Powerplay 2.0 “Open” Rewards

[Rubbernuke]

True enough, but the question is, do the new rules improve the problem?

Right now, pvpers have a legitimate complaint('pvp doesn't matter'), and an intractable complaint('I can't pvp everyone'). Your solution, while making open powerplay more even with solo powerplay, would still not actually solve either problem.

The goal of rule changes is to solve - or at least mitigate - problems to the point where they can be ignored. I don't feel like your solution would serve that end, and may in fact generate new complaints('Powerplay missions are too hard').

Which is why I prefer a more targeted approach. Solve the legitimate complaint of pvp not mattering(via open-only server-hosted pvp areas), and ignore the intractable complaint entirely. Leave non-pvp activities alone, so anyone can participate. There will still be pvpers complaining that they can't kill everyone who doesn't choose to play in open, but they will at least have the salve of being able to do SOMETHING in open that does actually matter. And on the flipside, it creates a gateway to pvp, as fighting other players around your Power's stronghold megaships should give a significant advantage, making it easier to justify getting into the game.

For me this was why I formulated the 'roles for modes'- solo and PG generate what open moves. Each side has its job and risk attached in a logical way.

I'd also say that the intractable "I can't PvP everyone" is an unrealistic expectation- in Powerplay its the potential for random encounters within a framework- in essence using the threat of other players as an obstacle to overcome. In the end its preventing the perfect from being the enemy of the good.

And as I stated here (I think) missions would start at the current mission difficulty and scale above- people can then either contribute in safety or risk it- after all we do have high threat level POIs (esp. Thargoids) and having room to develop into is giving advanced players something to chew on, even if its not quite like other players. Its all optional, across all modes and can be tweaked.

We know right now that PP NPC difficulty is nil- inside areas of activity they are cannon fodder (because they have to be) and outside they are weaker still- its why a lot of players complain PP is nothing more than cargo moving and that its the BGS aspect with all the missions and roles that provides the fun.

 

[Darkfyre99]

And although he is no longer on the project I think that Sandro's words from 2018 are still very appropriate.

“What is very useful is your own opinion on why a change would cause you to disengage or engage, and most importantly, why.”

To add my own two cents to the pot…

Ultimately, when it comes to a multi-player game like this, the determinant factor of whether I fly in Open or Solo/PG is this: Are the people I’m engaging with fun to play with? And if not, am I at least having enough fun to put up with them?

Frontier somehow managed to do what I’d considered to be most improbable: create a mixed PvP/PvE game with an open-PvP envionment, that has a relatively small cohort of players who are simply not fun to play with. I attribute this primarily to allowing players, on a session by session, to decide who they want to play with.

My experiences in other games indicate that if Frontier deprives players of that choice, the unfun population will explode, to the point where it’s no longer worthwhile to put up with them anymore. If I’m slipping into a Stronghold system, for example, on an infiltration run, I want to know that if I see a target of opportunity, they won’t log out in me. I think the chances are fairly low of that happening under the status quo, and very high if players are deprived of that choice. And that makes for a very unfun experience.

edit because the forum somehow ate part of my post:

It doesn’t help that in my experience, this game’s networking architecture and instancing rules isn’t suitable this kind of thing, I typically play during global peak hours, but because that’s outside my local prime time, I’ll rarely see anyone. Which can be a problem if you rely on others to keep you entertained.

 

[DemiserofD]

For me this was why I formulated the 'roles for modes'- solo and PG generate what open moves. Each side has its job and risk attached in a logical way.

The issue being, Open remains the bottleneck. I don't think having bottlenecks at all is a good idea.

One team can have the best and most dedicated haulers and miners and explorers in the galaxy, but still lose to a much smaller Power with good pvpers. And this will, ironically, be frustrating to everyone; the Pvpers will be frustrated that they're unable to instance with some portion of open players, and attribute any losses to net code. On the flipside, non-pvp players will feel frustrated that their greatest cause of failure is, ironically, having a GOOD connection. It would be the new SCO framerate bug writ-large. I know I personally am currently limiting my FPS to 60 despite having a monitor that can handle 144, because it offers the best combination of gameplay and performance. How soon before players realize that by choosing the shoddier network connection they can win conflicts?

Bottlenecking the entirety of gameplay behind things that a lot of people simply don't enjoy is going to be very frustrating to everyone, and incentivize bad manners across the board.

That's why no single activity should be the bottleneck. PVP should have an impact, yes, but one that is roughly balanced with other activities.

This handily removes the need for other changes. Players can play normally exactly how they like, and compete indirectly with those on the other side.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The issue being, Open remains the bottleneck. I don't think having bottlenecks at all is a good idea.

One team can have the best and most dedicated haulers and miners and explorers in the galaxy, but still lose to a much smaller Power with good pvpers. And this will, ironically, be frustrating to everyone; the Pvpers will be frustrated that they're unable to instance with some portion of open players, and attribute any losses to net code. On the flipside, non-pvp players will feel frustrated that their greatest cause of failure is, ironically, having a GOOD connection. It would be the new SCO framerate bug writ-large. I know I personally am currently limiting my FPS to 60 despite having a monitor that can handle 144, because it offers the best combination of gameplay and performance. How soon before players realize that by choosing the shoddier network connection they can win conflicts?

Bottlenecking the entirety of gameplay behind things that a lot of people simply don't enjoy is going to be very frustrating to everyone, and incentivize bad manners across the board.

That's why no single activity should be the bottleneck. PVP should have an impact, yes, but one that is roughly balanced with other activities.

This handily removes the need for other changes. Players can play normally exactly how they like, and compete indirectly with those on the other side.

Trouble is, you need some sort of constraint otherwise nothing can be 'meaningful'. Meaning is context defined by rules- its why PP is so contentious because you have rules butting up against player headcannon rules which cause contradictions. For example, its not bad to kill others, pledging paints a target on you but people in Open feel thats wrong. It can't all be right.

 

[Rebel Yell]

With merit decay very likely gone (amen) I'd also like to have a gameplay (for powerplay and rewards) which doesn't require to be constantly online/doing PP work etc as that's resutling in an almost complete dedication to PP activities for small powers whilst others can rely on small teams doing the various tasks (forts/umming etc). Same for systems I mean ... going on holidays and losing 2 systems but finding that the power got other 2 instead, with this kind of dynamic and no frontline stalemate.

 

[Rubbernuke]

With merit decay very likely gone (amen) I'd also like to have a gameplay (for powerplay and rewards) which doesn't require to be constantly online/doing PP work etc as that's resutling in an almost complete dedication to PP activities for small powers whilst others can rely on small teams doing the various tasks (forts/umming etc). Same for systems I mean ... going on holidays and losing 2 systems but finding that the power got other 2 instead, with this kind of dynamic and no frontline stalemate.

It will be interesting to see what tasks Powerplay plugs into (on stream they mention most will) so the improvement phase will be where you probably chillax.

 

[Ragnascot]

…if I’m slipping into a Stronghold system, for example, on an infiltration run, I want to know that if I see a target of opportunity, they won’t log out in me.

Very good point actually

 

[Rubbernuke]

Very good point actually

An ungraceful exit or menu log should result in merits or PP cargo held being lost unless you are alone or parked up.

 

[Darkfyre99]

An ungraceful exit or menu log should result in merits or PP cargo held being lost unless you are alone or parked up.

I agree with the former, but not the latter. Should I be penalized for logging out to deal with real life, just because someone happens to be in my instance at the time, even if they’re no actual threat to me? And if not, how should the game determine what that level of threat is?

 

[Rubbernuke]

I agree with the former, but not the latter. Should I be penalized for logging out to deal with real life, just because someone happens to be in my instance at the time, even if they’re no actual threat to me? And if not, how should the game determine what that level of threat is?

You are in a game thats online and has no pause button, so no. If you are in an instance with someone in combat (i.e. reds on the radar), then to me thats a loss if you try to escape in any way other than game means*. The game knows this, thats why you have the count. There should be no difference between haulers or people holding bounty merits and IMO the rules should have as few clauses as possible.

My internet is crap but I accept if I disconnect I should be treated the same.

*such as in a lone instance, parked in a hangar / pad or no hostiles on radar

 

[Darkfyre99]

You are in a game thats online and has no pause button, so no. If you are in an instance with someone in combat (i.e. reds on the radar), then to me thats a loss if you try to escape in any way other than game means*. The game knows this, thats why you have the count. There should be no difference between haulers or people holding bounty merits and IMO the rules should have as few clauses as possible.

My internet is crap but I accept if I disconnect I should be treated the same.

*such as in a lone instance, parked in a hangar / pad or no hostiles on radar

And that’s why I don’t play this game nearly as much as other MMOs, which didn’t have such punishing penalties for the realities of real life, such as having a family.

 

[Rubbernuke]

And that’s why I don’t play this game nearly as much as other MMOs, which didn’t have such punishing penalties for the realities of real life, such as having a family.

I have a family too, but I accept rules and consistency.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I have a family too, but I accept rules and consistency.

And more power to you.

I play this game despite its not-fun rules, not because of them. Too many of those kinds of rules, and it becomes a game not worth playing for me. I feel the same way about players: too many not-fun players, it becomes a game not worth playing for me.

I have high hopes for PowerPlay 2.0, but I certainly hope Frontier don’t pile on too many-not fun rules, and force players to put up with too many not-fun players, all to deal with what I consider to be an almost non-existent problem.

 

[Rubbernuke]

And more power to you.

I play this game despite its not-fun rules, not because of them. Too many of those kinds of rules, and it becomes a game not worth playing for me. I feel the same way about players: too many not-fun players, it becomes a game not worth playing for me.

I have high hopes for PowerPlay 2.0, but I certainly hope Frontier don’t pile on too many-not fun rules, and force players to put up with too many not-fun players, all to deal with what I consider to be an almost non-existent problem.

The problem is that technically you fall into the un-fun players, because its not just your time that should be respected but also the other people involved.

This is why both merits and cargo are under the same rule- PP cargo runners also need a fail state if they are intercepted and they decide to log out. Thats fine, you keep your ship but you are punished for doing so in combat by the loss of your haul. And if the cargo is free (which I think its going to be) the loss is the time of that run, which is short (since V2 has a more local focus).

Without hard boundaries you wind up with the porous mess V1 is.

 

[Brrokk]

You are in a game thats online and has no pause button, so no. If you are in an instance with someone in combat (i.e. reds on the radar), then to me thats a loss if you try to escape in any way other than game means*. The game knows this, thats why you have the count. There should be no difference between haulers or people holding bounty merits and IMO the rules should have as few clauses as possible.

My internet is crap but I accept if I disconnect I should be treated the same.

*such as in a lone instance, parked in a hangar / pad or no hostiles on radar

If only they'd fix this by putting the "Are you sure?" at the beginning of the menu-log countdown rather than the end. I'd be willing to come back later to see if my ship still existed when I had to make a quick exit. As it is, it can happen that I haven't got time for the timer.

 

[DemiserofD]

Given that apparently stuff such as exploration data will count towards powerplay, I don't think any sort of 'expiry on logout' system is going to happen.

Honestly, the entire idea that pvp is at all workable in relation to hauling is pretty much completely broken in any case. It just doesn't work, the game is not well designed for it.

If a hauler gets interdicted, they have exactly one choice; high wake to another system. That resets their loop, and forces them to try again, but if the pvpers(and instancing) is on their game, hauling is a complete non-option.

Some claim that it's possible, since some player groups pledge to only do powerplay in Open, but the powers that work exclusively in open still end up doing all their work without being contested. Only maybe the occasional gank here or there that ultimately makes zero difference in the outcome.

In order to make Pvp vs Hauling at all viable, there would need to be wholesale changes in interdiction, combat, and crime that simply aren't within the scale of this project.

Conclusion: Hauling will remain a mainly solo activity, and any pvp engagement will result from some other means.

And honestly, it SHOULD be that way. There's no reason to put haulers at the mercy of pvpers. They should get to enjoy the game, too.

 

[Darkfyre99]

The problem is that technically you fall into the un-fun players, because its not just your time that should be respected but also the other people involved.

This is why both merits and cargo are under the same rule- PP cargo runners also need a fail state if they are intercepted and they decide to log out. Thats fine, you keep your ship but you are punished for doing so in combat by the loss of your haul. And if the cargo is free (which I think its going to be) the loss is the time of that run, which is short (since V2 has a more local focus).

Without hard boundaries you wind up with the porous mess V1 is.

Fair enough. I don't see it that way, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I've just played way too many of these types of games over the last 35 years, including their MUD predecessors, to be convinced that you will be getting the epic PvP combat that you desire if PowerPlay goes Open Only. The types of players currently in Solo are not interested in playing by your rules, and they will be doing everything in their power, both fair and foul, to avoid that kind of epic PvP combat. Alts used for scouting, logging out in the location of a raid so that they can "pop" in when it's deemed safe, technically legal logouts when the threat level becomes too high... I've seen it all.

And that's not what I consider fun.

I play in Open because I respect other people's time, and I expect them to respect mine. I'm willing to take a loss, fair and square, and expect that courtesy to be returned, should I choose to exercise that option. Any player that is not willing to play by those rules, I'd rather have them playing in Solo/PG. There's already so many players I'm not already directly interacting with, what's a few more?

 

[Rubbernuke]

And honestly, it SHOULD be that way. There's no reason to put haulers at the mercy of pvpers. They should get to enjoy the game, too.

And unless haulers come under pressure you repeat the same mistakes that made V1s board so crowded- hauling should not be universally easy. If it is, you wind up with grinding haul races that have nothing extra to give and powers can easily support huge territories.

The only solutions with V1 or V2 are more difficult NPCs that are properly equipped or players- but that pressure has to be there.

Like it or not haulers being interdicted is part of Powerplay- its just the NPC side is laughably poor.

Plus haulers now have SCO too.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Fair enough. I don't see it that way, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I've just played way too many of these types of games over the last 35 years, including their MUD predecessors, to be convinced that you will be getting the epic PvP combat that you desire if PowerPlay goes Open Only. The types of players currently in Solo are not interested in playing by your rules, and they will be doing everything in their power, both fair and foul, to avoid that kind of epic PvP combat. Alts used for scouting, logging out in the location of a raid so that they can "pop" in when it's deemed safe, technically legal logouts when the threat level becomes too high... I've seen it all.

And that's not what I consider fun.

I play in Open because I respect other people's time, and I expect them to respect mine. I'm willing to take a loss, fair and square, and expect that courtesy to be returned, should I choose to exercise that option. Any player that is not willing to play by those rules, I'd rather have them playing in Solo/PG. There's already so many players I'm not already directly interacting with, what's a few more?

Believe it or not that PvP happens now- the problem is the rules around it blunt an actual outcome. If someone attacks a hauler (which is within the rules and expected) and the hauler logs, the latter can carry on seconds later as if that encounter had never happened with no penalty- thats not fair or logical. People complaining about it being unfair forget its a team game, you can go elsewhere, you can change your build and compromise to the situation, or fight back. The choice of response is theirs but that choice has to be within gameplay.

 

[DemiserofD]

And unless haulers come under pressure you repeat the same mistakes that made V1s board so crowded- hauling should not be universally easy. If it is, you wind up with grinding haul races that have nothing extra to give and powers can easily support huge territories.

The only solutions with V1 or V2 are more difficult NPCs that are properly equipped or players- but that pressure has to be there.

Like it or not haulers being interdicted is part of Powerplay- its just the NPC side is laughably poor.

Plus haulers now have SCO too.

Interdiction wouldn't have to be involved. There's no rule that says it has to be. If anything, the general mediocrity of interdiction would push me to be more inclined to not have it involved at all.

Hauling is easy, by definition. That's basically one of the defining characteristics of the activity. If you don't want that, you basically don't want haulers to participate at all. You want pvpers to do hauling, which is completely different.

My ideal power play has a place and a time for all types of players, making them equal. Haulers can haul all day long if they want. If the combat players want to outcompete them, they would simply need to invest more time into combat. They cannot and should not be able to stop them from hauling via combat - and that includes via npc intervention.

The biggest problem of Power Play One is that hauling is the only activity. People should be able to do whatever they want, including pvp, and have that effort count.

But I see no compelling reason why players who just want to do hauling or mining should also be compelled to do PVP. Historically speaking, PVP(and, shall we say, combat as a whole) has been the least important aspect of power play. It certainly should not stay so completely irrelevant, but it also should not become the sole determining Factor of whether or not a power is Victorious. And that is exactly what your proposals would achieve.

Powerplay is meant to be a competitive activity, not a combat specific activity. I am willing to offer quite a bit to make it more enjoyable to players like you, but not so far as to make it unenjoyable to myself. And that's exactly what your proposals would accomplish.

Any proposal that entails requiring players to play in a way they don't enjoy is dead in the water, as far as I'm concerned.