Which'll never happen, considering this game's Peer-to-Peer networking solution and instancing rules.
Powerplay 2.0 deep dive - Frontier Live 27th March
- Thread starter londonx
- Start date
Which'll never happen, considering this game's Peer-to-Peer networking solution and instancing rules.
I wrote this in the previous deep dive and I was wrong because what they showed on stream was basically just UI mockup screenshots and models of various previously unseen carrier layouts they likely scrapped and had lying around from before.
It feels like it's not that far into development as I thought, but there's still kinda not enough info on the numbers and power buffs for anyone to really give any constructive feedback besides the questions that rise about the potential for uncapped power expansion.
Once more. Direct pew-pew is OPTIONAL part of player VS player. Other parts are - shifting controls, changing prices and so on. It's more like fight of 2 big corporations - big bosses never kick each other but results of the fight can be seen. And Elite is unique in this. I don't want another dumb shooter.
the galaxy is big enough for all kinds of activities and pvp does not turn elite into another shooter.
if you don't want pvp just don't participate in it, it's not very difficult to understand.
"This is how it's always been" isn't an argument against changing it. Elite is certainly unique in attempting to create player competition while also allowing players to opt-out of parts of the competition at no cost, for sure.
There is no good solution actually. LA2 had "pvp" currency, you had to kill other players to get 1-5 points and/or be present into siege's pvp zone (2 times per 2 weeks), +100 points per 10 mins or so. To upgrade weapon you need 20000 points of for gear another 15000 I think. Don't recall exact values.
It ended up people made 20 characters, were moving it into siege zone and kill em farming enough points in 2 weeks. Nobody was bothering to do real fights for that
Basically it was entry to pvp, you had to make that weapons just to start pvp, otherwise you did no damage.
Ok, finally (and after a couple of beers and a glass of amaro) I can say the things that I liked and the ones I didn't like in this new PP2.
First of all: things I liked...
First of all: things I liked...
- finally some REAL talks about this new game mechanic. Again, I really hope to see everything written in some thread sooner than later, mostly because the verbal communication can't be as precise as a written text and we need a very punctual description of the different aspects of this new game mechanics if you really need our feedback.
- you REALLY read the forums. I've seen some of my ideas from the past, some of @Rubbernuke 's, some of the many, many, MANY other players' that wrote a lot about Powerplay in the past, this is really cool and makes it meaningful for us to be as "contributive" as possible;
- this is not a PP 2.0, this is something totally different: it's straightforward, it's decentralized, it's simple, it's designed to be playable by casual players as hardcore veterans, and we can finally say that this is the end for 5C;
- loved how you mentioned that Players will get advantages in their Power dominions and that they should simply play for their Power to have those advantages in as many systems as possible;
- love the new personal reward system, decaying merits have always been a great limitation, this way you give players a reason to stay pledged to their Power and keep working for them, a REASON, an ADVANTAGE rather than an obligation, great move, and love the new CG-fashioned extra rewards for top contributing CMDRs and most of it love the fact that they will be rewarded with the glory of being present with their holo-me and names;
- the UI seems much more useful and enjoyable, love the fact that you had in mind not just hardcore players but forced-to-be-almost-retired-players-because-frack-real-life making it easier to check where you are needed the most for the sake of your Power;
- I still believe that rewarding PvP kills is too exploitable, especially if it's going to be as rewarding as it should be in an ideal world where people play "by the rules". And this is not a matter of game mode: even in Open, with a well designed VPN, a group of players aiming to exploit some easy PvP kills could simply get a secondary account pledged to the Power they want to harm and get a great advantage. So PLEASE consider very carefully what you are doing. I still think that the only way to make the game fair is to make it PvE driven with a PvP variability (but I will talk about it later);
- I didn't like that much the fact that every Power will have different ways to make merits: the most logical path still is the Powerplay Missions one in my opinion, and in general any Power should be somehow helped by trade as for exploration as for combat, of course with different flavours considering the lore of the different Powers, just to make an example, Archon Delaine, being the strongly combat oriented Power he is, should be anyway helped by trading weapons or any other illegal commodity but legal commodities too (you know, we pirates eat and drink too, even if mostly rhum...), Powerplay should include AS MANY game mechanics as possible and as balanced as possible to avoidfor players to get bored soon;
- what about current Powerplay modules? I think they should be moved to tech brokers, especially considering the new tier system, specifically designed to promote fidelization to a single Power
- will be the current Powerplay Galaxy reset, or the old Control Systems will become the new Stronghold systems?
- we now know that merits are still with us but... will they be cashed immediately or not? I think that with this new "tug-of-war" system snipes (aka: cashing all merits just before the weekly server tick) could become too much Powerful;
- I hope to see LOTS of Odyssey gameplay implemented in PP2;
- to be honest, I don't think the game should be considered dead if either PP2 is made Open Only or not, Open Play dangers are notoriously avoidable by any VPN service (and there's plenty of cheap ones online), but...
- ...Open Only could be what REALLY makes Powerplay different from BGS, which could become the Open-PVT-Solo dedicated game mechanic, but to do so Powerplay should NOT offer modules, never, ever, just good advantages designed mostly for a PvP-likely scenario;
- instancing will never be perfect, but in an Open Only game mechanic the possibility to find AN enemy (and not THAT enemy in particular) should be granted, this changes everything in efficiency to make merits, ship builds etc;
- basically Open Only should be an opportunity, a different thing that Elite Dangerous offers to their players, basically a way for ANY kind of players to know they will find human enemies to make the game spicier, but to do so this game mechanic (and I will repeat it again) should NOT give modules, basically it shoiuld be completely avoidable if a non-Open Player is not interested.
Wow that stream was painful to watch, especially since the segment was pre-recorded. I acknowledge we are chomping at the bit and they are flawed humans presenting their ideas, but still, that felt like 10,000 words with about 9,000 being unnecessary and uninformative. All that info could have been explained more succinctly in at least half the time imo, on top of resulting questions we have being addressed like current PP merits, modules, defecting etc. Sheesh.
That said, huzzah! Lots of welcome changes here. It is apparent they are acutely aware of how terrible the current system is and are truly attempting to address it in a meaningful way. I greatly appreciate that and overall I am pleasantly surprised. I had feared the focus would be on what flavors of Powerplay energy drinks would be distributed via station vending machines. The big things I am stoked about are doing away with the complexity of the system and the UI telling you where to go to have a direct effect, stronghold carriers confirmed as being a focus point to facilitate some pew pew action and that pew pew might actually mean something.
After some thought I don't mind too much they're gonna plop it in as is, as far as open is concerned, and see what happens. Folks wanting direct PvP interaction will be in open and they will theoretically be easier to find. The fact they mentioned open play at all is quite a shocker tbh. To be clear ideally I'd love for PP to be open only, or at least require engagement from players of both playstyles (PvP & PvE) to be successful. Players might actually be incentivized to escort and protect a hauling ship from raids of an opposing Power to a destination, which is a bit of emergent gameplay I personally would very much enjoy engaging in. Ah yes, teamwork being a requirement for group success in an online game, shock horror! This type of thing can be incentivized though without necessarily locking the whole thing to open.
Given the "multi-mode" sweeping approach to the game's design I get their reluctance, and that's not even taking into account the Hotel California threads of yesteryear and today. Chief valid argument here being "it's not a PvP system, it's a player system allowing pErSoNal NarRatiVe!" and I totally get that. As we all know, players wishing to engage in a designed system while avoiding direct confrontation in this game is a big thing and one can argue they should have an outlet. Some sort of incentive for open or a slightly diminished return for solo/pg has long been suggested and is an acceptable compromise in my eyes. Conceptually speaking, it is possible to balance both direct PvP combat and indirect activities to have a worthwhile effect on "the war effort". In my view the whole undermining in solo and 5C facet to Powerplay "can" be justified by nature of the fact that those things happen in real life. One can not always see one's enemy, sometimes enemies come from within, bla bla bla. International humanitarian law and rules of war ignored in the real world illustrate simply that not everyone plays by the rules. Becomes a point of contention in a video game though if a big group playing in private can essentially steal the galaxy away from everyone else. Obviously that's less than ideal.
All in all seems better than the idea shared in the hotel thread having a separate open only PP bubble or more simply just a PvP bubble. For example, having players fight on some planets in the California Nebula with some narrative like opposing or supporting the 3 Superpower's policy on Thargoid genocide.
Excited to learn more about PP 2.0 as we get closer. Now if only we could confirm early access Python MK II's won't dominate Powerplay for 3 months after their release.
o7
That said, huzzah! Lots of welcome changes here. It is apparent they are acutely aware of how terrible the current system is and are truly attempting to address it in a meaningful way. I greatly appreciate that and overall I am pleasantly surprised. I had feared the focus would be on what flavors of Powerplay energy drinks would be distributed via station vending machines. The big things I am stoked about are doing away with the complexity of the system and the UI telling you where to go to have a direct effect, stronghold carriers confirmed as being a focus point to facilitate some pew pew action and that pew pew might actually mean something.
After some thought I don't mind too much they're gonna plop it in as is, as far as open is concerned, and see what happens. Folks wanting direct PvP interaction will be in open and they will theoretically be easier to find. The fact they mentioned open play at all is quite a shocker tbh. To be clear ideally I'd love for PP to be open only, or at least require engagement from players of both playstyles (PvP & PvE) to be successful. Players might actually be incentivized to escort and protect a hauling ship from raids of an opposing Power to a destination, which is a bit of emergent gameplay I personally would very much enjoy engaging in. Ah yes, teamwork being a requirement for group success in an online game, shock horror! This type of thing can be incentivized though without necessarily locking the whole thing to open.
Given the "multi-mode" sweeping approach to the game's design I get their reluctance, and that's not even taking into account the Hotel California threads of yesteryear and today. Chief valid argument here being "it's not a PvP system, it's a player system allowing pErSoNal NarRatiVe!" and I totally get that. As we all know, players wishing to engage in a designed system while avoiding direct confrontation in this game is a big thing and one can argue they should have an outlet. Some sort of incentive for open or a slightly diminished return for solo/pg has long been suggested and is an acceptable compromise in my eyes. Conceptually speaking, it is possible to balance both direct PvP combat and indirect activities to have a worthwhile effect on "the war effort". In my view the whole undermining in solo and 5C facet to Powerplay "can" be justified by nature of the fact that those things happen in real life. One can not always see one's enemy, sometimes enemies come from within, bla bla bla. International humanitarian law and rules of war ignored in the real world illustrate simply that not everyone plays by the rules. Becomes a point of contention in a video game though if a big group playing in private can essentially steal the galaxy away from everyone else. Obviously that's less than ideal.
All in all seems better than the idea shared in the hotel thread having a separate open only PP bubble or more simply just a PvP bubble. For example, having players fight on some planets in the California Nebula with some narrative like opposing or supporting the 3 Superpower's policy on Thargoid genocide.
Excited to learn more about PP 2.0 as we get closer. Now if only we could confirm early access Python MK II's won't dominate Powerplay for 3 months after their release.
o7
Not watched the video or read a decent summary yet, so until I do, hopefully later today, can someone please give me a quick summary of how the actual PP gameplay will change, if at all?
All i'm seeing in this thread is people arguing about open only and other tangential stuff?
In short, is the base gameplay for most of PP basically still going to involve grinding out deliveries of stuff from A to B over and over and over again?
All i'm seeing in this thread is people arguing about open only and other tangential stuff?
In short, is the base gameplay for most of PP basically still going to involve grinding out deliveries of stuff from A to B over and over and over again?
Struggling to find the point in the video to confirm, but I do recall they talked about actual missions provided to you and other activities aside from propaganda deliveries. Similar to building influence in BGS factions~
Oh, so perhaps similar to PP missions they talked about in the early days of PP1? That's nice if there is variety.
Its one of the things i wanted from PP, the ability to help my power how i wanted, rather than being forced into a few basic gameloops.
One of them seems to be selling carto for Aisling.
Hmm... i wonder if all powers will have the same range of activities available or whether they will theme them.
My guess is that they are all unlocked as you go up the reward ladder- so essentially each tier one is unlocked meaning you still have to be involved in PP but not do the tourism to get them. This makes sense from a gameplay standpoint as you then don't have to break pledge.
Essentially PP will become a more strategic version of BGS faction warfare / expansion, as well as providing actual rewards for spreading the power (unlike factions). UM / fortification is ongoing and (I'm guessing) concatenates UM / fortify (better termed reinforcement) with a sliding scale of ownership (stronghold > fortified > exploited > unoccupied) all in one (allowing singular systems to be sniped and possibly cause a chain reaction of failiures leading to more loss). Occupied PP systems support each other and isolation is bad- so a big improvement coceptually from V1.
IIRC this will be similar to today but not as punishing and have more context- so you'll have a set of 5 missions / tasks to prove loyalty, some A to B (to establish expansions / unoccupied > exploited) and then (and this is where it was not clear / my internet started going funny) you can improve exploited > fortified > stronghold via BGS faction level gameplay (?). UM is doing the tasks listed (like PP FCs have ways to sabotage the support ships) and I got the impression ripping factions apart will help that- one of the devs did say that most (but not all) BGS work is recognised and has hooks into PP V2 (he was asked regards EDO content and stated yes, it has an effect).
Regarding the powerplay vs open, I was thinking of a way to hybridize them. Make it so your actions aren't only your own, they're more like momentum. it would allow you to basically combat other players indirectly. For example, using one of the scenarios from the interview, your power's main method is trade, so you're making great trades and increasing your power's bar in the system. The contesting power wants to slow your progress, but you're in solo, so can't attack you directly. BUT, your actions also spawn other NPCs from your power to also trade in their instance, and they can stop them. This will slow down some of your progress if they destroy them. Additionally, them acting hostile will spawn aggressive NPCs in the system targeting you and other ships that are part of your power.
It would need to be fleshed out and ballanced, but I think it would somewhat bridge solo, private, and open. Plus it'd make it feel like even a grander scale.
It would need to be fleshed out and ballanced, but I think it would somewhat bridge solo, private, and open. Plus it'd make it feel like even a grander scale.
Sounds (and i say sounds, until i see it in action) like a big improvement.
Now... i wonder if there will be anything about powers actually being able to fail and die...
It does sound promising
From what I understand Powers can't die but can suffer catastrophic failures much more easily because turmoil (and turmoil order) is no longer a thing, and that systems are treated as individuals re targeting.