Powerplay How is Powerplay not open only yet?

Easy Guide to identify if Powerplay and BGS are linked to each other:
1.Log into Elite Dangerous
2.Go into the right Panel
3.Open "Galacitc Power" Tab
4.Go to any Power.
5.Check Control or Expansion in the "Overview"
6.You will see: Oh wow there are some BGS related Governments which favour this specific Power or are unfavourable.
 
Click the link (Wall of Information) in my Sig.

The Devs have told people over and over, for years that all game features are for everyone.
No one mode is "special", no one mode is getting private content because that floodgate would kill the game.

And as has been pointed out, repeatedly. You can play Power Play without doing any PvP at all - even in Open Mode.
With how Frontier has improved and made their "block player" tool better, anyone could just log into Open and block everyone they see. Sudo Solo, while in Open.

The only way you could anything near what the PvP'ers want is if Power Play was moved to its own mode like CQC is. So there wouldn't be a ton of random people knocking about, only those doing Power Play. And the other modes would have nothing to do with it at all. (which I'm fine with)
Thank you for describing the problems. Such as, "You can play Power Play without doing any PvP at al'". That's a big problem that kills the game mode. But you can't reasonably expect to never come across opposition in open.

You say things like, "With how Frontier has improved and made their "block player" tool better, anyone could just log into Open and block everyone they see", but you don't seem to say them as if they're problems. You seem to enjoy that the game is in a bad state.

CQC is no alternative to powerplay, it's a completely different game type.

FDev also said that Powerplay was the one game mode they would consider for open only so why don't you add that to your wall.
 
Thank you for describing the problems. Such as, "You can play Power Play without doing any PvP at al'". That's a big problem that kills the game mode. But you can't reasonably expect to never come across opposition in open.

You say things like, "With how Frontier has improved and made their "block player" tool better, anyone could just log into Open and block everyone they see", but you don't seem to say them as if they're problems. You seem to enjoy that the game is in a bad state.

CQC is no alternative to powerplay, it's a completely different game type.

FDev also said that Powerplay was the one game mode they would consider for open only so why don't you add that to your wall.
PvP is optional and always has been - which was explained on the Kickstarter page. So trying to force PvP on people who do not want it is unreasonable. You bought the game knowing PvP is optional. The improvements to the block tool also reinforce this concept, calling it "broken" is wrong. Because it is exactly in line with the real concept of the game of players choosing how to play and who to play with each session.


I used CQC as an example, how it is its own mode on the menu screen. Doing the same for Power Play so the main menu would read "Open, Group, Solo, CQC, Power Play" - hope that explains it better for you.

FDev didn't say they'd consider anything. A single Dev did and it was in contrast to David Braben saying the exact opposite. Then the Dev that said it, stopped saying it. Hence I didn't include it, because they spoke out of turn and had to drop it.
 
The biggest problem with oopp is that it simply would not fix any problems by it self. With the peer to peer networking you will never ever be able to be instanced with everyone who may be opposing you so open only would not fix that not to mention the other gaming platforms. And if the other platforms are not an issue because the powers are equally represented why does that not apply to the game modes?
PvP needs its own direct mechanism to promote the power, that way PvP has direct representation in PP not some indirect only if you can instance with someone way. Other improvements are also needed but Open Only by itself doesnt fix anything, not even the bots.
 
Thank you for describing the problems. Such as, "You can play Power Play without doing any PvP at al'". That's a big problem that kills the game mode. But you can't reasonably expect to never come across opposition in open.

You say things like, "With how Frontier has improved and made their "block player" tool better, anyone could just log into Open and block everyone they see", but you don't seem to say them as if they're problems. You seem to enjoy that the game is in a bad state.

CQC is no alternative to powerplay, it's a completely different game type.

FDev also said that Powerplay was the one game mode they would consider for open only so why don't you add that to your wall.
Giving anyone an incentive to block everyone they meet in Open would be a massive problem. Even I, with no interest in PvP play at all, see that it would devastate everyone's instancing. This is why no Open-only rewards should ever be introduced.

Notice I say rewards, not content. I'm happy for anyone who wants an Open-only activity to organise and do it. But I never want FD to create an incentive for other players to destroy my instancing.

All this is theoretical though, and this whole discussion is a dishonest one. It's really just all about getting more chances to explode players who don't want to be exploded. I simply don't care about people who want to do that. Luckily I see no chance that they'll get what they want.
 
Last edited:
It's really just all about getting more chances to explode players who don't want to be exploded.

If you want to talk about dishonest discussion - this is a great example. The strawman argument of "everyone who wants OOPP is just a muderhobo" constantly derails this conversation. It's happened so many times in this thread.

If you actually read the conversations and theorycrafting about what Powerplay could be, you'll see that it's an honest conversation about an ignored gamemode, one that has a lot of untapped potential for dynamic, player-driven, interactive gameplay. Potential that simply isn't realizable when the fastest, easiest path to victory is to just out-grind your opponent in solo.

My favourite part of a lot of these conversations is how hard some will oppose ideas for changing Powerplay, while admitting in the same post that they never play it. For those who think Powerplay should never change: do you actually invest a significant percentage of your in-game time in this gamemode? If yes, explain why you think it shouldn't be changed (genuinely). If no, I'm sorry - but it's hard to take your opinions about Powerplay seriously because you don't engage with the gamemode seriously.
 
Last edited:
If you want to talk about dishonest discussion - this is a great example. The strawman argument of "everyone who wants OOPP is just a muderhobo" constantly derails this conversation. It's happened so many times in this thread.

If you actually read the conversations and theorycrafting about what Powerplay could be, you'll see that it's an honest conversation about an ignored gamemode, one that has a lot of untapped potential for dynamic, player-driven, interactive gameplay. Potential that simply isn't realizable when the fastest, easiest path to victory is to just out-grind your opponent in solo.

My favourite part of a lot of these conversations is how hard some will oppose ideas for changing Powerplay, while admitting in the same post that they never play it. For those who think Powerplay should never change: do you actually invest a significant percentage of your in-game time in this gamemode? If yes, explain why you think it shouldn't be changed (genuinely). If no, I'm sorry - but it's hard to take your opinions about Powerplay seriously because you don't engage with the gamemode seriously.
Sorry, but excepting a few actual PP enthusiasts, I believe my statement is true. The enthusiasts are regarded as "useful idiots" by some other players who just want everyone forced into Open somehow. You can see this from the connections made between PP and BGS leading to suggestions for reduced BGS inf in other modes. Then when the problem of Block becomes apparent we get suggestions to water down or remove it (ignoring the fact that this is impossible). This all goes round and round and some of us are pretty fed up with it.

But never mind. "This is how the game is" actually seems to me like a good response from those of us who enjoy playing it, like ED's "all modes equal" structure as it is, and don't want FD to make unwise changes to satisfy a lobby who want the game to be changed into something it's not.

I only bother to respond to these threads at all because of a slight concern that if no-one does, FD might actually start to think that the player-base as a whole want these kind of changes, and might take some action that wrecks the game (like the incentive to over-use block and thereby ruin instancing that I previously described).

I've never played PP. I've previously supported suggestions to make parts of it Open-only because I think the game should offer meaningful PvP. But then others started saying that wasn't enough; they'd need the BGS too. Then my support evaporated. I've previously challenged the proponents of OOPP to state clearly that they didn't also want the BGS. They wouldn't do so.
 
Last edited:
How to start a discussion in Playstyles; PVP, Powerplay, CQC

  1. Mention OOPP in a thread
  2. ????
  3. Profit
But seriously, why are we still having these OOPP back and forths after years? We currently have game breaking bugs in PP (this includes too much/too little CC, systems not getting counted, different UI elements outright showing false numbers, more broken UI elements that should not exist), some of which have been around for the past 2 years or even more and Fdev either has not the manpower, the motivation, or (worse) the capability to fix them. And yet people expect Fdev to go above and beyond to rework their netcode in some way. But hey, even me writing this paragraph fits right into the pattern of OOPP discussions, since someone needs to point the above out to complete the cycle of ranting and whining about OOPP :rolleyes:
 
Would be interesting to see how many people who want PP to be open only actually participate in PP.

But yeah, any discussion about PP is moot at this point, given the fact that 1) FDev don't seem to have the resources needed for an overhaul and 2) any wish to make PP open only is completely moot as long as there's the current unreliable instancing system that can - and WILL - be easily exploited.
 
How to start a discussion in Playstyles; PVP, Powerplay, CQC

  1. Mention OOPP in a thread
  2. ????
  3. Profit
But seriously, why are we still having these OOPP back and forths after years? We currently have game breaking bugs in PP (this includes too much/too little CC, systems not getting counted, different UI elements outright showing false numbers, more broken UI elements that should not exist), some of which have been around for the past 2 years or even more and Fdev either has not the manpower, the motivation, or (worse) the capability to fix them. And yet people expect Fdev to go above and beyond to rework their netcode in some way. But hey, even me writing this paragraph fits right into the pattern of OOPP discussions, since someone needs to point the above out to complete the cycle of ranting and whining about OOPP :rolleyes:
I think "expect" is a strong word 🤣. You are right that many things are wrong with PP and we'd all welcome any positive attention to the feature. But these discussions do emphasise what players expect the feature to provide in terns of gameplay and balance, and a "simple" way toward achieving that (by all means FDev, please come up with a "better" way to balance the modes and keep everyone happy gameplay-wise).

I'm all for ways of incentivising open play more organically. One idea I had was to have escalating rewards from player interaction - something along the lines of you "capture the flag" from me and you get a good chunk of merits, but if I capture it back I get even more merits. If I just ferry the flag in solo, I only get a small amount of merits per flag. (It was actually something more compelling than flags, and there was more mechanistic detail than that). The idea is that even if you "lose" by going to open, you actually have the chance to win bigger by turning the tables, maintaining the incentive of being in open. Unfortunately, it's exploitable if the CMDR can choose who they interact with, so the game would have to initiate interactions by some PvP mission mechanic that wasn't predictable.

Perhaps, returning to OO, as is so often the case, it becomes up to the community if FDev won't step in. My group (which is essentially the entirety of those working for the power) has very successfully nurtured an open only, block-free ethos, which we're able to have high confidence is adhered to more or less universally. But we can't do this for other powers, and have high confidence that the same cannot be said for them. Perhaps (crazy idea) what we need is agreements across powers, and a small network of independent embedded observers that assess adherence to those agreements. But it's always going to be hard to establish trust given the shenanigans that have occured in PP's history.

The interplay between culture, rules and feature design is what's key to a healthy playing field. OO represents a radical (for some) rule change, and it does create a tension in that interplay. OO recognises that limited dev time means that the full interplay has little likelihood of being addressed, and it becomes an "if you could just change one thing" question. On the "culture" side, I think the statement that FDev would make with OO, that "these are the rules" would mean that it would have some degree of success. People are reluctant to go against intended gameplay. At the moment intended gameplay is "anything goes", and in fact the most natural way to play such an explicitly opt-in, explicitly player-oppositional feature (i.e. in open) is penalised. I sometimes wonder, if FDev had marketed PP from the start as a PvP feature, to be done in open without blocks, that might have been enough to set up a better and more universal default culture. What's sad is that some huge recent battles that would be a great ad for the feature have likely gone under the radar for basically all players not involved.
 
Sorry, but excepting a few actual PP enthusiasts, I believe my statement is true. The enthusiasts are regarded as "useful idiots" by some other players who just want everyone forced into Open somehow. You can see this from the connections made between PP and BGS leading to suggestions for reduced BGS inf in other modes. Then when the problem of Block becomes apparent we get suggestions to water down or remove it (ignoring the fact that this is impossible). This all goes round and round and some of us are pretty fed up with it.

But never mind. "This is how the game is" actually seems to me like a good response from those of us who enjoy playing it, like ED's "all modes equal" structure as it is, and don't want FD to make unwise changes to satisfy a lobby who want the game to be changed into something it's not.

I only bother to respond to these threads at all because of a slight concern that if no-one does, FD might actually start to think that the player-base as a whole want these kind of changes, and might take some action that wrecks the game (like the incentive to over-use block and thereby ruin instancing that I previously described).

I've never played PP. I've previously supported suggestions to make parts of it Open-only because I think the game should offer meaningful PvP. But then others started saying that wasn't enough; they'd need the BGS too. Then my support evaporated. I've previously challenged the proponents of OOPP to state clearly that they didn't also want the BGS. They wouldn't do so.
Funny, because the only people I ever see arguing for OO in the forums are active PPers/enthusiasts. Would love to meet the shadowy cabal of people who are pulling our strings and find out how they do that without ever having any contact with us. Gankers have plenty of meat already, OOPPers just want to be able to be confident to be able to encounter their opposition, whoever that might be, and whether or not it's for recon or violent purposes, or just to have the thing be properly, visibly multiplayer-with-actual-humans-on-my-radar as far as other constraints allow.
 
Funny, because the only people I ever see arguing for OO in the forums are active PPers/enthusiasts. Would love to meet the shadowy cabal of people who are pulling our strings and find out how they do that without ever having any contact with us. Gankers have plenty of meat already, OOPPers just want to be able to be confident to be able to encounter their opposition, whoever that might be, and whether or not it's for recon or violent purposes, or just to have the thing be properly, visibly multiplayer-with-actual-humans-on-my-radar as far as other constraints allow.
Well, if only the people arguing for OOPP would clearly state that they don't mean this as the thin end of a wedge and don't want any aspects of BGS to be OO, they'd have my support* again. That means disowning and arguing against the people who do want OOgame when they pop up in these threads.

(*Of course, my support is only cosmetic; there's no reason to think FD take any notice of me).


I've previously tried to separate things out by offering a "deal":-

I'll support introduction of OOPP if the people who want it will support the addition of Open-PvE mode (which cannot access PP).

This gives PP players what they say they want, gives me what I want, but emphatically doesn't give gankers what they want. It therefore enables us all to distinguish PP players from gankers according to whether they think it's a good package or not.

Any takers?
 
I'll support introduction of OOPP if the people who want it will support the addition of Open-PvE mode (which cannot access PP).

This gives PP players what they say they want, gives me what I want, but emphatically doesn't give gankers what they want. It therefore enables us all to distinguish PP players from gankers according to whether they think it's a good package or not.

Any takers?
I'll back that.
+1

:)
 
Well, if only the people arguing for OOPP would clearly state that they don't mean this as the thin end of a wedge and don't want any aspects of BGS to be OO, they'd have my support* again. That means disowning and arguing against the people who do want OOgame when they pop up in these threads.

(*Of course, my support is only cosmetic; there's no reason to think FD take any notice of me).


I've previously tried to separate things out by offering a "deal":-

I'll support introduction of OOPP if the people who want it will support the addition of Open-PvE mode (which cannot access PP).

This gives PP players what they say they want, gives me what I want, but emphatically doesn't give gankers what they want. It therefore enables us all to distinguish PP players from gankers according to whether they think it's a good package or not.

Any takers?
Not me. Don't gank (I mean I've fought back in CZs when attacked, is that ganking? People seem to have such wildly different definitions as to make the word useless). Don't want open split either. A lot of people don't have a huge problem with being attacked without a stated reason, even if they don't attack unprovoked themselves, because it's self-evidently a potential outcome of open mode. It would be tiresome if it was ubiquitous, but it isn't. It would be nice if it wasn't "automatic at CGs/Deciat and never happens anywhere else", but something more graded between, and with better placement in context. But that's a game design problem. You're making a specious connection between OOPP and ganking anyway. It's likely the opposite. A meaningful, "legitimate" organic PvP option is much more attractive than randomly attacking whoever crosses your reticle. Any player spending time engaged in the former is not spending that time doing the latter; thus the latter is reduced. I guess you'd rather they suffer maybe, but me, I just want a better game. Divorce the special modules from PP pledging and then the only reason to pledge is to take up the "fight" - opting in to potentially being attacked for your pledge, which seems to fall outwith the "unsolicited" definition of ganking.

Also, I have a lot of sympathy with people who do want OOBGS, because it's for a lot of the same reasons I'd prefer PP done exclusively in open, although I don't think it's worth arguing for. I'd prefer for people not to do active BGS manipulation in closed modes - it seems a weak move to so carefully hide your actions behind an artifice (this is not skilful stealth) when they're explicitly aimed at subverting someone else's interests, and I don't like the sneer that's implied with doing so. If something like OOBGS had to happen, I'd prefer if it was a harsher diminishing returns curve in closed modes, to keep its universality. In honesty, I think it's disingenuous that it gets brought up when it's such a different beast to OOPP, and I find myself wondering what your motivations are to link the two, when there is zero chance of OOBGS outside of a sea change in philosophy at FDev. This is no matter how many times the differences are explained.
 
I do pp. Won't say how. I just do. I do it in the open. I've been shot at and do the shooting.
The bgs is related to pp and would be more so if open only.
I don't advocate bgs as open only no. Pp yes for sure.
Or at least the legend suggests namely missions solo etc etc.
The balance is wrong thats as clear as crystal.
Even a dumbass like me can see it.
 
Not me. Don't gank (I mean I've fought back in CZs when attacked, is that ganking? People seem to have such wildly different definitions as to make the word useless). Don't want open split either. A lot of people don't have a huge problem with being attacked without a stated reason, even if they don't attack unprovoked themselves, because it's self-evidently a potential outcome of open mode. It would be tiresome if it was ubiquitous, but it isn't. It would be nice if it wasn't "automatic at CGs/Deciat and never happens anywhere else", but something more graded between, and with better placement in context. But that's a game design problem. You're making a specious connection between OOPP and ganking anyway. It's likely the opposite. A meaningful, "legitimate" organic PvP option is much more attractive than randomly attacking whoever crosses your reticle. Any player spending time engaged in the former is not spending that time doing the latter; thus the latter is reduced. I guess you'd rather they suffer maybe, but me, I just want a better game. Divorce the special modules from PP pledging and then the only reason to pledge is to take up the "fight" - opting in to potentially being attacked for your pledge, which seems to fall outwith the "unsolicited" definition of ganking.

Also, I have a lot of sympathy with people who do want OOBGS, because it's for a lot of the same reasons I'd prefer PP done exclusively in open, although I don't think it's worth arguing for. I'd prefer for people not to do active BGS manipulation in closed modes - it seems a weak move to so carefully hide your actions behind an artifice (this is not skilful stealth) when they're explicitly aimed at subverting someone else's interests, and I don't like the sneer that's implied with doing so. If something like OOBGS had to happen, I'd prefer if it was a harsher diminishing returns curve in closed modes, to keep its universality. In honesty, I think it's disingenuous that it gets brought up when it's such a different beast to OOPP, and I find myself wondering what your motivations are to link the two, when there is zero chance of OOBGS outside of a sea change in philosophy at FDev. This is no matter how many times the differences are explained.
Some good dance moves.

You've helped me decide that I think ED makes all modes equal by design, I think this is a good design and it shouldn't be modified by introducing any game effects in Open which can't be achieved in other modes.

When people ask for PvP content we can point them to CQC.
 
Last edited:
Some good dance moves above.
No. Theyre describing the game as it actually plays out (when it's playable). Theyre not the ones 'dancing', ie. playing rhetorical games; such as posing questions that embed the assumption that anyone opposed to open-pve is a ganker.

It was a beg/bribe/blackmail combo that was never going to bait any takers.

You've helped me decide that I think ED makes all modes equal by design, I think this is a good design and it shouldn't be modified by introducing any game effects in Open which can't be achieved in other modes.

When people ask for PvP content we can point them to CQC.
So ofc this was always going to be your reply. It was your well entrenched opinion long time before this thread appeared. Its just weak debating tactics, no knowledge or detail required.

Theres only one dancer in all this, and youre all left feet.
 
Well the answer is relatively simple. Instead of spreading two very weak roles over all three modes, you fit the feature to the mode itself.

That way, everyone gets a focussed chunk that appeals to them.

But you know all this already :D
 
...So ofc this was always going to be your reply. It was your well entrenched opinion long time before this thread appeared. Its just weak debating tactics, no knowledge or detail required.
...
I've previously been convinced by Rubbernuke's arguments to support OOPP, but in this thread I've finally gone off the idea because some (apparently most) people who want OOPP actually want the BGS as well.

@Rubbernuke : I think that if you were willing to rebuke some of the extremists who are using your ideas for their own purposes, you'd actually gain credibility.
 
Last edited:
I've previously been convinced by Rubbernuke's arguments to support OOPP, but in this thread I've finally gone off the idea because some people who want OOPP actually want the BGS as well.

@Rubbernuke : I think that if you were willing to rebuke some of the extremists who are using your ideas for their own purposes, you'd actually gain credibility.
:D

Check my posting history. At no point have I wanted an open BGS because the BGS is not set up for open only play. If thats not enough for my credibility than I can;t say any more.

But to summarise my only Open Powerplay idea: the BGS is highly abstracted where causes cannot be mapped to effects- i.e. due to aggregation of activity you can't know who did what. In Powerplay you can, because everything is an explicit outward facing indicator of intent. Pledges, territory, phase of Powerplay (i.e. prep, expansion, UM etc) cargo all meld to allow easy identification and intent that can be mapped in real time almost 1:1 to a commander.

From this, at least half of Powerplay should be open only, because the bits we have are pretty much all set up for it. What I also argue is that solo and PG need activities that are equally vital but play to solo and PG strengths in ED- i.e. small missions. This would then allow a more lore centric half to dovetail.

Here it is:

 
Last edited:
Top Bottom