Does stealing ships mean I can kit a shiny anaconda and then let somebody steal it after he makes a $$$ donation? This is really the reason you can't have nice things here in ED. Any meaningless player to player transaction has this abuse potential, leaving us only with griefing options where there is no tangible gain for anybody.David did toss out the possibility of stealing other people's ships way back in 2012.Obviously one can't hold FD accountable for every single bit of theorycrafting over the years, but they did at least have that kind of adversarial PvP ship stealing in mind as something they'd be interested in doing.
Powerplay Whatever happened to the Powerplay Open only Proposal (POOP) ?
- Thread starter zarrazee
- Start date
I will totally offer a PP boost services to anybody willing to pay my fee where I would interdict you shot you down to a shield/hull level you requested. You didn't think this through.
It's very simple: when I speak of "faceless" roles, I don't literally mean "faceless roles" as it relates to the game. I'm instead talking about how players interact (or don't interact) with each other, especially as it relates to PvP. I'm sure you've heard this before from me, but this time I've prepared this handy diagram to illustrate what I'm talking about:
At the proverbial apex of the diagram are PvPers. They need other players to be their content, but are willing to be content in return. Opposite of PvPers are the PvEers. They don't need other players to be their content. They also aren't willing to be the content of others in return. In fact, they'd prefer a single player game. Between these two extremes are the "centrists" for lack of a better term. And off to the side are the player-killers, players who need other players to be their content, but aren't willing to return the favor.
To borrow the "battery people" analogy I linked to, every single player considers themselves to be light-bulb people. They are the hero of their own story. The question is where do they get their "power" from?
For the PvPer, they get their power from other players, but in return they let other players get power from them as well. Two PvPers interacting together can form a positive feedback loop, allowing both to shine brighter than either together.
For the PvEer, they get their power from NPCs. They don't get any power from players at all. It's quite the opposite, in fact. Plug a PvEer into another player, and what you get is a burned out bulb.
For the "centrists," they're pretty much compatible with both power sources, but care must be taken plugging them into other Players. While they can be powered by other players, it's still possible to burn them out if they're plugged in too long.
As for the player-klillers... all they can do is leach power from players who are not PvPers. PvPers will burn them if they're plugged into them, while "centrists" will burn them out if they're pugged in too long. Only PvEers can reliably power the typical player-killer.
That is why players, who have been perfectly happy hauling merits over ABA runs in Solo or Private Groups for years, would quit at the thought of being forced to do the same thing in Open. Doing so literally sucks the joy right out of them.
A fair amount of powers already haul in open (the Feds, Kumo) and they see running away and surviving to fortify actually worthwhile, they gain entertainment from having the skills to escape traps and combat just as they enjoy dishing it out.
Like I said before, there has been a misconception grown over the years that fortifying is safe and dependable, due to solo and PG. That has led to the bubble becoming stuffed and worn out from a gameplay perspective. Even in your worst case (some haulers leave) that is positive for the feature as powers might become smaller, or make total fortification impossible (leading to weaknesses other powers can exploit). In the long run FD want ED to be self sustaining, and ironically making fortification harder would make that easier to achieve.
The only thing I can say to that is to try it and see because no one really knows how it will play out.
Unless FD rewrite Powerplay (which is always a good thing...hopefully) this is outside of the scope of whats available. You are describing (loosely) how the new CZs work, imposing win and lose states based on closed situations. In Powerplay none of that exists, as its all unstructured and free-flowing and impossible to adjudicate. The only win state is you delivering your merits and getting the perk the next week.
Oh come on stop being like that you're not that good as you think in trolling people. If you had read the rest of the thread you'd not talk about CQC or PvP or "feeling special". Another case of wannabe-saboteur. You're not worth any attention until you'll be back with actual arguments. :*
I'm gonna be extremly simple: I want for Powerplayers to share the same gamemode. Open Play would be easier. If it's so unaccettable by some people, then a dedicated game mode will do anyway.
As I told you many times before, it is you that's facing this as a matter of principle, I only have the game mechanic itself in mind.
EDIT
Oh about a new mechanic to measure the effectiveness of pvt/solo... I don't care, if you do try and propose something. One thing is sure: I will not flood your topic with sorry excuses to prevent whatever thing you will propose exclusively to pvt/solo to happen.
Last edited:
I think that all of this "rewarding PvP" makes a terrific sense but has Little to do with making Powerplay an Open Only (or a exclusive feature to a dedicated Play Mode) feature. Being pledged means accepting the fact you've become a target, it's implicit, it's Powerplay's nature.
I don't want to go off topic too much but even outside of Powerplay, if you elaborate a system that complicated to somehow improve the result of a task if the hauler is even just interdicted, the result will be people activly simulate that Dangerous situation to help the Power of the hauler, exploiting a game mechanic theoretically good but as you can see too easy to exploit.
This is another matter of discussion, a larger one, but the very moment you make "failure" weight any different than zero, you're dead sure that people will start exploiting that, because purposely failing is easier than completing a task.
Ok, then can we have a seperate powerplay for PG/solo?
Firstly, the song was great so thanks for the suggestion.
Secondly, I do have faith. That David Braben isn't making Star Citizen, Chris Roberts is doing that.
Elite: Dangerous is a slow paced game, over a much wider area. That is why SC has far fewer systems, so people are having to fight over resources and compete in every aspect of the game. If you want a PvE experience in SC, you have to host a local server which is disconnected from the main BGS.
ED has astroid based, billions of systems to explore and 2 career paths that don't involve any type of player interaction at all. ED is about you in the universe, not the player dominating the universe.
I'll happily wing with you in SC when it comes out, as that is everything you seem to want and even I like the idea and want to try it.
But just as NMS wasn't made for all of that style of play, neither was ED. (I feel slightly let down with NMS tbh) That's the beauty of having 3 major space games, they do things differently so everyone can find a game for their playstyle.
On a side note, not made my mind up on these forums yet. How are you getting on with them?
If you want try to propose that.
It might be fun to do so. If you opposed it I could say to you "PG/solo players have nothing! Why don't you want us to have fun?"
I wouldn't as I already told you. Go for it. Open a thread about that. Have fun.It might be fun to do so. If you opposed it I could say to you "PG/solo players have nothing! Why don't you want us to have fun?"
I wouldn't as I already told you. Go for it. Open a thread about that. Have fun.
/r/whoosh
As I keep trying to explain (poorly, it seems) is that, according to Frontier, currently a significant majority of players play in Open. I sincerely doubt that this statistic changes appreciably among the Powerplay community. In fact, if Powerplay is truly more attractive to PvPers than it is to PvEers, as I've been told repeatedly, then this statistic should skew more in favor of Open vs the general community. Either way, it means that, with the exception of the hyper-competitive "win at all costs" type of player, the majority of players across all powers should be doing their activities Open, including hauling. If this isn't the case, then that means that Powerplay is more attractive to PvEers than it is to PvPers, in which case Powerplay going Open Only will be even a larger disaster than I suspect.
While the hyper-competitive types may have an outsize influence on all aspects of the game (including fortification), the current stalemate isn't caused by the modes. It's caused by the automatic fortification triggers. It's essentially an automatic win for the fortifier. This allows Powers to minimize the effort needed to maintain their their borders. This in turn means that once a system is fortified, any undermining beyond the trigger is likewise wasted, so the focus is on any systems that are the targets of an expansion.
This is great for the PvP players, because it puts a lot of players into a single system (or perhaps two), making it easy to find other players to fight. This is great for the "Centrists" due to the "needle in a haystack" effect. "Centrists" are much more willing to fly in Open, because they're not getting frustrated by frequent attacks, whether those attacks are successful or not. This is great for the PvE players, because they don't have to fly in Open at all. This isn't so great for the player-killers, though, because their "watering hole" is being dominated by PvPers, the PvEers are not playing in Open at all, and the "Centrists" are spread out among dozens of systems, and aren't as easy to kill as a PvEer. Which is why they don't bother with it at all, either directly via pledging to a Power, or most likely, as was seen in the first few weeks of Powerplay, unpledged murderers hanging out in capitals and control systems.
With the proposed changes to Powerplay, assuming mode agnosticism remains in place, the efforts of hyper-competitive players and non-Open players will mostly cancel each other out... although the rules still favor fortification efforts. Since fortification is no longer guaranteed, the Powers will need to contract, resulting in fewer systems overall. Things still haven't changed much for the PvPers, but with fewer systems overall, a wider selection of activities become possible... in theory, at least. Most likely, the "exciting" systems will remain the handful of expansions, which at least will be more frequent due to a much more dynamic Powerplay map.
Things still haven't changed for PvE players, because they still don't have to play in Open. The status quo will change for the "Centrists," since as the number of systems overall decreases, the number of attacks they experience increases. For some, this can result in a more exciting game. For others, it remains tolerable. And for some, the frequency of attacks becomes intolerable, and they switch to other modes.
The biggest change will be for player-killers, at least at first. At first, "Centrists" will become easier to find, as the Powers become more compact, and while they aren't as easy to kill as PvEers, at least they're easier to find now. But then the inevitable feedback loop happens, and as the least PvP inclined "Centrists" leave Open, player-killers once again find it hard to find someone to attack, and those that remain in Open become even harder to kill. Unable to get their "fix," the player-killers leave again.
Dropping the Open Only grenade, on the other hand, will have profound effects. The most immediate effects will be the PvE players simply quitting Powerplay altogether. This will result in a much greater contraction across all Powers than if the game had remained mode-agnostic. The hyper-competitive players, OTOH, will either quit, or start cheating, depending on how far they're willing to go to "win." The amount of combat logging will most certainly increase. "Centrists" will experience much greater attack frequencies due to the much smaller number of systems, and will start quitting Powerplay altogether, resulting in even greater shrinkage of the playing field, a feedback loop that will eventually result in the last of the "Centrists" quitting, and this is before we throw the player-killers into the mix, with the similar results to above.
At the end, the Powerplay map will consist mostly of the capitals, and perhaps a handful of other control systems, and only the PvPers will remain. Rather than being concentrated in a few systems, they'll be spread out all over the map, trying to keep things running. They might occasionally make raids, but mostly they will sit around and remissness about the glory days of old, when "vast fleets" of ships struggled against each other in epic combat... at least until the "next big thing" comes along.
Hopefully, the last one to leave will remember to turn off the stove and the lights.
I've seen this scenario play out far too many times to believe that Powerplay will be any different, especially when you factor in this game's networking architecture, and Frontier's lack of experience in multi-player games in general, and MMOs specifically. I'm still rather amazed that they managed to stumble onto a winning formula that has resulted in Open being played by a significant majority of players, though back before the Alpha, I was convinced this was due to learning from the mistakes of past games, rather than just blind luck.
I could be wrong. If Frontier decides to pull the Open Only grenade, I hope I am wrong, because there's no recovering from the effects if I'm right. Players who quit very rarely come back, and I'm far too fond of the potential of Powerplay (even if the execution was bad) to see it die off that way.
If that is truly the case, then Powerplay would've been Open Only from the start. Frontier made it mode agnostic from the start instead, so in order to be a target of other Powerplayers, you pretty much have to give your consent twice. I, personally, think this has resulted in a much larger Powerplayerbase in Open than the alternative, and one that is much more fun to play with to boot. YMMV.
As I've said repeatedly, the hard part of a proposal like mine is preventing collusion exactly like what you describe above.
It's also pretty much academic. You would be able to power a city through my surprise if Frontier bothers to implement the non-Open Only changes to Powerplay, now that Sandro has moved on to another project. Frontier implementing something like my proposal, and more importantly implementing it well, my surprise would reach K1 levels of power generation.
But it's still fun to discuss.
Oh, I agree. But one can dream, right?
The graph is interesting for the mindset it reveals. Both axes carefully angled to place the noble PvPers at the top corner, or "apex" as they style it. Of course it's equally easy to draw it so that they are at the bottom and the calm, mild-mannered PvEers take the top.It's very simple: when I speak of "faceless" roles, I don't literally mean "faceless roles" as it relates to the game. I'm instead talking about how players interact (or don't interact) with each other, especially as it relates to PvP. I'm sure you've heard this before from me, but this time I've prepared this handy diagram to illustrate what I'm talking about:
At the proverbial apex of the diagram are PvPers. They need other players to be their content, but are willing to be content in return. Opposite of PvPers are the PvEers. They don't need other players to be their content. They also aren't willing to be the content of others in return. In fact, they'd prefer a single player game. Between these two extremes are the "centrists" for lack of a better term. And off to the side are the player-killers, players who need other players to be their content, but aren't willing to return the favor.
To borrow the "battery people" analogy I linked to, every single player considers themselves to be light-bulb people. They are the hero of their own story. The question is where do they get their "power" from?
For the PvPer, they get their power from other players, but in return they let other players get power from them as well. Two PvPers interacting together can form a positive feedback loop, allowing both to shine brighter than either together.
For the PvEer, they get their power from NPCs. They don't get any power from players at all. It's quite the opposite, in fact. Plug a PvEer into another player, and what you get is a burned out bulb.
For the "centrists," they're pretty much compatible with both power sources, but care must be taken plugging them into other Players. While they can be powered by other players, it's still possible to burn them out if they're plugged in too long.
As for the player-klillers... all they can do is leach power from players who are not PvPers. PvPers will burn them if they're plugged into them, while "centrists" will burn them out if they're pugged in too long. Only PvEers can reliably power the typical player-killer.
That is why players, who have been perfectly happy hauling merits over ABA runs in Solo or Private Groups for years, would quit at the thought of being forced to do the same thing in Open. Doing so literally sucks the joy right out of them.
Oh wow, the new updates will make so much easier for botters to do their thing. I'm negatively astonished.
Goose4291
Banned
Elite: AFK confirmed.
How people think PPOO would work:
How PPOO would actually work:
None of these fish are upgraded in any manner...and yet the vast majority still accomplish their mission. This game is not designed to allow blocking or stopping of commanders, because of matchmaking alone....PPOO will never be satisfying to the proponents...even if it is implemented!
How PPOO would actually work:
None of these fish are upgraded in any manner...and yet the vast majority still accomplish their mission. This game is not designed to allow blocking or stopping of commanders, because of matchmaking alone....PPOO will never be satisfying to the proponents...even if it is implemented!
Last edited: