PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[Rubbernuke]

Nothing will change...that's the fantasy that you all fail to realize....Open only will have no effect on Powerplay...the devs certainly can make the change...but the problems of the game will not change...instancing and matchmaking will see to that.

All the stuff I talk about is from events that have happened in PP now when everything came together -Sandros proposal and its changes simply makes that more likely to happen and would make for a more dynamic game.

Its true instancing can be a problem, but so far that has not prevented large wing fights taking place or prevented the times when (for me anyway) situations I describe happening. In the end the only way to really find out is test.

 

[CMDR KOBAL]

Nothing will change...that's the fantasy that you all fail to realize....Open only will have no effect on Powerplay...the devs certainly can make the change...but the problems of the game will not change...instancing and matchmaking will see to that.

Well, there certainly is all sorts of problems with the foundation of PP. However, I think that there would certainly be some positive aspects brought to PP from a move to OOPP.

For example, the Feds are currently working on Simyr. As Imperials, we want to stop them. Occasionally, there are some Fed player groups that choose to play in Open. They come in with their haulers accompanied by their escort of PVP ships. For us to impede their progress, we must coordinate together and defeat their convoy. Sometimes we defeat their PVP ships yet their haulers still get through, sometimes we get their haulers before their combat wing gets to us. In the midst of this, we also have our haulers to coordinate with to do their work in system as well. This has occasionally made for some entertaining and exciting game play.

It all breaks down when one side gets is outnumbered and doesn't want to risk losing ships anymore. They just move to Solo, continue with their hauling unimpeded and can still take over the system. Yea, sure, I am looking for more exciting game play, that's why I vote for OOPP.

But aside from that, this system just doesn't make any sense. In war, if one side is outnumbered or outclassed, whatever, then the dominant side deserves the spoils of war. Not so in this universe. Being the dominant power is meaningless because the enemy can just go to a "parrallel universe" where there are no enemies and win the war there.

It's just silly.

 

[varonica]

But aside from that, this system just doesn't make any sense. In war, if one side is outnumbered or outclassed, whatever, then the dominant side deserves the spoils of war. Not so in this universe. Being the dominant power is meaningless because the enemy can just go to a "parrallel universe" where there are no enemies and win the war there.

It's just silly.

Well, that point makes no sense logically, both sides have the same opportunity to go into a "parallel universe". Your argument would only make sense if the players of only one side was allowed access to solo or PG, but they both have it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Well, that point makes no sense logically, both sides have the same opportunity to go into a "parallel universe". Your argument would only make sense if the players of only one side was allowed access to solo or PG, but they both have it.

This arguement has the ultimate conclusion that currently the best method is to go into solo- then both sides have zero opposition and farm as fast as possible. In the end it has to be locked into one mode or another as having a mix of everything just messes it all up.

 

[CMDR KOBAL]

Well, that point makes no sense logically, both sides have the same opportunity to go into a "parallel universe". Your argument would only make sense if the players of only one side was allowed access to solo or PG, but they both have it.

I'm not saying it isn't "fair". Of course both sides can go into pve world and play by themselves. I'm saying it doesn't make sense logically that territory can be won and lost in "war" without battles taking place.

 

[Kaocraft]

Well, that point makes no sense logically, both sides have the same opportunity to go into a "parallel universe". Your argument would only make sense if the players of only one side was allowed access to solo or PG, but they both have it.

His critique of the system is not contingent on it being unfair. It is of course completely fair because everyone has equal access to all these modes. The problem is that it’s dumb, counterintuitive, and needlessly abstract, which makes it profoundly cripplingly uninteresting.

A football/soccer match can be interesting because there are human beings employing strategies to circumvent and obstruct one another from kicking goals. There is coordination and collaboration, there are unexpected turns of events, close saves and near misses. Drama, in short. When the teams are given the option to play on separate fields, kicking and tallying goals unopposed over and over again, it stops being a game and is reduced to being nothing more than a race. Races are primarily tests of endurance, resources, and speed. They can sometimes be dramatic but most of the time they are just exhausting.

 

[CMDR KOBAL]

-

Hey, have you read this post?

[Proposal] A solution to meaningful PvP: Squadron Warfare

A propsoal to provide meaningful PvP So the open vs solo/private group argument has continued to rumble on and on and has so far shown no sign of abating. What has become clear is that the PvE community generally do not react well to the prospect of having an existing part of the game changed...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Do you think this is a viable solution?

 

[Misty_Dark]

I'm not saying it isn't "fair". Of course both sides can go into pve world and play by themselves. I'm saying it doesn't make sense logically that territory can be won and lost in "war" without battles taking place.

Not every war is open conflict either..

 

[Rubbernuke]

Hey, have you read this post?

[Proposal] A solution to meaningful PvP: Squadron Warfare

A propsoal to provide meaningful PvP So the open vs solo/private group argument has continued to rumble on and on and has so far shown no sign of abating. What has become clear is that the PvE community generally do not react well to the prospect of having an existing part of the game changed...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Do you think this is a viable solution?

Its well structured and thought out, and would be a great addition- the biggest question is FD putting in the time to do it.

 

[Kaocraft]

Not every war is open conflict either..

And in an Open-Only scenario, not all of them would be. The key difference is that any of them could potentially become that way. In a mixed mode environment (short of arranging some sort of playdate pantomime) no war is EVER an open conflict, and never will be.

 

[Goose4291]

This arguement has the ultimate conclusion that currently the best method is to go into solo- then both sides have zero opposition and farm as fast as possible. In the end it has to be locked into one mode or another as having a mix of everything just messes it all up.

Which is IMO why elite doesn't capture the mainstream appeal in terms that say, EvE does when it comes to tales about player vs player actions.

Looking at it objectively what's going to capture an outsiders interest?

a) A player group vs player group war where the players are meeting in open field with associated videos, both sides propaganda sides working overtime and freelancers like myself coming in to assist.

OR

b) A player group vs player group war where neither side meets each other and the victor is determined by who can AFK turretboat the most NPCs, with both sides moaning the other is cowering in a mode to avoid fighting the other side and risking loss?

 

[CMDR KOBAL]

Its well structured and thought out, and would be a great addition- the biggest question is FD putting in the time to do it.

Kind of reminds me a bit of how corps declare war on each other in Eve. I suppose they still do that, haven't been on Eve in years.

 

[varonica]

His critique of the system is not contingent on it being unfair.

That's basically irrelevant to the false logic he used to push his argument, you can't win an argument by pushing falsehoods, it doesn't matter if it's boring or not very enjoyable for some people. His argument was that people could go into a parallel universe to beat a power and that wasn't right, but it is because both sides have the same opportunity, and in fact both sides probably have equal numbers of solo/pg players so it's ultimately a baseless argument.

 

[UFO Reality]

I don't care anymore, the entire game should be OPEN only and SOLO/PRIVATE GROUP play is available only for any CMDR whose combat rank is under MASTER.

PP rewards just aren't entertaining enough to maintain the grind please give real incentives that are worth the effort (eg: a perk while at a certain merit/rank regardless of PP being at the top 3).

PP is an interesting feature for ED but the game design needs work.

The PP GRIND is more suited for fans of role-play and its not really adequate for the general gaming public.

Whenever I look at YouTube, the amount of views for ED content creators is significantly less than other space themed games that I play.

I am surprised that the content creators still put in the effort.

"Blaze your own trail" space genre doesn't seem to sell to the gaming market as much as one that has constant action or an engaging plot in which the player is directly needed to take an action.

Frontier better hire some extra creative talent that can revamp ED to appeal to a larger majority because it seems to be only catering to a smaller community and not engaging the larger market.

It's a shame, because the game as a base to develop is going to go to waste.

I am waiting to see what the huge update will bring but it could be a make or break update and I am willing to pay for a DLC that will improve the experience.

I still like the game but its novelty has worn off because all the awesome efforts from the previous updates have missed the X-factor that ED needs to gain a larger market and stand out from the rest.

 

[Kaocraft]

His argument was that people could go into a parallel universe to beat a power and that wasn't right, . . .

It's not false logic. The point here is that because people can do this, everyone has to do this.

If you believe that you've won an argument by pointing out that everyone has access to solo modes, then you've been arguing a point that nobody has any stake in. You've definitely won that argument, though; I'm just not sure it's a major point of contention to begin with.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's not false logic. The point here is that because people can do this, everyone has to do this.

This is exactly right. PP right now is a game of efficiency, and anything that makes you faster is the best route. In solo there are very few pro-active PP NPCs, and those that are there are predictable and weak offering no opposition. This has the consequence that your only true opponent is time and cargo capacity, or how long you can grind in a PP CZ.

Router fiddling aside, the proposal as is introduces other players as a disruptive element to that, adding another layer of potential competition.

 

[Kaocraft]

This is exactly right. PP right now is a game of efficiency, and anything that makes you faster is the best route. In solo there are very few pro-active PP NPCs, and those that are there are predictable and weak offering no opposition. This has the consequence that your only true opponent is time and cargo capacity, or how long you can grind in a PP CZ.

Router fiddling aside, the proposal as is introduces other players as a disruptive element to that, adding another layer of potential competition.

Here's a fun idea which I'm sure would take no work at all to implement: escalating PowerPlay NPC threat levels which scale upward in solo and group mode with every PowerPlay achievement made in Open.

How it would work: every time someone in Open shoots down an NPC, pirates cargo, or collects and drops off cargo, it would slightly increase the threat level of the NPCs in that same area for the corresponding Power. NPCs would scale in quantity, aggressiveness, loadout, and piloting skill, all the way up to eventually being ATR-equivalent ships but without the magic weapons.

Open Mode would always remain at the default level of NPC AI.

It would be a way to connect the "parallel universes" without locking anyone out of anything or violating the Sanctity Of The Modes, while also ensuring that highly contested areas are areas of consequence for anyone.

Think of it like a game of split screen vs Tetris: when you clear out a line of blocks it dumps a bunch of them into your opponent's play area.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Here's a fun idea which I'm sure would take no work at all to implement: escalating PowerPlay NPC threat levels which scale upward in solo and group mode with every PowerPlay achievement made in Open.

How it would work: every time someone in Open shoots down an NPC, pirates cargo, or collects and drops off cargo, it would slightly increase the threat level of the NPCs in that same area for the corresponding Power. NPCs would scale in quantity, aggressiveness, loadout, and piloting skill, all the way up to eventually being ATR-equivalent ships but without the magic weapons.

Open Mode would always remain at the default level of NPC AI.

It would be a way to connect the "parallel universes" without locking anyone out of anything or violating the Sanctity Of The Modes, while also ensuring that highly contested areas are areas of consequence for anyone.

Think of it like a game of split screen vs Tetris: when you clear out a line of blocks it dumps a bunch of them into your opponent's play area.

Great idea! I really like that a lot. Being Devils advocate, could it be extended to all modes though? That way there can be no argument of consistency if instancing is unkind to you.

So you go from Potato to Ninja in areas that are active- and that you combine CG tier mechanics (i.e. Tier 1 0-10% fortification) is low level resistance, while Tier 10 (90% -100%+) is crazy time ninjascopic NPCs.

I think there is a lot of potential there.

How about at 100% UM it unlocks roving bands of PP NPCs in SC? Sort of like the Spec Ops you find in CZs? There are so many things you could do with it.

 

[Kaocraft]

Great idea! I really like that a lot. Being Devils advocate, could it be extended to all modes though? That way there can be no argument of consistency if instancing is unkind to you.

I’m not opposed to it in principle but I don’t see how it could work without some kind of asymmetry between Open and Private modes. Reason being people “retreat into solo” because the possible presence of other players adds an additional logistical and practical overhead that they can negate by switching modes. If you equalize the NPC presence in both modes, you’re back to square one as near as I can tell.

The way I imagine the system would work is if there’s a bunch of people in a region only playing in solo, that nothing would change. But as soon as people started playing that same region in Open, the threat level of the region would start to ramp up in Solo, while remaining the same in Open. At a certain point, Solo players would start to make a risk assessment as to the benefits of “retreating into open”, where the much more sporadic and unpredictable threat of PvP might be more efficient to deal with than the guaranteed continuous pressure from an escalated NPC threat level.

There would also be a layer of meta-strategy here, too. In relatively quiet, empty, uncontested areas, players would have an incentive to work those areas in Open because it would be more efficient, and as an added benefit they would also be preemptively ramping up the threat level for the opposing side.

Anyway if you can figure out a “mode neutral” version of this mechanism which would still work, I’m sure that would be better; I just don’t have the creativity to think of anything like that, mainly because the different modes are already inherently asymmetrical in that one is dynamic and chaotic while the other is always going to be more predictable and straightforward.

And I don’t want to get too deep down this rabbit-hole because all of it presupposes an amount of new work and a commitment to balancing and play testing from Frontier that is obviously pure fantasyland at the moment. But hey maybe they’ll take some inspiration for when they relaunch Elite in 2020 or something.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I’m not opposed to it in principle but I don’t see how it could work without some kind of asymmetry between Open and Private modes. Reason being people “retreat into solo” because the possible presence of other players adds an additional logistical and practical overhead that they can negate by switching modes. If you equalize the NPC presence in both modes, you’re back to square one as near as I can tell.

The way I imagine the system would work is if there’s a bunch of people in a region only playing in solo, that nothing would change. But as soon as people started playing that same region in Open, the threat level of the region would start to ramp up in Solo, while remaining the same in Open. At a certain point, Solo players would start to make a risk assessment as to the benefits of “retreating into open”, where the much more sporadic and unpredictable threat of PvP might be more efficient to deal with than the guaranteed continuous pressure from an escalated NPC threat level.

There would also be a layer of meta-strategy here, too. In relatively quiet, empty, uncontested areas, players would have an incentive to work those areas in Open because it would be more efficient, and as an added benefit they would also be preemptively ramping up the threat level for the opposing side.

Anyway if you can figure out a “mode neutral” version of this mechanism which would still work, I’m sure that would be better; I just don’t have the creativity to think of anything like that, mainly because the different modes are already inherently asymmetrical in that one is dynamic and chaotic while the other is always going to be more predictable and straightforward.

And I don’t want to get too deep down this rabbit-hole because all of it presupposes an amount of new work and a commitment to balancing and play testing from Frontier that is obviously pure fantasyland at the moment. But hey maybe they’ll take some inspiration for when they relaunch Elite in 2020 or something.

My thinking is that if NPC difficulty scales as discussed (i.e. tiers), it naturally stratifies fortifying / UM horizontally, so the early days are easy, but as the week goes on solo players face an escalating challenge that makes PG and eventually Open (at the top end) viable. That way, you are not physically excluding anyone at all, its the difficulty. If it becomes too difficult you can always move to a less contested area.