PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[lenna]

...

Like it or not - the term I used does not imply a majority, it is enough to say that there is sufficient opposition to the proposal for it not to be done - that can legitimately be considered a strong consensus if the opposition sample is large enough.

As for OA, I have followed some of his streams and do not agree with half (if not most) of his views. That does not change the fact that any poll he puts forward is highly likely to be skewed and not necessarily representative of the wider view.

This of course does not change the fact that FD have found sufficient opposition to both the OO/OB proposals.

 

[Bashy81]

a bit over the top.

Thankyou, & I was OTT, apologies for any unnecessary venom

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.

Which would skew the poll more? psycho puppies, or cuddly carebears?, ED has them all, and is quite a different beast with quite a different playerbase demographic than most on-line games.

Like it or not - the term I used does not imply a majority, it is enough to say that there is sufficient opposition to the proposal for it not to be done.

attaching the term 'consensus' certainly does imply a majority, even if it is couched in terms that technically avoid the direct assertion.

As for OA, I have followed some of his streams and do not agree with half if not most of his views.

Id agree with that, for sure.

That does not change the fact that any poll he puts forward is highly likely to be skewed and not necessarily representative of the wider view.

skewed by whom tho? the demographic you could assume from his exploration-heavy content, or the poll topic at hand? If it was a poll on TheYamiks' channel or Hazzmango or suchlike then id agree that a poll would be highly likely to be skewed, based on their general output & probable subscribers, but OA ? rrly?

This of course does not change the fact that FD have found sufficient opposition to both the OO/OB proposals.

It depends what threshold they set. However they viewed the feedback, they certainly achieved a larger majority & mandate than any RL democratic vote I can recall outside of defacto- dictatorships. But as we know ED isnt a democratic process, even when FD do seek feedback. The only absolute fact we have in this regard is that FD haven't actioned any Powerplay changes yet, but as Will's contribution recently demonstrated, it hasn't been settled yet either.

 

[Bashy81]

Your consensus is based on a false premise, in that you think you could vote or discuss a desired function into existence. Sandro's proposal was never meant as some sort of voting and he mentioned at least 3 times the non-binding nature of this open proposal and resulting discussion. According to his words a non-realization was always a valid possible outcome. That has nothing to do with majorities or polls, it can be based on various reasons that FD isn't obliged to share with us. Simply because it never has been a promise.

Like I keep saying, a consensus is 'a general agreement'. I didnt choose that term, but its my word-of-the-day apparently now. There is no false premise here, & what you've said above is otherwise, imo, accurate & correct. However, if the powers-that-be ask for feedback regards making certain changes, and in response a consensus is clear, it seems reasonable to me for people to keep poking them to make those changes. But i've never said FD broke any promises about this, and didn't intended to imply anything similar if that's how it appeared.

p.s.: and before you put me into the "anti OOPP brigade": I'm actually want to see this thing in action but mainly sarcastically and in hindsight of the entertainment of watching an idea falling flat on its face.

I uh, unfortunately can't help with putting you into the "anti OOPP brigade"; im not the Membership Secretary, I just help out with recruitment occasionally when I get annoyed
If you do apply tho, might I suggest you ask to be made a Sarcastic Member of the Schadenfreude Wing of the AOOPPB, or SMSWAPOOPB if you prefer. You can tell it's endgame content by all the acronyms, of which we need more..

 

[Agony_Aunt]

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

One does not speak ill of MoM!

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Still the worst idea since relieving yourself into a headwind.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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.

While I can't say everyone in Open is an angel, this is not true. The Open proposal is /will making Powerplay into a massive co-ordinated multi system arena in real time, and as much as can be expected, in the same mode providing opportunities to do all that in teams / groups directly against other teams and groups. Thats a big deal, because ED has never had something like that.

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.

A 'strong consensus' was 65% firm yes and combined 75% for change on the threads that has the topic or high profile streamer polls. Unless there were more polls at the time that said otherwise you are not looking at what was said- its you are doing the assumptions now.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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.

Obsidian Ant as in the neutral explorer / streamer? How is that poll skewed when he is as neutral as you get, unless it only counts when it says something you like?

And FD have not done anything from the proposal, except say they are still looking into it. Until we see the next proposal or see change enacted the situation has not changed.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Isn't that what CQC is?

No. CQC is 1:1 arena fights in small ships. An Open PP would be team v team dynamic objective based conflict in real time Open (as much as can be done) across several systems.

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.

It depends: you can tell the module grind systems fortification wise- quite easily and these days they are harmless. Some systems are never fortified in the hope that a surprise turmoil will get rid of them, while others are vital CC generators. Also, if a power has lots of CC they don't need to fortify very much, as the enemy has to UM more systems to bring your CC into negative figures.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Like it or not - the term I used does not imply a majority, it is enough to say that there is sufficient opposition to the proposal for it not to be done - that can legitimately be considered a strong consensus if the opposition sample is large enough.

As for OA, I have followed some of his streams and do not agree with half (if not most) of his views. That does not change the fact that any poll he puts forward is highly likely to be skewed and not necessarily representative of the wider view.

This of course does not change the fact that FD have found sufficient opposition to both the OO/OB proposals.

Is this the same FD that dipped exploration in Marmite making it a love/ hate thing? FD are only interested in getting more people in Powerplay (and ED itself). If 25% leave, and 75% join, thats a win for them.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Your consensus is based on a false premise, in that you think you could vote or discuss a desired function into existence. Sandro's proposal was never meant as some sort of voting and he mentioned at least 3 times the non-binding nature of this open proposal and resulting discussion. According to his words a non-realization was always a valid possible outcome. That has nothing to do with majorities or polls, it can be based on various reasons that FD isn't obliged to share with us. Simply because it never has been a promise.

p.s.: and before you put me into the "anti OOPP brigade": I'm actually want to see this thing in action but mainly sarcastically and in hindsight of the entertainment of watching an idea falling flat on its face.

If FD see that Open PP brings more people into PP, then they will do it because thats the aim- make ED a game that attracts. And indeed FD could do nothing, but as I've said the only substantial updates proposed we have ever seen involve either weighted merits or open mode. Now, if FD come back with another revised proposal that sets different ideas but offers something worth playing more, great! But they haven't, and why we are debating the flash topic we have.

But FD are very slow with Powerplay updates, the last was adding consolidation which was ages ago.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

No. CQC is 1:1 arena fights in small ships.

CQC > PP

There, i said it!

 

[Rubbernuke]

CQC > PP

There, i said it!

Depends on what you like

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Depends on what you like

My PvP balanced and not dependent on PvE.

 

[lenna]

The Open proposal is /will making Powerplay into a massive co-ordinated multi system arena in real time

Translation - force PvP on others that are engaging in PvE - Powerplay becoming Gankerplay with no actual guarantee of the gankers spawning with their targets which essentially means it would not actually cure the alleged problem it professes to address.

Is this the same FD that dipped exploration in Marmite making it a love/ hate thing?

Not really - they did not remove any options based on mode nor did they bias gameplay in favour of any given mode. Regardless of mode choice the impact is essentially the same wrt the exploration changes.

 

[lenna]

attaching the term 'consensus' certainly does imply a majority, even if it is couched in terms that technically avoid the direct assertion.

Not really - context is important.

skewed by whom tho?

Skewed by the fact that only followers of OA were likely participating. I thought I made that clear.

It depends what threshold they set.

Given the original proposal for OO got replaced with a lesser OB proposal which then seemingly got shelved speaks volumes. The precise thresholds they set are irrelevant, FD recognise a significant portion of the customer base do not play in Open and either have no desire to (or lack the means to - in the case of consoles) play in Open.

 

[Rubbernuke]

My PvP balanced and not dependent on PvE.

But thats not team based, and you'd be fried if a match lasted 7 days though.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Not really - context is important.


Skewed by the fact that only followers of OA were likely participating. I thought I made that clear.

Unless I'm wrong, not many PvP style people follow him. Unless its like Fight Club or something?

Given the original proposal for OO got replaced with a lesser OB proposal which then seemingly got shelved speaks volumes. The precise thresholds they set are irrelevant, FD recognise a significant portion of the customer base do not play in Open and either have no desire to (or lack the means to - in the case of consoles) play in Open.

The original sequence was- weighted merits in 2016, and recently (2018) two open proposals and the return of weighted merits as an alternative.

The second flash topic did not replace the first- Sandro posted:

There’s been lots of feedback about the Open only aspect of the Powerplay proposal flash topic. Thank you!

Most of the suggested rules changes in the proposal have now received a reasonable amount of feedback to the point where we’re happy we could tweak and move forward with them if the opportunity presents itself, which leaves us with the interesting mode question.

Continuing in the same investigative vein regarding modes, we have another option that we’d like to get your opinion on. It’s a very simple mechanically and we’re interested in how well it stacks up against the current two options: keeping things as they are or making Powerplay Open mode only.

Note how Sandro said it was an alternative idea and not one that supersede the last.

Unless FD say that they are no longer being considered, you can't claim they are shelved by lack of clarity. By this logic fleet carriers are shelved because nothing confirming they are being actively worked on has come out. The last I heard Paige said they are on the internal roadmap, just as Will said Powerplay issues are under consideration. Until they say "Powerplay is no longer an active feature" saying 'seemingly got shelved' is assumption pushed to the max.

The precise thresholds they set are irrelevant, FD recognise a significant portion of the customer base do not play in Open and either have no desire to (or lack the means to - in the case of consoles) play in Open.

Open Powerplay would not cater for everyone, it would fill a gap that is currently empty. I said earlier not everything appeals to everyone, give PP a razor focus and thus a defined place in EDs features.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

But thats not team based, and you'd be fried if a match lasted 7 days though.

LOL, i don't want 7 day matches. 15 minutes is almost too much. I'm sure you are not doing PP around the clock 7 days a week either.

And balanced teamplay can work to some extent, that depends though on the quality of the matchmaking system and the number of players available in the pool.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Translation - force PvP on others that are engaging in PvE - Powerplay becoming Gankerplay with no actual guarantee of the gankers spawning with their targets which essentially means it would not actually cure the alleged problem it professes to address.

No, this is a blinkered view based on irrational fear of PvP players.

Rather than have grind races based on how fast you can haul / how fast you can shoot alone against minimal PP NPC opposition in 2/3 the modes, you have a single mode that makes players the direct opposition, using skill and teamwork to thwart your enemy.

While P2P does have issues, the proposal essentially condenses down powers into expansions, prep systems, capitals (with inbound fortifying) and hot zone UMs.

 

[Rob At Work]

In all seriousness at it's height Powerplay probably had more players (pre cheats) playing than the total of the current player base; and, they did nothing but kick the can down the road then, so they never going to update powerplay now, are they?