reasonable but open PowerPlay (a near-dead mode that people have regularly suggested be removed from the game) is apparently bridge too far. Yeah OK. I don't think the issue is really The Issue here.

I see. You want a topic, a discussion, that is without any opposition to the proposal. Good luck with that.

"Unhelpful and dishonest"? Meh.

 

[Lestat]

The PowerPlay proposal is not, and never has been, about PvP "gating" anything. No part of the proposal demands that anyone engage in PvP combat to accomplish PowerPlay objectives. The structure of PowerPlay would be the same. The request is that all of these objectives must be carried out in Open; a shared environment where all actors are able to be present and can be opposed, deterred, or delayed by other players. That's it.

See Powerplay has been given to all of us. Right now it fair. Everyone has a choice if they want to in any mode.

Appeals to Parity of the Modes, as well as handwringing about console surcharges, are unhelpful (and seemingly dishonest) attempts to derail the topic. Scratch the surface of Mode Parity Principles, and we get excuses excuses excuses for all the other exceptions that have come before, or weird revisions like "CQC is tacked on and therefore doesn't count!" or "2 out of 3 ain't bad!"

What I find is Dishonest you are wanting people to ignore players that might not be able to afford a $120 surcharge a year for a feature Powerplay that they can play now for free. But you want it in open Only. We don't know the reason why they don't buy it. But it could be users financial difficulty, due to medical or other issues. That should be addressed and not Ignored.

The facts:
• Console players have to pay a surcharge for Wings, CQC, and Multicrew, including any attendant sub-features like extra power pips or the ability to use two SLFs at once, and this is considered normal and fine.
• None of these features is available in Solo.
• One of these features has an entire Pilot Federation Rank tied to it, and yet is entirely PvP-gated AND requires a console surcharge.

I don't own a console don't you think that Frontier or the maker of the Console would have been pointed this stuff out. Before someone paid for the game? Common sense.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Sometimes its "So many people are hiding in PG/solo its ruining the game, we can't stop them!" and sometimes its "All our guys are flying in open, but the other guys are all in PG/solo" (and of course the other guys declare all their guys are in open and its the other guys who are in PG/solo) and if you listen to these threads, all the "real" PP supporters are already in open! Because its so much better in open!

Then you have FD's statement that open is the most popular mode by a long way... so, either a majority of PPers are already in open, or for some reason, PPers tend to prefer PG/solo, and therefore a move to open only would massively reduce the number of people partaking in PP.

That has always been why I'm so skeptical about how PPOO will "transform" Powerplay. Either a significant majority of PPers are already in Open, so Open Powerplay is already as good as it'll get, or the claim that Powerplay is all about the PvP is horse hooey, and for most PPers it's a PvE exercise.

The usual counter argument to this is that someone in PG/solo can have a much bigger impact on PP than someone in open. Which has some truth to it, although i think its overstated.

True, especially when you consider that said "efficiency" works for all sides, and for all parts of the process.

And then you have people saying they hardly ever get attacked in open anyway, and open is pretty much safe most of the time, then you have people saying they get ganked every time they leave a station.

In my experience, it really depends upon whether you play during your local prime time or not, and where you go in the game. The nature of Open changed radically when I moved from a traditional work schedule to the one I had until two weeks ago. I saw so few gankers over the last four years, my reaction to seeing one went from "sigh again? Well, you'll never intercept me on that vector, so bye bye bad guy! Have fun wasting your time!" to "Wait! Are you moving to intercept me? YES! Somebody wants to play! I'll let you catch up a bit, and then we can play o/ follow the leader!!! o/ If you're any good, you might even get a chance to shoot at me!"

Now that I'm back to a traditional schedule, it'll be interesting to see how much the nature of open has changed over the last four years. I'm tempted to actually use my alternate account for a change, once I reach Beagle Point, just to see how things are. I'm planning on a lazy trip back to the Bubble, via Colonia, with the intention to make it back there in time for the "new era" of Elite: Dangerous.

edited because I didn't realize the new forums don't allow for subscripts and superscripts

 

[Darkfyre99]

For what it's worth (not much, I'm sure), I haven't lost a ship in the game since 2015. That being said, I go out of my way not to, preferring to play the game as a survivalist as one of my priorities. In terms of the game mechanics and game progression, not minding so much about losing a few ships now and then might actually be a more effective strategy overall.

Likewise. Correction: I've lost one ship outside the context of Buckyball Racing and PvP tournaments since the gamma. I almost forgot about that one white dwarf I foolishly tried to scoop from.

That being said, I have fled numerous times from NPCs that I've attempted to kill, primarily because a multi-role or cargo ship isn't a fighter, no matter how much I may attempt to arm, armor, and shield them. If my hull gets below 50%, and the enemy isn't almost dead, I have no problem performing the "Sir Robin" maneuver.

 

[CMDR KOBAL]

Are you going to pay for everyone Xbox membership Rubbernuke? So Xbox players can continue playing power play if it open mode only? If not then this lame idea is a fail.

It only $40.00 for 12 months Times how many Xbox power play members

I'm sorry but this argument holds zero water with me. You don't want to pay the fee to use your Xbox on the I internet so everyone else should suffer from the game not being upgraded to a better state?

How many people can possibly fall into this category? Own an Xbox, don't want to pay to use it online, plays PP on Elite regularly.

SMH

 

[Arry]

I'm sorry but this argument holds zero water with me. You don't want to pay the fee to use your Xbox on the I internet so everyone else should suffer from the game not being upgraded to a better state?

How many people can possibly fall into this category? Own an Xbox, don't want to pay to use it online, plays PP on Elite regularly.

SMH

I see the way this thread has been going. You guys must be taking it in shifts. Taking turns, in showing us all, just how selfish you can be.

You don't care, if players have to pay extra; after you get what you want.
You don't care, if players can't play a part of the game, they have done for years; after you get what you want.
You don't care, if players become forced to become other players content; after you get what you want.

Anything else?

No xbox users fall into the 'category' stated in the first sentence above.

However: Some people have owned Xboxes and never paid for on-line use; myself being one of them.

 

[CMDR KOBAL]

I see the way this thread has been going. You guys must be taking it in shifts. Taking turns, in showing us all, just how selfish you can be.

You don't care, if players have to pay extra; after you get what you want.
You don't care, if players can't play a part of the game, they have done for years; after you get what you want.
You don't care, if players become forced to become other players content; after you get what you want.

Anything else?

No xbox users fall into the 'category' stated in the first sentence above.

However: Some people have owned Xboxes and never paid for on-line use; myself being one of them.

Selfish is the wrong word.

What percentage of the player base falls in this category? It's like in RL, we get some extreme minority complaining about how theyre offended about something and then they make a law to appease these few while ignoring the majoriy that it will affect.

Selfish would be for the minority resisting any change because they don't like it.

I don't know who is in the majority for this discussion, but it would be enlightening to find out.

 

[xondk]

But to begin with it was one of the ways to interact, correct? Just as you could blow up opposition fortifiers you might also nick their stuff for profit that leapfrogged that of NPCs. Now most of that is worthless vestigial trash.

It was a shame, as it was a useful tool for controlled turmoils, one that my old Power used very well.

For the last 15 pages of responses I've outlined the 'why' as best I can. Thanks for reading them so closely.

No, it wasn't a shame, it was clearly unintended.

As for your posts, I try to keep up, but you post a large amount of posts that seem to repeat the same, I've may have missed those where you address the problems I've brought up with other players like what is now, and thinking that the main problem is mechanics NOT the fact that it isn't open only.

Not just this thread.... these discussions go back years. We've had the same debates many many times over.

Nothing ever comes of it of course.

They do indeed, and nothing happens yes, which might seem to indicate that it isn't the intended direction for powerplay.

And again, I think that the best fix is to look at the mechanics themselves and improve them, and not if or if not it is in open only.

 

[Arry]

Selfish is the wrong word.

What percentage of the player base falls in this category? It's like in RL, we get some extreme minority complaining about how theyre offended about something and then they make a law to appease these few while ignoring the majoriy that it will affect.

Selfish would be for the minority resisting any change because they don't like it.

I don't know who is in the majority for this discussion, but it would be enlightening to find out.

Enlightening is the wrong word.

Disappointing, I think would be closer to the truth.

If you are not being selfish, what would you call the 'enlightening facts', I have made about your motives, above?

 

[CMDR KOBAL]

Enlightening is the wrong word.

Disappointing, I think would be closer to the truth.

If you are not being selfish, what would you call the 'enlightening facts', I have made about your motives, above?

You don't have the ability to know my motives

 

[Arry]

You don't have the ability to know my motives

I can read, that will do, because you make them obvious.

So, let's try again:

You don't care, if players have to pay extra; after you get what you want.
You don't care, if players can't play a part of the game, they have done for years; after you get what you want.
You don't care, if players become forced to become other players content; after you get what you want.

If this is not being selfish, what is it, according to your ideals?

 

[CMDR KOBAL]

I can read, that will do, because you make them obvious.

So, let's try again:

You don't care, if players have to pay extra; after you get what you want.
You don't care, if players can't play a part of the game, they have done for years; after you get what you want.
You don't care, if players become forced to become other players content; after you get what you want.

If this is not being selfish, what is it, according to your ideals?

You got a lot of words there that I never said.

 

[Arry]

You got a lot of words there that I never said.

OK, from less than two pages ago.
You don't care, if players have to pay extra; after you get what you want.

If THIS is not selfish; what is it, according to your ideals?

 

[Velixar]

You don't have the ability to know my motives

Let hear your motives. So far we know your motives ruins my game play. So are you going to pay for my Power play Open? I live paycheck to paycheck. I can't afford to waste money on a monthly fee that free right now.

 

[CMDR KOBAL]

Let hear your motives. So far we know your motives ruins my game play. So are you going to pay for my Power play Open? I live paycheck to paycheck. I can't afford to waste money on a monthly fee that free right now.

I want the majority to experience a better game