Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Robert Maynard]

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.

Given that the previous open (well, it was possible in both multi-player modes) segment of Powerplay had to be dispensed with due to collusion, what is expected to replace it?

.... or is the only possible Open segment a restriction to playing in Open to engage in Powerplay?

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.

I expect that players who support Factions might beg to differ.

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.

Better for the game to respond directly to ships that sit doing nothing in CZs - as that would be a pan-modal response.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

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 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.



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.

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.

Guys, both of you are replying to me as if I'm arguing whether to have Powerplay not Open Only.

But the simple question I'm asking is this: if you claim Powerplay was clearly designed to provide PvP, which Powerplay mechanics support that claim? Lateralus even repeated the claim: PvP player: "but powerplay was designed to be an outlet for PvP, not yet another way to PvE"

If powerplay was designed to be a PvP outlet, show me the PvP aspects of the design.

Note that I'm not saying: "no it wasnt, it has PvE in it"

So instead of hypothetical conversations, how about answering my simple question?


edit: and to clarify, I do agree Powerplay could be an outlet for PvP, when the mechanisms supporting it would be implemented. Because that is where our disagreement is. I do not feel Open Only would provide those, you believe it would. That much is clear, and not something I wish to regurgitate again.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Given that the previous open segment of Powerplay had to be dispensed with due to collusion, what is expected to replace it?

.... or is the only possible Open segment a restriction to playing in Open to engage in Powerplay?

Open as the proposal states is more of an attenuator to what currently goes on- i.e. that your activities and plans at a flying level can be harmed or slowed by people present in your instance. Because those players are working to a plan against you, they appear intelligently and in ways that can't be predicted (like NPCs can, who are governed by narrow rules).

I expect that players who support Factions might beg to differ.

But the BGS is indirect to a greater extent, whereas Powerplay sits in an awkward spot. In Powerplay, ultimately the goal is to be #1, thats the 'win' state. The BGS has changed from being flavour to players adopting factions and guiding them- the BGS has no 'win' like Powerplay does, it just 'is'.

Better for the game to respond directly to ships that sit doing nothing in CZs - as that would be a pan-modal response.

It would, but you have to be careful that PP CZs do not become bullet sponges because that then causes balance issues. Outside PP CZs yes- having roving ships to spec ops level and defectors attacked by ATR style ships would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Open as the proposal states is more of an attenuator to what currently goes on- i.e. that your activities and plans at a flying level can be harmed or slowed by people present in your instance. Because those players are working to a plan against you, they appear intelligently and in ways that can't be predicted (like NPCs can, who are governed by narrow rules).

In which case it's a PvP "tax" that may, or may not, be payable dependent on many factors mentioned earlier.

But the BGS is indirect to a greater extent, whereas Powerplay sits in an awkward spot. In Powerplay, ultimately the goal is to be #1, thats the 'win' state. The BGS has changed from being flavour to players adopting factions and guiding them- the BGS has no 'win' like Powerplay does, it just 'is'.

Powerplay is, like the BGS, indirect with optional direct, as implemented.

It would, but you have to be careful that PP CZs do not become bullet sponges because that then causes balance issues. Outside PP CZs yes- having roving ships to spec ops level and defectors attacked by ATR style ships would be a step in the right direction.

Any "move along, now!" NPCs sent to deal with AFK players would, in my opinion, not form part of the CZ as a matter of course - it'd be like ATR being sent after a player once a threshold had been breached.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Guys, both of you are replying to me as if I'm arguing whether to have Powerplay not Open Only.

But the simple question I'm asking is this: if you claim Powerplay was clearly designed to provide PvP, which Powerplay mechanics support that claim? Lateralus even repeated the claim: PvP player: "but powerplay was designed to be an outlet for PvP, not yet another way to PvE"

If powerplay was designed to be a PvP outlet, show me the PvP aspects of the design.

Note that I'm not saying: "no it wasnt, it has PvE in it"

So instead of hypothetical conversations, how about answering my simple question?


edit: and to clarify, I do agree Powerplay could be an outlet for PvP, when the mechanisms supporting it would be implemented. Because that is where our disagreement is. I do not feel Open Only would provide those, you believe it would. That much is clear, and not something I wish to regurgitate again.

And I just told you a prime example: in the beginning (between cycles 1 and 15 I believe) there was a strong incentive to be in Open and pirate from other players. Piracy is PvP, i.e. direct interaction. A solo player would have a much slower time of it, while a sucessful open pirate could wreck opponents.

Powerplay is designed so that you don't need to scan for cargo or guess at what a player is doing- if I spot a Denton guy in Archon control systems, I know he is UMing, unlike the BGS where its impossible to tell what he wants. In short, one makes PvP easier (i.e. you telegraph intent by condensing possible objectives) while the other does not (since it has layers of abstractions that obfuscate objectives).

Powerplay also has more clearly defined areas (control systems, capitals) where its more likely you'll find others in Open. The BGS is diffuse in this regard.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And I just told you a prime example: in the beginning (between cycles 1 and 15 I believe) there was a strong incentive to be in Open and pirate from other players. Piracy is PvP, i.e. direct interaction. A solo player would have a much slower time of it, while a sucessful open pirate could wreck opponents.

So you see use of a general mechanic (piracy) as being an integral feature of Powerplay. You might as well have pointed at interdiction.

Oh well ...

 

[Rubbernuke]

In which case it's a PvP "tax" that may, or may not, be payable dependent on many factors mentioned earlier.

Its a way to make simple tasks more complex, and to get groups to work together more closely. Its not a tax.

Powerplay is, like the BGS, indirect with optional direct, as implemented.

Currently the indirect is more efficient than the direct. The difference comes that the BGS is set up to take that into account, while Powerplay is not.

Any "move along, now!" NPCs sent to deal with AFK players would, in my opinion, not form part of the CZ as a matter of course - it'd be like ATR being sent after a player once a threshold had been breached.

The problem then comes what that threshold is in a way that does not penalise a real player. Having a limited CZ is enough I feel.

But additionally, I'd want that ATR NPC continually popping up to pressure all players- it would then beef up solo to a level that pushes back.

 

[Rubbernuke]

So you see use of a general mechanic (piracy) as being an integral feature of Powerplay. You might as well have pointed at interdiction.

Oh well ...

How many times do I have to spell it out to you? Its not the piracy but the result of pirating Powerplay ships which was incredibly lucrative. A T-9 in old money would push you to 10K merits in a time where 10K was a crazy figure, unlike now where its easy.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How many times do I have to spell it out to you? Its not the piracy but the result of pirating Powerplay ships which was incredibly lucrative. A T-9 in old money would push you to 10K merits in a time where 10K was a crazy figure, unlike now where its easy.

Fine.

A long time ago, in the first 15 cycles there was a piracy aspect in Powerplay.

This clearly shows Powerplay was intended to provide PvP.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Fine.

A long time ago, in the first 15 cycles there was a piracy aspect in Powerplay.

This clearly shows Powerplay was intended to provide PvP.

It was intended to make being in Open much more lucrative than grinding away in Solo where it was hard work, and very expensive.

That, and the pledges, zones, limited cargoes and tasks.

But hey, carry on.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Its a way to make simple tasks more complex, and to get groups to work together more closely. Its not a tax.

Whether PvP is a tax, or not, rather depends on whether the players experiencing it find PvP to be "fun" - and, for those who don't enjoy PvP, it is, in my opinion at least, a tax on "fun" - which makes Frontier's decision to make PvP optional quite understandable.

Currently the indirect is more efficient than the direct. The difference comes that the BGS is set up to take that into account, while Powerplay is not.

In what way does the way the BGS is set up differ from that of Powerplay in terms of how they are set up to take actions into account and the efficiency of direct and indirect actions?

The problem then comes what that threshold is in a way that does not penalise a real player. Having a limited CZ is enough I feel.

That's one way to go about it.

But additionally, I'd want that ATR NPC continually popping up to pressure all players- it would then beef up solo to a level that pushes back.

Unsurprisingly. Opinions vary on the perceived necessity for the game to continually pressure all players.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Whether PvP is a tax, or not, rather depends on whether the players experiencing it find PvP to be "fun" - and, for those who don't enjoy PvP, it is, in my opinion at least, a tax on "fun" - which makes Frontier's decision to make PvP optional quite understandable.

But, like all of ED, you don't have to do it even though its on offer. And as you say, Powerplay is optional to begin with.

In what way does the way the BGS is set up differ from that of Powerplay in terms of how they are set up to take actions into account and the efficiency of direct and indirect actions?

The BGS can be seen as small scale done many times: missions and activities are self contained / isolated that for the most part get easier the more people involved - wing missions for example. It does not need Powerplays pledge / cargo / territory system because its a local casual drop in / out feature at heart. Its why it has a 24hr tick- so that as many people as possible can 'graze' and provide enough changes to the BGS.

In Powerplay, you have three modes that reverse this- its harder to achieve a goal with more people (i.e. Open) because its scope goes way beyond a local mission- Powerplays play area can be huge and free form, with EDs way of handling NPCs incapable of scaling to that- its a real time system where action and response can be 1:1. So you then have a disparity where teams of players being the NPCs after you, while in PG and solo you have none of that. To me, this is the key problem in Powerplay- its introducing an inconsistency when you need parity because the feature is highly asymmetric to begin with (i.e. you have small, medium, large powers with differing topography, weapons, ideals and popularity).

Take merit snipes for example- when merits are held and dropped at the last minute. This is impossible to do in the BGS as a tactic, because the BGS looks at the overall activity as a block. Powerplay is real time and each slice of time is its own entity- so in this case someone can park in solo and never be touched while holding tens of thousands.

Unsurprisingly. Opinions vary on the perceived necessity for the game to continually pressure all players.

But the conceptual problem with your statement is: Powerplay is a competitive feature. Using your track and field analogy again- its like a hurdle race in three lanes, but only one of them has a full set of hurdles to overcome to win. Without equal hurdles for everyone its not a race.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But, like all of ED, you don't have to do it even though its on offer. And as you say, Powerplay is optional to begin with.

Indeed - however Powerplay is currently optional for players to engage in in all game modes, not just for those who prefer PvP to engage in in Open.

The BGS can be seen as small scale done many times: missions and activities are self contained / isolated that for the most part get easier the more people involved - wing missions for example. It does not need Powerplays pledge / cargo / territory system because its a local casual drop in / out feature at heart. Its why it has a 24hr tick- so that as many people as possible can 'graze' and provide enough changes to the BGS.

Indeed it can - and Powerplay can be seen as something added for all players that offers a pledge/reward mechanism and operates on a weekly cycle.

In Powerplay, you have three modes that reverse this- its harder to achieve a goal with more people (i.e. Open) because its scope goes way beyond a local mission- Powerplays play area can be huge and free form, with EDs way of handling NPCs incapable of scaling to that- its a real time system where action and response can be 1:1. So you then have a disparity where teams of players being the NPCs after you, while in PG and solo you have none of that. To me, this is the key problem in Powerplay- its introducing an inconsistency when you need parity because the feature is highly asymmetric to begin with (i.e. you have small, medium, large powers with differing topography, weapons, ideals and popularity).

There does seem to be a case for an increase to challenge posed by Powerplay NPCs in all game modes - although I doubt that any increase would be to the level of highly skilled players in fully engineer no-compromise required combat ships due to Powerplay being a base game feature and taking into account the c.50% attachment rate for Horizons.

Take merit snipes for example- when merits are held and dropped at the last minute. This is impossible to do in the BGS as a tactic, because the BGS looks at the overall activity as a block. Powerplay is real time and each slice of time is its own entity- so in this case someone can park in solo and never be touched while holding tens of thousands.

In which case merit snipes could be made less effective by undelivered merits decaying daily.

But the conceptual problem with your statement is: Powerplay is a competitive feature. Using your track and field analogy again- its like a hurdle race in three lanes, but only one of them has a full set of hurdles to overcome to win. Without equal hurdles for everyone its not a race.

Which assumes that the challenge posed by players in the same instance should apply everywhere - which it does not, nor do Frontier seem to share the opinion that it should.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indeed - however Powerplay is currently optional for players to engage in in all game modes, not just for those who prefer PvP to engage in in Open.

Yes, but just as not everyone will want an FC or like mining, they don't have to do it. So if any change did happen, its a feature that is not for everyone and is separate enough to allow it for others. In effect its providing individual experiences rather than trying to make everything work universally, which is impossible to a high standard as Powerplay has proven.

Indeed it can - and Powerplay can be seen as something added for all players that offers a pledge/reward mechanism and operates on a weekly cycle.

Rewards maybe, however at an operational level its not, for the reasons I describe.

There does seem to be a case for an increase to challenge posed by Powerplay NPCs in all game modes - although I doubt that any increase would be to the level of highly skilled players in fully engineer no-compromise required combat ships due to Powerplay being a base game feature and taking into account the c.50% attachment rate for Horizons.

If you hypothetically increased NPC difficulty in isolation it solves little, because NPCs also need intelligent ways to hunt and push players like rival players do. This brushes on issues like station drop zones- you can fly away in total safety, drop into a stations instance in total safety and PP NPCs can't do a thing to you. So, the fortification game loop in solo is almost devoid of action- now, either this loop needs to be redesigned to take the aforementioned problems into account, or players are drafted in to take their place. So you have three options: change drop zones which impacts the whole game, redesign the Powerplay loop (possible but lots of work) or use players (possible but with consequences).

In which case merit snipes could be made less effective by undelivered merits decaying daily.

I'll let you tell the groups that. Powerplay was crippled by decay, having it inflicted twice would be lethal. Its like saying to an explorer your scans are only valid for 28 days.

Which assumes that the challenge posed by players in the same instance should apply everywhere - which it does not, nor do Frontier seem to share the opinion that it should.

But the chance exists- which is more than in solo or PG where meeting a PP NPC that can destroy you is zero. Do remember Powerplay even now condenses the 'action areas' into specific places (prep, fort, UM, capitals). If you are there repeatedly (i.e. doing real Powerplay and not shopping) the danger is very much real in Open. You have to be prepared, regardless.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes, but just as not everyone will want an FC or like mining, they don't have to do it. So if any change did happen, its a feature that is not for everyone and is separate enough to allow it for others. In effect its providing individual experiences rather than trying to make everything work universally, which is impossible to a high standard as Powerplay has proven.

The first "don't have to do it" decision, in this game, relates to PvP itself (apart from CQC, of course, but that's not in-game) and no in-game feature relies on PvP so there's no requirement for any player to engage in PvP if they don't want to. The choice of each player of who not to play with precedes (at the main menu or block list) and may over-ride the desire of any other player to play with them.

Rewards maybe, however at an operational level its not, for the reasons I describe.

Powerplay can also be viewed as a drop in/out feature too - and, while some players organise their gameplay around it, there's no requirement for any participant to seek the opinion of others as to how they should engage in it.

If you hypothetically increased NPC difficulty in isolation it solves little, because NPCs also need intelligent ways to hunt and push players like rival players do. This brushes on issues like station drop zones- you can fly away in total safety, drop into a stations instance in total safety and PP NPCs can't do a thing to you. So, the fortification game loop in solo is almost devoid of action- now, either this loop needs to be redesigned to take the aforementioned problems into account, or players are drafted in to take their place. So you have three options: change drop zones which impacts the whole game, redesign the Powerplay loop (possible but lots of work) or use players (possible but with consequences).

Of those three options, the middle one seems most likely.

I'll let you tell the groups that. Powerplay was crippled by decay, having it inflicted twice would be lethal. Its like saying to an explorer your scans are only valid for 28 days.

It'd be one way to reduce the effect of merit sniping, which was raised as a problem to be solved....

But the chance exists- which is more than in solo or PG where meeting a PP NPC that can destroy you is zero. Do remember Powerplay even now condenses the 'action areas' into specific places (prep, fort, UM, capitals). If you are there repeatedly (i.e. doing real Powerplay and not shopping) the danger is very much real in Open. You have to be prepared, regardless.

The chance exists for those who choose to play in Open, certainly - and does not for those who choose not to. While one may "have to" play in a certain way in Powerplay in Open, that's a choice made by each player - an optional frisson to their own gameplay.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The first "don't have to do it" decision, in this game, relates to PvP itself (apart from CQC, of course, but that's not in-game) and no in-game feature relies on PvP so there's no requirement for any player to engage in PvP if they don't want to. The choice of each player of who not to play with precedes (at the main menu or block list) and may over-ride the desire of any other player to play with them.

But as I described, for Powerplay to actually work you need other people, otherwise you wind up with a sub par CG (which is saying something). In a scenario where PP or aprt of it is Open only, you have a choice to engage in co-op PvP team play- its not forced on you because your control is the pledge toggle.

Powerplay can also be viewed as a drop in/out feature too - and, while some players organise their gameplay around it, there's no requirement for any participant to seek the opinion of others as to how they should engage in it.

Not really, because if you drop out for more than a week you wind up with no rank. If you depledge your vote power is reduced to 1 rather than 5 (after 16 weeks). Its why its a smart move to decouple modules from powers, because then people are playing for the right reasons.

Plus, although Powerplay has no in game leader, there is only one correct mathematical way to play it. Thats why groups have formed, because its intensely complex to understand at both a strategic and team level.

Of those three options, the middle one seems most likely.

If its done well, then I have no complaints. What we don't need though is a second abstracted system- it has to offer something beyond how the BGS operates to justify having a whole new feature.

It'd be one way to reduce the effect of merit sniping, which was raised as a problem to be solved....

But this is the thing you are missing- its got to be engaging and fun. ED is about flying spaceships in sometimes hostile places- which is the definition of Elite Dangerous. Its the paradox of Powerplay too, in that you need players to overcome NPC deficiencies but you feel players themselves are the problem. I know you'll say "PvP is not fun for everyone", but if its in a gated, optional part of the game then whats the issue?

The chance exists for those who choose to play in Open, certainly - and does not for those who choose not to. While one may "have to" play in a certain way in Powerplay in Open, that's a choice made by each player - an optional frisson to their own gameplay.

But again this does not address the imbalance. What you are suggesting is that everyone goes into Solo to 'win', which kills variety because then Powerplay becomes a souless CG- one of the reasons why it nosedived in popularity. In Powerplay choice is an illusion because people on the whole (not everyone) will take the easiest path to be the best.

Back to the track and field analogy, its like one athlete asking another to put more obstacles in their path to win a gold medal. Without a hard rule / boundaries a competition with a goal can't be functional.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But as I described, for Powerplay to actually work you need other people, otherwise you wind up with a sub par CG (which is saying something). In a scenario where PP or aprt of it is Open only, you have a choice to engage in co-op PvP team play- its not forced on you because your control is the pledge toggle.

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.

Not really, because if you drop out for more than a week you wind up with no rank. If you depledge your vote power is reduced to 1 rather than 5 (after 16 weeks). Its why its a smart move to decouple modules from powers, because then people are playing for the right reasons.

Depends on what rank the player wants to maintain.

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.

Plus, although Powerplay has no in game leader, there is only one correct mathematical way to play it. Thats why groups have formed, because its intensely complex to understand at both a strategic and team level.

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

If its done well, then I have no complaints. What we don't need though is a second abstracted system- it has to offer something beyond how the BGS operates to justify having a whole new feature.

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

But this is the thing you are missing- its got to be engaging and fun. ED is about flying spaceships in sometimes hostile places- which is the definition of Elite Dangerous. Its the paradox of Powerplay too, in that you need players to overcome NPC deficiencies but you feel players themselves are the problem. I know you'll say "PvP is not fun for everyone", but if its in a gated, optional part of the game then whats the issue?

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.

But again this does not address the imbalance. What you are suggesting is that everyone goes into Solo to 'win', which kills variety because then Powerplay becomes a souless CG- one of the reasons why it nosedived in popularity. In Powerplay choice is an illusion because people on the whole (not everyone) will take the easiest path to be the best.

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

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.

Back to the track and field analogy, its like one athlete asking another to put more obstacles in their path to win a gold medal. Without a hard rule / boundaries a competition with a goal can't be functional.

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

 

[Cheese Helmet]

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.

Depends on what rank the player wants to maintain.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Since powerplay is entirely optional, making a single aspect require the possibility of PvP wouldn't change PvP being optional for your more sensitive types.

Opinions vary on whether or not every single aspect of the game needs to be protected from PvP.

Modules were arbitrarily attached to powerplay the way they are. They can arbitrarily be attached to some other mechanic.

The sign of a game doomed to lose players is one that refuses to learn from it's failings.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Since powerplay is entirely optional, making a single aspect require the possibility of PvP wouldn't change PvP being optional for your more sensitive types.

It would for players who eschew PvP and currently, or may at some future time, engage in Powerplay.

Opinions vary on whether or not every single aspect of the game needs to be protected from PvP.

Without doubt.

Modules were arbitrarily attached to powerplay the way they are. They can arbitrarily be attached to some other mechanic.

Indeed they were and could.

The sign of a game doomed to lose players is one that refuses to learn from it's failings.

Whether PvP being optional is a strength or a failing rather depends on ones preference, or lack thereof, for PvP.

I would suggest that Frontier did not actively seek players who demand that all others play with them (apart from CQC, of course) - that some players arrived with that desire is obvious from the requests / demands that features be changed to suit their preferred play-style, as is Frontier's continued adherence to their design philosophy as it applies to player choice. That the game may lose players it does not seem designed to cater for is obvious - and not necessarily a reason to change the game to suit their preferences / demands.

Some backers / players have been prophesying doom for the game if [insert change here] isn't done for over seven years - and Frontier have been aware that a subset of players don't agree with their stance on player choice and the impact that has on PvP in their game for a long time.

Apart from the possibility that Power might be made Open only, maybe, and the insistence that Powerplay is the only feature considered suitable for even that to be considered, Frontier don't seem to be open to PvP-gating any other game feature.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

It would for players who eschew PvP and currently, or may at some future time, engage in Powerplay.

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.

Without doubt.

Indeed they were and could.

Whether PvP being optional is a strength or a failing rather depends on ones preference, or lack thereof, for PvP.

I would suggest that Frontier did not actively seek players who demand that all others play with them (apart from CQC, of course) - that some players arrived with that desire is obvious from the requests / demands that features be changed to suit their preferred play-style, as is Frontier's continued adherence to their design philosophy as it applies to player choice. That the game may lose players it does not seem designed to cater for is obvious - and not necessarily a reason to change the game to suit their preferences / demands.

Some backers / players have been prophesying doom for the game if [insert change here] isn't done for over seven years - and Frontier have been aware that a subset of players don't agree with their stance on player choice and the impact that has on PvP in their game for a long time.

Apart from the possibility that Power might be made Open only, maybe, and the insistence that Powerplay is the only feature considered suitable for even that to be considered, Frontier don't seem to be open to PvP-gating any other game feature.

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. 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. Regardless of how bad you want to speak for them and assert one thing over and over hoping Mr Braben will tussle your hair and say good job kid, it ain't happening.

Plus, thats a lot of double speak you packed in their Bob.