Player affecting factions even in Pvt and Solo

Here you are dead wrong. And if you can't see why, then no wonder the discussion rumbles on.
You appear to be convinced that no other players should get any kind of say in this, and expect your say to be the defining one. Can you not see a problem with this?




Again - dead wrong. I'm also going to take a stab in the dark that you think those players who DO engage in PP, but do so from PG and Solo, have their say in the feature removed as well?






It's not really a tough call at all.

If you come out with what you are actually trying to achieve, you may well get a ground swell of support.

If, truly, the PP dynamic would be improved FOR ALL PLAYERS, then this is definitely what would happen. However, the vacuum of information on what exactly it is that you are trying to push is the very reason that this ground swell is not apparent. Perhaps the "notions" being put forward by the PvP community simply does not appeal to most players ("notions" as opposed to fundamental gameplay expectations - which are not forthcoming - so the "notions" are all we have to go on at the moment.)

Yours Aye

Mark H
Just throwin this out there, when you arrogantly tell people they are wrong, which you do A LOT, people tend to just ignore you. People are more likely to listen to you if you phrase your sentences, "in my opinion".
Your arrogance immediately makes me not want to read anything that you have to say. Something that took me 30 years to learn, just thought I'd pass on the knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Sure, but every player also bought access to being able to "Explore the galaxy" but I would not want Frontier to listen too closely to folks who have never left the Bubble if making any changes to that mode of gameplay. Appeasing people who do not use a game feature at the expense of those who actually do use it just produces watered-down gameplay that NO ONE ends up enjoying.

It's not like making PP Open only actually means anyone 'can't use the feature'. We all have access to Open.
Folk who have never been exploring might not have done so because of many reasons. I tried exploring soon after I got the game and found it as boring as hell and never really did it again until the recent updates, which are a vast improvement. People who don't use a feature of the game have every right to comment on how it might be improved so that they do play it. And maybe their opinion is more important if getting more folk to use it is desired.

That goes for PP, too. Those who don't do it have opinions as to why they don't do it, and that is vitally important to improving it.

Not taking notice of those who don't indulge in PP and asking why they don't and merely relying on a very vocal minority who do risks ghettoising it and making it less popular.
 
I'll post a question then:
What if Power-Play was limited to Open, but its rewards were reduced to vanity items only? Special ship skins, weapon effects, boost effects, cockpit trinkets, maybe some pet drones that follow your ship arrow...
Prismatic shields and pack-hounds and everything else would be obtainable by special multi-level missions in special systems.
Would solo and private players still want to PowerPlay that much?
 
So you agree that it is a pointless debate and Power Play should be left as it is, then?
Yes, I think the OP is a pointless debate - Frontier aren't going to change a fundamental aspect of their game's design and start spiraling their costs upwards by maintaining separate servers. Where's the business case for doing that?

I thought Sandro's proposals for Powerplay were very good. And I mean all his proposals, the Open-Only aspect was just one part of the bigger picture.

Just as those who bought a game that in no way requires any player to engage in PvP to participate in any game feature (except CQC/Arena, of course) will continue to complain about the lack of PvP-gated features?
Yes, those too. Forum is full of moaners.
 
Just throwin this out there, when you arrogantly tell people they are wrong, which you do A LOT, people tend to just ignore you. People are more likely to listen to you if you phrase your sentences, "in my opinion".
Your arrogance immediately makes me not want to read anything that you have to say. Something that took me 30 years to learn, just thought I'd pass on the knowledge.
I would tend to agree with your basic premise - IF what I had said was anything other than intuitively obvious and demonstrably concrete.

I phrased it that way on purpose. You might see it as arrogant. I might agree with that if it was my first post on exactly the same point, that others are simply wilfuly ignoring it out-of-hand (even though it is patently obvious what I was originally saying) You might see it as arrogance, however, my intention was to get people's attention abruptly - so that they then question in their own minds why this might be the case. Why was I getting their attention so abruptly? Which I then later go on to clarify...

If the people I was addressing had bothered to invest some mental energy in my previous posts, then I wouldn't have phrased it later in stronger language (solely as a response to those who keep ignoring the point and then keep telling me I'm wrong, without reason.... and this is where I can see your bias coming out... label the guy who has a meaningful material as "arrogant" and then use that label of "arrogance" as a reason to then justify the group's wilful ignorance of the meaningful material),.
I had been driven from gentle persuasion in previous posts when I was feeding people the information they need to make a proper value judgement - which they refuse to assimilate - to later writing the stark obviousness in words that can't really be misinterpreted.


Reference to "Arrogance". You know - it is quite prevalent that when there is a difference of opinion between 2 adults that when one puts forward the view that is more demonstrably the view that ought to be taken, the person who had the "wrong" notion accuses the other of being "arrogant". Such is human nature.


Bearing in mind the vacuum of why you think Open Only would be better for PP...
Perhaps it is now on the self-appointed OOPP campaigners to tell the majority of players (including those players who engage in PP, but prefer to do it in their PG or Solo modes) why the self appointed minority campaigners insist that everybody else should have no vote? < -- When it is phrased like that - do the self appointed campaigners of OOPP have a reasonable answer? And am I being arrogant in requesting that the self appointed campaigners finally explain why?

Yours Aye

Mark H
 
You regularly get an answer, it's just you refuse to accept it as one and then vaguely allude to how it's all smokes and mirrors for a hidden agenda.
Nope. Not true. Never seen an answer in detail (*). EVER - just the transparent and FIRST order effect that is the desired outcome, not the further implications for PP.

Go on...
Indulge us...
Tell us about it...
In detail - what the further second and third order implications would be for the entirety of PP as a coherent game feature...

Now that you've bitten to my post, own it and follow it through with some meaningful discussion. (I forum PvP dare you, LOL.)

(I'll start you off - if going Open Only were just to get all PvP combat PP pilots into Open - I can tell you, you already know, that this is a feature that is available to you right now... you may wish to include in your answer why this isn't being utilised right now ;) )


Looking forward to some meaningful discussion

Mark H

(*) - if you ever have in a thread I've participated in, then maybe add a link to that specific post - then you can say you were right about me ignoring it. But I very much doubt that this will be the case, and your "you regularly get an answer" is just, as always, empty fluff. However - I am very much prepared to stand corrected, because I'm generous like that :) As a reward, you will get an public forum apology if you are correct that proper answers have been forthcoming. But be warned Mr Goose, I am looking for the full implications, both positive and negative, and not just a list of your desires devoid of any actual analysis and sound conclusions.
 
Whats wrong with powerplay having its own rewards.

Dont tell me this place is gonna throw a fit if we get different ships and tools only available through powerplay?

Get a grip folks.

I'd even go as far as to say it should have its own currency.
 
Last edited:
Nope. Not true. Never seen an answer in detail (*). EVER - just the transparent and FIRST order effect that is the desired outcome, not the further implications for PP.
Except we don't have to look far to see what I'm referring to with you dismissing people as having 'ulterior motives'.

I refer you to you're earlier post, in this thread:

Quite disappointing, really, particularly as it is a transparent ploy.
Perhaps PP players, or PvP combat players in particular, believe that the rest of us are not as clever as they are and can't see through the false premise?
Why would someone bother reiterating their stance to you for the 9 millionth time in this thread, when you're simply going to dismiss it with that sort of level of arrogance and pomposity?
 
So the question as I see it is will oopp make PP better (subjective of course)

By itself I dont think so: however, I am open to changing my mind.

What would be the purpose of OOPP?
If its to make everyone who engages in it open to all other players, unless the networking./instancing is improved I dont see that as a viable realistic outcome.
In addition to timezones. platforms, instancing limits, and node jumps there is the block list as well as router settings traffic flooding and probably others I have no idea of. (not advocating the use of these tactics)
The blocklist would be fairly easy to over come, just make it go away if pledged. (how easy from a programming stance I have no idea)
Router settings well thats something that would probably require a new network handling setup, same would go for traffic flooding etc. Not impossible to do but I am not sure either.

Could it increase the number of players you might instance with? Maybe, but thats kind of an unknown it could also mean fewer people not more engage in PP.

So unless other improvements were made as well as OOPP I just dont see it having a meaningful effect on PP.

As Ziggy has stated (probably others as well) there should be some kind of actual agency for players other than the shiny modules, and in my opinion some actual changes to make it more meaningful.

Respectfully
 
Except we don't have to look far to see what I'm referring to with you dismissing people as having 'ulterior motives'.

I refer you to you're earlier post, in this thread:



Why would someone bother reiterating their stance to you for the 9 millionth time in this thread, when you're simply going to dismiss it with that sort of level of arrogance and pomposity?
If you have the response, then let's just hear it, for the first time (not the nine-million-and-first ;) ).

If you don't have the confidence in your position, then continue the personal attacks.

Your call.
 
So the question as I see it is will oopp make PP better (subjective of course)

By itself I dont think so: however, I am open to changing my mind.

What would be the purpose of OOPP?
If its to make everyone who engages in it open to all other players, unless the networking./instancing is improved I dont see that as a viable realistic outcome.
In addition to timezones. platforms, instancing limits, and node jumps there is the block list as well as router settings traffic flooding and probably others I have no idea of. (not advocating the use of these tactics)
The blocklist would be fairly easy to over come, just make it go away if pledged. (how easy from a programming stance I have no idea)
Router settings well thats something that would probably require a new network handling setup, same would go for traffic flooding etc. Not impossible to do but I am not sure either.

Could it increase the number of players you might instance with? Maybe, but thats kind of an unknown it could also mean fewer people not more engage in PP.

So unless other improvements were made as well as OOPP I just dont see it having a meaningful effect on PP.

As Ziggy has stated (probably others as well) there should be some kind of actual agency for players other than the shiny modules, and in my opinion some actual changes to make it more meaningful.

Respectfully

Careful about posting well judged, well reasoned, well written and balanced responses on this. Which your response is - very well balanced and containing some good analysis of second order effects. The OOPP crowd just don't want to hear it and just don't want this level of balanced response, because, you know, the more that this balanced analytical response is provided, the more that they refuse to engage in actual discussion of whether it would be good for PP, or not. And from your own conclusions, it would appear that going Open Only would probably do nothing to improve PP.

It might improve PvP play, but there's nothing at the moment stopping those that want to PvP in the PP environment from doing so, yet apparently, they don't appear to be using that feature fully. For PvP I mean. Even though PvP combat is it's own reward!

Nice post, and one that the self-appointed OOPP campaigners could learn a lot from :)

Yours Aye

Mark H
 
I'll post a question then:
What if Power-Play was limited to Open, but its rewards were reduced to vanity items only? Special ship skins, weapon effects, boost effects, cockpit trinkets, maybe some pet drones that follow your ship arrow...
IF the game was such that all vanity items in the game were earnable by doing in game stuff and every feature and each faction had their own paint jobs and ship kits etc and we had some form of in game trophy cabinet where we could see all of our unlocks - a bit like the bobblehead wall in fallout (which is exactly how the game should be imo.;..... i would have immense fun just trying to "get them all" ) then i would have no issues with PP having its own cosmetics even if in open only. (i would probably just log into open, do PP and get the skins before bailing but that is by the by)

however the game isnt like that, so what you are suggesting is making PP a special snowflake feature which would be the only feature which rewarded the player with skins and trinkets..... and that I am less in favour of.
 
I thought Sandro's proposals for Powerplay were very good. And I mean all his proposals, the Open-Only aspect was just one part of the bigger picture.
all his proposals? how could you want them all, some were contradictory. Yes Sandro proposed OO PP, however he also proposed a 2 tier PP, with 1 tier in open and 1 tier in the other modes. AS far as the player would see, both would be exactly the same, they still would rank up the same way and get any and all rewards BUT the influence in solo would have a modifier put on it so that its over all effects of PP were reduced compared to the influence if done in open.

so, there you have 2 proposals both antagonistic to each other so not sure how you can want both (personally i prefer the bottom of the 2 options myself)
 
Top Bottom