Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Robert Maynard]

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.

On the assumption that it is reasonable to buy a game that doesn't provide features that suit ones play-style then demand that it is changed, for all players, to suit the preference of the player that bought it (with little or no regard to those players who have bought the game for what it is), can we expect support for an Open-PvE mode (that still shares the single galaxy state) and/or PvP-flagging in Open then?

Selective acceptance of aspects of the game does not mean that the aspects disagreed with are necessarily "wrong" and need to be changed.

 

[Bashy81]

On the assumption that it is reasonable to buy a game that doesn't provide features that suit ones play-style then demand that it is changed, for all players, to suit the preference of the player that bought it (with little or no regard to those players who have bought the game for what it is), can we expect support for an Open-PvE mode (that still shares the single galaxy state) and/or PvP-flagging in Open then?

Selective acceptance of aspects of the game does not mean that the aspects disagreed with are necessarily "wrong" and need to be changed.

It is a different matter. Powerplay is described as a 'playstyle' in the structure of these forums. My suggestions are to improve the feature so it supports the playstyle it was always trying to provide, based on what the devs have said about it, and what can be clearly seen behind the intent of the mechanics in detail. It is not the same as trying to change the whole game into something it isn't, by apeing mechanisms from other non-equivalent games. Which is how I would describe requests for Open-PvE and PvP-flagging.

The changes I have always supported, would not affect anyone who does not want to engage directly in the tactics & strategy within Powerplay. It does not affect the entire playerbase, and does not profoundly change the nature of interactions for everyone.

I preferred the old discovery/exploration mechanics, but they were changed for everyone regardless. Since I am not much of an explorer, I never complained about it. As you said:

Selective acceptance of aspects of the game does not mean that the aspects disagreed with are necessarily "wrong" and need to be changed.

I don't believe any of the aspects I disagree with are necessarily "wrong", but their effects are fundamentally way out of balance, and need to be changed. (the biggest issues i'm referring to are the detrimental effects of 5C, and also Solo/PG, as they continue to manifest both independently and in combination.)

If no realistic & effective means of change can be found, then to allow the feature to flourish, they should be removed. & none of it affects anything but Powerplay.

It is nonsense to suggest this has any impact on the moral or legal obligation of a developer to provide the promised game in good-faith to the user. CQC didnt present a betrayal, nor would OpenOnly Powerplay. You can still affect in-game market prices as stated in the marketing. You can even still affect the galaxy from all modes if that is your want. You can still affect Powerplay from all modes, even with a hard-OpenOnlyPP scenario, since the BGS is still pan-modal, and Powerplay Systems' attack and defence triggers are determined by the BGS. This is a major consideration for all Powers and something to which we dedicate a large portion of our time & efforts.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It is a different matter. Powerplay is described as a 'playstyle' in the structure of these forums.

So is PvP - and it's entirely optional in all game features (apart from CQC).

My suggestions are to improve the feature so it supports the playstyle it was always trying to provide, based on what the devs have said about it, and what can be clearly seen behind the intent of the mechanics in detail.

Alternatively the proposals are to restrict or remove the effects of players in Solo and Private Groups who also bought Powerplay as part of the base game (as it was implemented in all game modes).

Assertions that Powerplay "was always trying to provide" support to PvP are disputable - as Powerplay has only ever been implemented in a manner whereby PvP remains entirely optional for those pledged. The later retcon of what Powerplay "was about" doesn't change how it was implemented - and the pan-modal implementation was, I suggest, no accident.

It is not the same as trying to change the whole game into something it isn't, by apeing mechanisms from other non-equivalent games. Which is how I would describe requests for Open-PvE and PvP-flagging.

Where was the scope of change requests limited to Powerplay only? Given that DBOBE has stated that "I don't see it as a PvP game", where does that leave those insisting that the game should not be changed into something it isn't?

Source: https://youtu.be/gEtHu3AXw2Q?t=2650
We've had a proposal in this thread to remove Solo and Private Groups in favour of an "everyone must play in my preferred mode" game.

If change is afoot, those who seek specific changes may get more than they bargained for.

Nothing apart from CQC is limited to a single game mode - Open only Powerplay would change that.

The changes I have always supported, would not affect anyone who does not want to engage directly in the tactics & strategy within Powerplay. It does not affect the entire playerbase, and does not profoundly change the nature of interactions for everyone.

The "tactics and strategy" of Powerplay can be directly affected by players in all game modes.

I preferred the old discovery/exploration mechanics, but they were changed for everyone regardless. Since I am not much of an explorer, I never complained about it. As you said:

That they were.

I don't believe any of the aspects I disagree with are necessarily "wrong", but their effects are fundamentally way out of balance, and need to be changed. (the biggest issues i'm referring to are the detrimental effects of 5C, and also Solo/PG, as they continue to manifest both independently and in combination.)

If no realistic & effective means of change can be found, then to allow the feature to flourish, they should be removed. & none of it affects anything but Powerplay.

Which can be applied to "players can shoot at anything they instance with" too.

Just because players in Solo and Private Groups don't engage with Powerplay the way that some want them to does not mean that they are "doing it wrong". That some players want Frontier to change the feature to enforce their out-of-game rules is obvious. Removing the ability to 5C would likely improve the feature for all players, regardless of game mode.

It is nonsense to suggest this has any impact on the moral or legal obligation of a developer to provide the promised game in good-faith to the user. CQC didnt present a betrayal, nor would OpenOnly Powerplay.

CQC is an entirely optional out-of-game ignorable extra - of course it did not represent a "betrayal".

Cancelling Offline mode, on the other hand, caused some backers to litigate against Frontier (and Frontier used the existence of Solo in an attempt to mitigate the effect of that cancellation).

You can still affect in-game market prices as stated in the marketing. You can even still affect the galaxy from all modes if that is your want. You can still affect Powerplay from all modes, even with a hard-OpenOnlyPP scenario, since the BGS is still pan-modal, and Powerplay Systems' attack and defence triggers are determined by the BGS. This is a major consideration for all Powers and something to which we dedicate a large portion of our time & efforts.

Indirect affects through the BGS are not directly affecting Powerplay, i.e. players in Solo and Private Groups would effectively have the ability to directly engage in Powerplay removed from them.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Powerplay is driven by PvE. But it was meant to provide PvP?

Aside from marketing blurbs which can be disregarded (Gilette is not the best a man can get) what mechamisms in Powerplay suggest they were meant to provide PvP gameplay?

 

[Rubbernuke]

The "tactics and strategy" of Powerplay can be directly affected by players in all game modes.

There is no real strategy other than do something faster in the end with 3 modes. You pick your move, and translate that into ED where you fly your ship. Sadly NPCs don't provide a replacement for players when it comes to the latter half of moving Powerplay cargo or combat merits about. If the latter had a solution to it, then the need for an Open portion would vanish- but it would take more work for FD to tweak and change the drop zones, NPC persistence, AI etc than it would for players to fill those roles who can do all that for free, and not disrupt the rest of the game.

Just because players in Solo and Private Groups don't engage with Powerplay the way that some want them to does not mean that they are "doing it wrong". That some players want Frontier to change the feature to enforce their out-of-game rules is obvious. Removing the ability to 5C would likely improve the feature for all players, regardless of game mode.

The problem there is again Solo allows risk free cargo hauling, PG allows AFK merit hoarding. The latter could be fixed by using new CZ mechanics but keeping the PP NPCs, the former requires NPCs outside of PP merit gatherings to be more aggressive and inventive.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Powerplay is driven by PvE. But it was meant to provide PvP?

Aside from marketing blurbs which can be disregarded (Gilette is not the best a man can get) what mechamisms in Powerplay suggest they were meant to provide PvP gameplay?

The piracy mechanic could be seen as that- I think its intention was a crude way to encourage more PvP encounters as a proto Open bonus since it did not have an equivalent in solo. The problem being that it was poorly thought through and allowed collusion.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The piracy mechanic could be seen as that- I think its intention was a crude way to encourage more PvP encounters as a proto Open bonus since it did not have an equivalent in solo. The problem being that it was poorly thought through and allowed collusion.

What I'm asking is, which part of the mechanics implies "this is meant to provide PvP encounters?".

Piracy is not a part of Powerplay mechanics, it's a general mechanic. Like the interdiction ability.

To me all of Powerplay looks like a vessel to encourage PvE gameplay.

Note, I do feel that with changes to the core mechanics it could be used as a way to incorporate PvP into the game, and I do feel the game could use an outlet for players who enjoy PvP. But the current mechanics simply do not support the claim: it was meant to provide PvP.

 

[Lateralus]

Powerplay is driven by PvE. But it was meant to provide PvP?

Aside from marketing blurbs which can be disregarded (Gilette is not the best a man can get) what mechamisms in Powerplay suggest they were meant to provide PvP gameplay?

Sandro said it was primarily meant to be a consensual outlet for PvP in at least one of the livestreams.

Besides you could never have a pvp territory control system that has no supporting pve mechanics, because someone needs a reason to show up and do something in the first place to get it going.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sandro said it was primarily meant to be a consensual outlet for PvP in at least one of the livestreams.

Again, which mechanism of Powerplay supports this?

Devs have said in 2018: we listened to your feedback in the forums about exploration.
2018: we identified 12 types of explorers and couldn't please all of them.

What devs on these forums say, doesn't always reflect reality.

Besides you could never have a pvp territory control system that has no supporting pve mechanics, because someone needs a reason to show up and do something in the first place to get it going.

Sure you can. If you park your fleet in an enemy system, and that would have detrimental effect to the control of that system, you got your reason.

Just an example from the top of my head.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There is no real strategy other than do something faster in the end with 3 modes. You pick your move, and translate that into ED where you fly your ship. Sadly NPCs don't provide a replacement for players when it comes to the latter half of moving Powerplay cargo or combat merits about. If the latter had a solution to it, then the need for an Open portion would vanish- but it would take more work for FD to tweak and change the drop zones, NPC persistence, AI etc than it would for players to fill those roles who can do all that for free, and not disrupt the rest of the game.

Which seems to try to suggest that only Open Powerplay has strategy - whereas it's just a different way of playing that may include PvP.

The problem there is again Solo allows risk free cargo hauling, PG allows AFK merit hoarding. The latter could be fixed by using new CZ mechanics but keeping the PP NPCs, the former requires NPCs outside of PP merit gatherings to be more aggressive and inventive.

Using the new CZ mechanics for Powerplay seems like a change that would benefit all.

Whether the challenge posed by NPCs requires to be changed remains a matter of opinion and under Frontier's control (as it has been since implementation).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sandro said it was primarily meant to be a consensual outlet for PvP in at least one of the livestreams.

As implemented, Powerplay provides doubly consensual PvP: 1) no requirement to pledge at all; 2) no requirement to play in Open to engage in Powerplay.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The piracy mechanic could be seen as that- I think its intention was a crude way to encourage more PvP encounters as a proto Open bonus since it did not have an equivalent in solo. The problem being that it was poorly thought through and allowed collusion.

Any player/player interaction permits those inclined to collude - Frontier learned this early with the multiple illegal goods scans / fines > bounties > "free credits" - which is why the bounty payout limit exists for player bounties collected.

 

[Rubbernuke]

What I'm asking is, which part of the mechanics implies "this is meant to provide PvP encounters?".

Piracy is not a part of Powerplay mechanics, it's a general mechanic. Like the interdiction ability.

Piracy in Powerplay early on allowed you to nick Powerplay cargo which undermined that system, giving you huge merit boosts at a time where 50 million was a lot of money. However it became the tool of choice for controlled turmoils and collusion. If it was alive today 5C would have broken the feature many times over.

To me all of Powerplay looks like a vessel to encourage PvE gameplay.

To me at least, Powerplay is a game of two 'phases'- a PvE phase where you collect merits, and movement phase where you take these cargoes and deliver them. Do note though that it gets complicated: only Powers who expand via combat have these flavoured CZs, and these can easily be disrupted by PvP players of any pledge (or non pledges for that matter). UM is the same, you can farm UM merits but can be also chased away to slow or deter your progress. Having explicit outward pledges, territory (allied / neutral / hostile) and simplistic cargoes (its either prep or fort) makes it easy to identify what a rival is doing- unlike the BGS where its near impossible in Open to determine intentions.

This latter phase of resistance to your actions is not served well by NPCs, who are hamstrung by instances, drop zones and persistence.

Note, I do feel that with changes to the core mechanics it could be used as a way to incorporate PvP into the game, and I do feel the game could use an outlet for players who enjoy PvP. But the current mechanics simply do not support the claim: it was meant to provide PvP.

If it can be done in a way that is equal to everyone, then thats a good goal to aim for. It is possible but it comes down to how much FD want to change- and I really do hope they give a new Powerplay the love it deserves because it would be a great asset to the game rather than being a perennial bone of contention.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Any player/player interaction permits those inclined to collude - Frontier learned this early with the multiple illegal goods scans / fines > bounties > "free credits" - which is why the bounty payout limit exists for player bounties collected.

The problem being was that the intention of providing a lure was good. It was the implementation that was poor.

 

[Lateralus]

Again, which mechanism of Powerplay supports this?

Devs have said in 2018: we listened to your feedback in the forums about exploration.
2018: we identified 12 types of explorers and couldn't please all of them.

What devs on these forums say, doesn't always reflect reality.

Sure you can. If you park your fleet in an enemy system, and that would have detrimental effect to the control of that system, you got your reason.

Just an example from the top of my head.

The thing is the debate about Poweplay tends to go like this;
PvP player: "the devs could improve pvp in power play by doing x"
PvE player: "but that would stop PvE players from being able to do y, so it should not change"
PvP player: "but powerplay was designed to be an outlet for PvP, not yet another way to PvE"
PvE player: "no it wasnt, it has PvE in it"
PvP Player: "Yeah it was, here's the former lead designer saying so in a livestream (provides link)
PvE Player: "He is wrong, because Powerplay now has PvE players in it and they would be negatively affected if it changed"
PvP Player: " What about all the PvP players who never really had a chance to enjoy the system because it never really facilitated a working PvP environment?"
PvE Player: They can go play CQC.
PvP player: lol do you even play Powerplay?
PvE Player: No.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Which seems to try to suggest that only Open Powerplay has strategy - whereas it's just a different way of playing that may include PvP.

In Powerplay you have layers of strategy- you have the mathematical where you pick a target based on certain factors, then the strategy of overcoming an enemy present as you fly. The latter is one dimensional in solo or PG, because the only strategy is to do something faster than your opponent. Open brings the ability to directly harm your opponent and slow them down, opening up new ways to win.

Using the new CZ mechanics for Powerplay seems like a change that would benefit all.

It would. The main thing though is that the old NPCs would be needed since PP in this area is about farming, and that making the CZs harder needs some parity (somehow) to powers who haul (in regards time / merits).

Whether the challenge posed by NPCs requires to be changed remains a matter of opinion and under Frontier's control (as it has been since implementation).

Powerplay is 100% player driven, which means in Open you can see a lot more structured resistance which is not apparent in solo or PG via NPCs. Since Powerplay has a scoring system (the Galactic standing) and is competitive, you have to balance out modes otherwise one will always be overused while another is not. Early PP piracy and merit weighting are possible ways to amend this, but they would need to go hand in hand with PG AFK changes.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In Powerplay you have layers of strategy- you have the mathematical where you pick a target based on certain factors, then the strategy of overcoming an enemy present as you fly. The latter is one dimensional in solo or PG, because the only strategy is to do something faster than your opponent. Open brings the ability to directly harm your opponent and slow them down, opening up new ways to win.

The strategy in Open seems to be little different - it just adds "and some opponents may, platform; time of day; instancing and block list willing, be directly opposed" to the mix.

Powerplay is 100% player driven, which means in Open you can see a lot more structured resistance which is not apparent in solo or PG via NPCs. Since Powerplay has a scoring system (the Galactic standing) and is competitive, you have to balance out modes otherwise one will always be overused while another is not. Early PP piracy and merit weighting are possible ways to amend this, but they would need to go hand in hand with PG AFK changes.

So, I believe, is the BGS - and it has no mode weighting either.

Changes to affect AFK "players" would benefit the whole game - and need not be limited in scope to Powerplay

 

[Rubbernuke]

The strategy in Open seems to be little different - it just adds "and some opponents may, platform; time of day; instancing and block list willing, be directly opposed" to the mix.

Currently yes. Right now it makes no sense to be in Open simply as its more dangerous and slower. An open segment would change that and then strategy, skill and co-ordination would be much more important.

So, I believe, is the BGS - and it has no mode weighting either.

Yes, but the BGS is not inherently competitive like Powerplay is. Also remember BGS interactions are broken into smaller interactions via missions and local tasks that suit NPC instancing, are balanced beforehand, and limited in scope. This does not scale to Powerplays bubble- NPCs can't ambush you or be inventive because they have no underlying strategy driving them, unlike players.

Changes to affect AFK "players" would benefit the whole game - and need not be limited in scope to Powerplay

AFK on its own is not bad- its the ability to do it without consequence thats the issue. If you had the chance to be caught then its just another risk to take because someone can drop in, nuke your ship that won't fight back.

 

[Mohrgan]

The thing is the debate about Poweplay tends to go like this;
PvP player: "the devs could improve pvp in power play by doing x"
PvE player: "but that would stop PvE players from being able to do y, so it should not change"
PvP player: "but powerplay was designed to be an outlet for PvP, not yet another way to PvE"
PvE player: "no it wasnt, it has PvE in it"
PvP Player: "Yeah it was, here's the former lead designer saying so in a livestream (provides link)
PvE Player: "He is wrong, because Powerplay now has PvE players in it and they would be negatively affected if it changed"
PvP Player: " What about all the PvP players who never really had a chance to enjoy the system because it never really facilitated a working PvP environment?"
PvE Player: They can go play CQC.
PvP player: lol do you even play Powerplay?
PvE Player: No.

The whole idea that PP had anything to do with PvP came much later that the initial release of the feature. When the feature was released there was no PvP Pledge, and no C&P exemption. That was added after the decline of PP. Or more to the point, after most players got the Modules they wanted. At best Sandro's characterization of PP as a basis for PvP was a rebranding of an expendable feature. And, it went exactly nowhere.

But, don't let anything get in the way of your fantasy above.

 

[Dommarraa]

Q. How do you improve pp?
A. Well, I wouldn't start from here

Objective of pp is sound, I expect functional requirements were sound, but basic design is just totally wrong. Tinkering won't help, even major work won't fix it, needs a different base.