Powerplay in Solo

[DemiserofD]

oh, you tease. playing hard to link huh? I guess we'll have to assume someone said it, you replied as you did, and nobody could really disagree. If youre driving at the point that something that affects all the modes should be affectable by all the modes, I disagree in this case since theyre beneficial. If you really want to remove Powerplay derived ship discounts, mining & bounty buffs etc. from solo/pg if PP went OpenOnly. Then, weird but ok. You might find a fair bit of opposition from others to that tho.

Not all of them are beneficial. Higher fines and bounties in utopian space, for example.

 

[Rubbernuke]

While PvP may be broken in the opinion of some, it's not a required part of any game feature - more an optional way to engage in existing game features for those who wish to participate in it.

Which is saying nothing about *why*your idea simply won't fly. Just dumping a PvP mode onto the game won't be an effective use of resources or change things.

There's no reason to engage in PvP encounters, in my opinion, because if there were reasons, i.e. specific rewards, then players would collude to gain the reward in uncontested encounters. Equally, there's no requirement to engage in them for any game feature simply because the game has been sold to all players on that basis, even if some players want it to change.

Which again says nothing. If FD had introduced Open as 'the' PvP mode and made crime the main way to make money you set up a need for protection, effective piracy (i.e. mark goes bang = no money) and credit pressures (as in, credit scarcity)- i.e. you set up entire ecosystems that make Open actually worth having.

Sadly we have none of that, credits are meaningless, danger is optional. There is no ecosystem to drive things, which is why Open is so misunderstood. If it was in my best interests to keep you alive to rob you, would people log so much as an example?

It could be changed to do so, much like other aspects of the game could be. However that Frontier sold the game to all players with optional PvP may well mean that there are limited reasonable / palatable options available to them with regard to retrospectively PvP-focusing / PvP-gating existing pan-modal content.

But you are not gating anything- from a gameplay standpoint you are gating flying A to B among other players. Other than that, nothing changes, and solo PG guys get a whole new mission system thats solid PvE. By detangling Powerplay you focus on what modes do well, and give PvP an opt in place within the game. You could even make it so players have to choose roles each cycle so you can't change mid way (but then its just adding more abstractions to what should be a dynamic feature).

The whole reason for doing so is because NPCs don't do what players do, and make journeys unpredictable and dangerous.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which is saying nothing about *why*your idea simply won't fly. Just dumping a PvP mode onto the game won't be an effective use of resources or change things.

In a new galaxy for a new Open mode / new permit locked bubble only the actions of those in Open would affect it - equivalent to the Open only demands of some players. Gameplay itself would not change - however every player could be encountered and opposed as necessary, which is one of the reasons put forward by Open only proponents.

Which again says nothing. If FD had introduced Open as 'the' PvP mode and made crime the main way to make money you set up a need for protection, effective piracy (i.e. mark goes bang = no money) and credit pressures (as in, credit scarcity)- i.e. you set up entire ecosystems that make Open actually worth having.

They didn't though.

Sadly we have none of that, credits are meaningless, danger is optional. There is no ecosystem to drive things, which is why Open is so misunderstood. If it was in my best interests to keep you alive to rob you, would people log so much as an example?

.... because a parasitic attack by a player who could make more credits doing something else isn't much fun? Gameplay where one player attempts to dominate another player and force them to do their bidding is, I would suggest, an acquired taste.

But you are not gating anything- from a gameplay standpoint you are gating flying A to B among other players. Other than that, nothing changes, and solo PG guys get a whole new mission system thats solid PvE. By detangling Powerplay you focus on what modes do well, and give PvP an opt in place within the game. You could even make it so players have to choose roles each cycle so you can't change mid way (but then its just adding more abstractions to what should be a dynamic feature).

The whole reason for doing so is because NPCs don't do what players do, and make journeys unpredictable and dangerous.

Limiting particular gameplay to Open is PvP-gating it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

In a new galaxy for a new Open mode / new permit locked bubble only the actions of those in Open would affect it - equivalent to the Open only demands of some players. Gameplay itself would not change - however every player could be encountered and opposed as necessary, which is one of the reasons put forward by Open only proponents.

Which is ironic as its taking away those players from the BGS which was supposed to be shared according to you. So, its bad if Powerplay has an Open only aspect, but okay if you do essentially the same in all but name? Smacks of double standards really.

They didn't though.

Exactly- and exactly why trying it on a small scale won't work without a focus behind it.

.... because a parasitic attack by a player who could make more credits doing something else isn't much fun? Gameplay where one player attempts to dominate another player and force them to do their bidding is, I would suggest, an acquired taste.

In an effective ecosystem thats fine. In such a setup the cargo pilot is in the driving seat as they make the money and can afford protection and the best repairs. Pirates can't do any of that and are hunted and have to make ends meet where margins are slim. This comes down to credit scarcity and actual consequences.

Limiting particular gameplay to Open is PvP-gating it.

And is what you yourself describe, but seemingly is OK if you suggest it? Plus you were not understanding what I wrote, the actual gameplay thats gated is sub par PvE without other players where it works. Solo and PG get actual PvE thats plays to the strengths of NPCs.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which is ironic as its taking away those players from the BGS which was supposed to be shared according to you. So, its bad if Powerplay has an Open only aspect, but okay if you do essentially the same in all but name? Smacks of double standards really.

Those players would have a BGS of their own to affect, in the case of a duplicate galaxy, or a bubble of BGS to themselves which could not be affected in Solo or Private Groups due to the permit lock to Open. It's not removing anything from anyone - but adding for the benefit of those who seek an Open only experience.

In an effective ecosystem thats fine. In such a setup the cargo pilot is in the driving seat as they make the money and can afford protection and the best repairs. Pirates can't do any of that and are hunted and have to make ends meet where margins are slim. This comes down to credit scarcity and actual consequences.

"Pirates" can change role each session as they wish - and fund their piracy via more lucrative means. The "poor pirate" idea is mythical in this game.

And is what you yourself describe, but seemingly is OK if you suggest it? Plus you were not understanding what I wrote, the actual gameplay thats gated is sub par PvE without other players where it works. Solo and PG get actual PvE thats plays to the strengths of NPCs.

Adding to the game, by adding a second galaxy, or by adding a new bubble in a newly permit locked region of previously unoccupied space is, in my opinion, not removing anything of significance from any player but adding an Open only environment for those who seek one. Unlike Open bonus or Open only proposals, which seek to penalise players who don't play in Open to some extent, either by partially or completely removing their effect on particular game features. The galaxy is more than big enough to accommodate a new bubble for those seeking an Open only experience without taking anything of significance from those who don't.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Those players would have a BGS of their own to affect, in the case of a duplicate galaxy, or a bubble of BGS to themselves which could not be affected in Solo or Private Groups due to the permit lock to Open. It's not removing anything from anyone - but adding for the benefit of those who seek an Open only experience.

So you are removing gameplay (i.e. the shared BGS) from these players then? How will CGs work (if they get any in this new dimension?) What about Galnet? Which one is the 'real' one? If they are not equal how can you say to me changing one part of a small feature is unacceptable, especially since Sandro himself stated quite plainly he saw Powerplay as a consensual PvP feature? If thats the case, why are you trying to reinvent the wheel when you have the groundwork already there?

"Pirates" can change role each session as they wish - and fund their piracy via more lucrative means. The "poor pirate" idea is mythical in this game.

Really? A wanted person with C+P working correctly would bar them from legit work, surely? If they went clean they'd have to stay clean.

Adding to the game, by adding a second galaxy, or by adding a new bubble in a newly permit locked region of previously unoccupied space is, in my opinion, not removing anything of significance from any player but adding an Open only environment for those who seek one. Unlike Open bonus or Open only proposals, which seek to penalise players who don't play in Open to some extent, either by partially or completely removing their effect on particular game features. The galaxy is more than big enough to accommodate a new bubble for those seeking an Open only experience without taking anything of significance from those who don't.

Oh dear. Its also funny with wording like 'not removing anything of significance' when I've just told you why it won't work- its just creating a neat separate box with less in it for the 'troublemakers'. Whos advocating taking stuff away now?

If you want PvP in a game where PvP is broken due it having no purpose (you yourself say it regarding piracy) then you have to actually make features that suit PvP. Powerplay today does that (even an ex lead designer said so)- if my mode split idea was enacted you would not need to hive off chunks of the bubble, and restrict players who want PvP (which is what you argued for the last ten pages....like treating players like cheaters by reducing their influence ) deny them Galnet, influence on the galaxy (since which BGS is the proper one?) or deny them CGs.

An open segement of Powerplay provides PvP in a self contained feature that had a logical setup - non abstracted opposition with an actual useful goal, all the time in partnership with dedicated PvE for solo and PG.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So you are removing gameplay (i.e. the shared BGS) from these players then? How will CGs work (if they get any in this new dimension?) What about Galnet? Which one is the 'real' one? If they are not equal how can you say to me changing one part of a small feature is unacceptable, especially since Sandro himself stated quite plainly he saw Powerplay as a consensual PvP feature? If thats the case, why are you trying to reinvent the wheel when you have the groundwork already there?

It seems that there's an unsolvable problem then. Those who want Powerplay to be changed to their advantage don't accept that they might lose access to something else in the process - when the proposals made often remove Powerplay completely from players in Solo and Private Groups. Never mind, I'll know better than to propose what might be a more palatable solution to those adversely affected by the Open only / Open bonus proponents proposals.

Really? A wanted person with C+P working correctly would bar them from legit work, surely? If they went clean they'd have to stay clean.

.... and there'd be howls of protest if C&P worked correctly and imposed lengthy bans from particular activities. Noting that notoriety can be timed out by sitting in dock....

Oh dear. Its also funny with wording like 'not removing anything of significance' when I've just told you why it won't work- its just creating a neat separate box with less in it for the 'troublemakers'. Whos advocating taking stuff away now?

If you want PvP in a game where PvP is broken due it having no purpose (you yourself say it regarding piracy) then you have to actually make features that suit PvP. Powerplay today does that (even an ex lead designer said so)- if my mode split idea was enacted you would not need to hive off chunks of the bubble, and restrict players who want PvP (which is what you argued for the last ten pages....like treating players like cheaters by reducing their influence ) deny them Galnet, influence on the galaxy (since which BGS is the proper one?) or deny them CGs.

An open segement of Powerplay provides PvP in a self contained feature that had a logical setup - non abstracted opposition with an actual useful goal, all the time in partnership with dedicated PvE for solo and PG.

I'm not in favour of PvP-gating or applying a mode bonus to any existing pan-modal game content.

If some is not enough and it must be all, then it may be that none is the answer.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It seems that there's an unsolvable problem then. Those who want Powerplay to be changed to their advantage don't accept that they might lose access to something else in the process - when the proposals made often remove Powerplay completely from players in Solo and Private Groups. Never mind, I'll know better than to propose what might be a more palatable solution to those adversely affected by the Open only / Open bonus proponents proposals.

Sorry, this is rubbish.

What basis in logic is there changing Powerplay to something thats harder 'is to their advantage?' There is no 'advantage'- its making some of Powerplay harder so its less predictable, leading to more dynamic outcomes.

Simply moving PvP to one side is not making it better- PvP in ED needs a reason and a role. What better than a free form battlefield, with few abstractions and a true alternative to a heavily abstracted BGS? Why do you want to move the whole world when one small part does whats required, and give something new to Solo and PG players in that feature? Even weighting (which is as simple as it gets) does a better job.

.... and there'd be howls of protest if C&P worked correctly and imposed lengthy bans from particular activities. Noting that notoriety can be timed out by sitting in dock....

And have you actually spoken to hardened criminals? They are the ones who want all that, they want consequences from factions, powers and superpowers. You also seem to ignore the BGS is perfectly capable of making life hard for criminals in gameplay if it was given the chance. In a game about killing 'a ban' is silly. If you are a fugitive the local, power and superpower forces should respond in kind forcing you to rethink how you play. Thats what people want.

I'm not in favour of PvP-gating or applying a mode bonus to any existing pan-modal game content.

But by banishing PvP play into the Phantom Zone isn't that what you are doing, just in reverse?

If some is not enough and it must be all, then it may be that none is the answer.

Which is nonsense IMO. If you have a feature that does in part what is required, why not pragmatically repurpose it? If the gameplay is made equal in all modes from a content perspective, whats the problem? If you enjoy safe trucking then make PvE that suits that, but detangle it from other gameplay that suffers because of that imposed limitation. Powerplay can't work and be a satisfying experience if its all jumbled up.

I find it crazy that in an argument about moving PvP you argue that moving PvP in Powerplay to its own 'phase' is sacrilege while recreating a lesser BGS for PvP players is fine somehow.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What basis in logic is there changing Powerplay to something thats harder 'is to their advantage?' There is no 'advantage'- its making some of Powerplay harder so its less predictable, leading to more dynamic outcomes.

It is to the advantage of those who prefer or tolerate PvP, by removing the effect of those in Solo and Private Groups, or by giving a mode participation bonus to those who engage in it in Open / mode based penalty to those who participate in it in Solo and Private Groups from a shared game feature - in a game where no feature requires any player to engage in PvP if they don't want to (apart from CQC, of course).

Simply moving PvP to one side is not making it better- PvP in ED needs a reason and a role. What better than a free form battlefield, with few abstractions and a true alternative to a heavily abstracted BGS? Why do you want to move the whole world when one small part does whats required, and give something new to Solo and PG players in that feature? Even weighting (which is as simple as it gets) does a better job.

I'll agree to disagree on the need for PvP to have a dominant role in existing pan-modal game features, also on the need to change existing game features to the detriment of those who eschew PvP, and also on the contention that weighting would do a better job.

Creating a permit locked volume of the galaxy for players in Open would offer players who want to play this game with no "interference" from players in Solo and Private Groups somewhere to play, without changing the game for all other players.

And have you actually spoken to hardened criminals? They are the ones who want all that, they want consequences from factions, powers and superpowers. You also seem to ignore the BGS is perfectly capable of making life hard for criminals in gameplay if it was given the chance. In a game about killing 'a ban' is silly. If you are a fugitive the local, power and superpower forces should respond in kind forcing you to rethink how you play. Thats what people want.

During discussions on C&P there seems to be a desire from some players that it should apply to crimes against players and NPCs equally - and that any deviation from that isn't what they want. Noting the opposition to the Pilots' Federation bounties at the time they were discussed. Changing C&P for all crime changes it for all players - including those who engage in purely PvE criminal activity - which is why, I would suggest, it is as it is, as to make C&P particularly challenging would be to put the challenge beyond a not insignificant number of players, noting the realities of the population and skill distribution.

But by banishing PvP play into the Phantom Zone isn't that what you are doing, just in reverse?

That's not the intent - as it's not banishment - it's would be a PvP area that players in Solo and Private could not affect - step out of that bubble and back in to the game as it is: tri-modal sharing the single galaxy.

I find it crazy that in an argument about moving PvP you argue that moving PvP in Powerplay to its own 'phase' is sacrilege while recreating a lesser BGS for PvP players is fine somehow.

If a new permit locked to Open bubble was created in the shared galaxy then players would not need to remain in it at all times - the "outside" mode shared BGS would still exist, just as the "only available to those with the permit" BGS would exist within the permit locked bubble.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

All of this has happened before and it will all happen again.

 

[gthk]

Making the game 'harder' is the human gankers themselves. It is non of the matter from the game itself. I see no reason to change because of the human player's behaviour

 

[Bashy81]

Not all of them are beneficial. Higher fines and bounties in utopian space, for example.

Only in control systems which is less than 10% of our space, but that much is true. we also ban black markets, narcotics and slaves. Admitttedly some things people like, some they dont. Ultimately its no skin off my nose if people want these things gone from modes that dont directly affect Powerplay; whether thats non-pledges as it stands now, or solo/pg if PP went Open-only.

 

[Bashy81]

Making the game 'harder' is the human gankers themselves. It is non of the matter from the game itself. I see no reason to change because of the human player's behaviour

good luck accepting those missions that someone else grabbed first, or deprived you of by pushing factions into a different state.

Human players' behaviour affects your choices as NPC behaviour does. If you use any of the ingame measures to chart your progress, whether thats credits, unlocks, engineer access, first scanned, etc you change your choices because of human players' behaviour. And you change theirs as well. Its all on the same scale, whether its direct or indirect impediment or assistance.

It's all measured by time, credits and whatever other progress yardstick you follow. Your broad use of the term 'gankers' can apply to indirect impediment just as much as direct. It is myopic to think that someone wasting your time & impeding your progress by exploding your ship is any different to someone doing the same indirectly. The impact is often far greater. Either way you are being set back, and put to work by another player to restore your progress.

We all have to accept the indirect effect of other players' behaviour in the main game, but some of us wish to be able to operate in groups where direct effects have to be accepted as well. And at present there is no place in-game where that applies.

Powerplay is an ideal venue for that, because it is an unpopular game mode that is all but impossible to comprehend alone, is opt-in, and in essence is all about conflict between player groups.

 

[DemiserofD]

Only in control systems which is less than 10% of our space, but that much is true. we also ban black markets, narcotics and slaves. Admitttedly some things people like, some they dont. Ultimately its no skin off my nose if people want these things gone from modes that dont directly affect Powerplay; whether thats non-pledges as it stands now, or solo/pg if PP went Open-only.

The point being, removing powerplay from the game has a broad impact even on players who don't interact with it directly.

Therefore, removing it is taking something away from them, which isn't fair to them.

good luck accepting those missions that someone else grabbed first, or deprived you of by pushing factions into a different state.

Human players' behaviour affects your choices as NPC behaviour does. If you use any of the ingame measures to chart your progress, whether thats credits, unlocks, engineer access, first scanned, etc you change your choices because of human players' behaviour. And you change theirs as well. Its all on the same scale, whether its direct or indirect impediment or assistance.

It's all measured by time, credits and whatever other progress yardstick you follow. Your broad use of the term 'gankers' can apply to indirect impediment just as much as direct. It is myopic to think that someone wasting your time & impeding your progress by exploding your ship is any different to someone doing the same indirectly. The impact is often far greater. Either way you are being set back, and put to work by another player to restore your progress.

We all have to accept the indirect effect of other players' behaviour in the main game, but some of us wish to be able to operate in groups where direct effects have to be accepted as well. And at present there is no place in-game where that applies.

Powerplay is an ideal venue for that, because it is an unpopular game mode that is all but impossible to comprehend alone, is opt-in, and in essence is all about conflict between player groups.

Honestly, I think the fact that it's "All but impossible to comprehend alone" is one of the most fundamental problems with Powerplay. Powerplay is an aspect of the game that should encompass all other aspects of the game. In my opinion Powerplay should just be the macro-level form of BGS.

And just like BGS can be influenced in solo, so should Powerplay.

What I'd like to see if anything, is a revamp to the pvp aspects of the game, including powerplay. If you want to go out and fight enemy players, and you win, your team should be rewarded for that, which currently isn't the case.

But I don't see any reason why you should be rewarded for logging into Open in the middle of the night and hauling a bunch of commodities when nobody's paying attention, or rewarded for killing a bunch of powerplay ships in some nav beacon instance in 'open' but where nobody can tell you're even there.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It is to the advantage of those who prefer or tolerate PvP, by removing the effect of those in Solo and Private Groups, or by giving a mode participation bonus to those who engage in it in Open / mode based penalty to those who participate in it in Solo and Private Groups from a shared game feature - in a game where no feature requires any player to engage in PvP if they don't want to (apart from CQC, of course).

Its making clear boundaries in a muddled feature that was described as being 'consensual PvP'. In the end the feature has to work in a rational way, having three difficulties that reward the same is not doing that. And in any case, if PvE is given the same influence but via separate tasks that don't overlap, whats the problem? You feel its OK to gate PvP in a separate and lesser BGS that has no bearing on the 'real' one, but not just have one part of Powerplay which is the equivalent of playground catch.

FD hoped Powerplay could sit in the gray area between other features and work harmoniously, only to find it just amplifies and exposes their weaknesses. If FD want to keep the bones of Powerplay then they have to separate out the features threads.

I'll agree to disagree on the need for PvP to have a dominant role in existing pan-modal game features, also on the need to change existing game features to the detriment of those who eschew PvP, and also on the contention that weighting would do a better job.

Its not a dominant role though. A lot of solo players want easy trucking- thats cool, why not actually give that to them in a way that is easy for FD to implement, extensible and works to the games PvE system (all the time being a vital role)? PvE is then mission based to generate materials open players move. The open part is simplistic from a PvE standpoint (considerably so compared to my mission based suggestion) but with other players you don't need complex NPC rewrites as in that section players become the NPCs. This works better, is cleaner and much more sane.

Creating a permit locked volume of the galaxy for players in Open would offer players who want to play this game with no "interference" from players in Solo and Private Groups somewhere to play, without changing the game for all other players.

Its not solving a need though. As I explained before PvP needs a reason and role. Powerplay as I suggested in part can give that reason, and in a way thats self contained. Plus are you not changing the game for people who play in Open who also bought ED?

During discussions on C&P there seems to be a desire from some players that it should apply to crimes against players and NPCs equally - and that any deviation from that isn't what they want. Noting the opposition to the Pilots' Federation bounties at the time they were discussed. Changing C&P for all crime changes it for all players - including those who engage in purely PvE criminal activity - which is why, I would suggest, it is as it is, as to make C&P particularly challenging would be to put the challenge beyond a not insignificant number of players, noting the realities of the population and skill distribution.

And it can, quite easily. I've made loads of suggestions that would make such a system possible. Here are some:

Some C + P suggestions, tweaks and ideas (part 2)

Some ideas: Security response times are based on the attack position in that system. So, security response in close proximity to stations, traffic corridors etc are much quicker (and practically instantaneous in high sec close to traffic lanes) than in deep space. This logically simulates how...

forums.frontier.co.uk

At notoriety 10, each full NPC / player scan spawns an ATR vessel

A half though out idea, but: If a player is at notoriety 10, they have to be very careful about being scanned by random ships, security or other players as if they are, an ATR security vessel drops in to hassle them. The handwavium being that a scan is like a sighting of you thats disseminated...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Helping new players: scaled, personal NPC security detail at lower ranks in Open (mostly harmless > competent)

After a couple of interesting discussions I came up with this idea to help new players fresh out of the starter area: In short, low ranks on attack by other players (i.e. shots landed, interdicted) spawn security instantly when they drop to realspace 1: This idea kicks in as new players leave...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Revert no fire zone / drop distances to stations to pre gamma(?) distances and other C + P tweaks

Currently its far too easy to never see an NPC opponent from missions. Commanders drop far too close to stations and enter the no fire zone (NFZ) almost instantly, making any NPC bounty hunter or pirate instantly fly off (making them redundant). A distance like 20Km (or perhaps shrink the NFZ...

forums.frontier.co.uk

This does not even scratch superpower bounties. I could write an 80 page thread on making C+P work universally, but its a topic that overlaps many aspects such as engineering.

That's not the intent - as it's not banishment - it's would be a PvP area that players in Solo and Private could not affect - step out of that bubble and back in to the game as it is: tri-modal sharing the single galaxy.

Its banishment in all but name, shunting that gameplay into a corner.

Plus- "step out of that bubble and back in to the game as it is"...erm....if Powerplay had an open only component, thats what would be going on anyway, except for a valid game reason i.e. sanctioned killing and violence in a confrontational feature. So rather than simply displacing what you see as a problem, those players are given an opportunity.

If a new permit locked to Open bubble was created in the shared galaxy then players would not need to remain in it at all times - the "outside" mode shared BGS would still exist, just as the "only available to those with the permit" BGS would exist within the permit locked bubble.

Which again is just displacing the 'problem'. Also: how big is this bubble? Is it carved from existing parts of the BGS (and thus taking it from 'everyone')? If it is the latter, how is that different than repurposing a chunk of Powerplay, which in material terms is far less? Will this BGS area ever get CGs? If it does is this unfair in your eyes because the CG is mode locked? Do you see that your idea opens up ten times the can of worms compared to making one part of Powerplay Open based, for a fraction of the problems?

 

[Rubbernuke]

The point being, removing powerplay from the game has a broad impact even on players who don't interact with it directly.

Therefore, removing it is taking something away from them, which isn't fair to them.



Honestly, I think the fact that it's "All but impossible to comprehend alone" is one of the most fundamental problems with Powerplay. Powerplay is an aspect of the game that should encompass all other aspects of the game. In my opinion Powerplay should just be the macro-level form of BGS.

And just like BGS can be influenced in solo, so should Powerplay.

What I'd like to see if anything, is a revamp to the pvp aspects of the game, including powerplay. If you want to go out and fight enemy players, and you win, your team should be rewarded for that, which currently isn't the case.

But I don't see any reason why you should be rewarded for logging into Open in the middle of the night and hauling a bunch of commodities when nobody's paying attention, or rewarded for killing a bunch of powerplay ships in some nav beacon instance in 'open' but where nobody can tell you're even there.

Powerplay is also about knowing your enemy and their habits, all the time guarding against yourself falling into predictable patterns. If anything knowing you can use this information to disrupt is a boon.

I also agree Solo and PG should have a place influencing Powerplay. The issue is making sure players in different modes influence in ways that don't (excuse the pun) undermine the game while they do so. Clearly defined mode roles and goals would do that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Its making clear boundaries in a muddled feature that was described as being 'consensual PvP'. In the end the feature has to work in a rational way, having three difficulties that reward the same is not doing that. And in any case, if PvE is given the same influence but via separate tasks that don't overlap, whats the problem? You feel its OK to gate PvP in a separate and lesser BGS that has no bearing on the 'real' one, but not just have one part of Powerplay which is the equivalent of playground catch.

Powerplay as implemented is consensual PvP, doubly so, i.e. one chooses to pledge then chooses which game mode to engage in it from.

Those who seek to promote PvP to a significant role in any game feature seek to chip away at the PvE game by making the effects of those in Solo and Private Groups less effective / completely removed.

FD hoped Powerplay could sit in the gray area between other features and work harmoniously, only to find it just amplifies and exposes their weaknesses. If FD want to keep the bones of Powerplay then they have to separate out the features threads.

Powerplay could be improved for all players without resorting to PvP-gating any part of it.

Its not a dominant role though. A lot of solo players want easy trucking- thats cool, why not actually give that to them in a way that is easy for FD to implement, extensible and works to the games PvE system (all the time being a vital role)? PvE is then mission based to generate materials open players move. The open part is simplistic from a PvE standpoint (considerably so compared to my mission based suggestion) but with other players you don't need complex NPC rewrites as in that section players become the NPCs. This works better, is cleaner and much more sane.

If any aspect were to be locked to Open then it could be dominated by PvP, as it would have been PvP-gated.

Its not solving a need though. As I explained before PvP needs a reason and role. Powerplay as I suggested in part can give that reason, and in a way thats self contained. Plus are you not changing the game for people who play in Open who also bought ED?

Permit locking a tiny (in terms of the size of the galaxy) volume for PvP would not represent a significant change to players - in a galaxy where huge volumes are permit locked to every player with no permit available and where significantly less than 1% of the galaxy has been discovered in over six years, in my opinion of course. If the volume were quietly permit locked I'd expect that it'd take some time for it to be noticed. It would actually add to the game of those who play in Open - as they would retain access to the whole galaxy and would now have another populated bubble to fight over, with the added benefit (for those who need it) of players in Solo and Private Groups not being able to affect it due to the permit lock to players in Open. It would, however, remove access to a small portion of the galaxy from those who play in Solo and Private Groups.

Its banishment in all but name, shunting that gameplay into a corner.

It adds gameplay for those who wish it rather than banishing players in Solo and Private Groups from existing game features or arbitrarily giving those in Open more sway over those existing features just because they play in Open.

Plus- "step out of that bubble and back in to the game as it is"...erm....if Powerplay had an open only component, thats what would be going on anyway, except for a valid game reason i.e. sanctioned killing and violence in a confrontational feature. So rather than simply displacing what you see as a problem, those players are given an opportunity.

Which is quite a big "if".

Which again is just displacing the 'problem'. Also: how big is this bubble? Is it carved from existing parts of the BGS (and thus taking it from 'everyone')? If it is the latter, how is that different than repurposing a chunk of Powerplay, which in material terms is far less? Will this BGS area ever get CGs? If it does is this unfair in your eyes because the CG is mode locked? Do you see that your idea opens up ten times the can of worms compared to making one part of Powerplay Open based, for a fraction of the problems?

As stated, several times, the new bubble would be placed in previously unoccupied space.

I would envisage such a bubble to offer all game features, including CGs that would affect the bubble.

 

[Brrokk]

Look, it's hooves are only moving because you're all still hitting it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Powerplay as implemented is consensual PvP, doubly so, i.e. one chooses to pledge then chooses which game mode to engage in it from.

Which does not preclude separating out roles between modes. And in any case, its Sandros own words.

Those who seek to promote PvP to a significant role in any game feature seek to chip away at the PvE game by making the effects of those in Solo and Private Groups less effective / completely removed.

Please tell me Robert, what PvE gameplay is 'being chipped away' by making Powerplay in part open? Other than flying point to point with Powerplay cargo, or fighting in a themed CZ, what is being snatched away- especially since that is replicated better in a PvE specific solo / PG section?

Powerplay could be improved for all players without resorting to PvP-gating any part of it.

It could, but we don't know how far FD want to change Powerplay and what they want to keep.

If any aspect were to be locked to Open then it could be dominated by PvP, as it would have been PvP-gated.

Which is missing the point- its like saying chocolate dominates Dairy Milk. 'Dominate' in this context is the relative importance of each role. If each role for each mode is equal in importance, you can't infer one dominates the other. In material terms a specific PvE section for Powerplay would offer substantial RP lore and gameplay that has no place in the Open segment where its you running the gauntlet against others.

Permit locking a tiny (in terms of the size of the galaxy) volume for PvP would not represent a significant change to players - in a galaxy where huge volumes are permit locked to every player with no permit available and where significantly less than 1% of the galaxy has been discovered in over six years, in my opinion of course. If the volume were quietly permit locked I'd expect that it'd take some time for it to be noticed. It would actually add to the game of those who play in Open - as they would retain access to the whole galaxy and would now have another populated bubble to fight over, with the added benefit (for those who need it) of players in Solo and Private Groups not being able to affect it due to the permit lock to players in Open. It would, however, remove access to a small portion of the galaxy from those who play in Solo and Private Groups.

But you are still taking something away, no? Which is ironic since thats how you frame what you argue with me about, saying making part of Powerplay Open only takes something away. I also find it funny here- "If the volume were quietly permit locked I'd expect that it'd take some time for it to be noticed." So on one level it needs to be a secret to stop objections from players and PMFs (not to mention nearby BGS overlaps that would be effected by Open only BGS). Or you could create a Colonia somewhere- but how big? And still does not answer if this area is treated the same as the rest of the game re things like CGs.

It adds gameplay for those who wish it rather than banishing players in Solo and Private Groups from existing game features or arbitrarily giving those in Open more sway over those existing features just because they play in Open.

Its not adding any gameplay though -its simply moving what you see as problematic away so you never see it again. By giving roles to modes that are co-dependent you are doing the exact opposite of what you think it does- each role needs to be be done for the Power to work effectively. PvE gets mission based gameplay thats highly focussed, Open players get what is essentially dangerous delivery and gathering.

Which is quite a big "if".

Really? Satisfying PvP requires structure. Creating a generic bubble elsewhere is not doing that. Having defined roles that require PvP does, and only Powerplay has that potential.

As stated, several times, the new bubble would be placed in previously unoccupied space.

I would envisage such a bubble to offer all game features, including CGs that would affect the bubble.

So no specific Open CGs then here? This bubble BGS sounds like an irrelevant toy really, especially since Powerplay has all the features needed- explicit pledges, defined territories and defined areas of activity, player defined objectives, a leaderboard, simple cargoes- all combining to easily signal intent when players meet.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which does not preclude separating out roles between modes. And in any case, its Sandros own words.

Please tell me Robert, what PvE gameplay is 'being chipped away' by making Powerplay in part open? Other than flying point to point with Powerplay cargo, or fighting in a themed CZ, what is being snatched away- especially since that is replicated better in a PvE specific solo / PG section?


It could, but we don't know how far FD want to change Powerplay and what they want to keep.


Which is missing the point- its like saying chocolate dominates Dairy Milk. 'Dominate' in this context is the relative importance of each role. If each role for each mode is equal in importance, you can't infer one dominates the other. In material terms a specific PvE section for Powerplay would offer substantial RP lore and gameplay that has no place in the Open segment where its you running the gauntlet against others.


But you are still taking something away, no? Which is ironic since thats how you frame what you argue with me about, saying making part of Powerplay Open only takes something away. I also find it funny here- "If the volume were quietly permit locked I'd expect that it'd take some time for it to be noticed." So on one level it needs to be a secret to stop objections from players and PMFs (not to mention nearby BGS overlaps that would be effected by Open only BGS). Or you could create a Colonia somewhere- but how big? And still does not answer if this area is treated the same as the rest of the game re things like CGs.

Its not adding any gameplay though -its simply moving what you see as problematic away so you never see it again. By giving roles to modes that are co-dependent you are doing the exact opposite of what you think it does- each role needs to be be done for the Power to work effectively. PvE gets mission based gameplay thats highly focussed, Open players get what is essentially dangerous delivery and gathering.

Really? Satisfying PvP requires structure. Creating a generic bubble elsewhere is not doing that. Having defined roles that require PvP does, and only Powerplay has that potential.


So no specific Open CGs then here? This bubble BGS sounds like an irrelevant toy really, especially since Powerplay has all the features needed- explicit pledges, defined territories and defined areas of activity, player defined objectives, a leaderboard, simple cargoes- all combining to easily signal intent when players meet.

Having gone round in circles for some time, as is the case with discussions on this interminable topic that's been running since the game design was published, I'll agree to disagree on which approach Frontier should take in relation to accommodating the desires of those who prefer PvP and those who don't in existing pan-modal content that does not require any participant to engage in PvP, in a game where other players are an optional extra.