Powerplay Whatever happened to the Powerplay Open only Proposal (POOP) ?

I wing with ppl from South Africa and Oz regularly (as well as US and all over Europe) and it lets them instance with ppl I can instance with, and vice-versa. Having a spread of time zones/regions in a wing causes some rubber-banding (nothing like as bad as the effect in dedicated server FPS games btw) but increases the chance of instancing with a wider range of players. Being in the US makes you a local by our standards tbh. Also, because these folk are on my friends list, when i drop-in to a location I usually instance with them straight away even when not in a wing. It sounds like you may not have tried these steps, & if not I encourage you to try, you might be surprised how it all comes together. :)
/////////////////
(not aiming this at anyone in particular-) A lot of the other networking & instancing problems that are frequently mentioned around this topic are either historic & obsolete or extrapolated from other games and just don't apply in practice. That's what I find frustrating in some of these 'debates'. A solid background in forum arguments & rhetoric doesn't make up for a lack of practical experience. :/
I want to point out two things you wrote above:
  • "I wing with ppl"
  • "these folk are on my friends list"

This is consistent with how the Matchmaker works. It puts a priority on instancing players with their friends, and with members of their wing, over latency. I'm talking about being instanced with antagonistic strangers, where the matchmaker puts a priority on latency. The last CG I did was the first one for DW2. Despite the presence of Distant Ganks, I was not attacked even once, or even saw anyone moving to interdict me.

I was kind of disappointed that that wasn't the case. ;)

Back when Sandro announced that a "significant majority" of players Play in Open, I was shocked by it. This flew in the face of my everyday experience. I was so convinced that Frontier was practicing "there are lies, damnable lies, and Statistics," and so determined to reveal them for the base villians that they were, that I actually spent a week at a CG, simply recording the differences in traffic between my normal play window, and my local prime time. Even though my normal play window coincides with global peak players, nearly twice what it is during my local prime time, I saw only a fifth of the number of players compared to prime time.

More importantly, though, was that my findings contradicted my theory that Frontier was lying about how many people were playing in Open. Yes, you can be instanced with friends all over the world, but when it comes to random strangers, you're not likely to be instanced with a host you have a bad connection with.
 
yes I can understand that: considering you've got no more arguments to go on with the discussion you're just attacking the messager, trying to make his opinion not relevant or biased.

That's usually how people with biased opinions act to begin with.

Rubbernuke told that many people that didn't Powerplay at all seemed to be incredibly interested in Powerplay only when the Open Only factor became relevant, and that's a fact, there was a lot of people that even admitted that they were not interested in Powerplay but were against any kind of Open Only game mechanic because "kickstarter". Too bad we lost the Focused Feedback forums in the migration (or at least: I can't find them anymore), but that's another fact you're trying to bend to simply compensate your lack of arguments about all of this.

I've been very technical with you a lot of times, and every single time you tried to claim that I was trying to shut you up.

I don't want that. But I've got my right to say that your opinion is biased, your knowledge of what you're trying to discuss about is incredibly low, and it's evident to everybody that your only goal is to discredit a solid proposal that wouldn't change a thing in the rest of the game.

Why are you doing that? Well, I've got my opinions about, but those are just opinions. About the former statement? Well let's say it straight: if you think you're being somehow subtle trust me: you're not. You're not that good. ;)

Rubbernuke is biased, i'm biased, you are biased, we are all biased.

But please, agree, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and Rubbernuke made a claim. I know he said other things, i'm not contesting those, but he used the point about people not giving reasons ("without reason") as a supporting point for his claims.

I dispute that assertion. That is all.
 
This is true... to a degree. Unlike many games where the deciding factor is pretty much how much time you're willing to spend grinding in pursuit of the current meta, there is a degree of skill involved. In fact, it's one of the reasons why I still play in Open, when I pretty much expected to shift to private group or solo after a while. In most games, if you don't follow the meta, especially if you prefer to play a civilian/non-combat role, your choices are pretty much run or die... and running rarely worked unless you saw them first.

In this game, I have other options, except for one. Unless I'm planning on actually doing PvP, I shouldn't fight back. Fortunately for me, I find outmaneuvering them to be fun, both before an interdiction attempt is even made, and on those rare cases I can't outmaneuver them in Supercruise, while waiting for my FSD to spool up. At least, I find it to be fun when it's infrequent. Having to do that frequently gets old really quick, which is one of the reasons I'm glad I no longer play during my local prime time.

The issue will always be the balance between little or no interdictions through to running the gauntlet in Powerplay. With no interdictions its a matter of how big your ship is, and how often you can fly. It does not create the opportunity for system based interception, or anything complex at all.

Too often? I can see a point where it might get too much, but thats thinking that its you on your own- this situation may happen, but in places like capitals or expansions you will need to organize some sort of system otherwise nothing substantial would be done.

You don't need a "strictly organized chain of command," though. At this time all you really need several people who enjoy distilling the disparate sources of information in the game into one easy to understand format. Players who actually care about advancing their power will take care of the rest. The problem is that most players don't really care about their power, but getting Powerplay modules, and that this information exists outside the game itself. This is the kind of thing that should've been in the game from day one.

Powerplay modules aside, Powerplay does need co-ordination from a chain of command to see its full potential. Only a dedicated group could pull off the huge attacks that have happened in Powerplays history. A couple I have seen from the aggressors side, and being as quiet as possible while still being in open across 50 systems with hundreds of players takes a lot of planning and skill for execution.

I agree that systemic change is needed. At the very least, I want Powerplay missions. Variety is the spice of life, and currently I frequently have to go out of my way to earn any merits what so ever, and the "easy" source of merits are things I don't enjoy doing. Which is why I've been playing the BGS portion of it.

I always wanted PP missions to reflect that powers ethos, in effect showing what they are about. Utopia would be insidious and culty, Patreus about clawing back whats owed to him, Archon being The King, ALD punishing those who she sees as criminals- there is a lot of scope to give flavour to each power if they are done well.

And this is where we disagree again. If Powerplay goes Open Only, it won't be fun or engaging for everyone. It'll be fun for the PvP Powerplayers, and perhaps tolerable for those who fall in the middle of the PvP/PvE spectrum... depending upon their tolerance for random attacks of course, but for those PvE Powerplayers, they'll be coerced into participating in something they do not enjoy in any way, in order to play a part of the game they do.

Successful games, even subsets like Powerplay, need to be appealing to a broad range of players, not a narrow one. Currently, to my extreme and everlasting surprise, a significant majority of players play in Open. I attribute this to Frontier's brilliant tri-mode system, which allows those who don't enjoy PvP to still play the game, thus ensuring that the type of players who drive away others in droves don't have their preferred "audience." This also provides a psychological "out" for those who fall in the middle of the PvP/PvE spectrum. Being allowed to choose, on a session by session basis, what mode you'll be playing is far preferable to having to choose right from the start if you'll go all PvP, or all PvE.

The problem I see now is that Powerplay needs a reason to exist. The BGS pretty much does a better job of what you want, and I assume is why you play it more often than PP itself. To make PP stand out it needs to be different and give a different experience, hence why Open would give that. It would be nice if all Power capitals, UM spots and systems held had all BGS flavoured to your power if pledged, so if you wanted a solo experience you would have that.

As for bots... again, I don't think Open Only will be the solution for players who are cheating, thanks to Frontier's Peer-to-Peer networking architecture. It's too easy block being instanced with anyone simply by setting your firewall to a reasonable security level, let alone some of the stronger ones. I have to whitelist ED after every single update, just so that I can be instanced with others. The only solution to bots is Frontier finally deciding that cheating should not be tolerated in a multi-player game. Given Frontier's track record to date, I won't be holding my breath on that.

FD certainly do need to rework the block function for Open PP, as its crazy that in a feature about conflict you can block someone for shooting you. But in my mind at least Open operates as a low level anti-bot measure, and in combination with the other changes would make 5C much harder to do generally.

In the end the only way to know how all of this would pan out is to try it, the system is so complex (and relies on other systems) it would be hard to anticipate all outcomes and patterns.
 
Rubbernuke is biased, i'm biased, you are biased, we are all biased.

But please, agree, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and Rubbernuke made a claim. I know he said other things, i'm not contesting those, but he used the point about people not giving reasons ("without reason") as a supporting point for his claims.

I dispute that assertion. That is all.

Have fun here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal.426940/page-9

The quote that sums them up:

You give an inch, and some demand a mile. You cannot make any feature open only, as it encourages trolls / "griefers" to demand all the game being open only.

This is also a laugh: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/what-is-sandro-playing-at.427218/

This is a good thread as well where the issue is tackled head on: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...n-lets-dispel-them.427463/page-6#post-6739410

I think you went a bit slippery slope for a minute too ;)

Ah, unfortunately this is now a matter of trust. Once FD have made something Open only, its a bit hard to trust they will not make anything else open only should they think its in the best interests of the game. I don't think you can dismiss this concern, because it is literally that, a concern.

But its a pattern replicated over years on these forums. The same pattern that made FD back away from sensors and gimbals, and other changes that (IMO) would bring depth and (ironically in this case) choice- you would then have arena PvP (CQC), Large scale tactical operations (Open Powerplay), along with the rest of the game which remains multi mode, including the new BGS which is now the equivalent of PP.

You can also read my responses too from over the years, but to make it easy for you my view is PP needs to be redesigned from scratch....you can read several of my fully fledged ideas floating about that oddly don't make PP Open only if you think I'm firmly biased. But we all know wholesale change is not going to happen and any change must come from what we already have. And from the pieces we do have, to make a feature stand out in the face of a resurgent BGS Open is the most potent.
 
Have fun here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal.426940/page-9

The quote that sums them up:

You give an inch, and some demand a mile. You cannot make any feature open only, as it encourages trolls / "griefers" to demand all the game being open only.

This is also a laugh: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/what-is-sandro-playing-at.427218/

This is a good thread as well where the issue is tackled head on: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...n-lets-dispel-them.427463/page-6#post-6739410

I think you went a bit slippery slope for a minute too ;)

Ah, unfortunately this is now a matter of trust. Once FD have made something Open only, its a bit hard to trust they will not make anything else open only should they think its in the best interests of the game. I don't think you can dismiss this concern, because it is literally that, a concern.

But its a pattern replicated over years on these forums. The same pattern that made FD back away from sensors and gimbals, and other changes that (IMO) would bring depth and (ironically in this case) choice- you would then have arena PvP (CQC), Large scale tactical operations (Open Powerplay), along with the rest of the game which remains multi mode, including the new BGS which is now the equivalent of PP.

You can also read my responses too from over the years, but to make it easy for you my view is PP needs to be redesigned from scratch....you can read several of my fully fledged ideas floating about that oddly don't make PP Open only if you think I'm firmly biased. But we all know wholesale change is not going to happen and any change must come from what we already have. And from the pieces we do have, to make a feature stand out in the face of a resurgent BGS Open is the most potent.

Well, took me 2 seconds to show your statement false and a poor summary. Selectively picking a single bad post to try and imply all were bad is pretty much a poor show.

Concern from a console user about being locked out of PP. Understandable, i have a PS4 but won't pay for a PSN subscription.


Concern from someone with bad hand-eye coordination, thereby someone who can't git gud.


Kind of suggesting some bad play here, but a valid concern since PPers are competitive and i can see this being used, and nothing actually against game rules.


Trivial point, but nontheless, they express an issue.


And that is just comments from the same page you linked, just one page out of 79.

So, i would suggest that nicely concludes that your statement that all comments against the suggestion were without reason.
 
Rubbernuke is biased, i'm biased, you are biased, we are all biased.

But please, agree, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and Rubbernuke made a claim. I know he said other things, i'm not contesting those, but he used the point about people not giving reasons ("without reason") as a supporting point for his claims.

I dispute that assertion. That is all.

Well, plenty of proof he gave to you. But I think that you'll not be satisfied anyway because, well, that's what biased means, not to have different opinions, but to sistematically ignore the facts presented to you. (I hope you are not familiar with scientific trials because you clearly lack the concept of bias and that would be a problem it it's your field of work).

Anyway, let's get back to much more serious business.

I want to point out two things you wrote above:
  • "I wing with ppl"
  • "these folk are on my friends list"
This is consistent with how the Matchmaker works. It puts a priority on instancing players with their friends, and with members of their wing, over latency. I'm talking about being instanced with antagonistic strangers, where the matchmaker puts a priority on latency. The last CG I did was the first one for DW2. Despite the presence of Distant Ganks, I was not attacked even once, or even saw anyone moving to interdict me.

I was kind of disappointed that that wasn't the case. ;)

Back when Sandro announced that a "significant majority" of players Play in Open, I was shocked by it. This flew in the face of my everyday experience. I was so convinced that Frontier was practicing "there are lies, damnable lies, and Statistics," and so determined to reveal them for the base villians that they were, that I actually spent a week at a CG, simply recording the differences in traffic between my normal play window, and my local prime time. Even though my normal play window coincides with global peak players, nearly twice what it is during my local prime time, I saw only a fifth of the number of players compared to prime time.

More importantly, though, was that my findings contradicted my theory that Frontier was lying about how many people were playing in Open. Yes, you can be instanced with friends all over the world, but when it comes to random strangers, you're not likely to be instanced with a host you have a bad connection with.

I quoted your answer to Bashy because it was easier to quote and your other answer was in another page of the thread, but I'll try to answer to both.

I understand when you say that it's not gonna be fun for everybody, but you kind of assume that most people are ok with that as it is right now. As I said before this game basically lacks any kind of Open Only game mechanic which isn't a simple "pew-pew" one against the other, as CQC is, and you alwayas talk about BGS, how you find that funny etc, even if you do that in Open Only, which is your choice (as it is mine, btw).

Honestly a renewed Powerplay with the three modes coexistence, with missions etc, would just be a large BGS, and do we really need to copy another game mechanic just... bigger?

Again: I agree with you that Open Only is not the only solution to solve actual Powerplay problems, I never said differently, I only said it's a further tool for the developers to spot abusers, so it's not a bad thing considering the fight against unlegit behaviours in game, to point it out it's not a valid argument against it. For example: if you have got high cardiovascular risk, you don't go to mcdonald's every day because, to reduce it, a healthy diet is not enough. Just a little example to point out how objectivity must be handled: is it an improvement about a particular problem? Then it's useful. Is it not enough? This doesn't make it useless. If you notice I like to be extremly logical about game mechanics, considering human interaction as a variable and not something absolutely certain.

Back to the game mechanics, which is what I find interesting, not hollow discussions about "freedom of speech" to hide how little somebody has to say about the argument.

We all agree Powerplay must be something more variable (to avoid botting), possibly mission driven (to make it more enjoyable to play and less repetitive) with game mechanics capable to reduce or even nullify 5C action (no overhead, higher upkeeps, single system turmoils, etc).

The discussion about Open Only is something different. It's giving the game something that it has not right now. I want to be clear about that because I think it's the central point of this thread. Would it help against 5C or botting? Yes. Would it be enough? No.

But let's talk about game mechanics for a while. You keep saying that there's people that wouldn't like that kind of game.

I agree. I do not deny that. But I want to consider the people that would like that kind of game, and these people don't have, right now, any type of game mechanic designed for their gamestyle.

I'm just saying: let's offer something to those people, and let's face the problems that such game mechanic would face with constructive methods, not denying the same game mechanic at all.

You talked about your instancing problems. Fair enough, many other people have those at some point. I think that what you described was something related to how the block list works right now, which prevent the instancing with other players. It is possible that some of your contacts had many CMDRs in their Block List, literally making impossible for you to instance with them. And about "blocking your connection with a firewall" I'm quite sure it's against the rules, like: ban-risk-against. But I'd have a fair solution for that too: ban people from Powerplay if found guily of tweaking their connections to avoid other players. That would not affect their game progress singularly.

That's the reason why I think that in an Open Only Powerplay the first thing to change would be how the block channel works, blocking only communications in case of abuse, bad talking etc. I've been part of very huge instances to be honest and during the already nominated war between Antal and Delaine I had nobody of my adversaries in my friend list at the time and trust me: I was seeing them all the time. :p

Another reasonable concern (which I do not read about very often) would be the problem with landing pads occupied by idle accounts just to slow the operations down. Another fair and reasonable concern, that can be solved by changing how the whole docking works: let's make docked ships go "out of the instance" temporairly to make it free again right after. It would benefit other parts of the game, like go to Engineers in Open (the docking bays are usually all occupied).

You see, I know that's gonna be problems, but I'm positive we can find solutions for those problems. As the community found solutions with the many (many) problems affecting BGS, and many other game mechanis.

What I'm asking is something different, more BGS like probably but with the great difference of actual competition with other players, to have something more unpredictable. We've got very fast ships, for example, imagine how that kind of ships would become a decisive factor against other players that wouldn't be able to block you and kill you, making you able to do your part for your Power anyway.

A better Powerplay that would be like a mega-BGS? Well, that would be better than what we have now, but it would be a lost opportunity to give something really different to the community. It would be simply a large BGS. And I don't see anything wrong in giving the game a new layer of complexity, even if it's gonna become a disaster for somebody, it may be what they were looking for in the game by always.
 
Well, took me 2 seconds to show your statement false and a poor summary. Selectively picking a single bad post to try and imply all were bad is pretty much a poor show.

Concern from a console user about being locked out of PP. Understandable, i have a PS4 but won't pay for a PSN subscription.


Concern from someone with bad hand-eye coordination, thereby someone who can't git gud.


Kind of suggesting some bad play here, but a valid concern since PPers are competitive and i can see this being used, and nothing actually against game rules.


Trivial point, but nontheless, they express an issue.


And that is just comments from the same page you linked, just one page out of 79.

So, i would suggest that nicely concludes that your statement that all comments against the suggestion were without reason.

The console player would be cut off by GTAV online gaming too, for example: not Frontier's fault, but console's policy.
About the guy with limited physical capabilities... he probably doesn't play to CQC too, but he doesn't want it shut down. And there's plenty of people with physical problems that still play in Open anyway, I know for sure, trust me.
About occupying landing pads just check my post up here. When there's a problem you find solutions, you don't look to problems and stick to them to shut down a game mechanic as a whole, unless your only purpose is to simply deny things to people by principle.
About the screenshot really: that's again another example of bad excuse to kill a game mechanic. Really try to repeat slowly: "but I can't take hi-res screenshots!"

You see, THAT is the reason why I accuse you of being extremly biased. Screenshots. Really.
 
People who buy consoles expect to pay for a subscription in order to play online in multiplayer and nobody buys Elite Dangerous expecting this rule can be circumnavigated. Powerplay is by design a multiplayer feature & it is not unreasonably for those with consoles to expect to pay for it like with every other MP game. If they don't want to pay for it then they can get a PC; they know what they signed up for when buying the console.

CMDR Justinian Octavius
 

Some choice fun from the first couple of pages:

--
Dunno. Makes you wonder about non open game play in general as they keep trying to force people together with unwanted multi player functionally.

The game is rapidly becoming something I'm not interested in
--
On the other hand, he's opened Pandora's Box wide - and therefore all things (apart from Open only BGS - he's said no to that) may reasonably be requested.
--
I'm not really bothered by it personally I haven't really participated in power play at all. I do wonder however what sort of concessions they are willing to make for PVE players in return, considering open mode is PVP by default.
--
I guess it's so you can shout as loud as you can, as often as you can find a way, in support of griefing. How noble of you.
--
From a PvE point of view, the mode system is perfectly balanced.

It's PvP that is the problem.
Remove PvP and the game is fine.
--
However, placing existing content behind a PvP-gate - effectively removing access to it from players who don't enjoy PvP - will set a precedent (an unfortunate one, in my opinion).
--
How does one "misuse" the modes?

Same way people "misuse" guns to "grief" other players?
--
I'm commenting because it's a feature that forms part of what I bought - that I might have considered taking up. It would seem that there's a desire to create an echo chamber of affirmation by excluding those who do not / have not engaged in PowerPlay. Which would very, very probably result in a minority dictating to a majority how they will access bought and paid for game content.
--
I've had all sorts sent after me when I was doing Power Play.
It's one of the reasons I quit it, I like to just potter about the universe without constant interruptions.
--


People either have no knowledge of Powerplay, sliding down slopes, don't like challenge (or thought of challenge) in a feature they never use, staring up at the DDF like Moses holding stone tablets, fear of being shot, fear of PvP players wrecking 'their' game- its tragic in a mode probably none of them actually use outside of collecting modules (something fixed in the proposal). Do they have reasons? Yes. Are they stupid headbanging reasons? Yes. A solid reason is questioning P2P, blocking players, general gameplay loops- saying you don't like being shot at in a mode about shooting is simply absurd. Its not the basis of a coherent argument at all and yet they are lauded as being cast iron reasons.



 
The console player would be cut off by GTAV online gaming too, for example: not Frontier's fault, but console's policy.
About the guy with limited physical capabilities... he probably doesn't play to CQC too, but he doesn't want it shut down. And there's plenty of people with physical problems that still play in Open anyway, I know for sure, trust me.
About occupying landing pads just check my post up here. When there's a problem you find solutions, you don't look to problems and stick to them to shut down a game mechanic as a whole, unless your only purpose is to simply deny things to people by principle.
About the screenshot really: that's again another example of bad excuse to kill a game mechanic. Really try to repeat slowly: "but I can't take hi-res screenshots!"

You see, THAT is the reason why I accuse you of being extremly biased. Screenshots. Really.

Hold on a moment. The point i made was people have real reasons for not wanting to see open only, a think Rubbernuke said did not happen. You might view those reasons as being invalid, but they gave reasons they feel are valid. And remember, that is just 1 page from 78. You want to go through 78 pages of opposing opinions and dismiss them all, that is your business.

Disagree, don't dismiss.
 

Some choice fun from the first couple of pages:

--
Dunno. Makes you wonder about non open game play in general as they keep trying to force people together with unwanted multi player functionally.

The game is rapidly becoming something I'm not interested in
--
On the other hand, he's opened Pandora's Box wide - and therefore all things (apart from Open only BGS - he's said no to that) may reasonably be requested.
--
I'm not really bothered by it personally I haven't really participated in power play at all. I do wonder however what sort of concessions they are willing to make for PVE players in return, considering open mode is PVP by default.
--
I guess it's so you can shout as loud as you can, as often as you can find a way, in support of griefing. How noble of you.
--
From a PvE point of view, the mode system is perfectly balanced.

It's PvP that is the problem.
Remove PvP and the game is fine.
--
However, placing existing content behind a PvP-gate - effectively removing access to it from players who don't enjoy PvP - will set a precedent (an unfortunate one, in my opinion).
--
How does one "misuse" the modes?

Same way people "misuse" guns to "grief" other players?
--
I'm commenting because it's a feature that forms part of what I bought - that I might have considered taking up. It would seem that there's a desire to create an echo chamber of affirmation by excluding those who do not / have not engaged in PowerPlay. Which would very, very probably result in a minority dictating to a majority how they will access bought and paid for game content.
--
I've had all sorts sent after me when I was doing Power Play.
It's one of the reasons I quit it, I like to just potter about the universe without constant interruptions.
--


People either have no knowledge of Powerplay, sliding down slopes, don't like challenge (or thought of challenge) in a feature they never use, staring up at the DDF like Moses holding stone tablets, fear of being shot, fear of PvP players wrecking 'their' game- its tragic in a mode probably none of them actually use outside of collecting modules (something fixed in the proposal). Do they have reasons? Yes. Are they stupid headbanging reasons? Yes. A solid reason is questioning P2P, blocking players, general gameplay loops- saying you don't like being shot at in a mode about shooting is simply absurd. Its not the basis of a coherent argument at all and yet they are lauded as being cast iron reasons.

By all means, ignore all the posts which don't support your point of view :p

Also, what is wrong with holding the opinion that FD should stick to the idea that all modes are equal? This is just another case of you dismissing the opinions of others because you don't like it.

Its a perfectly valid opinion to hold and not a case of "just because". Some people want all modes are equal to remain.

Disagree, don't dismiss.
 
By all means, ignore all the posts which don't support your point of view :p

Wow really: wow. You don't even realise how you are speaking about anything at all. And you're even targeting Rubbernuke which is one of the nicest and most propositive guys in this community, only because he's too gentle to make you notice how hollow and useless your contribute is to the discussion.

Screenshots. Console making people pay to play online. This is basically the best you've been able to put on the table.

You don't even realize how ridiculous these things are, don't you.

Again: an opinion is not an opinion if it's not supported by facts and knowledge. Ask flat-earthers about that for example. They've got opinions too you know. So let's talk about actual things please, I know you are in great difficulty when we go tecnical and you can only target people in the sad hope to be able to talk about something, but nobody cares about you asking respect for your opinions at all, nobody cares about you or me or anybody else at all, people only care about facts.

When they have arguments of course, which isn't exactly your case.
 
I very much would like to see such a poll take place. Its a divisive issue, as was the ship transfer time one, so putting it to the same sort of poll would be a fair thing, and put to rest (well, as much as the ship transfer time one did) the question of how many people want to see this happen.

I'm not sure it would pass though. I'm pretty certain there are a lot of people who would be agaisnt it for the simple reason that making anything open only would be considered a bad move and perhaps they would worry it sets a bad precedent.

So, after a day or so of intense debate, i almost forgot where i came into this discussion, so went back to check.

Here we are, me agreeing with Rubbernuke that a player poll might be the way to go and expressing my opinion of what the outcome might be.

Perhaps we can now take a step back to this point and pick up from there? Since hopefully the side discussion can be considered concluded, regardless of which side you think "won" that particular debate.

Would a player poll on this topic be a good thing?

Its worth considering that the player poll on ship transfers didn't work out the way some hoped, and for months afterwards the people who were on the losing side complained about the result, saying disparaging things about those who voted in favour of transfer times.

Would you be accepting of the result should the voting community said they didn't want open only. If you are on the other side, would you be accepting of the result should the resolution pass? Personally I would say if the result is in favour of open only, then i would be accepting. I have agreed several times in various threads that the only way to find out is to really test it and see what happens, despite my belief it will not provide the result people think it will.

Therefore i say yes to a public poll on the topic of open only.

As some people seem to think i have some sort of influence over the developers, you can now be sure that FD will make it happen :p
 
Wow really: wow. You don't even realise how you are speaking about anything at all. And you're even targeting Rubbernuke which is one of the nicest and most propositive guys in this community, only because he's too gentle to make you notice how hollow and useless your contribute is to the discussion.

Screenshots. Console making people pay to play online. This is basically the best you've been able to put on the table.

You don't even realize how ridiculous these things are, don't you.

Again: an opinion is not an opinion if it's not supported by facts and knowledge. Ask flat-earthers about that for example. They've got opinions too you know. So let's talk about actual things please, I know you are in great difficulty when we go tecnical and you can only target people in the sad hope to be able to talk about something, but nobody cares about you asking respect for your opinions at all, nobody cares about you or me or anybody else at all, people only care about facts.

When they have arguments of course, which isn't exactly your case.

So, you dismiss my opinions as being invalid.

I also think Rubbernuke is a nice guy in general and i'm willing to respect his opinions, as long as he respects the opinions of others.

Now, i believe i have made my point, and all you are doing here is trying to get personal over this, i think its better if we move on. See my previous post for an attempt to get this discussion back on track. ;)
 
I don't dismiss your opinions because they are yours, I dismiss them (some of them) because there's no logic and depth behind them. It's not because of you, it's because the things you say themselves are basically wrong.

I criticize you because, even if it's told you with actual examples that some of your premises are wrong (Open Play not being made irrelevant by Private and Solo grind? Almost 1 milion preparation merits done in Frey, almost all of them in Private and Solo... that example is more than enough, and that's numbers we're talking about, facts) you don't change your mind, THAT makes you biased, because you've got not interest in facts, you just want demonstrate something at all costs, even denying the evidence.

About the poll: that would be interesting. But we're not talking about a single game mechanic as happened in the past (fast travel yes/no). This is a much more complicated and vast discussion, and it's the Developers that should simply be clear about what they want for their game to be (because the actual hybrid is inconclusive andit's source of discontent for everybody).

And most importantly we're talking about something totally different in here: we're not talking about making the game completely Open Only and that battle would be played by this fundamental lie, let's be honest about that.

Rubbernuke showed you how many (many, not all) people opinion is basically founded on the fear that all the game could become Open Only someday. This makes me wonder: is it possible that even hardcore pvt/soloers know deep inside that a competitive playground would attract a lot of new players or will bring back people that grew tired about all the grind? And just in case: would it be that much of a problem if this game mechanic is strictly delimitated in one game mechanic, Powerplay, which would be admittedly a end-game and absolutely optional game mechanic?

Because you talk about making steps back, so I will go back to my fundamental question about all of this mess.

Would it be that much of a tragedy for you to ignore a game mechanic because it doesn't fit you as much as I ignore mining or thargoids r exploration at all?

Because you are fighting so hard to deny people of something. A new game mechanic. Powerplay is simply perfect for the task, because it's there, it's dead or kept hostage by bots and cheaters.

And if you were a Powerplayer you'd know.

Do you ignore CQC already, don't you? Hell, you even ignore Powerplay right now. So what's the matter! Can't we have pretty things because you are telling to us how we should play because "all modes are equal"?
 
Open only

• Powerplay contacts are only available to players in open
• Powerplay vouchers and commodities are destroyed if a player enters solo or private groups

Reasoning: We’ve saved the biggest change for last, as making Powerplay Open only goes way beyond the remit of a tweak. We’ve seen this topic discussed many times and we think it’s time we addressed it directly to get as much quality feedback as possible.

Powerplay is fundamentally about consensual player versus player conflict. We think that pretty much all of the systems and rules would benefit from being played out in Open only, as it would dramatically increase the chance of meeting other pledged players and being able to directly affect the outcomes of power struggles.

This is the only thing that matters.
whether or not Sandro is still around for Elite is irrelevant.

Anything aunt is bringing to the table here is utterly pointless and a waste of time. Its basically trolling and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

The only thing we can do is wait to see if their investigation for making it happen is possible.
So we just have to wait.

 
Last edited:
Oh by the way: I do not dismiss criticisms. They can be useful to polish a mechanic. Like the concern about people occupying the landing pads.

But hi-res screenshots? That's plain stupid.

The problem is that you would grasp to any kind of criticism to kill the game mechanic as a whole.

That's called being biased. And again: think you are being subtle? You're not that good. It's crystal clear to everybody what you're trying to do in here.

And that's kinda sad.
 
By all means, ignore all the posts which don't support your point of view :p

Also, what is wrong with holding the opinion that FD should stick to the idea that all modes are equal? This is just another case of you dismissing the opinions of others because you don't like it.

Its a perfectly valid opinion to hold and not a case of "just because". Some people want all modes are equal to remain.

Disagree, don't dismiss.
This. All modes are equal and share the single galaxy; that's a key design feature of the game. IMO it's a clever and innovative feature which has contributed significantly to the profitability and success of ED, so I don't think FD should abandon it lightly. (That's my opinion; FD won't be depending on opinion as they have actual data instead). I don't think enthusiasts for PvP realise quite how much other play-styles have supported their game so far.
 
I still don´t see an Argument against this "Open is only a 32-ship-instance"-thing. As Long as this is not fixed, the discussion will just shift to "But I didnt see all the enemies11one1!!". Theres no reason to waste any Minute of developer time in the Open-Only-PP.

It will look totally different when "Open" really becomes "Open" - but thats a Long way down the list if I may have this optimistic Approach.
 
This. All modes are equal and share the single galaxy; that's a key design feature of the game. IMO it's a clever and innovative feature which has contributed significantly to the profitability and success of ED, so I don't think FD should abandon it lightly. (That's my opinion; FD won't be depending on opinion as they have actual data instead). I don't think enthusiasts for PvP realise quite how much other play-styles have supported their game so far.

Again: nobody's talking about abandoning the open/pvt/solo coexistence. We're talking about dedicating one single game mechanic to Open Only. Like CQC, but in game. Players will be totally able to ignore that.

And thank you for proving me right about my criticism about the fact that this proposal has become something to fight a battle of modes by principle. Nobody's going to discuss the coexistence of the three different modes for any other game mechanic.

About the instancing comment again: that should improve, but it's not enough to deny completely a game mechanic. The thing is the possibility to be instanced with any enemy: not a particular enemy.
 
Back
Top Bottom