How is that a counter-argument or a reply to anything I wrote?
Last edited:
Powerplay 2.0 “Open” Rewards
- Thread starter Ragnascot
- Start date
I still think two conflicting wants are at work here.
1. More people playing PP.
2. Haulers in Open to be shot at.
2 is still justified by saying, "Surely it's really boring hauling in Solo, being shot at will make it more fun for the haulers too". But here's the thing: haulers like "boredom". The real enthusiasts like going A to B all evening with no interruption. (I joined in with Operation Ida repairing stations sometimes. I was absolutely awestruck by the tonnages reported by some people; they must have been going A to B solidly all weekend).
In the end, one of two things are going to happen:
1. FD will continue to allow everyone to play in whatever mode they like.
2. FD will make some activities Open-only - and those activities will see very little interest apart from FdL pilots who will only have each other and tumbleweed to shoot at.
In the first outcome, success of PP2 will depend on whether FD have actually made it interesting. But I hope at least that they have the sense to avoid the second outcome.
1. More people playing PP.
2. Haulers in Open to be shot at.
2 is still justified by saying, "Surely it's really boring hauling in Solo, being shot at will make it more fun for the haulers too". But here's the thing: haulers like "boredom". The real enthusiasts like going A to B all evening with no interruption. (I joined in with Operation Ida repairing stations sometimes. I was absolutely awestruck by the tonnages reported by some people; they must have been going A to B solidly all weekend).
In the end, one of two things are going to happen:
1. FD will continue to allow everyone to play in whatever mode they like.
2. FD will make some activities Open-only - and those activities will see very little interest apart from FdL pilots who will only have each other and tumbleweed to shoot at.
In the first outcome, success of PP2 will depend on whether FD have actually made it interesting. But I hope at least that they have the sense to avoid the second outcome.
I'm sorry, I didn't quite get that. That there are people who want to transport something and they are forbidden to do it in open mode ?
Interdiction (or rather interference of all sorts) is a big part of Elite no matter what you do and in what mode. Mining in the middle of a haz RES, planetary scan missions, bounty hunting missions, trade, Titan bombing, AX war missions—you will face interference from NPC-s. Sometimes this interference is fierce and ends up in the destruction of your ship.
As for player interdictions (as in pulling from SC), you can't win them as easily as with NPC-s, but there is a hard counter to them that doesn't require you to high wake. That counter is not called "Solo", but bears several names. Some of these names are "Imperial Clipper", "Orca", "Imperial Courier" and "Krait Phantom" (though the latter needs to be careful with Mambas and possibly Python MKII-s). Believe me, it works—I've done it many times
While I agree with the general sentiment, it really cuts both ways—PP crowd is largely PvP (in all of its forms) focused and saying that one should be able to avoid any player-to-player encounters in Powerplay and the other powerplayers should just accept that someone is doing undermining or fortifying with virtually zero resistance from NPC-s and with no way for other players to stop them is really just the other side of the same medal
About 2: hauling in Powerplay supports the power and keeps it from turmoil (V1) and local collapse (V2). Haulers may love boredom, but in PP transport is either a lifeline or is undermining (in V2) and thus makes them a target. Ida was not against another group(s) and was a plain hauling exercise, and suggests a lack of understanding as to what fortification is.
What you suggest is that a power can UM or fortify without a meaningful response from a rival- be it NPCs or players. You need to get over this thinking this is ganking because its not- its a valid tactical objective that Powerplay depends on if you don't want a largely static Powerplay map (like now). Haulers sometimes need to fail, or be deterred from delivering.
Once again it comes down to meaningful resistance in Solo- NPCs need to have teeth. If they did, Open would not be as essential. You also need risk rewarded- haulers in PP V1 solo are not risking anything near as they do in Open, why should they have the same rewards? This can be a benefit if NPC difficulty is tailored to the risk solo players take.
Last edited:
Its exactly because there are so many interpretations possible V1 fails - Powerplay sits in the centre of a Venn diagram of EDs weakneses. V2 needs actual boundaries between modes as well as tasks.
While I agree with the general sentiment, it really cuts both ways—PP crowd is largely PvP (in all of its forms) focused and saying that one should be able to avoid any player-to-player encounters in Powerplay and the other powerplayers should just accept that someone is doing undermining or fortifying with virtually zero resistance from NPC-s and with no way for other players to stop them is really just the other side of the same medal
There were ranks for tonnage hauled, though that's changed to reflect war activities.
It used to just be the hyperdiction on the way in that we had to worry about. Interdictions didn't really change that, though battles around the starport could make getting through the slot tricky. I wound up with the ship stuck in the toast rack on more than one occasion.
Then came Glaives and Scythes.
The really intense ones were the Wednesday evening invasions we stopped quite a few times.
Most of the development was thwarting the Glaives and Scythes from launching missiles leading to the last second heat sink.
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
Yep I had similar ideas. Like, imagine protecting ships converging for a summit between two powers (because they work together here, against each other here, the reality of doing business). It's in interest of both sets of players they succeed. But I felt it could be gamed so success would just go into improved rewards (make it more of a draw and give it kudos by making it increase everyone's rewards that week, not just for those taking part). Weird situation of working with enemy players but with no incentive to fight each other.
I think that's true of ED but then you extrapolate to PP. I think people think PP should be designed/played in a way that makes thematic and contextual sense. Expecting it to be easy and hazard-free is in conflict with its premise.
I can live with three of those as they don't impact the gameplay regardless of mode while rewarding playing in open in other ways. It doesn't make PG/solo players second class players.
Not that i think Open play needs to be rewarded, but i know open only people do.
Like this?
Canonically, power play is not especially violent. Much the contrary, in fact; it has more to do with power brokering, backroom deals, secret deliveries.Mining power and exploration power and search and rescue power in a permanent violent conflict with one another, waging wars for territories in eternal friendship in the social heart of the game?
Politics, in other words. And certainly, politics occasionally breaks down into open violence, but that's rare. The real driving force behind politics is money, not violence.
That's not true in real life, and it's not even true in game, why should that suddenly change for power play 2.0?
The number of places and times where the most physically dangerous path is also the most profitable one is fairly small. Certainly, I expect it to be the case some of the time, but by no means anywhere near the majority of the time.
Indeed, in many places, the most physically dangerous job is also the worst paying.
'Easy and hazard-free' means different things to different people. FDev have said nothing about changing, "Play your own way", or "Blaze your own path". Nor have they said there will be any mode changes for PP2.0, as compared to PP1.0 which are Solo, PG, and Open. I think the livestream mentioned they want feedback and they hoped to entice more people into open and into playing PP2.0, but that is all.
And since Elite has 10+ combat ranks, how does PvP in PP2.0, like any other gameloop get balanced for each combat rank: (harmless, most harmless, novice, competent, expert, master, deadly, dangerous, Elite, and finally Elite I-V)?
My guess is FDev made some random decisions and we will get whatever they coded.
I apologize for the translation.
I'm sorry, I didn't quite get that. I have single player missions on my mission board. For example, kill the Pirate Lord.
I do them in one player.
Why don't I ask for additional rewards for completing these missions in single player ?
Because in the open game, a person can take a wing and it will be easier for him to kill this Lord.
IRL, there are real Crime and Punishment systems in place, at least for most people. Elite is kinda lacking in the same systems
I think those words have objective meanings. But I mean: doing a job without meaningful challenge (by NPC or player) or difficulty, for most players, and compared to other features and scenarios in the game.
They said the words "open-only" more in one stream than in the last 10 years. I think they know there's an issue. Things start the same with PP2.0 but may change. But certainly, design is a crucial element to making it make sense to be in open, or creating a feelig of missing out on sometbing cool if you're not.
PvP focused players tend to have lower combat ranks than PvE focused due to the player kills offering less progress per time spent than NPCs. But it's not relevant, to me. There is no need to balance it so all fights offer an evens chance if winning. It should be organic (which means, emergent encounters in the process of doing tasks).
One thing I'll put out there is that I don't care especially what happens to the casual player who does (in today's currency) about 1000 merits in a week. It's the guys doing thousands or tens of thousands that I want to see challenged - you shouldn't get that for free.
Unfortunately, we have a perfect example of what happens when you get organic PVP. We saw the perfect case study in cqc, where musketeer basically single-handedly drove off everyone who wanted to do it.
For a while there, I was doing CQC quite regularly, and sometimes had a pretty good game going along, until musketeer would drop in, kill everyone, and in short order everyone would leave.
Actually they have have relative meanings; ie, relatively easy and relatively hazard free.
'Objectively Easy' is nonsense. 'Objectively hazard free' is objectively false.
Last edited:
The problem with us, pilots, is that the only toolset we really have is guns. Lots and lots of guns--small guns, big guns, railguns, laserguns, plasma guns, guns for your spacesuit, guns for your ships, guns for your SRV-s. Even the suit charging tool can act as a gun.
And when all you have is more guns than typical armies of small nations, everything will become a target sooner or later. And let's be honest, shooting something is more exciting and productive than a 6-hour meeting at a roundtable where no-one really wants to actually give way and everyone keeps arguing over some minor procedural details--guess if you're lucky things devolve into a firefight anyway, so why even bother?
Actually, come to think of it, we have money. Maybe PP 2.1 will be lobbying simulator? I mean, we're already half-way there: step one, get lucrative government contracts (we have all these missions paying 40 million credits); step two use part of the money from those lucrative contracts to buy influence in the political circles (that part needs some work done on it) to make even more money