Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Robert Maynard]

Nope. Because you could still engage in powerplay from solo in every style of play. Just not a single aspect of the power play process.

Not in the Open only proposal. Other user generated proposals exist (for many things) but are not known to be being considered.

Since they are open to gating parts of powerplay to PvP, based on the feedback threads, then the idea that game did not actively seek players who want others playing with them is false, (also wings, multicrew, and squadrons but hey who's counting) as that change directly seeks to resolve that.

While the investigation includes the possibility of Powerplay becoming Open only (but no guarantee), it also stated that no other features were considered suited, by Frontier, to an Open only or Open bonus.

There's a distinction to be made between players who choose to play in a multi-player game mode and players who don't / can't accept that other players don't need to play among other players to affect the game. The game design caters to the former, not the latter (apart from CQC, of course). Wings and multi-crew exist in both multi-player game modes.

Also, given the fact they are open to making powerplay that way, PvP being optional in that feature would indeed be a failing, or it wouldn't have caused discussion to remedy. It would seem frontier doesn't agree with their own stance on player choice through the entire game.

Being open to investigating a potential change may, or may not, indicate that the change would be made - it was an investigation, clearly stated not to be a "fait accompli".

 

[Rubbernuke]

Other people are available in two of the three game modes, so co-op multi-player (without PvP) is possible with careful selection of Private Group members (noting the improvement to PG management that followed Distant Ganks 2, namely if a player is playing in the PG when kicked from the PG their session is terminated, reducing the mischief making potential for players who consciously break PG "rules"). Opinions vary on the necessity of PvP in any game feature.

But this is exactly how I describe in the hurdler analogy, as well as the NPC deficiencies that make Solo and PG so efficient. Powerplay is supposed to be a more immediate and visible alternative to the BGS (hence its mechanisms). If two modes have less potential attackers in them, what are you going to pick?

Depends on what rank the player wants to maintain.

But the situation is still the same- its not a casual opt in or out like the BGS, where there is no consequence at all.

Tying modules to Powers was a decision made rather odd due to retention after de-pledging as it encourages min/max players to module shop.

It was a bribe by and large, so that pledge population sizes would be larger. But, because Powerplay works at a mathematical level people found the quickest way to dump merits to get there (as seen in close systems being fortified to 1000% levels).

While there may only be one correct way to play it, there's no guarantee that participants seek out groups for guidance.

And is why a lot of people who go in cold wind up frustrated and leave, or get confused and do the wrong thing (accidental 5C). I have personally flown out and chatted to people in Open to guide them because there is nothing in game to explain the rules- note also there is no Powerplay entry in the pilots handbook.

"Done well" is subjective, as is the necessity, or lack thereof, for a second abstracted system to deal with a perceived problem.

The BGS is heavily abstracted, that is battles are won via the amount of CZs in aggregation over 24 hours- like chess by post- you see the result of your actions each tick interval. Powerplay is abstracted, but much much less- actions are 1:1 and seen in real time (i.e. I move a merit and it will appear instantly on the score). These systems are different and allow different experiences- one is slow and at your own pace, the other is immediate (or allows for it). People clamour for a more representative BGS, Powerplay is that- but its hamstrung by modes.

The issue with the proposal to is the retrospective PvP-gating of base game content when the base game has, and continues to be, sold to all as a game where PvP is entirely optional - effectively taking it away from players who eschew PvP (and there's no requirement to even tolerate PvP in this game) and removing it completely from players who don't enjoy premium platform access on their console.

And, if players in solo and PG have content thats geared to them in Powerplay they still have a role in that feature. The other is that by limiting interactions via modes certain features like Powerplay are rendered down to the same experience as another feature with less work required- meaning Powerplay loses its reason to exist in the game.

... and Open only proponents are suggesting that everyone goes in to Open - whether they like PvP, or not.

You may not like it, but other people do- its sensible to cater for everyone in a focussed way rather than expecting features to fit every play style as is.

I suspect that one of the reasons that Powerplay proved to be unpopular is the permanent "target" on the back of each pledged player, whether or not they are engaging in Powerplay activities.

But thats the point of it, and one that a lot of players expected. Its a direct competition- if you don't want that don't pledge. I imagine your example applies to module shoppers who want the module and not the 'baggage'.

.... or one participant arrives on the track just after an optional bout of wrestling.

Its still asking your opponent to wrestle, because without crossing into anothers lane they can't do anything. Powerplay should be in part or wholly about having a hurdle race with no lane markings at all; so if you want to wrestle your opponent you can, while another hurdler takes their place running.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Not in the Open only proposal. Other user generated proposals exist (for many things) but are not known to be being considered.

While the investigation includes the possibility of Powerplay becoming Open only (but no guarantee), it also stated that no other features were considered suited, by Frontier, to an Open only or Open bonus.

Irrelevant to my point that frontier actually does seek the players who seek pvp/players who want others to interact with.

There's a distinction to be made between players who choose to play in a multi-player game mode and players who don't / can't accept that other players don't need to play among other players to affect the game. The game design caters to the former, not the latter (apart from CQC, of course). Wings and multi-crew exist in both multi-player game modes.

Being open to investigating a potential change may, or may not, indicate that the change would be made - it was an investigation, clearly stated not to be a "fait accompli".

nobody implied the change was hard committed to. Being open to the change indicates that the current execution is lacking, in fedvs own eyes. And the fact they suggested it at all, means that the idea of "forced PvP" (heaven forbid a player needs to evade trouble) is not outside the realm of possibility or against the vision they have for the game, as you so feverishly love to proclaim.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But this is exactly how I describe in the hurdler analogy, as well as the NPC deficiencies that make Solo and PG so efficient. Powerplay is supposed to be a more immediate and visible alternative to the BGS (hence its mechanisms). If two modes have less potential attackers in them, what are you going to pick?

It's a consequence of PvP being optional - and Frontier's choice not to set the challenge posed by NPCs (generated by the game for our entertainment) at the level of highly skilled players in engineered ships (who may not be "fun" to play with).

The BGS is heavily abstracted, that is battles are won via the amount of CZs in aggregation over 24 hours- like chess by post- you see the result of your actions each tick interval. Powerplay is abstracted, but much much less- actions are 1:1 and seen in real time (i.e. I move a merit and it will appear instantly on the score). These systems are different and allow different experiences- one is slow and at your own pace, the other is immediate (or allows for it). People clamour for a more representative BGS, Powerplay is that- but its hamstrung by modes.

Which is, again, a consequence of PvP remaining optional within Powerplay.

And, if players in solo and PG have content thats geared to them in Powerplay they still have a role in that feature. The other is that by limiting interactions via modes certain features like Powerplay are rendered down to the same experience as another feature with less work required- meaning Powerplay loses its reason to exist in the game.

Not if the Open only proposal goes through as is.

You may not like it, but other people do- its sensible to cater for everyone in a focussed way rather than expecting features to fit every play style as is.

I find PvP to be a waste of my time - and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that. Whether Frontier chooses to remove the option with regard to PvP within Powerplay remains to be seen.

But thats the point of it, and one that a lot of players expected. Its a direct competition- if you don't want that don't pledge. I imagine your example applies to module shoppers who want the module and not the 'baggage'.

As written it would potentially apply to anyone who does not Powerplay full time.

Its still asking your opponent to wrestle, because without crossing into anothers lane they can't do anything. Powerplay should be in part or wholly about having a hurdle race with no lane markings at all; so if you want to wrestle your opponent you can, while another hurdler takes their place running.

The opinion as to what Powerplay should be probably varies with every player.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Irrelevant to my point that frontier actually does seek the players who seek pvp/players who want others to interact with.

An investigation into a potential suite of changes to a single existing game feature may be considered to be seeking players who seek PvP - and while a change to Open only for Powerplay would represent a change to the choice philosophy relating to which mode features can be engaged in, it's not the whole game.

It might also be considered to be an attempt to repurpose a relatively unpopular feature, i.e. one where the change would affect the fewest players who don't enjoy PvP, for lower cost than creating a new feature from scratch, for a subset of the player-base for whom the game does not currently specifically cater, i.e. those who want a game feature unaffected by players in Solo and Private Groups, albeit still affected by players on all three platforms.

That the game is multi-player is not in question - however it's neither forced multi-player nor forces players to play in a single mode - even if all players share the ability to experience and affect a single galaxy state .

I doubt that Open only Powerplay would be satisfy some of those who want fundamental change to the whole game though, even if it was implemented.

nobody implied the change was hard committed to. Being open to the change indicates that the current execution is lacking, in fedvs own eyes. And the fact they suggested it at all, means that the idea of "forced PvP" (heaven forbid a player needs to evade trouble) is not outside the realm of possibility or against the vision they have for the game, as you so feverishly love to proclaim.

Quite often the fact that Frontier included the Open only proposal in the investigation is assumed to mean that they are prepared to do it regardless of the feedback. Which way Frontier will choose to go with Powerplay remains an unknown - with regard to the BGS their position seems clearer, given the restatement of who the BGS is for that post-dates the Powerplay Flash Topics.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's a consequence of PvP being optional - and Frontier's choice not to set the challenge posed by NPCs (generated by the game for our entertainment) at the level of highly skilled players in engineered ships (who may not be "fun" to play with).

But its not FD setting the NPC challenge- NPCs are useless for Powerplay because of EDs instancing, station drop distances, lack of persistence. You could swap all roving PP NPCs to ATR and it would make hardly any difference because of this fundamental problem. If FD did change this, then it impacts the whole game, whereas if its limited to players (ie Open) only Powerplay is affected because its optional.

Which is, again, a consequence of PvP remaining optional within Powerplay.

Yes- because its optional you don't need to consider it. You can dispense with any robust builds, advanced flying techniques or teamplay.

Not if the Open only proposal goes through as is.

To be honest I want Powerplay to have a strong solo PvE experience as well, just one that does not limit its strongest potential draw. Sandro hinted that with favours, I simply elaborated a bit on them since nothing more was said.

I find PvP to be a waste of my time - and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that. Whether Frontier chooses to remove the option with regard to PvP within Powerplay remains to be seen.

But there are people that do like it, and want it. And you have a feature thats practically unused (in player numbers) that can be repurposed for that in whole or in part.

As written it would potentially apply to anyone who does not Powerplay full time.

Powerplay is a full time task in ED. It involves recon, BGS, PP tasks as well as doing the regular things other players do like engineering.

The opinion as to what Powerplay should be probably varies with every player.

Very true. But when you see how it works for several years and know its failings inside and out its easier for some to suggest more realistic solutions.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But its not FD setting the NPC challenge- NPCs are useless for Powerplay because of EDs instancing, station drop distances, lack of persistence. You could swap all roving PP NPCs to ATR and it would make hardly any difference because of this fundamental problem. If FD did change this, then it impacts the whole game, whereas if its limited to players (ie Open) only Powerplay is affected because its optional.

It's not anyone other than Frontier who sets the NPC challenge.

Fitting Powerplay NPCs with interdictors might be a start (as I seem to remember a complaint about the lack thereof). Nothing relating to Powerplay needs change the rest of the game at all.

But there are people that do like it, and want it. And you have a feature thats practically unused (in player numbers) that can be repurposed for that in whole or in part.

Sandro never did tell us how many players would be affected by Powerplay changing to Open only.

Powerplay is a full time task in ED. It involves recon, BGS, PP tasks as well as doing the regular things other players do like engineering.

I doubt that all Powerplayers are so committed.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's not anyone other than Frontier who sets the NPC challenge.

But thats the point: NPC systems in ED don't scale to Powerplays level- they are suitable for missions but not much else. Its not the NPCs themselves thats the real problem, its how those NPCs interact with players. Mission level its fine, Powerplay it breaks down.

Fitting Powerplay NPCs with interdictors might be a start (as I seem to remember a complaint about the lack thereof). Nothing relating to Powerplay needs change the rest of the game at all.

But then that reinforces the issue of lack of variety- if the only place a player can get attacked by an NPC is in SC, its going to get dull. NPCs need to be able to be anywhere and attack randomly.

Sandro never did tell us how many players would be affected by Powerplay changing to Open only.

The PP population is low- you can find this out easily by watching fortification and prep levels. I know from being an insider as well that huge numbers are more often the result of a few dedicated players than lots of casuals. This low population is also why 5C is so disproportionately strong.

I doubt that all Powerplayers are so committed.

You would be surprised. All the powers I had dealings with had a core playerbase that did all that- they have to, because thats what the feature demands.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But thats the point: NPC systems in ED don't scale to Powerplays level- they are suitable for missions but not much else. Its not the NPCs themselves thats the real problem, its how those NPCs interact with players. Mission level its fine, Powerplay it breaks down.

I'm be surprised, if MoM™ was permitted to unleash her minions at "full ability" with interesting loadouts, for Powerplay that the situation would not change - however the Horizons attachment elephant is still standing in the room when considering the loadout aspect of rebalancing the challenge of a base game feature..

But then that reinforces the issue of lack of variety- if the only place a player can get attacked by an NPC is in SC, its going to get dull. NPCs need to be able to be anywhere and attack randomly.

I would suggest that when and where NPCs attack, or attempt to attack, is governed by what is considered to be "fun" for the majority of the player-base, noting that, in my experience, win an NPC interdiction once and that NPC doesn't try again in that system.

The PP population is low- you can find this out easily by watching fortification and prep levels. I know from being an insider as well that huge numbers are more often the result of a few dedicated players than lots of casuals. This low population is also why 5C is so disproportionately strong.

Not just the population - the subset of that population that engages with the feature in Solo and Private Groups - and the subset of that subset that engages in it in Solo on console and lacks premium platform access (which may be very few indeed).

You would be surprised. All the powers I had dealings with had a core playerbase that did all that- they have to, because thats what the feature demands.

I might at that.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'm be surprised, if MoM™ was permitted to unleash her minions at "full ability" with interesting loadouts, for Powerplay that the situation would not change - however the Horizons attachment elephant is still standing in the room when considering the loadout aspect of rebalancing the challenge of a base game feature..

Again, its not the AI really at fault- AI in ED is locked to within that instance.

ED is just a load of interconnected bubbles that have stuff going on inside them. Inside is fine to a point, its how those bubbles fit together thats the problem. In a mission, you only have one bubble for the AI to occupy which suits its scope. Go outside of that and the bubble is popped and its contents largely forgotten by the game. The problem comes in scaling that to Powerplays level, where the play area stretches across a vast area.To work Powerplay needs better links between these bubbles so Solo and PG have some sort of resistance.

I would suggest that when and where NPCs attack, or attempt to attack, is governed by what is considered to be "fun" for the majority of the player-base, noting that, in my experience, win an NPC interdiction once and that NPC doesn't try again in that system.

Which in itself is a problem too. As I said earlier, NPCs have only one area where they can attack you freely, SC. Since drop distances to stations are so short, there is no space outside stations for PP NPCs to attack you- nor can they when you take off. And even then, they need to be able to stop you, which is where harder AI comes in. The only solution to me is to scale the AI response based on your effort- the more you do, the higher your rank the harder the AI is in response trying to kill you. This way, hardened Powerplay guys permanently at Rank 5 would get the full hardcore AI, while people who module shop would get much less (but still some).

Not just the population - the subset of that population that engages with the feature in Solo and Private Groups - and the subset of that subset that engages in it in Solo on console and lacks premium platform access (which may be very few indeed).

From the powers that I have been involved with, the split was 70% Open and 30% Solo- although the Kumo are 100% Open. And its why I tried to give Solo and PG people a look in by trying to decipher what Sandro was hinting at.

I might at that.

To give you a taste when I was in the upper echelons of the Utopian Powerplay group: I did-

diplomacy (talking to other groups)
spreadsheet work for the BGS (100 systems each day)
BGS work in game (20 systems a day on average)
Recon of Utopian space
Recon of enemy space
Fortification
Maintained the Reddit page

This level is not uncommon, with people admining Discords, co-ordinating Powers and groups, fortifying, UMing and everything inbetween. Its only casual for shoppers, if you play Powerplay full on it demands a lot.

 

[Kira Mikamy]

powerplay is broken just because in solo or private people can flight more efficient ship: no shield only cargo and make tons of merit.
in open you have to fit your ship for Pve for doing merit, but need some exception to avoid to be killed by other player, so a better shield, thruster, less cargo and more hull.

isnt this a fact that forced me to play solo if i want to be competitive with other player? and only player can do powerplay, no npc. so is a "competitive pve" but you cant do it in open because is not efficient like a solo ship can be fitted.

this is ridicoulous.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

An investigation into a potential suite of changes to a single existing game feature may be considered to be seeking players who seek PvP - and while a change to Open only for Powerplay would represent a change to the choice philosophy relating to which mode features can be engaged in, it's not the whole game.

moving the goalposts. Nobody claimed it was the whole game. The fact remains fdev do seek players who want to PvP in the sandbox, based on their proposals, and base game mechanics. True they also seek those who don't. But the point remains that we are not some accidental byproduct. We are a target audience.

It might also be considered to be an attempt to repurpose a relatively unpopular feature, i.e. one where the change would affect the fewest players who don't enjoy PvP, for lower cost than creating a new feature from scratch, for a subset of the player-base for whom the game does not currently specifically cater, i.e. those who want a game feature unaffected by players in Solo and Private Groups, albeit still affected by players on all three platforms.

That the game is multi-player is not in question - however it's neither forced multi-player nor forces players to play in a single mode - even if all players share the ability to experience and affect a single galaxy state .

I doubt that Open only Powerplay would be satisfy some of those who want fundamental change to the whole game though, even if it was implemented.

Quite often the fact that Frontier included the Open only proposal in the investigation is assumed to mean that they are prepared to do it regardless of the feedback. Which way Frontier will choose to go with Powerplay remains an unknown - with regard to the BGS their position seems clearer, given the restatement of who the BGS is for that post-dates the Powerplay Flash Topics.

I agree, I don't expect fdev will make bgs open only as they've clearly indicated, or the rest of the game, as much as I may enjoy it. But it does seem that making an entire feature relegated to open is not off the table, and therefore "forced PvP" (once again, heaven forbid a player has to evade another player) is not entirely off the table, be it only for a specific feature.

And if it's not off the table, that means fdev sees the value in it, sees the player base that they stand to gain, and the buzz the game can then generate with it's player communities competing openly (pun intended)

 

[Robert Maynard]

moving the goalposts. Nobody claimed it was the whole game. The fact remains fdev do seek players who want to PvP in the sandbox, based on their proposals, and base game mechanics. True they also seek those who don't. But the point remains that we are not some accidental byproduct. We are a target audience.

More stating the obvious than moving the goalposts, IMO - and there were certainly those at the time that expected Open only Powerplay to precede Open only "all the things", regardless of Sandro's statements.

I agree, I don't expect fdev will make bgs open only as they've clearly indicated, or the rest of the game, as much as I may enjoy it. But it does seem that making an entire feature relegated to open is not off the table, and therefore "forced PvP" (once again, heaven forbid a player has to evade another player) is not entirely off the table, be it only for a specific feature.

Indeed.

And if it's not off the table, that means fdev sees the value in it, sees the player base that they stand to gain, and the buzz the game can then generate with it's player communities competing openly (pun intended)

I expect it may also have to do with revenue per player to an extent; more players = more revenue, if happier players buy more cosmetics.

We'll see, in time, what the outcome of the investigation holds.

 

[Dietger]

LOL

It is so easy. Is it not?

Stop making your life miserable.

edit /for clearanse
Solo and Private does exist form whom who does not want the hassle in Open

 

[Ezren]

powerplay is broken just because in solo or private people can flight more efficient ship: no shield only cargo and make tons of merit.
in open you have to fit your ship for Pve for doing merit, but need some exception to avoid to be killed by other player, so a better shield, thruster, less cargo and more hull.

isnt this a fact that forced me to play solo if i want to be competitive with other player? and only player can do powerplay, no npc. so is a "competitive pve" but you cant do it in open because is not efficient like a solo ship can be fitted.

this is ridicoulous.

So you see the problem as one where a player is choosing to play in a different way than you choose to play that could potentially benefit them, and the only solution you see is to make them play the way you think they should play, so that you can play how you want to play.

Or to put it simply: what you want isn't the most important thing in this game, other people want different things, get over yourself.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

So you see the problem as one where a player is choosing to play in a different way than you choose to play that could potentially benefit them, and the only solution you see is to make them play the way you think they should play, so that you can play how you want to play.

Or to put it simply: what you want isn't the most important thing in this game, other people want different things, get over yourself.

If what people want isn't important, then what other people want isn't a consideration.... Can't have one and not the other

But the issue he's addressing is a matter of balance, because indeed, what each person wants will vary, so rather than look at that, game balance should be the metric instead.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If what people want isn't important, then what other people want isn't a consideration.... Can't have one and not the other

Quite.

But the issue he's addressing is a matter of balance, because indeed, what each person wants will vary, so rather than look at that, game balance should be the metric instead.

What each person wants does indeed vary - and whether the game should be balanced around PvP remains a matter of opinion - given that only one game feature might possibly be being considered for conversion to a PvP feature in this game.

.... especially as players can't be trusted to not to collude to earn no effort rewards for encounters that should be contested, something that was learned early on in this game.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Quite often the fact that Frontier included the Open only proposal in the investigation is assumed to mean that they are prepared to do it regardless of the feedback. Which way Frontier will choose to go with Powerplay remains an unknown

Have there been any developments from Frontier after Sandro's grenade was thrown and was later backtracked as: it was just an inquiry?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Have there been any developments from Frontier after Sandro's grenade was thrown and was later backtracked as: it was just an inquiry?

It was left on this really:

Most of the suggested rules changes in the proposal have now received a reasonable amount of feedback to the point where we’re happy we could tweak and move forward with them if the opportunity presents itself, which leaves us with the interesting mode question.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal-part-2.430713/

From what I was told, "if the opportunity presents itself" was going to be way off (i.e. a year due to how far ahead these things are planned), and was caught by the latter half of Beyond being very chaotic. Its taken two years to get FCs even now, and that was a conversation topic around the same time.

What the changes will be? Who knows.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I bet it won't be ice planets.

Because I want that.