General Remove private Lobby and single Player

[Alaska Sædelære]

And there is a need to cater for PvP in ED, otherwise, how will you attract more people to the game?

It doesn't seem to matter at all how many times this has been answered already... we just keep going.

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

 

[Rubbernuke]

I didn't actually say it was minor - just of less magnitude when compared to Odyssey - and free rather than paid.

But its not though- have a look at all the shelved work that went into Powerplay on the internet, and the plans that just got cut. Bobbleheads, decals, ties to Galnet, not to mention squadron like messaging. Thats a lot of stuff for something small. For example it was the only feature for a long time that had human faces in

As are those extolling the benefits to the game of changes that would actively exclude a subset of the player-base from existing pan-modal game features....

And I'd disagree with that- PvP is a complex and rewarding gamestyle that draws on far more of the game.

Simply put, we don't all want the same things - the only thing we are guaranteed to have in common is that we bought the same game.

Some perceive a need, no doubt - others bought a game with no intention of engaging in PvP.

It might be easier but it might also not be the most equitable solution when all players are taken into consideration.

And thats fine- one of my arguments is that PvP needs better representation within the game- an Open Powerplay is one way, while compensating solo and PG powerplayers with gameplay just for them at the same time but both playing to the strengths of that mode.

It's not confusion at all - we don't know what might be, - we only know the reality of the current implementation, not the large number of disparate proposals leading to a similarly large number of hypothetical implementations that may never come to pass. I don't disagree that Powerplay being made Open only would likely improve the game for some players, noting that some players would lose access to it completely and some would be disinclined to engage in it due to PvP.

Well what I describe is how Powerplay works and what is missing- and more importantly what the solutions on offer do in that context.

What would differ is the type of attacker - and that makes a difference for some players (a fact that Sandro acknowledged in a discussion on a different topic), so much so that Frontier chose to make PvP entirely optional in their game.

Difference? Both want to kill you- the outcome is the same either way. The only difference is one is very limited and does very little, the other has the ability to field the whole gamut of engineering and weapons, and be unpredictable.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Well, there is- its a six year old headline feature that has been left to die.

CQC says hello.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It doesn't seem to matter at all how many times this has been answered already... we just keep going.

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

Well, its pretty obvious- Powerplays gameplay is 2014 bgs gameplay and rewards. Who does this attract? Even if you updated the gameplay to 2021 standards, who would want to play it, considering its a CG x your control systems in size each week every week.

Powerplay has to stand out and define itself, otherwise whats its role or purpose? How is it adding value to the ED brand?

 

[Rubbernuke]

CQC says hello.

Yes and no. More has been added to CQC than what has been added to Powerplay.

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

Well, its pretty obvious- Powerplays gameplay is 2014 bgs gameplay and rewards. Who does this attract? Even if you updated the gameplay to 2021 standards, who would want to play it, considering its a CG x your control systems in size each week every week.

Powerplay has to stand out and define itself, otherwise whats its role or purpose? How is it adding value to the ED brand?

Non sequitur. What does this have to do with attracting more players, as per your previous claim? The answer is in the linked page which you just skipped, because you couldn't have read a single paragraph of it as fast as you were triggered to respond again.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But its not though- have a look at all the shelved work that went into Powerplay on the internet, and the plans that just got cut. Bobbleheads, decals, ties to Galnet, not to mention squadron like messaging. Thats a lot of stuff for something small. For example it was the only feature for a long time that had human faces in

Probably because it didn't achieve the player numbers that would be deemed sufficient for further development, noting that Frontier seem to adopt the "use it or it'll not get developed" approach to some features.

And I'd disagree with that- PvP is a complex and rewarding gamestyle that draws on far more of the game.

As is expected - as we don't all want the same things.

And thats fine- one of my arguments is that PvP needs better representation within the game- an Open Powerplay is one way, while compensating solo and PG powerplayers with gameplay just for them at the same time but both playing to the strengths of that mode.

As mentioned earlier, PvP added as part of (but not a dominant part of) an existing feature rather than PvP-gating or penalising those who play in modes other than Open is a quite different proposition.

Well what I describe is how Powerplay works and what is missing- and more importantly what the solutions on offer do in that context.

There are many proposed solutions - none of them part of a fixed scope of proposed changes to discuss.

Difference? Both want to kill you- the outcome is the same either way. The only difference is one is very limited and does very little, the other has the ability to field the whole gamut of engineering and weapons, and be unpredictable.

Those who don't see a difference don't get that there is a difference.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Non sequitur. What does this have to do with attracting more players, as per your previous claim? The answer is in the linked page which you just skipped, because you couldn't have read a single paragraph of it as fast as you were triggered to respond again.

So offering new things does not attract people to try said new thing?

OK.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So offering new things does not attract people to try said new thing?

OK.

Not all people.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Probably because it didn't achieve the player numbers that would be deemed sufficient for further development, noting that Frontier seem to adopt the "use it or it'll not get developed" approach to some features.

Undoubtedly- but now FD have a double problem- the BGS is where PP should be, so how do you set it apart and get people interested in it? Whatever path FD take its going to need to be radical.

As is expected - as we don't all want the same things.

But if you offer features for everyone then thats good, right?

As mentioned earlier, PvP added as part of (but not a dominant part of) an existing feature rather than PvP-gating or penalising those who play in modes other than Open is a quite different proposition.

And the idea of splitting Powerplay does just that and gives PvP a straightforward role. You can also make NPCs so hard that you have to co-operate in small groups too, but this requires the view that players should be in peril much more inside Powerplay.

There are many proposed solutions - none of them part of a fixed scope of proposed changes to discuss.

Until FD actually tell us what they will do, or can do, we can only guess. One certainty is FD looking at 5C, the danger being that a lot of solutions to that require further change that is not obvious.

Those who don't see a difference don't get that there is a difference.

Powerplay NPCs don't stop attacking you, neither do players. The difference lies in players being able to exist outside an instance and anticipate where you go to continue that attack.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Not all people.

But unless you do, you'll never know or have that potential.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But unless you do, you'll never know or have that potential.

Nor would they know whether the cost of development was wasted, or not.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Nor would they know whether the cost of development was wasted, or not.

Well you can argue Powerplay has been a waste, considering the level of work that went into it. The level of concept work alone is painful to look at, and judging by the later clothing concepts for faction avatars was totally jettisoned.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Undoubtedly- but now FD have a double problem- the BGS is where PP should be, so how do you set it apart and get people interested in it? Whatever path FD take its going to need to be radical.

It does not "need" to be anything - Frontier can choose to do whatever they want with their game, taking into account all of those who have already bought it and / or targeting an audience that they want to buy it.

But if you offer features for everyone then thats good, right?

Nothing is being offered by those seeking change (arguably they have nothing to offer given that they don't "own" the game any more than other players do) - only to remove access to or penalise players for engaging in particular features in modes other than Open.

And the idea of splitting Powerplay does just that and gives PvP a straightforward role. You can also make NPCs so hard that you have to co-operate in small groups too, but this requires the view that players should be in peril much more inside Powerplay.

Indeed - it's less unpalatable than the other proposals - and any increased challenge posed by NPCs is very unlikely to be satisfy all players.

Until FD actually tell us what they will do, or can do, we can only guess. One certainty is FD looking at 5C, the danger being that a lot of solutions to that require further change that is not obvious.

Indeed.

Powerplay NPCs don't stop attacking you, neither do players. The difference lies in players being able to exist outside an instance and anticipate where you go to continue that attack.

That's the facile interpretation.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It does not "need" to be anything - Frontier can choose to do whatever they want with their game, taking into account all of those who have already bought it and / or targeting an audience that they want to buy it.

Well, those who bought ED don't play PP If they want more people to even consider trying it, it can't offer the worst aspects of the BGS or general gameplay.

Nothing is being offered by those seeking change (arguably they have nothing to offer given that they don't "own" the game any more than other players do) - only to remove access to or penalise players for engaging in particular features in modes other than Open.

The split concept does that though- focussed PP themed missions for PvE in solo PG, open for the PvP aspect (which has paper thin PvE).

Indeed - it's less unpalatable than the other proposals - and any increased challenge posed by NPCs is very unlikely to be satisfy all players.

Its one approach- the reason why I think its worth considering is that when Powerplay is firing on all cylinders in open its a whole new experience that PvE could never replicate or match.

That's the facile interpretation.

How? In a feature about avoiding destruction to deliver something, how does being blown up by a player be any different to an NPC? How is it different hunting NPCs or players, when a player can change the tide of a week long conflict?

The main game outside of Powerplay I'd agree with you- but inside Powerplay (with its own C+P separate to the rest) the difference is meaningless.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, those who bought ED don't play PP If they want more people to even consider trying it, it can't offer the worst aspects of the BGS or general gameplay.

In which case it may not be worth wasting any more development effort on it - or, if dev time is allocated to it, it should be for the benefit of all players, not just a subset of the player-base.

The split concept does that though- focussed PP themed missions for PvE in solo PG, open for the PvP aspect (which has paper thin PvE).

Its one approach- the reason why I think its worth considering is that when Powerplay is firing on all cylinders in open its a whole new experience that PvE could never replicate or match.

As I said, less unpalatable.

How? In a feature about avoiding destruction to deliver something, how does being blown up by a player be any different to an NPC? How is it different hunting NPCs or players, when a player can change the tide of a week long conflict?

Quoting the whole post, as more of it is relevant to this discussion:

Hello Commander Ozram!

I think you are perhaps conflating two separate issues: the amount of challenge present in each game mode, and player versus player interactions. I think these are so fundamentally different that comparisons might not be particularly useful.

The challenge of playing in solo being too low (without taking sides) is a valid argument to make, although it might better be phrased as "the opportunities for challenge are too low in Elite Dangerous". It's actually something we are interested in looking at.

However, cranking up difficulty will not make Open more enticing. Conflict between actual people, even within a game, is a very different matter to taking on NPC ships. It has many psychological and social elements that would otherwise not be present. Incidentally, increasing the difficulty of NPC engagements would also make Open harder rather than fairer, so there's also that.

Perhaps the bottom line is the different modes are there to enable Commanders to play how they want to. We don't want everyone to play in Open because we want some sort of Armageddon PvP scenario. We just think that playing with other people, both cooperatively and adversarial, can be more fun, which is why we advocate Open play.

So in the context of a karma system, people playing in Private Group or Solo mode are not relevant. Why should folk in Open be interested in what goes on there? This is about making player versus player interactions more equitable in Open, getting more folk in there, surely?

 

[Rubbernuke]

In which case it may not be worth wasting any more development effort on it - or, if dev time is allocated to it, it should be for the benefit of all players, not just a subset of the player-base.

Or, if they want to have a broader amount of activites, change one part and try. As I argue one way to do that is via Open, which is a short cut in some ways but also allows more fluid situations 'for free'. The other is more work PvE wise. But both of these operate in the shadow of the BGS which is now in its third iteration, so whatever FD do its got to move outside that shadow.

Quoting the whole post, as more of it is relevant to this discussion:

And you miss the distinction between the core game (which is great the way it is) and what Powerplay is- the latter sanctioned warfare nested inside ED. Otherwise, why does Powerplay operate its own branch of C+P?

Notice that Sandro does not mention Powerplay in that quote- and for good reason, because the point to Powerplay is avoiding or dealing damage to an opponent. Violence is expected because thats part and parcel of the feature and thus the worst either an NPC or a player can do to you is blow you up but the job is the same.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Or, if they want to have a broader amount of activites, change one part and try. As I argue one way to do that is via Open, which is a short cut in some ways but also allows more fluid situations 'for free'. The other is more work PvE wise. But both of these operate in the shadow of the BGS which is now in its third iteration, so whatever FD do its got to move outside that shadow.

Frontier can choose to do what they will - we'll find out what they plan in time.

And you miss the distinction between the core game (which is great the way it is) and what Powerplay is- the latter sanctioned warfare nested inside ED. Otherwise, why does Powerplay operate its own branch of C+P?

So that it's less annoying for participants, I expect.

Notice that Sandro does not mention Powerplay in that quote- and for good reason, because the point to Powerplay is avoiding or dealing damage to an opponent. Violence is expected because thats part and parcel of the feature and thus the worst either an NPC or a player can do to you is blow you up but the job is the same.

Maybe - or maybe he was in the Powerplay lull between March'16 and May'18, noting the date of the post - and Powerplay simply wasn't mentioned.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Frontier can choose to do what they will - we'll find out what they plan in time.

Indeed, sadly time is not what we have- it may be too late.

So that it's less annoying for participants, I expect.

Its because combat was expected between powers and players, and that PP exists outside the C+P of the BGS.

Maybe - or maybe he was in the Powerplay lull between March'16 and May'18, noting the date of the post - and Powerplay simply wasn't mentioned.

I find that hard to believe when he himself said he felt Open was more dangerous, and later Powerplay as consensual PvP. Taken together this points to a thinking that PvE was found to be wanting enough to discount it in the traversal part of Powerplay. I don't fully agree with that, but I can't think of any suggestion I've seen from FD that adds any PvE to Powerplay at all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I find that hard to believe when he himself said he felt Open was more dangerous, and later Powerplay as consensual PvP. Taken together this points to a thinking that PvE was found to be wanting enough to discount it in the traversal part of Powerplay. I don't fully agree with that, but I can't think of any suggestion I've seen from FD that adds any PvE to Powerplay at all.

The PvP in Powerplay, as implemented, is consensual. Doubly so - as one needs to pledge then also choose to play in Open.