PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[Arry]

I'll agree with Rubberduke on this one.

The best way to avoid being killed by an interdictor isn't outrunning them. It's paying attention in Supercruise, not letting them into your six, and never throttling down to avoid the inappropriately named, "Loop of Shame."

If that doesn't work, then it's best to stay out of their line of sight... preferrably by staying in their six while your FSD spools up for either a high wake or a low wake. If that isn't feasable, at least boost perpendicular to their LOS to minimize their firing window. In my experience, the type of player who enjoys destroying non-combat ships isn't actually very good at maneuvering, but will have very good aim. As long as you don't deliberately make it easy for them by running for it, you're relatively safe.

I understand the theory of staying away from their pointy end; but I am just not good enough, to be successful at 'out manoeuvring' real players. I often find myself jousting with NPCs, which I don't like doing. My combat skills are limited; which is why, I always prefer to have a plan.

 

[Arry]

Just need to add some RNG! FD are masters at RNG!

That is how I play chess.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

They are only restricted if they made the dubious plan to buy a game, and then knowingly choose to not pay what the console owner charges extra to fully play said game.

I mean it sucks, but I don't have alot of sympathy.

I use same logic but turn it on its head. Console players bought a game knowing they could participate in all features without paying fees. Others bought presumably in ignorance and want to change it. That said I am not against PP open so long as fully decoupled from BGS and I don't see pp targets when not in open.

 

[Rubbernuke]

And here's another area where we disagree.

I don't believe that players are gaming masochists, and will deliberately choose a mode that isn't suited to them, just to "win." If that were the case, then nobody would be playing in Open in Powerplay. You're a prime example of that, pursing an inefficient Powerplay strategy, in a "disadvantaged" mode, because you find PvP fun.

Are there players who play in Solo because its more efficient that way? Certainly, but that kind of player was already inclined to not play in Open already, and very likely combat logged when they did.

In the end, Open Powerplay will not be for everyone, just as exploring or mining is not for everyone. It will be played by people who play in open and for those who want to cause trouble for rivals in a structured way. Its the inefficency in the proposal that makes the regular activities slower to do, and less certian of victory.

Right now it makes little sense other than for pride to play in Open, its more efficient to be in PG to turretboat or wing UM. It makes sense to be in solo to haul, because your opposition are poorly equipped and does not bend the rules.

I'll be honest- if FD come up with something that I think is better, I'll argue for another 60 pages for it, even if its across modes. But until that happens, from my own experiences from flashes of what Open PP is like, I'll always support it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I use same logic but turn it on its head. Console players bought a game knowing they cod participate in all features without paying fees. Others bought presumably in ignorance and want to change it. That said I am not against PP open so long as fully decoupled from BGS and I don't see pp targets when not in open

Although console versions should be restricted to one commander per copy of the game. Right now you can make as many commanders as you have gamer profiles, meaning you can have much more voting power for free.

 

[Arry]

More reason to fly at and over them so they can't shoot you as easily and keep on doing that- it forces them to turn and face you again. If you run away, you become easier to snipe because fixed weapons microgimbal and are steady. At the same time you should practice your escape drill and HW.

...
OK, how do we cancel a reply? Like in the old forums?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Although console versions should be restricted to one commander per copy of the game. Right now you can make as many commanders as you have gamer profiles, meaning you can have much more voting power for free.

An interesting point. IF found to be doing that I would say that is firmly in the realms of exploit and should be sorted out accordingly imo . TBH it is a difficult on and highlights why in general I do not like MP games that are not just with mates. I personally like to play with a gentleman's agreement not to play outside of certain rules. This goes out of the window with MMOs. It is why I prefer (well written) NPC's as you can be confident they can play a role and play it properly.
Personally I like my MP games where destruction is trivial and lives/ships are expendable ... Which is the total opposite to how I want destruction to be in elite personally. (Outside of CQC).

 

[lenna]

Then why does it have a top 11 with semi secret criteria to gain or lower places? If Collapse was included, this would be vital. In the early days Powers would be paranoid about the last 3 paces because staying there too long would mean removal. It was revealed that if it had been in, Torval and Archon would most likely not be here today.

Like I sad - an element of competition but just an element - it is not the same thing as what is traditionally referred to as "competitive" in a true PvP sense. It is essentially not the primary goal of the gameplay, just a side effect. Same goes with any competitive aspect of CGs.

CG: collect something, haul something or shoot something over and over and watch a bar go up. Powerplay: (haul or shoot, watch bar go up) x as many control systems you have.

Like I said - superficial comparison only - the end goals are worlds apart (no pun intended).

 

[lenna]

Its more than that: I know who is a bounty hunter, PP NPC, sec ship etc just by how they appear and when. I know the number of sec kills trigger ATR. I don't know what that player is doing though.Then I actually have to pay attention. The battle is won on the radar half the time by thinking out whats going on.

Not entirely true - in PvP you do have to understand your opponent, what they are capable of, and what they might do to some degree but the greater part is understanding what the ships themselves are capable of - limits and weaknesses - and learning how to beat them. Once that is worked out - bar making mistakes and errors of judgement yourself the outcome can be near enough predicted to a point. The most uncertain PvP engagements are those where you are evenly matched or nearly evenly matched but that almost certainly accounts for a much smaller portion of engagements - invariably when people initiate PvP they will almost always only do so when they think they may have the advantage.

Ultimately, this is all pretty moot though. The perception that PvP is somehow harder than PvE is extremely subjective and ultimately flawed reasoning.

 

[lenna]

In the end, Open Powerplay will not be for everyone

On that there is no argument - but it is the nub of why many of us are objecting to it. Powerplay as it stands is available to everyone regardless of skill level, mode choice, or chosen primary in-game profession.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Like I sad - an element of competition but just an element - it is not the same thing as what is traditionally referred to as "competitive" in a true PvP sense. It is essentially not the primary goal of the gameplay, just a side effect. Same goes with any competitive aspect of CGs.

The whole initial reason for Powerplay was to be number 1- thats why you have bonuses that encourage you to be in the top 3. It also gave a reason for succeeding each cycle and avoiding the bottom 3 and collapse. You had to expand each cycle and win, if you did not then you were in trouble, making the next expansion even more critical.

The reason why there is no urgency for competition as its impossible, the galaxy is full, and its too easy to defend. Its all ground to a halt and people are gardening to pass the time.

Like I said - superficial comparison only - the end goals are worlds apart (no pun intended).

Then we will have to agree to disagree on that one. The action of doing them is the same for either side, both are group exercises in either collecting more than your opponent, or shooting more.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Not entirely true - in PvP you do have to understand your opponent, what they are capable of, and what they might do to some degree but the greater part is understanding what the ships themselves are capable of - limits and weaknesses - and learning how to beat them. Once that is worked out - bar making mistakes and errors of judgement yourself the outcome can be near enough predicted to a point. The most uncertain PvP engagements are those where you are evenly matched or nearly evenly matched but that almost certainly accounts for a much smaller portion of engagements - invariably when people initiate PvP they will almost always only do so when they think they may have the advantage.

I've seen similar videos of players killing large ships with mines, Eagles being clever and killing FdLs.

But what I mean is escaping and anticipating problems- a lurking ship, or group of ships.

Ultimately, this is all pretty moot though. The perception that PvP is somehow harder than PvE is extremely subjective and ultimately flawed reasoning.

Well, I've never seen an NPC Cobra reverb mine a Cutter, and his wingman smash his weak hull. I have seen NPC Eagles and Sidewinders try and kill me with the laser equivalent of a slap. NPCs just don't use teamwork or tactics. A 10K shield monster Cutter is a god in Solo. In Open? With reverb, ion, drag, Grom-bombs it can end rather differently.

 

[Rubbernuke]

On that there is no argument - but it is the nub of why many of us are objecting to it. Powerplay as it stands is available to everyone regardless of skill level, mode choice, or chosen primary in-game profession.

Its available, but no-one sees it as entertaining to join. Being everything to every commander has not worked and it needs a clearer reason for inclusion. If dev time is limited, then all the options to change Powerplay are limited as well unless FD change their minds. And out of whats been discussed, Open does that- it sidesteps the issue of limited AI and abstracted combat by using other players to fill in the gaps. If everyone is doing that, then it has a new niche that is unique in ED.

 

[lenna]

Its available, but no-one sees it as entertaining to join.

Again with the assumptions - I think this perception is borne out of a lack of "targets" in Open and to a degree boredom from the usual suspects.

I don't believe anyone is contending that PP (and other areas) could perhaps benefit from some improvement but ultimately there is a strong consensus that OO/OB would be counter productive wrt the popularity of PP.

 

[Bashy81]

Again with the assumptions - I think this perception is borne out of a lack of "targets" in Open and to a degree boredom from the usual suspects.

I don't believe anyone is contending that PP (and other areas) could perhaps benefit from some improvement but ultimately there is a strong consensus that OO/OB would be counter productive wrt the popularity of PP.

Are you just persistently using hypocrisy as a means to bait an angry reaction? well ok, i'll bite. You're the one making assumptions here. You have repeatedly accused Rubbernuke of making assumptions, when he is simply asserting well established points of view. You then go on to make outlandish assumptions of your own. The most astonishingly disingenuous of which in your last post, is the priceless notion that "ultimately there is a strong consensus that OO/OB would be counterproductive wrt the popularity of PP". Something like 50'000 votes to the contrary in Obsidian Ant's poll, said otherwise. That is a consensus. It is not a handful of old mode-warriors harking back to Hotel California nostalgia, while continuously missing the points regards Powerplay either wilfully or just out of sheer ignorance.

 

[Kaocraft]

So, what i'm hearing is they need to be even more dangerous than ATR! Noted! They should be tenacious, make serial interdictions, fly in groups of big ships for mass lock and fast ships for damage dealing. They should have PvP like meta loadouts as well! And of course, god like aiming skills.

Good enough? Or do you need even tougher? I'm sure MoM is up to the challenge!

She’s not up to the challenge tho. That’s why ATR have god modded nonsense weapons but terrible AI.

 

[lenna]

Are you just persistently using hypocrisy as a means to bait an angry reaction?

Hardly hipocracy, and as for Obsidian Ant - with all due respect to the individual it is only likely to be based on their followers which does not include everyone and is highly likely to be skewed. It would be a bit like the Labour party in the UK canvasing just their supporters if something specific should be done in a specific way that Labour itself approves of and is in keeping with the general party line.

Fundamentally, FD have obviously found the issue in question sufficiently contentious to not actually implement the idea without further consultation/consideration - that would indicate they have found a strong consensus (i.e. a sufficiently large quorum of people - not necessarily a majority) in opposition.

 

[Arry]

Its available, but no-one sees it as entertaining to join. Being everything to every commander has not worked and it needs a clearer reason for inclusion. If dev time is limited, then all the options to change Powerplay are limited as well unless FD change their minds. And out of whats been discussed, Open does that- it sidesteps the issue of limited AI and abstracted combat by using other players to fill in the gaps. If everyone is doing that, then it has a new niche that is unique in ED.

Isn't that what CQC is?

One thing about power play that needs to change; is the laziness of the some of the players. So lazy that they can't be bothered to scroll down a list of places that need things like fortifying. I first thought it was the closest systems, that are always over done. But no, I checked again and again and found, even though there are places at the bottom of the lists (I have looked at the three top factions), that are closer than some in the top ten; they have not been touched; but the top ten on the list are over filled in two days. That is laziness; at it finest.

 

[Bashy81]

Hardly hipocracy, and as for Obsidian Ant - with all due respect to the individual it is only likely to be based on their followers which does not include everyone and is highly likely to be skewed. It would be a bit like the Labour party in the UK canvasing just their supporters if something specific should be done in a specific way that Labour itself approves of and is in keeping with the general party line.

Fundamentally, FD have obviously found the issue in question sufficiently contentious to no actually implement the idea without further consultation/consideration - that would indicate they have found a strong consensus (i.e. a sufficiently large quorum of people) in opposition.

Obsidian Ant's content covers news about ED and his focus is primarily exploration, and mining, these PvE kinds of things. Has he ever shot at a CMDR on any of his streams, or even shown a clip of anyone being shot by another?
Are you really saying Obsidian Ant somehow gears his content towards PvPers?!!! Maybe if you play his videos backwards he's repeating '666' or has imbedded subliminal ganking msgs that turns friendly folk into seal clubbers. Good lord.
His tone was about OOPP was sceptical, and in his video & his poll did a far better job & gave more time to outlining the arguments against OOPP than those for it. It was only after the results were emphatically in favour of OOPP that he showed a bit of balance.

But of course the anti-Open brigade want to shoot the messenger and deride him as if he's some kind of ganker. That is beyond ridiculous.
Given his content, If there is a skew to his subscribers, it very clearly ought to be at least balanced, if not, firmly against OpenOnly Powerplay, and yet the poll mirrored the feedback on the forum Flash Topic megathread, and both were strongly in favour. These are the best indications of what any silent majority may think. But you've done what there?.. Invented an invisible yet apparently vocal but silent majority consensus quorum.. Wow, thats not even a sleight-of-hand, its more like a 52-card pickup. You might want to be careful, you could paralyse yourself attempting mental gymnastics like that..

A consensus means 'a general agreement'. You have no such thing. All the evidence we have shows that there is a consensus, that you are wrong.

As yet, Fdev have simply chosen not to act on the feedback they sought & received. It is either blind ignorance or shameless revisionism to claim otherwise.

 

[Arry]

Obsidian Ant's content covers news about ED and his focus is primarily exploration, and mining, these PvE kinds of things. Has he ever shot at a CMDR on any of his streams, or even shown a clip of anyone being shot by another?
Are you really saying Obsidian Ant somehow gears his content towards PvPers?!!! Maybe if you play his videos backwards he's repeating '666' or has imbedded subliminal ganking msgs that turns friendly folk into seal clubbers. Good lord.
His tone was about OOPP was sceptical, and in his video & his poll did a far better job & gave more time to outlining the arguments against OOPP than those for it. It was only after the results were emphatically in favour of OOPP that he showed a bit of balance.

But of course the anti-Open brigade want to shoot the messenger and deride him as if he's some kind of ganker. That is beyond ridiculous.
Given his content, If there is a skew to his subscribers, it very clearly ought to be at least balanced, if not, firmly against OpenOnly Powerplay, and yet the poll mirrored the feedback on the forum Flash Topic megathread, and both were strongly in favour. These are the best indications of what any silent majority may think. But you've done what there?.. Invented an invisible yet apparently vocal but silent majority consensus quorum.. Wow, thats not even a sleight-of-hand, its more like a 52-card pickup. You might want to be careful, you could paralyse yourself attempting mental gymnastics like that..

A consensus means 'a general agreement'. You have no such thing. All the evidence we have shows that there is a consensus, that you are wrong.

As yet, Fdev have simply chosen not to act on the feedback they sought & received. It is either blind ignorance or shameless revisionism to claim otherwise.

Nicely written, if not a bit over the top.

Errr... any poll, put to the playing public; asking if something, should be PvP only. Will always fall onto the PvP crowds side: Because it not only contains votes from, all the conscientious honourable players; but also the all of the psycho puppies. Of which there are many, in most on-line games.