Powerplay in Solo

[Rubbernuke]

Open is there for those who wish to play in it - there's no requirement for anyone to do so. That some enjoy the frisson of the potential of a hostile player encounter is obvious, just as it is obvious that some have no interest in being engaged in PvP by a hostile player.

Which is illogical really, don't you think? By your logic you are saying that Open is pointless, don't engage in it if you are serious about efficiency. Its like Man United playing in the Screwfix League.

I don't have a problem with people in solo- what I do have a problem with is that you have one mode that is best for hauling that allows Powers to sidestep uncertainty from attack, making powers too stable (leading to stagnation).

Right now that uncertainty is in a mode that has players, but in the end that should be supplied by NPCs. Once that happens weighting can go back to being 1:1 between modes.

Indeed - however players in Open don't set the challenge for any player other than those who they instance with.

Which is true- but its the only potential challenge you'll get in any mode for Powerplay.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which is illogical really, don't you think? By your logic you are saying that Open is pointless, don't engage in it if you are serious about efficiency. Its like Man United playing in the Screwfix League.

Open is a choice, nothing more or less. It's not "special" in terms of gameplay or rewards.

I don't have a problem with people in solo- what I do have a problem with is that you have one mode that is best for hauling that allows Powers to sidestep uncertainty from attack, making powers too stable (leading to stagnation).

It's a consequence of PvP being optional and Frontier setting the NPC challenge taking the playerbase as a whole into account.

Right now that uncertainty is in a mode that has players, but in the end that should be supplied by NPCs. Once that happens weighting can go back to being 1:1 between modes.

The weighting is currently 1:1 between modes - with no known change being planned nor changes to NPCs.

Which is true- but its the only potential challenge you'll get in any mode for Powerplay.

Which suggests that no player has ever been challenged by Powerplay NPCs. I doubt that that is the case.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I think this is really the crux of the topic, whether or not mode choice is a difficulty option deserving of a rewards system. To me it is not, but I understand why people view it as such, as in practice it can sometimes play out that way.

We have been given three choices, play alone, with select others, or with all others. I've never viewed that as a difficulty selection. It isn't easy or hard mode, and I don't think it exists to set bars at which different rewards can be given. Between networking, platforms (and subscriptions), a simple desire for a single player or multi-player experience, there are many reasons these modes exist that have nothing to do with rewarding anyone for which they choose at any given time. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think they were put into place for accessibility reasons and to appease a larger audience, not to offer the fairest pvp or PP experience to those who want that from the game. The only benefit from mode choice is playing the game how you want to.

OOPP may be way better than what we have now for many, but I am against changing the game over the possible effect of a fundamental option while disregarding the purpose of that option.

Although now that I just re-read all of that, it appears I'm saying I am placing game accessibility over game quality, and I'm not too sure I agree with that. Crap, I've just talked myself into not having a position. What a mess.

Powerplay will always have the problem (in its current design) that traveling in Power territories is not challenged by NPCs like you are with players. NPCs are not persistent enough to follow you coherently, ambush you or even interdict you like players can and do. Its why I talk about NPCs not scaling to the scope of Powerplay which is taking a CZ and expanding it to the size of the inhabited bubble. At a mission and system level NPCs are great, its how they work and behave across systems that breaks down.

If NPCs were better at disrupting players I'd not have a problem.

Plus, I've just had a brainwave that needs investigation that might solve all of this. To suggestions!

 

[Rubbernuke]

Open is a choice, nothing more or less. It's not "special" in terms of gameplay or rewards.

It is a choice, just like choosing a harder mission is.

It's a consequence of PvP being optional and Frontier setting the NPC challenge taking the playerbase as a whole into account.

Unless NPCs affect efficiency in solo, modes will never be in parity.

The weighting is currently 1:1 between modes - with no known change being planned nor changes to NPCs.

Then inequality remains.

Which suggests that no player has ever been challenged by Powerplay NPCs. I doubt that that is the case.

I'd dearly love to know how many haulers in Solo get destroyed.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Quite, opinions do, of course, vary. However it's the game we all bought, regardless of play-style preference.

What else should attempts to actively exclude / reduce the effect of players who paid just as much for the game with respect to existing pan-modal game features that some players want to be changed to suit their optional play-style be called?

... and some consider the fact that players in Solo and Private Groups affect the game an "abomination" and want the modes removed. Not all players want the same thing.

I've other things to do at the moment.

I think there's a lot of pique and frustration on the part of those who have a clear vision of how close PP is to being something that really flies, but is hobbled, in their view (and mine), by competitive risk being opt-in when convenient. This can ferment into a hardline attitude, sure.

If someone feels that implementing meaningful risk is punitive, then a good deal of content is already locked from them as a punishment from FDev. I don't think "punitive" is the dominant attitude amongst open PPers toward the majority of players.

Also, those players notably would retain all the gameplay that already works well in closed modes, if PP was changed. They would still be able to access PP as much as any other activity they might pursue in open (or is their internet connection or chosen platform also a punishment from FDev?).

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You responded fairly well . What I'm after is a feature that attracts and retains players.

I also want NPC wingmen!

And a pony. But mainly NPC wingmen.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think there's a lot of pique and frustration on the part of those who have a clear vision of how close PP is to being something that really flies, but is hobbled, in their view (and mine), by competitive risk being opt-in when convenient. This can ferment into a hardline attitude, sure.

Which is a consequence of buying a game where PvP is not a required feature of any game features (except CQC, but that's out of game). Those who wish to have game features changed to suit them often seem to give no regard to those who would be adversely affected by such changes - even though they, like the players who would be adversely affected, bought the same game.

How would those players react to a push by players who don't engage in PvP to have it removed from the game (noting that Frontier have advised that they are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP)?

If someone feels that implementing meaningful risk is punitive, then a good deal of content is already locked from them as a punishment from FDev. I don't think "punitive" is the dominant attitude amongst open PPers toward the majority of players.

While increasing NPC risk may be part of the discussion, the main push seems to be towards Open only or Open bonus - which is either PvP-gating an existing pan-modal game feature or applying a bonus to those who participate in the feature in Open, whether or not they actually encounter a hostile player.

Also, those players notably would retain all the gameplay that already works well in closed modes, if PP was changed. They would still be able to access PP as much as any other activity they might pursue in open (or is their internet connection or chosen platform also a punishment from FDev?).

Having ones effect on particular game features reduced or removed simply because one does not wish to engage in an optional play-style sounds quite like a punishment, in a game where engaging in the play-style is not a requirement of any game feature (except CQC, but that's out of game).

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I also want NPC wingmen!

And a pony. But mainly NPC wingmen.

You can have a pony, but it has to stay in the SRV until Red Dead Odyssey addon is released. After powerplay is dealt with.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It is a choice, just like choosing a harder mission is.

Indeed - in a game with no difficulty setting.

Unless NPCs affect efficiency in solo, modes will never be in parity.

I doubt they ever will to the extent that a skilled player in a meta-engineered combat vessel could.

Then inequality remains.

The modes are not equal - that's not a requirement of them being "equal and valid choices": one guarantees that other players will not be encountered; one may contain other players who have joined the PG; one contains other players.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I doubt they ever will to the extent that a skilled player in a meta-engineered combat vessel could.

And yet I think I have the answer.

Indeed - in a game with no difficulty setting.

It does have a difficulty setting- BGS, your choices, mission difficulty, mode....

The modes are not equal - that's not a requirement of them being "equal and valid choices": one guarantees that other players will not be encountered; one may contain other players who have joined the PG; one contains other players.

Then we will just have to disagree on that one- I believe that you should be rewarded for putting yourself in harms way- you don't.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Having ones effect on particular game features reduced or removed simply because one does not wish to engage in an optional play-style sounds quite like a punishment, in a game where engaging in the play-style is not a requirement of any game feature

Hang on, are you talking about open players having their impact reduced or their strategy confounded because they don't want to engage in solo PP here, or something else?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Hang on, are you talking about open players having their impact reduced or their strategy confounded because they don't want to engage in solo PP here, or something else?

Something else.

.... as the PvE actions of players in all modes are of equal weight. That players choose to play among other players, which may reduce their efficiency in completing PvE actions, is their choice. Choosing to rely on any strategy that requires other players playing along is vulnerable to those other players not choosing to play along.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And yet I think I have the answer.

Many players have ideas as to how to improve the game to suit their preferences - we don't all agree that the ideas would constitute an improvement.

It does have a difficulty setting- BGS, your choices, mission difficulty, mode....

All based on choices for the player to make - but no launcher menu "easy / medium / hard / extreme" setting.

Then we will just have to disagree on that one- I believe that you should be rewarded for putting yourself in harms way- you don't.

I actually agree that hazardous encounters should be rewarded - however the reward would relate to the risk equation - and players in meta-engineered combat ships wouldn't do very well out of that.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Many players have ideas as to how to improve the game to suit their preferences - we don't all agree that the ideas would constitute an improvement.

So shall I delete what could be an achievable answer to the NPC issue then?

All based on choices for the player to make - but no launcher menu "easy / medium / hard / extreme" setting.
Then we will just have to disagree on that one- I believe that you should be rewarded for putting yourself in harms way- you don't.

The next time a players FDL chases me about I'll bear that in mind, and giggle more when an NPC fires its tickle beams at me.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So shall I delete what could be an achievable answer to the NPC issue then?

Of course not.

The next time a players FDL chases me about I'll bear that in mind, and giggle more when an NPC fires its tickle beams at me.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

So, who is winning?

Robertnuke or Rubber Maynard?



I must say, this forum doesn't get enough Open Only threads. Some days we go without a new one!

MODS! Bring back Hotel California!

 

[Arioch]

So, who is winning?

Robertnuke or Rubber Maynard?



I must say, this forum doesn't get enough Open Only threads. Some days we go without a new one!

MODS! Bring back Hotel California!

Reminds me of an old Star Trek episode...

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Something else.

.... as the PvE actions of players in all modes are of equal weight. That players choose to play among other players, which may reduce their efficiency in completing PvE actions, is their choice. Choosing to rely on any strategy that requires other players playing along is vulnerable to those other players not choosing to play along.

That's in the case of the current incarnation of the feature. If OP's measure was enacted, which is the substance of this thread, the roles would be reversed, or partly so. And whether or not to reverse the roles comes down to which players you want to detriment, again.

The problem comes in cases where the best strategies are made very difficult and prone to failure because one group of open players are not willing to give up enjoyable gameplay (including for their remaining opponents who engage), while many of their opponents are willing to for the sake of success. Sacrifice is an acceptable cost to succeed, but when you are sacrificing the viablility of the feature you're engaged in...

 

[Misty_Dark]

There are many reasons why you might not instance. Players must be opposed (if directly) by those on the same platform, and preferably in the same time zone - this is known by everyone here, and every group I know does that (even those whose open play culture is... patchy). Favouring open play for PP is about equalising risk and guaranteeing a possibility of meaningful in-context encounters providing gameplay possibilities (as "hunters" or, in my case usually, "quarry", both are fun with a team, for reconnaissance, forcing a tactic change, etc.).

Would requiring open play result in better or worse equity of risk across different player groups do you think? And I mean after taking into account factors like blocking and TOS violations?

Must a measure be a perfect solution before it can be implemented, or merely contribute a desired effect which outweighs detriments and balances the cost of dev effort?

well if it must be perfect then we would have not got any game.

But failing to take into considerations BASIC game design of how the game works, and that includes what the 3 game mode are all about, does often lead to making pretty bad suggestions.

So if you or anyone else want o PUSH THEIR AGENDA on other players, using FLAWED logic, then of course you better be prepared to have a "perfect" solution to justify that.
Because consider the opposite, that those other players would be able to force their preferred gameplay onto you? removing part of the game that you enjoy the most, how would you like that?

Luckily, none of us are in a position to force our preferred playstyle onto other players, as we have several options to opt out of other players preferred playstyle, like choosing the preferred game mode, block players etc. You are of course free to invite other players to participate in your preferred gameplay, but they have no obligation to accept or respond to such invites, that is their choice.
As everyone have their right to try to enjoy this game as best as they can, and none is forced to be the enjoyment of others.


And of course you had to play the "risk" card, that risk is highly subjective to individual players, and dependant on individual player skill and activity

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

So, who is winning?

Robertnuke or Rubber Maynard?



I must say, this forum doesn't get enough Open Only threads. Some days we go without a new one!

MODS! Bring back Hotel California!

I can't help thinking this could all be resolved satisfactorily in half an hour down the pub.