If that really applies in Powerplay, then what is it about Open Powerplay you object to ?
It must be paintjobs..
Powerplay in Solo
- Thread starter Aquaface
- Start date
It must be paintjobs..
It's a matter of preference. I acknowledge that it's irrational for me to prefer not to play in open, since it's largely no different from solo, but that doesn't mean my preference doesn't exist. Just like how I recognize it's irrational for me to dislike Guacamole, but it doesn't make that dislike not exist.
Most people probably just dislike it because of negative associations in their memory. They got killed ONCE, and that makes it not fun anymore, just like how eating a food when your sick can make you not like it even after you're not sick anymore.
But that dislike has nothing to do with whether or not it's actually in any way dangerous.
And of course, there's also the random annoyances of dealing with other players that has nothing to do with difficulty. Players playing uncooperatively, or being rude, or going afk on a landing pad. These aren't matters of hard or easy, they're just irritating.
My point is, people have a right to personal preference. You can't shame them for what they like or dislike, even if those preferences have no rational basis. Like I said several pages ago, people are inherently irrational. And that's okay. In the end, this is a game, and the objective is to have fun.
Last edited:
To make open only power play not go over like a lead balloon the rank requirement for the PP modules would need to be removed. Most players don't really care about the in game political factions and BGS conflicts. They just want to fly space ships and have fun but many cool toys are locked behind the credit and time sink that is the PP system.
Those interested in expanding the territory of PP factions would then not have people who don't care and are just after a module before moving on to the next power messing up progress. Yes it would also mean a lot less people participating but those people didn't want to participate anyway.
Those interested in expanding the territory of PP factions would then not have people who don't care and are just after a module before moving on to the next power messing up progress. Yes it would also mean a lot less people participating but those people didn't want to participate anyway.
A few people have mentioned that PP isn't important to them, it's just about the modules. They're either off topic or missing the point, I think.
If PP changes to a power's recorded merits favoured open or were open only, that doesn't mean a player in solo can't get them the same way (get some easy merits, get the packhounds and leave), just that they won't alter the power's actions. If you're not into Powerplay, this literally doesn't affect your game at all.
That said, OO/ open weighted PP is a terrible idea for a huge number of reasons that have been discussed to death. The whole of PP needs a fundamental rework before that even could change, and it's not going to get one.
If PP changes to a power's recorded merits favoured open or were open only, that doesn't mean a player in solo can't get them the same way (get some easy merits, get the packhounds and leave), just that they won't alter the power's actions. If you're not into Powerplay, this literally doesn't affect your game at all.
That said, OO/ open weighted PP is a terrible idea for a huge number of reasons that have been discussed to death. The whole of PP needs a fundamental rework before that even could change, and it's not going to get one.
By default it would be across all modes, because solo is really the 'base' PvE layer. NPCS as described would not vanish in other modes.
I agree with this, but it is worth pointing out that Sandro and every detailed Open-Only proposal since all stated that Powerplay modules would be made available via tech brokers or suchlike.
So those who dont care for Powerplay wouldnt have the timesink unlock system and wouldnt have to participate. Powerplay groups strongly dislike module shoppers since they largely just drop a dog-egg then quit. Those who reach out to the groups they pledge to & do have some consideration however: I salute you.
there is a repetoire of reductum-ad-absurdem debating points that some people try to weave into the impression OOPP is somehow impossible.
Most of them are obviously nonsense if youve actually tried Powerplay in Open, since they just dont apply, and for the others theres been no sense in fdev actually trying simple measures while opt-out modes remain available anyway.
So you admit the whole basis for your opposition to Open Powerplay is irrational. Well that is progress I suppose. You had to admit making an irrational argument, or admit that your weird assertion that Open poses no risk ('99%' of threads on this forum about it to the contrary..) is nonsense. Furthermore ive been at pains to point out that in Powerplay it is not just being shot at and going boom that makes the efficiency difference between modes, but also all the efforts & measures you go to in Open to evade pewpew-boom in the first place.
We've entered the twilight zone with this one. Im wondering if on your controller setup youve got 'up' set to 'down' and right as left, as well.
Yes they do, no shame in that. Those same preferences of yours are indulged for the entire rest of the game, always to the detriment of other equally valid choices. Such as the preference for a level-playingfield in a competitive feature. The vast majority of the Powerplay playerbase supports Open-only or a variant thereof, and a large majority of the forum opinion supported it too, when posed the question on this forum by the lead developer of ED. And also Obsidian Ant on his channel by the same ratio, when he echoed that question as well.
Why should the majority with an equally valid preference be overriden by your personal tastes, particularly when it comes to Powerplay; this one opt-in part of the game, that far more than any other is ideally suited to Open play.
Oh, so I guess we're all just eating kittens in space now, are we?!
Joking aside, I still disagree. I Powerplay in open. On the glaringly few occasions I have seen a rival power It's been fun. I've still never seen an open only proposal that's less full of holes than a fishing net, and OOPP opposition is not all as you say- it runs the gamut from very silly to perfectly valid.
I would love to see fundamental changes that extinguish effective 5th column and bottable gameplay loops. This still won't happen, but would do more good to Powerplay (in any mode) than open only, which solves neither problem and introduces new ones.
try me, im not gonna bite. I will +like your reply if it merely doesnt require explaining the basics of gameplay to dispute. That would be refreshing.
personally I favour Rubbernuke's hybrid approach with some imo necessary amendments. Taking the flash topic proposal that most Open-Only proposals since are built upon, what elements do you find full of holes? (I have some objections myself so would be interesting to see if we're in agreement there)
Which Power are you pledged to? what do you do within it? what platform are you on? timezones? timepledged? (just trying to get a broad strokes idea as to what 'glaringly few occasions' means to you, why, and what your ideal level of conflict might be.)
Sandro's Open-Only proposal disincentivised 5C from several different angles, plus added direct opposition possibility on top as well. It would have nerfed 5C into extinction.
Bottable game loops need more complex gameplay requirements to extinguish them. Simple A-B hauling needs to go. Fetch & carry etc missions that require docking at the control system to be forted & the capital, could substitute as a direct replacement. ( if a more ambitious mechanics overhaul isnt on the table ), so HQ & chokepoint blockades still have a role. They are central to quality gameplay & evolving tactics & strategies in Powerplay.
Slow reply, I know, but you're clearly actually thinking about this rather than some of the ummmm.... "less cerebral" shall we say? posts on this topic so I owe you the same courtesy
I honestly don't see a way to avoid the efficiency disparity without breaking the equality of the modes. Buffing PvE opposition won't help. I'm a mediocre PvPer, if I'm being honest, and I still eat NPCs for breakfast. If NPCs are buffed to the point they match even me, there will be huge numbers of players for whom that opposition is simply unsurvivable. This would be game-breaking for too many people for FD to ever consider implementing it. This being the case I think perhaps the option would be to actually give combat a role - whether against players or NPCs.
Something like this:
1: Players dropping off merits in a system will trigger spawning of NPC "merit haulers" in the target system - they will be flagged as belonging to the appropriate power and will spawn in SC, heading for a station to drop off their subversive literature. However, their arrival will NOT change the PP dynamic - only player-delivered merits count.
2: Interdicting and destroying merit haulers - whether players or NPCs - gains a reward voucher from your power. Claiming enough of them in a system applies a debuff to the merits delivered by the power(s) whose ships were destroyed in that cycle.
It would need fleshing out over those very bare bones, of course, but it's mode-neutral and means that combat-in-powerplay actually does something rather than being the pure sideshow that it is now
Powerplay has so many moving parts you have to think thoughSlow reply, I know, but you're clearly actually thinking about this rather than some of the ummmm.... "less cerebral" shall we say? posts on this topic so I owe you the same courtesy
I honestly don't see a way to avoid the efficiency disparity without breaking the equality of the modes. Buffing PvE opposition won't help. I'm a mediocre PvPer, if I'm being honest, and I still eat NPCs for breakfast. If NPCs are buffed to the point they match even me, there will be huge numbers of players for whom that opposition is simply unsurvivable. This would be game-breaking for too many people for FD to ever consider implementing it. This being the case I think perhaps the option would be to actually give combat a role - whether against players or NPCs.
Something like this:
1: Players dropping off merits in a system will trigger spawning of NPC "merit haulers" in the target system - they will be flagged as belonging to the appropriate power and will spawn in SC, heading for a station to drop off their subversive literature. However, their arrival will NOT change the PP dynamic - only player-delivered merits count.
2: Interdicting and destroying merit haulers - whether players or NPCs - gains a reward voucher from your power. Claiming enough of them in a system applies a debuff to the merits delivered by the power(s) whose ships were destroyed in that cycle.
It would need fleshing out over those very bare bones, of course, but it's mode-neutral and means that combat-in-powerplay actually does something rather than being the pure sideshow that it is now
Your ideas are cool, but IMO are the wrong way round. Any changes have to be from the ground up and from the haulers perspective like missions in the BGS.
I proposed (what I imagine) is the limit of what NPCs could do in Powerplay, in ways that players understand what risks they take to form a better PvE layer thats different enough from the BGS.
For hauling the problem (as I see it anyway) is that NPCs (by EDs underpinning design) have no real places to 'get' you- NAVs don't figure 99% of the time, SC is the main way (but NPCs are poor at interdiction) and station drop zones are far too small (so NPCs cannot loiter or attack, since they immediately pull away). Everything is fixed lengths, minimal opposition and very routine.
My suggestion is to turn that all on its head:
You only collect cargo at stations, and in fixed amounts that have corresponding NPC opposition. So if you want to move loads, you get a strong NPC who will pursue you. You can stack these cargo haul missions, but you also stack enemies too- much like hauling missions. The difficulty is 'priced in'. Since you know you will see action it makes it ideal for PG and Open, since you can have friends help you- in effect it becomes a wing / MC mission when it needs to.
To deliver, you use the hidden trader mechanic:
At the destination system you scan the NAV to reveal your drop point rather than a station. This does a number of things: pad blocking is eliminated- NPCs don't have NFZs of stations to deal with (so they are not instantly useless if they drop with you), and it randomises the delivery times a little- some will be close, others further away- so efficiency is variable (and allows for SC interdiction). The most important benefit here is that you have to drop to a crowded place where NPCs can fire at you- i.e. its placing you in danger. In Open this makes it especially dangerous since its a choke point.
Once you have your destination POI you fly to it as you do now. Any players or 'priced in' NPCs can attack here as normal.
At the POI: you have a transport ship and escorts. Note: the transport can be destroyed, and needs protecting just as you do! So any pursuing players or NPCs can cause trouble. Transfer is as hidden traders- fly close and pop its done (slightly unrealistic, but its how its done in game). You fly away and repeat the loop. Once you are out of the instance NPCs reset (slightly unrealistic, but its better than nothing).
This system makes sense since Powerplay is supposed to be this clandestine war between well connected gangs. It also allows groups of players to fly together and know objectives: they know NPCs will be after them, they know the destination transport needs protecting, and so on to make an almost ad hoc convoy mission. The most important thing is that it allows ED PvE difficulty ratings, and works as an augmented PvE mission using established mechanics.and makes routine hauling have much more action to it. If you don't want hard NPCs then you simply choose the lower difficulty Powerplay cargo hauling mission.
Then I'd be absolutely down with that. I don't know that it would fix the problems you point out, but hey, anything to make powerplay more interesting would be great!
(as long as those changes remain fair to all the players involved)
It'd be even cooler if the number of npcs were controlled by CC expenditure. Actually, that would perfectly allow exactly what you want while remaining fair. You can spend CC to put highly engineered npcs in specific systems attacking other powers that travel there. These npcs would be pan-modal. Because they exist only in specific systems, they can be far more dangerous than ones that exist universally.
I really need to write up a detailed Galactic Conquest proposal. It sounds super fun the more I think about it, and with Odyssey dropping, we'll finally have a chance for it to actually be COMPLETELY possible. Ground forces, air forces, and space forces, all together in one thing.
Last edited:
I just don't like being told what to do. Buy me the game and I'll play on any mode you want
Powerplay has so many moving parts you have to think though
Your ideas are cool, but IMO are the wrong way round. Any changes have to be from the ground up and from the haulers perspective like missions in the BGS.
I proposed (what I imagine) is the limit of what NPCs could do in Powerplay, in ways that players understand what risks they take to form a better PvE layer thats different enough from the BGS.
For hauling the problem (as I see it anyway) is that NPCs (by EDs underpinning design) have no real places to 'get' you- NAVs don't figure 99% of the time, SC is the main way (but NPCs are poor at interdiction) and station drop zones are far too small (so NPCs cannot loiter or attack, since they immediately pull away). Everything is fixed lengths, minimal opposition and very routine.
My suggestion is to turn that all on its head:
You only collect cargo at stations, and in fixed amounts that have corresponding NPC opposition. So if you want to move loads, you get a strong NPC who will pursue you. You can stack these cargo haul missions, but you also stack enemies too- much like hauling missions. The difficulty is 'priced in'. Since you know you will see action it makes it ideal for PG and Open, since you can have friends help you- in effect it becomes a wing / MC mission when it needs to.
To deliver, you use the hidden trader mechanic:
At the destination system you scan the NAV to reveal your drop point rather than a station. This does a number of things: pad blocking is eliminated- NPCs don't have NFZs of stations to deal with (so they are not instantly useless if they drop with you), and it randomises the delivery times a little- some will be close, others further away- so efficiency is variable (and allows for SC interdiction). The most important benefit here is that you have to drop to a crowded place where NPCs can fire at you- i.e. its placing you in danger. In Open this makes it especially dangerous since its a choke point.
Once you have your destination POI you fly to it as you do now. Any players or 'priced in' NPCs can attack here as normal.
At the POI: you have a transport ship and escorts. Note: the transport can be destroyed, and needs protecting just as you do! So any pursuing players or NPCs can cause trouble. Transfer is as hidden traders- fly close and pop its done (slightly unrealistic, but its how its done in game). You fly away and repeat the loop. Once you are out of the instance NPCs reset (slightly unrealistic, but its better than nothing).
This system makes sense since Powerplay is supposed to be this clandestine war between well connected gangs. It also allows groups of players to fly together and know objectives: they know NPCs will be after them, they know the destination transport needs protecting, and so on to make an almost ad hoc convoy mission. The most important thing is that it allows ED PvE difficulty ratings, and works as an augmented PvE mission using established mechanics.and makes routine hauling have much more action to it. If you don't want hard NPCs then you simply choose the lower difficulty Powerplay cargo hauling mission.
You have a good point about SC being the only place for traders to get attacked, and NPCs are terrible at that.
Interdiction changes could help with this a lot. Right now, it's impossible to lose an interdiction from an NPC, and impossible to WIN an interdiction from a human. Both of these things could use significant changes, and that alone would help a lot with the problems you point out.
An idea I had a while back was for cops to start pursuing the instant an interdiction begins, so the longer the defending party is able to hold on, the less time they'll have to wait before the police arrive when the interdiction finally ends. If you're being interdicted in a T9, the cops should really be your only hope of winning; if you can hold on long enough, the cops will be there immediately on drop, and at that point most NPCs should immediately disengage.
This means that taking a T9 into territory where the cops wont be on your side will be suicide, giving significant meaning to the 'hostile' tag on your hud.
Sorted, its like an ingame purchase. Ive 'gifted' it to you. All you needs do to redeem is go to your powerplay menu, pick a faction and click 'pledge'.I just don't like being told what to do. Buy me the game and I'll play on any mode you want
Just to be clear though, im not telling you what to do, im just enabling you to do what you want, if you want. Which is basically what powerplay groups do. I cant speak to the inner details of the other Powers, but in Utopia we have our whole ethos built around that, and anyone is welcome to join our discord, pledged, interested in Powerplay, or not at all.
This is the frustration with Powerplay- the game and FD have the answers in the game right now but not in the right placesThen I'd be absolutely down with that. I don't know that it would fix the problems you point out, but hey, anything to make powerplay more interesting would be great!
(as long as those changes remain fair to all the players involved)
It'd be even cooler if the number of npcs were controlled by CC expenditure. Actually, that would perfectly allow exactly what you want while remaining fair. You can spend CC to put highly engineered npcs in specific systems attacking other powers that travel there. These npcs would be pan-modal. Because they exist only in specific systems, they can be far more dangerous than ones that exist universally.
I really need to write up a detailed Galactic Conquest proposal. It sounds super fun the more I think about it, and with Odyssey dropping, we'll finally have a chance for it to actually be COMPLETELY possible. Ground forces, air forces, and space forces, all together in one thing.
Its like combat expansions, a lot of issues would instantly go away if FD used the new CZ mechanics.This is a good idea. It also dovetails into a C+P idea I had where the distance and spatial zone (i.e. shipping lane, deep space / close to station) to the main stations dictates sec response times. So, rather than fixed times its the distance to the main station (presumably where sec launch from). With your idea as well that would make a very nice system, especially if Powerplay had NPC responders in some form.