PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[Rubbernuke]

Wasn't aware of the PP discord proposal - surprised that he didn't take it to the forums to see how the wider player-base felt about it.
Flash Topic 1 and 2 were effectively the same proposal - with a minor tweak reintroducing the March'16 "hand grenade" proposal that came to nothing at that time.

But the weighted merits idea was seen twice though.

PvP-gating a feature is not a correction in balance - it's removal of an existing feature from players who bought a game with no requirement to PvP.

Weighting / open do correct that balance that I described in my other answer above.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In open you are potentially exposed to everything, all experimentals, G5 engineers, every design of ship. You might indeed not see anyone, but the same applies for NPCs in solo who are not 100% on the job- like in forting for example. And these PP NPCs have no engineering, no module specials and are weak.

.... and Frontier set the difficulty level of the game, in terms of NPCs, for all players - not just those with access to Horizons or those who have fully engineered their ships.

Very true.

True again, but at some point you will have to say its 'good enough' and try it. IMO its at that stage.

Opinions naturally vary on the necessity to PvP-gate any existing game content.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But the weighted merits idea was seen twice though.

Indeed - in the failed March'16 proposal and as a fallback after backlash in Flash Topic 2. It seemed to be met with as enthusiastic a response the second time as it did the first time.

Weighting / open do correct that balance that I described in my other answer above.

Creating a different imbalance would not necessarily balance Open vs. Solo and Private Groups.

 

[Rubbernuke]

.... and Frontier set the difficulty level of the game, in terms of NPCs, for all players - not just those with access to Horizons or those who have fully engineered their ships.

So you are saying then that a difference in difficulty does exist? Surely its good design to reward those who face more challenges?

Opinions naturally vary on the necessity to PvP-gate any existing game content.

That they do.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So you are saying then that a difference in difficulty does exist? Surely its good design to reward those who face more challenges?

I'm saying that Frontier set the difficulty, not the players - as other players are, as they have always been, a completely optional extra in this game.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indeed - in the failed March'16 proposal and as a fallback after backlash in Flash Topic 2. It seemed to be met with as enthusiastic a response the second time as it did the first time.

It only failed in that Open only was more popular. In Obsidian Ants poll it was about 55% pro open, 25% weighted and the rest no change. Or in other words nearly 3/4 want change of some sort.

Creating a different imbalance would not necessarily balance Open vs. Solo and Private Groups.

From my perspective it would, but thats opinion.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'm saying that Frontier set the difficulty, not the players - as other players are, as they have always been, a completely optional extra in this game.

But they are different challenges. Until PP NPCs are simialrly equipped like players, spec ops or otherwise they will be less challenging.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It only failed in that Open only was more popular. In Obsidian Ants poll it was about 55% pro open, 25% weighted and the rest no change. Or in other words nearly 3/4 want change of some sort.

Open polls on public channels aren't necessarily representative of the player-base.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But they are different challenges. Until PP NPCs are simialrly equipped like players, spec ops or otherwise they will be less challenging.

One is a PvE challenge, one is a PvP challenge. PvP remains entirely optional in this game.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Open polls on public channels aren't necessarily representative of the player-base.

But its a data point that we can see, unlike expressing opinion which is just that.

 

[Rubbernuke]

One is a PvE challenge, one is a PvP challenge. PvP remains entirely optional in this game.

But its more difficult. One fort run in solo with an NPC interdiction is not the same as one fort run in open with a G5 engineered player interdicting.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But its a data point that we can see, unlike expressing opinion which is just that.

.... and a data point only becomes useful information once it is validated.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

Open polls on public channels aren't necessarily representative of the player-base.

Most of the Polls I've seen have said the same, more than Half saying open only but the problem is we have no idea if these things are being considered or even discussed at Frontier.

The only indication FDev have is how many people are playing PP at the moment. They've got no idea (and to be honest, nor do we) of how many people would play PP if Open Only was implemented.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But its more difficult. One fort run in solo with an NPC interdiction is not the same as one fort run in open with a G5 engineered player interdicting.

Very probably. That does not make PvP any less optional. Nor does it set the standard difference between the modes.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Most of the Polls I've seen have said the same, more than Half saying open only but the problem is we have no idea if these things are being considered or even discussed at Frontier.

The only indication FDev have is how many people are playing PP at the moment. They've got no idea (and to be honest, nor do we) of how many people would play PP if Open Only was implemented.

I don't doubt that those seeking to PvP-gate Powerplay will gravitate to such self-selecting polls.

For me, the question would be what is the net difference in players between new players attracted to an Open only Powerplay (and for how long would they remain) and how many players would stop playing Powerplay if it was made Open only.

Followed by - how many players would be put off by Frontier arbitrarily PvP-gating a three year old pan-modal game feature.

 

[Rubbernuke]

.... and a data point only becomes useful information once it is validated.

While it is an internet poll, its as useful as anything we have at 77k (if memory serves) votes. And if you look at the Flash topic hard yes / hard no that follows a similar trend. Its about as good evidence of intent as we will ever see.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

I don't doubt that those seeking to PvP-gate Powerplay will gravitate to such self-selecting polls.

But if you go back to what Sandro was saying; the idea was that PP was to provide a place for consensual PvP. In my Opinion, the Powerplay mode doesn't work properly without it. Unfortunately, it seems that particular post and thread have dissappeared from the new forum.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Very probably. That does not make PvP any less optional. Nor does it set the standard difference between the modes.

But all modes are optional with none being 'default'- so you can't dismiss playing in Open as being optional. And when you are in that mode, the chance of coming across free roaming powerful ships is much greater. What you argue in game terms is that the player wants it more difficult and has to put up with the same reward- which is absurd when missions in game have differing rewards based on how hard they are.

 

[Rubbernuke]

But if you go back to what Sandro was saying; the idea was that PP was to provide a place for consensual PvP. In my Opinion, the Powerplay mode doesn't work properly without it. Unfortunately, it seems that particular post and thread have dissappeared from the new forum.

SHAZAM my friend: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal.426940/#post6710840

 

[Robert Maynard]

While it is an internet poll, its as useful as anything we have at 77k (if memory serves) votes. And if you look at the Flash topic hard yes / hard no that follows a similar trend. Its about as good evidence of intent as we will ever see.

... apart from an official poll of verified players, that is.