You get Combat Vouchers in Combat Zones. You turn those Vouchers in for monies and influence. It would be the same for PvP Vouchers. How is that not integrated? It would be as integrated as Combat Zones are now. It looks like you just want to dismiss the idea in order to get back to your open only agenda. As it always has, from your whole sect.

I don't accept the least resistance theory. I suspect that people do what they find the most fun, and rewarding. Look at yourself, I'm sure you don;t do your PP business outside of open. You stay in open for the chance at PvP. Well, buy giving players Combat Vouchers for PvP, as described above, you offer influence and monies that can't be gotten otherwise. Doesn't that sound tempting? This is way players are rewarded for actual PvP, and not just the threat of it.

Amateur psychology doesn't impress me. Like I said above, I think people do what they find fun and rewarding. Sometimes, it seems, rewarding is more compelling that fun. Offer influence and credits for PvP and see what happens. I mean, all we get in game is money and influence, what more could PvP require?

Oh yeah.... Forced participation. I almost forgot.
If you don't buy the least resistance thing then explain borann. It's the path of least resistance for credits.
 
If you don't buy the least resistance thing then explain borann. It's the path of least resistance for credits.

It's a wind-fall. I said people were moved by rewards. Offer high rewards, get high turnout. Do you think all of those takers are miners at heart? Lol. Add a PvP-Voucher with decent credit and influence rewards and you'd have an attractive force. Borann just points out the lengths to which people will go to to get a payday.

....That was easy.
 
It's a wind-fall. I said people were moved by rewards. Offer high rewards, get high turnout. Do you think all of those takers are miners at heart? Lol. Add a PvP-Voucher with decent credit and influence rewards and you'd have an attractive force. Borann just points out the lengths to which people will go to to get a payday.

....That was easy.
Borann isnt "going to lengths" though. O barrier to entry at all. It's the path of least resistance to get credits. Why people want credits will vary, but the point remains it's the easiest way to get them.

Like I said, I like your idea. However it doesn't address the issues with things like powerplay, unless of course it's simply the best possible path for rewards/merits. And even then it's not augmenting the game loop, it's just adjacent to it
 
Borann isnt "going to lengths" though. O barrier to entry at all. It's the path of least resistance to get credits. Why people want credits will vary, but the point remains it's the easiest way to get them.

Like I said, I like your idea. However it doesn't address the issues with things like powerplay, unless of course it's simply the best possible path for rewards/merits. And even then it's not augmenting the game loop, it's just adjacent to it

Why does that matter? It's the wealth that attracts them all. It's the reward. Offer a reward for completing a PvP encounter, and I'd expect an up-tick in PvP. PP could benefit from the Vouchers as well. Just as I said above. You could choose to redeem PvP Vouchers in for PP Merits and Influence. Boom. PvP integrated into PP just like combat zones are integrated into the BGS.

It would add an entirely new game loop. Unless game loops require forced PvP. Then I just don;t know what a game loop is. Jargon won;t save you here.,
 
Why does that matter? It's the wealth that attracts them all. It's the reward. Offer a reward for completing a PvP encounter, and I'd expect an up-tick in PvP. PP could benefit from the Vouchers as well. Just as I said above. You could choose to redeem PvP Vouchers in for PP Merits and Influence. Boom. PvP integrated into PP just like combat zones are integrated into the BGS.

It would add an entirely new game loop. Unless game loops require forced PvP. Then I just don;t know what a game loop is. Jargon won;t save you here.,
It's not jargon when I say game loop in reference to powerplay, or the game for that matter. It's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understand what the powerplay game loops are and how they function.

The current loops of powerplay are prep, expansion and foritfication/undermining.

Let's look at foritfication for example and add your suggestion in. Ok so I'm Bob the fort hauler and I've got 700+ tons of fort materials, which is 700+ merits for me when I turn them in. Jim wants to stop me from fortifying and interdicts me. Is the reward for being the loser of PvP interaction enough to risk my 700 tons/merits? I'm gonna guess no. If I'm Bob the fort hauler I'm still seeing solo/pg as the superior option.

How about combat based activities? Let's say I'm john the underminer in my murderboat. I've got 1000 merits from blasting NPCs I've yet to turn in, and a wing of enemy players arrives. Is it in my best interest to play it out and possibly only get the losing PvP vouchers, or is it in my best interest to utilize solo to turn these in safely?

If the path of least resistance totally circumvents a mechanic then how is that mechanic adding to the gameplay loop?
 
I’m all for introducing improved PvP content to Open ... posted some suggestions earlier in the thread for smuggling missions with specific time’s to deliver to specific systems and then intercept missions that could be taken by other players to try and stop the smugglers - along with the mission givers / powers you pledge to covering or reducing your rebuy to make it less onerous to newbies. All Open Only - of course - because the point of the mission(s) is to engage in PvP (and win!) and that’s what you get rewarded for.

I don’t PvP but I wouldn’t have an issue with some things along those lines being introduced - even maybe linked to PP - to provide more meaningful / interesting PvP for players that want that. But why is it so many suggestions - nay demands - from “the other side” involve removing content from players that don’t want to play Open or forcing people into PvP situations? If you want better content for your PvP play style, fine, but don’t come after other peoples content.
 
(This is a response to post # 1036)

I know what they are. I was busting on the use of a misused buzzword.

Then use Solo/PG. But, if you think you'd like a chance at more monies and influence by taking on a PvP fight, you can. The guys whaling around with 700 units of stuffs, can just high wake out. Like they do now. (I know enough to see that no one dies in E|D unless they are ok with it. In open, Private Group, or Solo.)

Your best interest may be to high wake, turn in, and come back for the fight. Maybe if you're playing in open, and vouchers are available you don;t take a hauler with 700 units. Maybe you take an aChief with 32 and make up for it through some hand-to-hand

Do you see the resistancce you're offering? Do you see the way you poke, and I fill? Well, keep it going until all of the holes are filled. Then PvP gets the boost you want, and nobody has to lose content, or choice. Or not. Keep going on about forcing people into PvP, I'll go back to poking holes in your plan.

The path of least resistance is a fallacy. It's a trumped up assumption used as fact.
 
(This is a response to post # 1036)

I know what they are. I was busting on the use of a misused buzzword.

Then use Solo/PG. But, if you think you'd like a chance at more monies and influence by taking on a PvP fight, you can. The guys whaling around with 700 units of stuffs, can just high wake out. Like they do now. (I know enough to see that no one dies in E|D unless they are ok with it. In open, Private Group, or Solo.)

Your best interest may be to high wake, turn in, and come back for the fight. Maybe if you're playing in open, and vouchers are available you don;t take a hauler with 700 units. Maybe you take an aChief with 32 and make up for it through some hand-to-hand

Do you see the resistancce you're offering? Do you see the way you poke, and I fill? Well, keep it going until all of the holes are filled. Then PvP gets the boost you want, and nobody has to lose content, or choice. Or not. Keep going on about forcing people into PvP, I'll go back to poking holes in your plan.

The path of least resistance is a fallacy. It's a trumped up assumption used as fact.
If path of least resistance was a fallacy then balance among the professions would be a non issue, borann would only be occupied by people interested in mining, gold rushes wouldn't exist.

Your missing the key component I'm hitting on here that the PvP suggestion doesn't function in powerplay as a way to "kick the buckets over" so to speak because of the same reasons PvP doesn't right now. There's no bottleneck. Without some sort of bottleneck, you're only pvping in the exact same manner as people do now. Solo and og allow the player to circumvent the bottleneck. Curently the bottleneck is consolidated areas of activity in powerplay, it's cirucmvented by the modes.

If you think there should not be a bottleneck fine. But without one you're not integrating PvP into any activity.
 
If path of least resistance was a fallacy then balance among the professions would be a non issue, borann would only be occupied by people interested in mining, gold rushes wouldn't exist.

Your missing the key component I'm hitting on here that the PvP suggestion doesn't function in powerplay as a way to "kick the buckets over" so to speak because of the same reasons PvP doesn't right now. There's no bottleneck. Without some sort of bottleneck, you're only pvping in the exact same manner as people do now. Solo and og allow the player to circumvent the bottleneck. Curently the bottleneck is consolidated areas of activity in powerplay, it's cirucmvented by the modes.

If you think there should not be a bottleneck fine. But without one you're not integrating PvP into any activity.

Define bottleneck. Do you mean something that forces a PvP encounter? If you do then yeah, I am dead set against forced PvP in E|D.

I substitute a carrot, getting paid, for the stick, forced PvP. That has been my entire point. You have to make PvP rewarding and meaningful, not mandatory. PvP would still be optional but maybe more enticing.

Insisting on forced PvP is a non-starter. Find a way to accept that others want, and already have, a very different game to the one you want. You will need a very compelling argument, and some rock solid evidence to get your ideas wide support. Which, to this point, you just don't have.

And, once again a reasonable approach is rejected because people could avoid PvP. Predictable. Well, at least you'll still be able to complain about Pg/Solo in Discord. Enjoy.
 
Define bottleneck. Do you mean something that forces a PvP encounter? If you do then yeah, I am dead set against forced PvP in E|D.

I substitute a carrot, getting paid, for the stick, forced PvP. That has been my entire point. You have to make PvP rewarding and meaningful, not mandatory. PvP would still be optional but maybe more enticing.

Insisting on forced PvP is a non-starter. Find a way to accept that others want, and already have, a very different game to the one you want. You will need a very compelling argument, and some rock solid evidence to get your ideas wide support. Which, to this point, you just don't have.

And, once again a reasonable approach is rejected because people could avoid PvP. Predictable. Well, at least you'll still be able to complain about Pg/Solo in Discord. Enjoy.

I didn't reject your approach. I said I like it, as a PvP inventive, but it doesn't address the problem with powerplay.

A handful of people marching their "no forced PvP in any possible circumstance" banner on the forums aren't indicative of wide spread anything. Definitely inconclusive evidence to make the claim if an idea has widespread support or not.

If there's no bottleneck at all, aka a scenario that forces the player into a situation where PvP is an unavoidable possibility in powerplay, a mode about direct competition between players, then the issues as they exist will remain. And more players will walk away from it disenfranchised.
 
I didn't reject your approach. I said I like it, as a PvP inventive, but it doesn't address the problem with powerplay.

A handful of people marching their "no forced PvP in any possible circumstance" banner on the forums aren't indicative of wide spread anything. Definitely inconclusive evidence to make the claim if an idea has widespread support or not.

If there's no bottleneck at all, aka a scenario that forces the player into a situation where PvP is an unavoidable possibility in powerplay, a mode about direct competition between players, then the issues as they exist will remain. And more players will walk away from it disenfranchised.

Neither are the few Commanders calling for mandatory PvP anything like a majority. Seeing as we have the game designed in a way that supports my views, I'm ok with the status quo. Yours is the side seeking wide spread support.

PP is not designed for direct competition. It is designed just like the BGS, fill those buckets. Later, after it's decline, there was an attempt to rebrand it. But, that idea lost steam, and pittered away. And, PP is not a mode. PP is a game feature. If players would walk away from PP because of the feature's lack of PvP elements, then they are long gone, because it never had any. The closest it ever got was a pledge and some C&P leeway. Any PvPer interest I ever noticed, was for the Modules, not the game play.

You know what I think about improving PvP. I know what you think. I guess we're done here.
 
Your suggestion is only marginally different from bounties (except those required a criminal component) if the vouchers are worth a damn, theyd be exploited like bounties were before the cap was imposed. If the vouchers arent worth a damn, then ofc theyre worthless.


This is what youre doing. Trying some armchair psychology to infer a superior understanding of two gamestyles you dont understand. Namely Powerplay and PvP. What makes you think you can intuit what makes these things tick and how they interact better than all the veteran players who actually do them, and have gained their understanding from experience. Not just their own, but the group experience shared and grown within the playergroups, who have done these things every day, for years.

Your proposal which gives an incentive to PewPew is utterly flawed in ways that has already been tried, and failed. It is also extremely simplistic, with only tactical basis and minimal strategy. Powerplay in Open gives both tactics and strategy evolving together and inextricably linked. That is the appeal. It falls down at present because the modes opt-out means evolution ends after the first encounter of difficulty. No thought or coordination required, just click Solo/PG and the driving force behind development, the need to think & adapt, evaporates.

This suggestion requires a CG level of concentration of players, (ie. a large concentration of the playerbase focussed on one objective) or for smugglers to wait for interceptors to come on-line. It is artificial, far more so than playergroups in a war deciding between themselves to 'play nice' and not utilise the most effectice options to succeed. Which is why we want 5C curbed and mode opt-outs removed, in the first place. Your proposal is not a substitute for the organic evolving conflict OOPP provides.

D'uh, I understand PvP and PP pretty ok. Long time player here, and a one time member of a large scale PvP group. You got the wrong guy. You are throwing around a fair bit of backyard psychology there too Commander. If O-PP was so great, why isn't it a PvP staple now? They took away notoriety for killing opposing pledges Commanders. They made PP Bounties persitant, and only available to pledged opponents. Why hasn't it eveolded into the PvP center of the galaxy? Because the OO-PP has been latched onto as a spearhead for mandatory PvP. And it doesn't offer up soft targets as it is. If PP offered such a perfect PvP backdrop, why has it been left to rot, when the PvP community could have stood up, got involved and shown FD they're interested. They didn't. But they still call for the OO-PP to save the day. Hooray for soft targets.

You could exploit PvP Vouchers about the same as you could exploit Combat Vouchers. When a player goes boom, they get one voucher, the winner gets 3. Done. There is still all of the other considerations. Like; Re-buys, Bounties, and Notoriety. The only thing extra would be the PvP Vouchers. In order to trade them players would have to deal with rebuys, bounties, and notoriety. If peeps find it necessary to pop each others Sideys, then let them go at it. No one should get rich, or powerful over it. We could make it so that PvP Vouchers couldn't be turned in for PP rewards unless the engagement was between opposing Powers. Otherwise, it could only be used for BGS influence and credits.

Or, suggest a method to eliminate the exploit. Making anything OO isn't going to stop scammers finding a way to game the game. You'd end up with those router control guys flying in open, without being instanced with anyone. So if you want to trash an idea because of exploits OO just took one to the face.

P.S. Make the weight of the vouchers, their value in monies/influence scale like the murder penalty does. Based on the relative value of the ships involved. Pop a Sidey with a Mamba, you get a little money/influence. Pop a 'Conda with a Viper you gets mad loots.
 
Last edited:
PP is not designed for direct competition. It is designed just like the BGS, fill those buckets. Later, after it's decline, there was an attempt to rebrand it. But, that idea lost steam, and pittered away. And, PP is not a mode. PP is a game feature. If players would walk away from PP because of the feature's lack of PvP elements, then they are long gone, because it never had any. The closest it ever got was a pledge and some C&P leeway. Any PvPer interest I ever noticed, was for the Modules, not the game play.

You know what I think about improving PvP. I know what you think. I guess we're done here.

PP has:

Separate C + P
Explicit pledges
Specific zones of activity
2 special cargo

These features alone make Powerplay uniquely suited to PvP, because unlike the BGS where you cannot tell intent, cargo (without scanner), alignment (i.e. you cannot know if they are allied with your faction) and that the whole galaxy is your zone of activity in Powerplay you can easily based on where they are. If they are in your territory, they are up to no good.

And you'd be surprised about PvP interest in groups, they leave because its far too easy to not use Open in Powerplay, making the effort worthless.

PP is designed to fill buckets as you put it- but its lineage comes from CGs and not the BGS, since all activity (i.e. fortifying / UM) has a direct 1:1 effect. The difference comes in that there are two buckets on each side that can be influenced, in real time.
 
PP has:

Separate C + P
Explicit pledges
Specific zones of activity
2 special cargo

These features alone make Powerplay uniquely suited to PvP, because unlike the BGS where you cannot tell intent, cargo (without scanner), alignment (i.e. you cannot know if they are allied with your faction) and that the whole galaxy is your zone of activity in Powerplay you can easily based on where they are. If they are in your territory, they are up to no good.

And you'd be surprised about PvP interest in groups, they leave because its far too easy to not use Open in Powerplay, making the effort worthless.

PP is designed to fill buckets as you put it- but its lineage comes from CGs and not the BGS, since all activity (i.e. fortifying / UM) has a direct 1:1 effect. The difference comes in that there are two buckets alwayson each side that can be influenced, in real time.

None of that refuted anything I wrote. The separate C&P and explicit pledging came well after PP's release, and subsequent decline. And, they came with no other changes to PP. Still, no heartbeat. Why? Because enjoying existing PvP isn't an option, when you can't have forced participation.

I will always attempt to steer your energies towards suggestions that preserve the choices and content that we have, rather insisting on forcing players into unwanted PvP. There are many proposals out there that do just that. We don't have to settle for changes that don't.
 
None of that refuted anything I wrote. The separate C&P and explicit pledging came well after PP's release, and subsequent decline. And, they came with no other changes to PP. Still, no heartbeat. Why? Because enjoying existing PvP isn't an option, when you can't have forced participation.

Well it does- it fuels the puzzle why it was made that way when the BGS was sat there and contrasts so much. In solo there is no need for those features at a conceptual level but suit PvP- you also had Powerplay piracy which was excellent to the point of being misused and reduced to 1 merit due to collusion. You could view this piracy as the PvP incentive of early Powerplay, but it was badly thought out.

I will always attempt to steer your energies towards suggestions that preserve the choices and content that we have, rather insisting on forcing players into unwanted PvP. There are many proposals out there that do just that. We don't have to settle for changes that don't.

Splitting jobs is not taking away anything, its just adding structure. The last thing ED needs is another heavily abstracted concept in a game that is about flying spaceships in various ways. Its simple- one half makes, other half moves.

Just to prove I'm not walking the walk, here are other proposals for various PvP concepts:



 
So OP, how's your tiredness of the open vs solo debacle now?

53 pages since you declared you were tired of the debacle. How would you describe your levels at this stage?

I'm sure the thread can easily reach 100 pages if allowed. I mean, this is how we ended up with Hotel California.
 
This suggestion requires a CG level of concentration of players, (ie. a large concentration of the playerbase focussed on one objective) or for smugglers to wait for interceptors to come on-line. It is artificial, far more so than playergroups in a war deciding between themselves to 'play nice' and not utilise the most effectice options to succeed. Which is why we want 5C curbed and mode opt-outs removed, in the first place. Your proposal is not a substitute for the organic evolving conflict OOPP provides.

I‘d argue that “we need you deliver Thing X at Time Y - because that’s when the contact collecting it will be there” - is not entirely artificial. The requirement to do so in Open would be be more artificial based on current mode choices but the suggestion was for adding more meaningful PvP content so that kinda has to be a given. Incidentally, since we’re talking about PvP, the requirement for smugglers / interceptors to be online at the same time is a given too, right? Hard to have direct PvP if folks aren’t online at the same time in the same place ...

I’ll admit I‘ve rather lost track of the argument in the thread at this point ... is it Open Only or PowerPlay for Open Only? Not sure anymore. Either way, my point stands ... EVERY TIME someone suggests a way for more meaningful PvP content for folks interested in PvP it is shot down in favour of forcing non-PvP players into PvP situations which makes me seriously question the motives. I don’t think y’all want more meaningful PvP content - rather some easy targets.
 
Last edited:
D'uh, I understand PvP and PP pretty ok. Long time player here, and a one time member of a large scale PvP group. You got the wrong guy. You are throwing around a fair bit of backyard psychology there too Commander

If O-PP was so great, why isn't it a PvP staple now? They took away notoriety for killing opposing pledges Commanders. They made PP Bounties persitant, and only available to pledged opponents. Why hasn't it eveolded into the PvP center of the galaxy? Because the OO-PP has been latched onto as a spearhead for mandatory PvP. And it doesn't offer up soft targets as it is. If PP offered such a perfect PvP backdrop, why has it been left to rot, when the PvP community could have stood up, got involved and shown FD they're interested. They didn't. But they still call for the OO-PP to save the day. Hooray for soft targets
You could exploit PvP Vouchers about the same as you could exploit Combat Vouchers. When a player goes boom, they get one voucher, the winner gets 3. Done. There is still all of the other considerations. Like; Re-buys, Bounties, and Notoriety. The only thing extra would be the PvP Vouchers. In order to trade them players would have to deal with rebuys, bounties, and notoriety. If peeps find it necessary to pop each others Sideys, then let them go at it. No one should get rich, or powerful over it. We could make it so that PvP Vouchers couldn't be turned in for PP rewards unless the engagement was between opposing Powers. Otherwise, it could only be used for BGS influence and credits.
If you have a good understanding of these things then why are you putting up suggestions that are so obviously flawed in elementary ways, and beating the drum that OOPP is just about sealclubbing or otherwise beating up on soft targets? Weird. Ive been almost exclusively running PP haulage for two weeks, because our faction is under determined attack. I must be a sado-masochist. Checking for personal-injuries, no im not. So maybe OOPP is about something you dont understand, but which has been well explained well in this thread and countless others Its been explained many times what its actually about, but you leap to the hand-wringing conclusion regardless. My 'backyard psychology' is entirely drawn from the absolutely crystal-clear ignorance i'm confronted with.
Or, suggest a method to eliminate the exploit.
There isnt one. Unless you give playergroups the ability to pick, choose & expel pledges. This would give far too much direct control to leadership groups imo and spoil the collaborative nature of our power, for one.
Making anything OO isn't going to stop scammers finding a way to game the game. You'd end up with those router control guys flying in open, without being instanced with anyone. So if you want to trash an idea because of exploits OO just took one to the face.
No point even trying to find fixes to problems when menu options provide the identical Opt-out in the first place. Does the unique implementation of P2P allow for the server to send anonymised dummy connection requests? Looking at the near-continuous trickle of data in both directions when im in SC, yes it does. Fail these dummy connections, get kicked. Get multiple kicks, be politley advised ur network settings are not suitable for Open, please enjoy game in solo/pg. Heres a link to our network advice to sort your * out. This may be a fantasy or not, butall problems are insurmountable before there are any incentives to fix them.
P.S. Make the weight of the vouchers, their value in monies/influence scale like the murder penalty does. Based on the relative value of the ships involved. Pop a Sidey with a Mamba, you get a little money/influence. Pop a 'Conda with a Viper you gets mad loots.
1 hrs mining gives you 10 conda rebuys. You really should be able to figure out how 5C would use that, if it gave 'mad loots' to the other side. And you say you understand all this, d'uh ?
 
Ok, the original was at pains to not misrepresent anyone but lets try again..

The idea that the game should be changed to suit players who chose not to inform themselves with regard to it's quirks and features while disregarding the wishes of existing players is equally unreasonable.
The idea that the game should NOT be changed to suit players who chose not to inform themselves with regard to it's quirks and features while disregarding the wishes of existing players is equally unreasonable.

I added NOT. Now it holds true for OpenOnly Powerplay too.

Apply the rules evenly, without partisan bias. A fine aspiration for all posters, as well as a clear rule for moderators.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom