PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[Robert Maynard]

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.

Which it does. It does not, however, force any participant to play among other players - which suggests, to me at least, that any Powerplay PvP is entirely consensual.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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

Indeed, but we don't have one. The only polls that we have are counting the hard yes / no in the flash topics (which is time consuming but easy) and Obsidian Ants poll.

Plus, it seems this forum is good enough to vote for some things like Interstellar Initiatives.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But all modes are optional with none being 'default'- so you can't dismiss playing in Open as being optional.

Play in any mode being optional (subject to actually being able to play in the multi-player modes) means that playing in Open is optional - as has been obvious from the game design published over six years ago.

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.

How would any difference in reward be calculated for a player/player encounter in Open compared to a player/NPC in any mode?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Which it does. It does not, however, force any participant to play among other players - which suggests, to me at least, that any Powerplay PvP is entirely consensual.

But in Powerplay you actively pledge, so you do know you are indicating you want to be involved either with NPCs or players.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Play in any mode being optional (subject to actually being able to play in the multi-player modes) means that playing in Open is optional - as has been obvious from the game design published over six years ago.

But solo is optional too, and the loss of players with ships equal or greater to yours.

How would any difference in reward be calculated for a player/player encounter in Open compared to a player/NPC in any mode?

You have that answer in the form of weighted merits- you accept the risk and you get the merits accordingly. Since Powerplay has no mission structure the only obstacles are the quality of oppostion you face. If FD upped NPCs to dangerous levels then you'd have a bit more equality.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed, but we don't have one. The only polls that we have are counting the hard yes / no in the flash topics (which is time consuming but easy) and Obsidian Ants poll.

Plus, it seems this forum is good enough to vote for some things like Interstellar Initiatives.

Indeed, we don't have one - and counting forum users is not the same as counting players.

For something as inconsequential as the choice of which of five systems one end of a ferry service will be, forum polls are safe enough. For something as important as whether or not to PvP-gate a three year old pan-modal game feature that forms part of the base game, I'd expect that nothing less than a poll of verified players would suffice.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indeed, we don't have one - and counting forum users is not the same as counting players.

For something as inconsequential as the choice of which of five systems one end of a ferry service will be, forum polls are safe enough. For something as important as whether or not to PvP-gate a three year old pan-modal game feature that forms part of the base game, I'd expect that nothing less than a poll of verified players would suffice.

But its as close as we will get, however I suspect people discount it as both show a clear trend they don't like.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But solo is optional too, and the loss of players with ships equal or greater to yours.

It's the eternal PvP vs PvE debate - some players want to be able to shoot at any other player; other players don't enjoy being shot at by players. Frontier designed their game to accommodate the latter as well as the former (up to an extent).

You have that answer in the form of weighted merits- you accept the risk and you get the merits accordingly. Since Powerplay has no mission structure the only obstacles are the quality of oppostion you face. If FD upped NPCs to dangerous levels then you'd have a bit more equality.

There is no answer other than "weighted merits" - I was referring to calculating the actual weighting to be applied to any encounter.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But its as close as we will get, however I suspect people discount it as both show a clear trend they don't like.

I would not be so quick to rule out an official poll, should Frontier be considering Open only or mode weighting of merits.

 

[Rubbernuke]

There is no answer other than "weighted merits" - I was referring to calculating the actual weighting to be applied to any encounter.

I imagine you could design a system, however I constrain my debate with what FD have presented us because thats the most realistic options we have. Our options being no change, weighted merits or open. Anything outside of that is wishful thinking.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I would not be so quick to rule out an official poll, should Frontier be considering Open only or mode weighting of merits.

I hope they do, or at least make an official choice. Each day that passes without it harms the feature more and more.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I imagine you could design a system, however I constrain my debate with what FD have presented us because thats the most realistic options we have. Our options being no change, weighted merits or open. Anything outside of that is wishful thinking.

A well designed system that only ever rewarded situations where there actually was an adversarial player / player encounter would go a long way to reducing my opposition to a bonus for Powerplay in Open. The problem of player collusion would likely remain though.

 

[CMDR KOBAL]

I just want to thank both Rubbernuke and Robert Maynard for your input in this thread. It's very informative and you both have a grip on the issues much better than most of us. I especially appreciate your effort in communicating your point of view in a non-combative way that promotes a civil discussion.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I just want to thank both Rubbernuke and Robert Maynard for your input in this thread. It's very informative and you both have a grip on the issues much better than most of us. I especially appreciate your effort in communicating your point of view in a non-combative way that promotes a civil discussion.

Now that makes an excellent change and on that note, and considering the thread has been going in circles for the last checks number of pages 43 pages, maybe time to ask the mods to lock it?

I know some people might cry censorship or trying to shut down discussion, but its not like anything new has been presented to this thread for a long time, even to an absoloute newcomer to the forum.

Its not like we won't have another identical thread within a week or two anyway, with the same protagonists making the same points over and over again for another 40 pages

At the end of the day, i think we all know we aren't going to change anyone's mind. The only thing that might do that would be if FD actually went through with their suggestions and it turns out one or the other side was correct regarding its effect on PP, and those who don't want the change for various reasons would still likely not be happy. In short, exchanging one unhappy demographic for another.... the question would be, would it be worth it overall?

Perhaps it might be worth it just to stop these threads popping up every few weeks

 

[Saool]

I think this thread evidences' why nothing is likely to change. FDEV will be wrong, whatever they do. I am also sure the same discussions and arguments have been had in their meeting rooms and around their tables. The likely conclusion being, if they cannot fix it with such a change, change nothing.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I just want to thank both Rubbernuke and Robert Maynard for your input in this thread. It's very informative and you both have a grip on the issues much better than most of us. I especially appreciate your effort in communicating your point of view in a non-combative way that promotes a civil discussion.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Now that makes an excellent change and on that note, and considering the thread has been going in circles for the last checks number of pages 43 pages, maybe time to ask the mods to lock it?

I know some people might cry censorship or trying to shut down discussion, but its not like anything new has been presented to this thread for a long time, even to an absoloute newcomer to the forum.

Its not like we won't have another identical thread within a week or two anyway, with the same protagonists making the same points over and over again for another 40 pages

At the end of the day, i think we all know we aren't going to change anyone's mind. The only thing that might do that would be if FD actually went through with their suggestions and it turns out one or the other side was correct regarding its effect on PP, and those who don't want the change for various reasons would still likely not be happy. In short, exchanging one unhappy demographic for another.... the question would be, would it be worth it overall?

Perhaps it might be worth it just to stop these threads popping up every few weeks

The one thing that threads like this highlight though is going thorough consequences of options. FD are not particularly stellar at thinking through how players use a system, and what changes might do in a live context. Its been a particularly interesting thought exercise as to how the feature would change through the prism of the proposals.

 

[-NAiT-]

As i am involved in PP I would like it changed to Open Only,

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

As I am involved in PP I would like it stay all modes.

 

[Rubbernuke]

As I'm not anymore involved in PP I would say none of that would help to transform PP into decent gameplay.
PP needs to be completely re-written/re-thought, the rest (if Open only or not) is secondary.
The whole discussion is a red herring to mask the truth about what's really wrong with PP.

A total rewrite would be fantastic, mainly to eliminate things like merit decay and the issue of allocations / cost , & put in lessons learned from the previous years + the BGS. Plus the fact FD never actually put in collapse to finish the 'expand or die' tenet of the feature. If they get mode parity and eliminate 5C too it would be a fantastic day.

However from the proposals we can see how much FD want to change.