PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

PvP, if it works (which I still doubt), would act as a crutch for PP where the crutch is actually better than the legs. Which is what feels so utterly wrong as it helps at best to obfuscate the need to actually and fundamentally improve PP, attractive for everyone including all solo players, and not this totally abstract nonsense we have now. Then we won't need open only for PP anymore.

Which would be true if FD said it was. Its not, they have told us (via the proposals) what they are willing to do- and Open is the only part of that which adds something new beyond making anti-5C changes. I'm all for a radical change, but until FD say thats on the cards we have to be realistic and deal with whats possible.
 
What would be?

Anyway, signed up with Torval. Always had a thing for underdogs and i can at least work to getting mining lances, which is about the only PP module i have a vague interest in.

If FD announced that Powerplay is having a total overhaul then that would override what was said in the last proposal. Since nothing else has been said then all we can really discuss realistically is what is in that proposal, and use its scope as a yard stick.
 
If FD announced that Powerplay is having a total overhaul then that would override what was said in the last proposal. Since nothing else has been said then all we can really discuss realistically is what is in that proposal, and use its scope as a yard stick.

Ah right. Well, i'd strongly argue that making it open only without the other changes is simply a waste of time. The actual gameplay won't change. Gaining merits and CC will still be mainly hauling from A to B., over and over again, with no real outcome anyway.

For PP to become more popular (which i think should be the aim, not just trying to appease a subset of the playerbase), then they really need to increase its broader appeal.

Open only will please one group, displease another, and won't do anthing significant for the popularity of the feature. And let us never forget FD's tragic post where they said they wouldn't put any effort into a certain feature unless it became more popular - which to my mind was one of the worst statements FD have ever made. With that sort of mentality then the worst features will never get improved.
 
Unless I missed it, no-one is pushing for that. If you look at the entire proposal as is, its clear what its aiming for.

I may have not understood some people, but plenty of people have dropped comments along the lines of "Yes, open only" without mentioning anything else.

And while i understand you would also like more than just open only, your statement about being realistic indicates that open only is the only thing we might realistically expect within the coming year, and i doubt even that will happen even if FD wanted to do it. It seems like its all hands on deck for the big update with only minor changes coming in the coming year. And even open only, which might be one of the smallest changes to PP from the proposal list in terms of dev effort, would still require quite a bit of effort. It would take more than just flipping a switch.
 
I may have not understood some people, but plenty of people have dropped comments along the lines of "Yes, open only" without mentioning anything else.

And while i understand you would also like more than just open only, your statement about being realistic indicates that open only is the only thing we might realistically expect within the coming year, and i doubt even that will happen even if FD wanted to do it. It seems like its all hands on deck for the big update with only minor changes coming in the coming year. And even open only, which might be one of the smallest changes to PP from the proposal list in terms of dev effort, would still require quite a bit of effort. It would take more than just flipping a switch.

The proposal is 80% maths based (i.e. you are changing formulas) with the rest menu and rule changes. Compare that to the April updates size, and it can comfortably fit inside several times over.
 
For PP to become more popular (which i think should be the aim, not just trying to appease a subset of the playerbase), then they really need to increase its broader appeal.

Open only will please one group, displease another, and won't do anthing significant for the popularity of the feature.
I agree. Ultimately, making PP in itself Open Only would solve nothing.

Currently, the main universal reason to engage in PP is to gain access to specific kit locked behind it and gain credits. There is at least some element of role-play value in the current mechanics but not everyone will appreciate nor acknowledge that. Any improvements to PP should probably be focused around the PvE mechanics and refinement of the expansion mechanics. Ultimately though, unless there is an influx/egress of players the other the end-results will almost certainly end up stabilising around a specific distribution of systems between the PP factions.

If some people want a more PvP-centric/PvP-accommodating equivalent to PP then we should be talking about new mechanics entirely - not replacing PP but adding something new.
 
Currently, the main universal reason to engage in PP is to gain access to specific kit locked behind it and gain credits. There is at least some element of role-play value in the current mechanics but not everyone will appreciate nor acknowledge that.

Which in the changes would move modules to tech brokers. And as I pointed out earlier the underlying gaming required to get this level is trivial these days. The role play is working as a team to improve your power and stop it from entering turmoil.

Any improvements to PP should probably be focused around the PvE mechanics and refinement of the expansion mechanics. Ultimately though, unless there is an influx/egress of players the other the end-results will almost certainly

In the proposal there are Vote to withdraw from system, Profitability modifier applied to votes and preparation successes, Guaranteed undermine if 100% more than fortification and a question mark over Overhead removal and slight increase to distance cost modifier which fiddles with the expansion mechanics.

end up stabilising around a specific distribution of systems between the PP factions.

Unlike now, where the galaxy has remained largely static for about 100 cycles?

If some people want a more PvP-centric/PvP-accommodating equivalent to PP then we should be talking about new mechanics entirely - not replacing PP but adding something new.

But this is the arguement, the only game in town is the proposal- until we hear otherwise this is it. And Open only does add gameplay as I outlined.
 
If some people want a more PvP-centric/PvP-accommodating equivalent to PP then we should be talking about new mechanics entirely - not replacing PP but adding something new.
Its an odd situation to find the proponents for an idea asking for a little, and the opponents to it asking for a lot, instead.
The cynic in me interprets this as an attempt to kick it down the road(map) once more, somewhere over the rainbow, after atmo landings and space legs and eta. 2030..

In terms of some doubts about the effectiveness of OpenOnly Powerplay in gameplay terms.. I had no opinion on the matter until id experienced it, between two factions who at that time for their own reasons wanted to be in Open in numbers. The dynamism and comradeship between all elements in the conflict was the standout moment in my many thousands of hours of ED gameplay. Not only that but on a par with the best experience ive had in all the RL teamgames & sports and clanning in esports as well. And that was despite the flaws in the mechanics. It really does allow for fantastic emergent gameplay, in its truest sense. & it involves such a small amount of dev work to make a swan from the powerplay ugly duckling.

Maybe it wouldnt work out on a mass scale or when enforced by rules, maybe the novelty value wouldnt last and a new stagnation would set-in. Nobody knows how it would play out until we see the details and the state of the live implementation.

But.. powerplay is so widely resented, the chance for something great to come out of it should be embraced, imo.
 
That would presume people have a belief that their posts have an influence on whether FD make any changes.
Belief is a strong word :p hope/concern might be nearer the mark. Im more bothered that a push for a practical set of changes that could be implemented quickly and relatively easily, could be hijacked by an undefined filibuster that demands more than is reasonable or practical, and takes us back to square-one.

The previous post also reads like it's calling for a PvP playpit, a CQC 2.0 which is something ive minimal interest in. Ive played considerable amounts of the whole main-game for the purposes of powerplay (except for long distance exploration - tho others do that too for PP).
I dont want to get pigeonholed into just being a 'PvPer' because other people have decided for me thats what I & everyone else calling for OpenOnly Powerplay actually are.
 
To put the changes into context (from here > https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal.426940/#post6710840)

Preparation Cycle Split

• The first half of the cycle is available for preparation
• The second half of the cycle locks the current preparation values and enables voting

This change adds voting after 3 or 4 days. So thats some code, and a menu change.

Vote to veto preparation

• Each player can vote to veto or support each preparation
• If a preparation ends the cycle with more veto votes than support votes it is removed from preparation
• Voting requires minimum, rolling time spent pledged and active for a power, somewhere into rank 2

Uses current voting and menu code.

Vote to withdraw from system
• Each cycle players can vote on the 5 least profitable systems, to withdraw or support
• At the end of a cycle if a system has more withdraw votes than support votes it is removed from the power’s control
• Voting requires minimum, rolling time spent pledged and active for a power, somewhere into rank 2

Uses current voting and menu code, adding a new menu and options.

Profitability modifier applied to votes and preparation successes

• A system’s base profitability modifies preparation votes, withdraw votes and preparation successes
• Votes and successes for profitable systems are increased by a factor of 10

Formula change (i.e. its maths based).

Guaranteed undermine if 100% more than fortification

• A control system that is undermined by 100% more than the fortification value will be undermined even if the fortification trigger has been successfully met

Formula change (i.e. its maths based).

Overhead removal and slight increase to distance cost modifier

• Overhead upkeep costs are removed making a system’s base profitability static
• Distance modifier to upkeep is increased to maintain some sense of expansion “gravity”

Maths tweaks (some removed, others tweaked).

Ethos Override

• Ethos is only checked for the control system and the power
• If the power and controlling faction share the same superpower the power is always strong against the faction

Clause change (i.e. small code tweak)

Missions give Powerplay successes

• Missions for factions in a system that share a power’s superpower award a number of Powerplay successes when completed
• The mission type determines how many successes are given
• Successes can be applied to expansion, opposition, fortification and undermining

Who knows, not enough detail. If it works like merits then the code is already there for re-purposing.

Open only

• Powerplay contacts are only available to players in open
• Powerplay vouchers and commodities are destroyed if a player enters solo or private groups

Clause change and menu tweaks (i.e. checks for mode and removes merits / warns of merit removal)

Weighted merits > small maths tweak based on mode.

Unique modules moved to tech brokers (change menu wording, think of materials needed for each).

Compare to > https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/april-update-patch-notes.509331/

New Features

Main Menu


  • Main menu layout updated to make screens and options clearer and to allow room for descriptions
  • Added Commander details to the top right corner
  • Added a news carousel that can display GalNet headlines, store releases and/or community announcements
  • Hints/tips are displayed during the loading screen
  • Players current main ship is displayed as the background on the main menu
    • Note: this will always be your current 'main' ship; fighters/SRVs will not be shown
Commander Creation

  • Updated the new commander flow to make the process more informative and engaging
  • Ship selection screens now display more information on the ship, and also includes an image of the ship itself
  • Players can now choose to start in the Dromi system (in a permit-controlled area administered by the Pilots’ Federation) or in the standard package location
Pilots' Federation District

  • The Pilots' Federation District is a collection of systems designed to offer a regulated area for new Commanders
  • Outfitting in these systems offers a basic level of equipment, and Shipyards offer a range of entry level ships
  • Missions offered in the district are aimed at early stage players
  • These systems are also marked with a special icon in the navigation panel and galaxy map
  • Once players have gained a rank in Combat, Trade or Exploration, they are offered a 'graduation' mission, which directs them out of the district. If they choose to complete this mission, they cannot re-enter any of the district systems.
    • This also means current, experienced players cannot enter any of these systems
New Modules

  • Advanced Docking Computer - The Advanced Docking Computer provides cutting edge guidance control to the ship’s computer, offering a further launch option alongside the assisted docking function.
  • Supercruise Assist - The Supercruise Assist module allows the ship’s computer to regulate the approach towards a set location within the current system and to disengage the drive at the appropriate time . This module can also be used to enter orbit around a planetary body.
    • Planet side targets are excluded - instead they will engage the planetary orbit function of the computer, and Commanders will need to manually guide the ship to the ground destination
  • Added a new 'Flight Assistance' section to the Ship tab on the right hand panel. Here players can toggle various options on or off (if fitted with the correct modules):
    • Flight Assist
    • Auto Dock
    • Auto Launch (requires Advanced Docking Computer)
    • Rotational Correction
    • Hyperspace Dethrottle (requires the Supercruise assist module. If switched on, throttle will automatically set to zero on entry to a new system)
Navigation Tab

  • Plotted route information is now displayed along the top of the Navigation tab
  • The popup box for each entry in the Navigation tab now includes extra information (where applicable) and various quick links to other features/areas of the game:
    • Lists any activities available at the selected location, with links to the relevant pilots handbook article(s)
    • Links to system or galaxy map where appropriate
    • Highlights threat levels when the threat is higher than your combat rank (and lists if it is human or xeno)
    • Displays various data on ports or nearby systems, such as allegiance, economy, has appropriate landing pad for your ship, relationship, state, security level galactic region
    • Maintains all previous actions such as lock target, and bookmark location
Pilot's Handbook

  • New section added to the Codex that contains articles detailing activities and features of the game:
    • Mining
    • Exploration
    • Piracy
    • Trade and Smuggling
    • Mercenary Work
    • Bounty Hunting
    • Xeno Hunting
    • Salvage and Rescure
    • Maps
    • Crime and Punishment
Training Simulation Access

  • Training simulations are now accessible from within any ship cockpit, from anywhere
    • Note: if you attempt to start a simulation whilst in danger, you will be subject to the standard 15 second delay before proceeding
Commodity Market Interface

  • Separated 'Buy' and 'Sell' screens, to make it clearer to the player what data they are looking at
  • Added filters
  • Added 'Suggested' markets to the comparisons popup, and populated it with nearby data that the player owns
    • Also added the mission icon to systems that the player has active missions in
  • The 'Help' button takes the player to the relevant Pilots Handbook article
  • Updated the supply and demand icons and added a description of it to the right hand side of the screen, to make it clearer to the player when to buy or sell
  • Highlight mission related and rare goods on the buy screen, with a key to icons along the bottom
  • Clarified what the comparison column is telling the player:
    • On the buy screen - the profit if selected commodity is sold at selected market/galactic average
    • On the sell screen - the profit if selected commodity is bought at selected market/galactic average, and sold at current market
    • By default the column shows the 'Galactic Average' until the player selects a market to compare with
  • Added local market data to the right hand side for quick comparison
  • Buy screen shows Galactic average and price per unit on right hand side and Sell screen also includes profit if sold
  • Buy/Sell popup includes more information and quick links
    • Local market data for quick comparison
      • Selecting a market takes the player to the system on the galaxy map
    • View commodity on galaxy - takes players to a filtered version of the map
  • Added more detail to the popup box when selecting any commodities in the players inventory, as well as a quick link to the galaxy map with the correct filter applied
Bug Fixes and Improvements

This update includes over 800 fixes for various issues that have been discovered and investigated during the development process. For the sake of clarity, we have primarily listed below fixes for issues that have been reported to us by the community or other significant changes.

AI

  • Fixed some odd AI behaviour, found in assassination missions
  • Pirate AI will now act accordingly once the player responds after they demand cargo
Codex

  • Fixed an issue that prevented discovered Ammonia worlds from being confirmed
  • Fixed not being able to open the codex whilst in planetary glide
  • Fixed the session log not displaying a DSS scan event as 'efficient' if the efficiency target was met
Conflict Zones

  • Fixed issue where allied ships could suddenly become hostile to the player
Crashes/Stability

  • Fixed a crash that could occur when disarming a seismic charge
  • Fixed crash that could occur when launching or switching to a fighter
  • Fixed crash that could occur whilst driving an SRV
  • Fixed a crash that could occur when mining in a wing
  • Fixed a crash that could occur when restocking limpets
Damage Balancing

  • Fixed an issue that was causing damage dealt by Thargons to increase in multiplayer sessions
  • Fixed issue that caused more heat damage to be applied to vessels when in a multiplayer session
  • "Drag Munitions" engineering modification now disables the victims boost function whilst it is active
Diamondback Explorer

  • Fixed an issue with the yellow computer screen in the cockpit incorrectly showing as blue
Docking Computer

  • Fixed edge case that could cause the docking computer to not be able to successfully dock the ship
Exploration

  • Fixed issue that caused COVAS line 'System Scan Completed' to trigger multiple times incorrectly
  • Added option to invert the FSS tuning axis
  • Fixed an issue when trying to custom bind Front or Rear View toggle in DSS mode
  • Added an index number to Thargoid Barnacle sites to make easier for players to differentiate them
  • Fixed some cases where planets can appear to be fully scanned when they haven't been
Galaxy Map

  • Fixed a star class in Lyaisae IC-U e3-253 that was displaying incorrectly on the Galaxy Map
General Ship

  • Players PIP settings are retained once they return back to their ship after switching to an SRV or fighter
  • Players can now use the keybinding to turn off ship headlights whilst using the docking computer
  • Corrected the cockpit health disparity displayed between module tab and advanced maintenance
  • Fixed an issue where a dismissed ship could end up not being able to be recalled
  • Fixed an issue where broken shields would recharge faster when dropping in and out of Supercruise
  • Fixed limpets showing in front of your ship suddenly when launching them
Player Journal Updates




Krait Phantom

  • Fixed reversed thruster animations when viewed from the vanity camera
Localisation

  • Fixed various typos
Mining

  • Fixed 'Optimum yield range exceeded' warning displaying when the yield hasn't been exceeded
  • Ensure we eject deposit chunks from asteroids perpendicular to attempt to stop chunks getting stuck inside
  • Fixed missing 'Detonation Successful' message
  • Tightened hitcheck around asteroid models to lessen the amount of surface deposits that don't break off when correctly hit
Rendering

  • Fixed lighting issue when returning to the cockpit from FSS mode
  • Fixed tiling effect when capturing high-res screens shots in various situations
Synthesis

  • Fixed incorrect message 'AFM refill' being displayed when using the SRV Repair recipe
USS

  • Increased High Grade Emissions USS spawn rate
Vanity Camera

  • Fixed visual issues when the camera signal is lost
VR

  • Ensure the mist at Thargoid sites displays correctly in both eyes
  • Fixed light flares from stars flickering in the right eye display
Weapons

  • Fixed an issue that caused the remote flak launcher to continue malfunctioning even after being repaired by an Auto Field-Maintenance Unit

In short, the proposal is peanuts in cost and size.
 
Last edited:
In short, the proposal is peanuts in cost and size.

While the actual change might not be significant from a coding perspective (although with the suspected spaghetti code of the game it might be a bigger challenge than one would imagine), there is always the discussion, testing, reworking, etc that goes on (in thoery) with any change.

Whether they are willing to put that in their plans for the coming year... well, i suspect not.

Still, if everything else is relatively easy, then it does make it more likely to happen, but that probably makes the actual change to open only being the biggest task (apart from Powerplay missions - this one is kind of important for me), so, if we are looking from a time cost perspective, maybe the logical thing for FD to do would then be do everything except open only!
 
Any improvements to PP should probably be focused around the PvE mechanics and refinement of the expansion mechanics.
In the proposal there are Vote to withdraw from system, Profitability modifier applied to votes and preparation successes, Guaranteed undermine if 100% more than fortification and a question mark over Overhead removal and slight increase to distance cost modifier which fiddles with the expansion mechanics.
I don't think that's quite what they're talking about. The main reason why I don't go out of my way to earn merits in Powerplay, and have focused on the BGS side of things (aka "local" policitcs), is the dearth of PvE activities I enjoy. Furthermore, from what I've read, it's that lack of variety that has turned off a lot of players from PowerPlay in general. Miners, explorers, passenger runners, couriers, and so on have no role in Powerplay, no way of turning the gameplay they enjoy into a way of helping out their Power. THAT, in my opinion, is Powerplay's greatest failure. It's a fantastic feature that is underutilized, because the only way of accomplishing anything in Powerplay is gated behind ABA cargo hauling and combat farming, while ignoring everything else players can do in the game.

But this is the arguement, the only game in town is the proposal- until we hear otherwise this is it. And Open only does add gameplay as I outlined.
I certainly agree that Open Only does add new gameplay. I just don't think it's the type of gameplay that will attract very many players, and will instead drive away a significant part of the PowerPlayerbase while simultaneously deterring large swaths of the general playerbase. You've talked about how fortification would change under Open Only and Sandro's proposal. I can very much see how that kind of thing may appeal to you, because there's a part of me that immediately started thinking about ship configurations, optimal routes, tactics, and so on that would allow me to complete a run in the face of a player-run blockade. There is a part of me that practically salivates at the thought of testing my skills against other players in that way.

This is part is countered by the part of me that was thinking, "That sound's absolutely exhausting, if I had to put up with that kind of crap on a daily basis." And this is coming from a player who would like to add "Fight" to my decision matrix, which currently consists of "Flight or 'Wounded Bird Gambit.'" There's a part of me that was reading along and thinking, "Good thing I don't like ABA cargo runs in the first place." And that part is why I am not a PvPer, even if I seem to lean towards the PvP side of the "PvP vs PvE" spectrum.

And while I cannot say for certain whether Powerplay will attract more players than it repels should it go Open Only, experience, and the long list of MMOs that tried for the proverbial grail of Open PvP in a PvE environment that either closed due to lack of players or opted to gate PvP behind a software wall, indicates that this will be the case. The few games like EvE that have successfully accomplished this task were designed, from the start, with this in mind, and they don't use a peer-to-peer networking architecture.
 
While the actual change might not be significant from a coding perspective (although with the suspected spaghetti code of the game it might be a bigger challenge than one would imagine), there is always the discussion, testing, reworking, etc that goes on (in thoery) with any change.

You don't need any more discussion. Aside from the new exploration mechanics Powerplay (Open or not) has been discussed inside out with thousands of replies spread over hundreds of threads. This thread in suggestions knocking on nearly 60 pages is proof of that.

Whether they are willing to put that in their plans for the coming year... well, i suspect not.

Which would be sad, considering the changes themselves (bar the missions) is well known, and not technically difficult to implement (as pointed out above) in comparison to Aprils changes.

Still, if everything else is relatively easy, then it does make it more likely to happen, but that probably makes the actual change to open only being the biggest task

You flick a switch on that one, and filter.

(apart from Powerplay missions - this one is kind of important for me), so, if we are looking from a time cost perspective, maybe the logical thing for FD to do would then be do everything except open only!

I disagree unsurprisingly. The hardest part would be Powerplay missions because that involves a whole lot more thinking and work (balance mainly) . In comparison the rest is trivial.
 
I don't think that's quite what they're talking about. The main reason why I don't go out of my way to earn merits in Powerplay, and have focused on the BGS side of things (aka "local" policitcs), is the dearth of PvE activities I enjoy. Furthermore, from what I've read, it's that lack of variety that has turned off a lot of players from PowerPlay in general. Miners, explorers, passenger runners, couriers, and so on have no role in Powerplay, no way of turning the gameplay they enjoy into a way of helping out their Power. THAT, in my opinion, is Powerplay's greatest failure. It's a fantastic feature that is underutilized, because the only way of accomplishing anything in Powerplay is gated behind ABA cargo hauling and combat farming, while ignoring everything else players can do in the game.

In a total Powerplay rework I'd love all that coming in. A BGS led Powerplay would certainly harness all that.


I certainly agree that Open Only does add new gameplay. I just don't think it's the type of gameplay that will attract very many players, and will instead drive away a significant part of the PowerPlayerbase while simultaneously deterring large swaths of the general playerbase.

You've talked about how fortification would change under Open Only and Sandro's proposal. I can very much see how that kind of thing may appeal to you, because there's a part of me that immediately started thinking about ship configurations, optimal routes, tactics, and so on that would allow me to complete a run in the face of a player-run blockade. There is a part of me that practically salivates at the thought of testing my skills against other players in that way.

This is part is countered by the part of me that was thinking, "That sound's absolutely exhausting, if I had to put up with that kind of crap on a daily basis." And this is coming from a player who would like to add "Fight" to my decision matrix, which currently consists of "Flight or 'Wounded Bird Gambit.'" There's a part of me that was reading along and thinking, "Good thing I don't like ABA cargo runs in the first place." And that part is why I am not a PvPer, even if I seem to lean towards the PvP side of the "PvP vs PvE" spectrum.

And while I cannot say for certain whether Powerplay will attract more players than it repels should it go Open Only, experience, and the long list of MMOs that tried for the proverbial grail of Open PvP in a PvE environment that either closed due to lack of players or opted to gate PvP behind a software wall, indicates that this will be the case. The few games like EvE that have successfully accomplished this task were designed, from the start, with this in mind, and they don't use a peer-to-peer networking architecture.

Until its tried you don't know. My arguement is that Powerplay currently is a bad BGS imitation that really is at the end of its life, so why replicate the BGS when you can make something different with it?
 
You don't need any more discussion. Aside from the new exploration mechanics Powerplay (Open or not) has been discussed inside out with thousands of replies spread over hundreds of threads. This thread in suggestions knocking on nearly 60 pages is proof of that.



Which would be sad, considering the changes themselves (bar the missions) is well known, and not technically difficult to implement (as pointed out above) in comparison to Aprils changes.



You flick a switch on that one, and filter.



I disagree unsurprisingly. The hardest part would be Powerplay missions because that involves a whole lot more thinking and work (balance mainly) . In comparison the rest is trivial.

I'm not talking about forum discussions, i'm talking about work discussion. Meetings meetings meetings... in my experience your average dev is lucky to get 4 hours a day of actual coding done. The rest of the time is spent with other things, like meetings, emails, documentation, and general discussions. The forum discussions are irrelevant.

Also if you really think its just a case of flipping a switch, you might want to hope that FD don't think that, because it will be exploit city if that is all you do.
 
I'm not talking about forum discussions, i'm talking about work discussion. Meetings meetings meetings... in my experience your average dev is lucky to get 4 hours a day of actual coding done. The rest of the time is spent with other things, like meetings, emails, documentation, and general discussions. The forum discussions are irrelevant.

But it has been talked about internally- its been going on at one level or another for a long time. Sandro was kind enough once or twice to respond and he talked of long lead times with changes (and that was a year ago when all this kicked off properly). And that does not include the previous discussions from weighting, or the changes before that.

Also if you really think its just a case of flipping a switch, you might want to hope that FD don't think that, because it will be exploit city if that is all you do.

True, I forgot about block fiddling.

But going to open only itself is just flipping a switch and filtering. When the Gnosis leaked solo players into Open it showed that it was lists and filters.
 
Back
Top Bottom