He's outlined this in great detail already. I replied heavily on page 7 & 8 for why it is fundamentally better. I will not repeat myself, you can choose to go back and read if you wish.
The fundamental problem with making Powerplay Open-Only.
- Thread starter DemiserofD
- Start date
No, he's outlined what he thinks would happen, not why those things are better.
Responding with, "Well, that's just your opinion man." Is not a constructive response to a well-thought out presentation of ideas.
Go read them and find out, I explain my reasoning in detail; teamwork becomes true teamwork and not just asking someone to shoot 1000 ships for a week.
Why is that better?
If someone's suggestion for why something should be changed to suit them and not me ultimately breaks down to the fact that they would enjoy it more, ignoring the fact that I would enjoy it less, then it's not a relevant suggestion.
Well, Powerplay has evolved into a team game rather than an averaging of disconnected individuals doing random things. Currently that teamwork is a group of people saying "I'll fortify X by 1000", or "I've UMed Y by 10,000". Thats very superficial compared to when Powers clash in open where wings, large groups and mercs need real time direction, protection and participation. Group PvP tactics then become relevant, eroding min/ max builds via threat levels present.
So an Open dimension makes co-ordinating a power much more complex and rewarding. Having been a solo Powerplay player for a long time and then getting into Open wars is like night and day as far as minute to minute gameplay. Suddenly you use all your skills, you can't get sloppy and everything you know comes together.
By what measure do you call it 'superficial'? Many people enjoy non-pvp activities like hauling or mining much more than pvp.
He wants someone to spoon feed him the inferences that he cannot make himself. Rubbernuke, let's not waste our time anymore. I am a big fan our your ideas and I see the potential they could have for OOPP revitalizing the game - save them for the next thread. I am muting this one.
My last response to you in this thread. This is why no one can have an intelligent objective discussion with you, you are entrenched in your position because of your personal bias, and immediately critical of OBJECTIVE IDEAS because they do not suit how you currently choose to play Powerplay (solo mode only). If someone has a better idea than I do for how something should be done, I do not automatically dismiss that better idea because I disagree with what the outcome would mean for ME. If it is the overall best option for the game moving forward (aka the greater good), I am all for it. I want Elite to be the best game it can possible be. And if that means it is not for me...I will simply move on.
I don't think I'm asking for much. Just proof that these suggestions would make powerplay better overall, and not just for a specific subset of players.
As I've said since the OP, the reason I don't think this proposition would be good is because it would only shift the balance of power, not actually improve it.
goodbye.
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
I'll file this as "Unknown but with a few advocates that claim to represent a constituency of players, though without being able to explain a single thing that said constituency get out of it."
It's a pertinent question for FDev, since they need to sell PP as an exciting feature that was advertised as being around galactic conflict and conquest (https://community.elitedangerous.com/fr/node/178). Out of the above quote and the situation described by OO advocates, I know which I'd be more comfortable broadcasting, and which is more representative of the devs' intentions.
The assertion that all of this OO talk is extrapolation and that terrible things would happen that we can't foresee rings false when we have recent experience of cycles with huge multi-wing face-offs. This excitement occurred because we are an open only power group.
Re: the greater good - that is for FDev to decide, and to extrapolate following any changes they consider making.
Just like all features in Elite, they are for a subset of players. Powerplay never had a focus, and now with a much improved BGS it has to find an audience or it will fade into oblivion.
'The balance of power' has to be in attack, otherwise you can't break apart powers in a finite space leading to an exhausted gameboard Attack is only possible through effective opposition, which is really players. My bet (if FD do anything) is for a weighted approach, but we will have to see.
I'll file this as "Unknown but with a few advocates that claim to represent a constituency of players, though without being able to explain a single thing that said constituency get out of it."
It's a pertinent question for FDev, since they need to sell PP as an exciting feature that was advertised as being around galactic conflict and conquest (https://community.elitedangerous.com/fr/node/178). Out of the above quote and the situation described by OO advocates, I know which I'd be more comfortable broadcasting, and which is more representative of the devs' intentions.
The assertion that all of this OO talk is extrapolation and that terrible things would happen that we can't foresee rings false when we have recent experience of cycles with huge multi-wing face-offs. This excitement occurred because we are an open only power group.
Well, the main reason the one question is being asked but not the other, is because the one is the only proposal being currently made.
If you want to sell an idea to a group of people, you must show them why that proposal is in their best interests, or they obviously won't be interested. Only, all the benefits of the proposals being made are exclusively for the party suggesting it, so instead we end up in an eternal deadlock of conflicting opinions.
What I've been trying to do, is to show how these suggestions are not, in and of themselves, a matter of the good of powerplay as a whole. They simply seek to shift powerplay from one thing to another; from a form that currently benefits one side, to a different form that would benefit a different side. But change does not necessarily imply improvement.
I'll be the first to admit that Powerplay as it currently stands has many issues. But massive changes are a matter of last resort, not the first choice. Powerplay has remained essentially unchanged since its release, and there are many smaller changes that could be made that would make it a more interesting game for everyone, without taking the risk of throwing whatever is left of the baby out with the bathwater.
I won't disagree with that. I just disagree with the approach.
Even if true, this has nothing to do with oopp.
My primary standpoint can be broken down into a simple statement; oopp is not the only - or best - way to fix the many problems with Powerplay.
Every single one of them can be fixed with alterations to the base mechanics of powerplay.
And if this is true, why go through the massive change that oopp would bring? Don't change things just for the sake of change, just fix the problems.
And you are still not seeing the problem: without some form of effective opposition PP will never be healthy and functional. Powers need to be vulnerable to attack- attack needs to be effective to free space to fight over and continue the cycle of acquisition, shedding and defence.
I can;t disagree that there are better ways to fix Powerplay, a total redesign is the best way- but as I said pages back, FD have not indicated they'd do that. At best its using the parts of the design we have- and for that the only real tool left is open, so players become the absent NPCs to provide the opportunistic encounters.
I'd like to know, using what we have (i.e. no missions, no new design, what we have now in PP) what would you change within these limits (i.e. this proposal)?
Open Only is a much bigger change than adding stuff like missions or whatever, so that's a loaded question.
Set your parameters properly and you can make anything look like the 'only' answer.
Well thought out? Now that is just your opinion man. PP would need a complete revamp for it to be more than what it currently is, a time consuming delivery bucket filling mini game. OO, or open weighting, could possibly be a consideration in that. However, all I have seen in this thread is people explaining what they want to happen if OOPP is instituted, and ignoring what does happen when people are in open in any concentration. PKers show up, and then pew pew with zero context, and no consideration regarding what that pew pew means to the BGS/PP/CG/new players trying to get their FSD engineered.
And here is the kicker, I really don't see how OOPP would change the outcome. Too many ways to get the deliveries through, and fortification is meet the goal and done.
Uncap both fortification and undermine and you get something interesting for a week until people realize it's now a job, a job that bleeds credits. That might work for WOW, not sure it would for ED.
I don't have a good answer for how to fix PP, but throwing feces at the wall and hoping something sticks does not seem a constructive way to go about it. OO anything is pretty much a monkey feces idea in ED.
I feel there are two proposals here - one is change and the other is status quo. The changes you might like are what represent a huge change as you describe it. That's in terms of dev time, which is the real currency here, and we tend to assume it's unlikely they'll assign enough for that. Ergo status quo.
OO or open weighting (OW) of merits represents a small change, technically. Admittedly OO represents an upheaval for a section of the PP player base, but temptingly straightforward to do, OW less effective but also easy enough. There's a subtext here around the fear not of the phantom (in a PP context) of "ganking", but of losing, that that's the real upheaval feared. That's not a valid defence of status quo.
Would love to know what the devs are really thinking around all this.
FD set the scope of change with the proposal I linked. I argue for Open because thats the only real option (bar weighting) we have been given, and between the two offers much more depth to the feature. Everything else is formula tweaks, and extra voting- i.e., nothing new gameplay wise.
So its not loaded, its what FD themselves came up with. Until they say otherwise this is the scope that you have to build ideas round.