Powerplay 2.0 “Open” Rewards

[DemiserofD]

No, there are heinous design flaws. That's not debatable.

Sure, no denying that. But the specific problems raised by pvpers tend to ignore those flaws and instead focus on forcing players into open. There seems to be a daydream that if everyone would just play in open, the game would suddenly be more interesting. I see no particular evidence to support that supposition.

Further, I see no evidence that if the game were made better, it would be improved by being in open. A good game is good regardless of getting shot at. If anything, bottlenecking everything to pvp is reductive and reduces the potential entertainment value of the game.

 

[galahad2069]

Sure, no denying that. But the specific problems raised by pvpers tend to ignore those flaws and instead focus on forcing players into open. There seems to be a daydream that if everyone would just play in open, the game would suddenly be more interesting. I see no particular evidence to support that supposition.

Further, I see no evidence that if the game were made better, it would be improved by being in open. A good game is good regardless of getting shot at. If anything, bottlenecking everything to pvp is reductive and reduces the potential entertainment value of the game.

Don't worry. Nobody wants to force you into Open.

 

[JeffRyan]

Good to see this old chestnut back again...

No...

cracks knuckles

So where we at in the argument?

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Sure, no denying that. But the specific problems raised by pvpers tend to ignore those flaws and instead focus on forcing players into open. There seems to be a daydream that if everyone would just play in open, the game would suddenly be more interesting. I see no particular evidence to support that supposition.

Further, I see no evidence that if the game were made better, it would be improved by being in open. A good game is good regardless of getting shot at. If anything, bottlenecking everything to pvp is reductive and reduces the potential entertainment value of the game.

There is certainly more than one way to make the feature more interesting! Open only probably isn't even my top one. But FDev assure us that they're "on it" with gameplay changes. My primary concern repen/solo is balance; feature design could be used to mitigate the current imbalance between the modes, in the reworked feature (and even to mitigate the apprehension felt by some about using open for PP). That will also remove artificial incentives to play in solo/PG, meaning more people in open presumably (and less reason to care). But I still think FDev should frame open play loud and clear as the intended way to experience it (by whatever means they decide).

 

[DemiserofD]

There is certainly more than one way to make the feature more interesting! Open only probably isn't even my top one. But FDev assure us that they're "on it" with gameplay changes. My primary concern repen/solo is balance; feature design could be used to mitigate the current imbalance between the modes, in the reworked feature (and even to mitigate the apprehension felt by some about using open for PP). That will also remove artificial incentives to play in solo/PG, meaning more people in open presumably (and less reason to care). But I still think FDev should frame open play loud and clear as the intended way to experience it (by whatever means they decide).

I don't think that there is a strong case that balance should be shifted towards open. There seems to be a presupposition that open is the 'real' Galaxy; that solo and PG are cheats used to unfairly influence it.

In reality, the only purpose of open is to allow players to seek out an enjoyable multiplayer experience. The only reward you get - the only reward you should get - for playing in open is the enjoyment of playing in open.

Now, I am not in any way averse to new ways of making open more enjoyable, of making it more welcoming. But under no circumstance should that come at the cost of the other two equally valid modes.

Benefits to open could be far better achieved via changes to matchmaking, allowing friendly players to find others to play with, or rebalances to pvp, to make minigames like interdiction winnable for the target. Also, changes to crime and punishment, to create safe zones for players to get their foot in the water without getting murdered. High security systems might have Shield projectors on police ships and stations, for example, preventing any nearby player ships from being killed.

But to me, giving people extra Rewards just for playing in open is ludicrous. The people who want to play in open are already playing in open; the only possible reason for such a change would be to obligate the people who don't want to play in open to play in open. And if you discard any sense of superiority between the modes, there is absolutely no reason to do that.

Basically, if you want more people to play with you, make it a more welcoming and enjoyable experience, don't just try to bribe them(or punish them) into complying.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Uh...they haul cargo. Again, I'm failing to see the connection. It's like saying, "Birds fly, and therefore we must have swords!"

The opposition is outhauling them. That's it. Is it not great gameplay? Absolutely. That doesn't in any way imply that the only way to make it better is, as you claim, pvp opposition.

They haul cargo that keeps a power from falling over. And no, its not some stupid thing like "Birds fly, and therefore we must have swords". Without fortification powers die, therefore its a target from either NPCs or players.

And again (again, again) V1 failed because its simple hauling or shooting. Your grand answer is to have people haul forts, and to oppose fortification you shoot anything other than the ships doing the fortification. Other ideas include cutting Powerplay into ever smaller boxes which reduces free flowing gameplay into a fairground pokeboard.

If you had bothered to read anything I write you'd know I'm after any measured opposition in solo to even things out, given solo is 100% guaranteed sucess which distorts the higher level strategic layer of Powerplay. This must mean solo players facing increasingly difficult NPCs based on effort or PP rank (as seen in V2).

Solo currently has a threat level from 2015, while Open has one from 2024. Which mode is going to be harder? And if you go into open and risk more (just as someone in the BGS risks more with harder missions) should they not be rewarded more?

 

[Rubbernuke]

other two equally valid modes.

Then make solo have an actual effective opposition then- once you do then most of the problems go away.

 

[DemiserofD]

Then make solo have an actual effective opposition then- once you do then most of the problems go away.

That's not what equal means.

Two things can be completely different, and yet equally balanced. A T9 is far better at hauling than a FDL, but both ships are good in their own right. If you are dissatisfied with the combat capacity of a T9, the answer isn't making it better at combat, the answer is using a different ship.

If we balanced everything the way you want to balance different modes, we would end up with a bunch of identical ships, different only by aesthetics.

You want to play in open. That's fine. You get to see other players, which can be fun. Those players can be a benefit to play with, or a hindrance to play with. That is the benefit and cost of playing in open. That's all you get. Nothing more.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That's not what equal means.

Two things can be completely different, and yet equally balanced. A T9 is far better at hauling than a FDL, but both ships are good in their own right. If you are dissatisfied with the combat capacity of a T9, the answer isn't making it better at combat, the answer is using a different ship.

If we balanced everything the way you want to balance different modes, we would end up with a bunch of identical ships, different only by aesthetics.

You want to play in open. That's fine. You get to see other players, which can be fun. Those players can be a benefit to play with, or a hindrance to play with. That is the benefit and cost of playing in open. That's all you get. Nothing more.

Aaaaannnd once again you miss the point.

Solo allows min/ max hauling (and UM) since there is nothing capable resisting you. Without resistance you have 100% efficiency, leading to the situation we have now where the strategic layer of Powerplay is static and easily defensible because of that ease. IIRC PP had about 100 cycles of exactly nothing changing until someone fell asleep at the wheel- each and every week there was no game driven (i.e. NPC) opportunities from difficult runs, only when players got complacent or bored. When I talk about Open, its this disruption and random activity thats the key.

You want to play in open. That's fine. You get to see other players, which can be fun. Those players can be a benefit to play with, or a hindrance to play with. That is the benefit and cost of playing in open. That's all you get. Nothing more.

I could also say the reverse with solo- since you are playing in a mode with less variance why should you be rewarded the same?

 

[DemiserofD]

Aaaaannnd once again you miss the point.

Solo allows min/ max hauling (and UM) since there is nothing capable resisting you. Without resistance you have 100% efficiency, leading to the situation we have now where the strategic layer of Powerplay is static and easily defensible because of that ease. IIRC PP had about 100 cycles of exactly nothing changing until someone fell asleep at the wheel- each and every week there was no game driven (i.e. NPC) opportunities from difficult runs, only when players got complacent or bored. When I talk about Open, its this disruption and random activity thats the key.



I could also say the reverse with solo- since you are playing in a mode with less variance why should you be rewarded the same?

Again, you are drawing a false correlation. Nobody is denying that the current system is broken, but that in no way implies that the solution is increased challenge, especially via combat.

Combat difficulty and good game design are two completely independent variables. That's what you don't seem to grasp.

On a basic level, you are simply wrong about why PP 1.0 failed. It has nothing to do with a lack of resistance, and everything to do with players spending most of their time fighting against upkeep, and not competing against each other, whether that be via hauling or something else.

PP 1.0 could have had every feature you want, and it still would have failed, because it's just not very interesting.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Again, you are drawing a false correlation. Nobody is denying that the current system is broken, but that in no way implies that the solution is increased challenge, especially via combat.

Combat difficulty and good game design are two completely independent variables. That's what you don't seem to grasp.

On a basic level, you are simply wrong about why PP 1.0 failed. It has nothing to do with a lack of resistance, and everything to do with players spending most of their time fighting against upkeep, and not competing against each other, whether that be via hauling or something else.

PP 1.0 could have had every feature you want, and it still would have failed, because it's just not very interesting.

Without change or a bias towards instability you get stasis, essentially whats happened now - illustrated with the example of Powerplays inactive periods. Safe hauling = stability, which leads to attack being harder and harder to achieve. Without attack nothing can fall off or change, creating a downward spiral we can see today where you literally have to cut off your own toes to hurt another power. After Flash Topic 2 Sandro circulated a second proposal on the PP dev discord which was created because of this very problem- its too easy to defend and not attack.

This is why hauling (i.e. fortification) has to be harder and less certain otherwise you feed that stability. A few bad runs at the wrong time provides an opening, rather than now where you essentially wait for people to stop fortifying- that or hope no-one is looking at the lost PP shipping report.

Thats not how to make a game, because its not you having agency over how you attack, its just you waiting and hoping. Its this thats killed the later PP- I should know, I did run one power group and was senior in another. I can also break down when and where PP fell apart for most 'real' players- from the very early cycles where the obvious flaws manifested (and lack of direction, not to mention releasing it half finished), House of Cards ( resulting in Aisling being 'saved' with an overhead tweak), early 5C and SCRAP, the game breaking bugs (including weaponised collusion piracy, UA bombing, CZ bugs allowing 5C to win any and all combat power expansions), Cycle 52 (and 53 IIRC), the faff of vote begging, the lack of change, casuals shopping (which faded over time), dissatisfaction with modes, FDs indifference when problems arose ( given PP is an ongoing campaign) and leaving vestigial bits of old stuff in the feature. So please don't lecture me on how PP V1 failed.

PP 1.0 could have had every feature you want, and it still would have failed, because it's just not very interesting.

Open is the only really 'new' thing possible in Powerplay (at least V1) given it adds uncertainty to a very rigid system. Plus in the end its silly to assume it would fail, because until you try you simply don't know.

 

[Screemonster]

I simply don't see any reason to allow people to sign up for the explicit team deathmatch then participate without any chance of meeting the other team. If you don't want to take part in the team deathmatch, don't sign up for the team deathmatch.

On the flip side of the coin, the devs shouldn't gate any kind of PVE unlocks (such as modules) behind participation in the team deathmatch. A few MMOs have tried to gate gear or cosmetics behind PVP in the past, and it always leads to absolutely insane incessant drama from people who are only doing it for the gear and don't actually want to take part.

One thing I thought of would be to track the amount of traffic in a system (something the game already does) and count how many unique players have visited in the last 24h, then have any powerplay actions in solo or private divided in effectiveness by (1+n) where n is the number of players pledged to enemy factions who have been in the system in the last 24h. That way, if you're in some backwater that no other players ever visit then it doesn't matter what mode you're in, but trying to undermine another power from solo in an actively defended system would be heavily penalised.

As for blocking, since there are people who tactically block powerplay enemies even if they refuse to admit it (or else pledge powerplay to module shop and then call everyone griefers and block them when they get shot at by the other teams) there are only really two ways I can see it being handled within the rules:

1. Just have blocking have no effect on instancing in the case of powerplay enemies and keep it chat-only. (downside: pledging powerplay to get at someone who blocked you)
2. Keep it as it works now but if instancing is rejected as the result of a block, the blocking player is treated as if they were in solo for powerplay effectiveness for the next few hours. (downside: effectively punishes you for using the blocklist)

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I don't think that there is a strong case that balance should be shifted towards open. There seems to be a presupposition that open is the 'real' Galaxy; that solo and PG are cheats used to unfairly influence it.

I think I was purposefully avoiding saying that. But solo and PG are leveraged by players who would otherwise be in open, in order to make their merit productivity higher and more predictable.

In reality, the only purpose of open is to allow players to seek out an enjoyable multiplayer experience. The only reward you get - the only reward you should get - for playing in open is the enjoyment of playing in open.

It's not about reward, it's about balance. Also, that multi-player experience depends on other players being present, so there's a real incentive for FDev to incentivise open play, if they want the exciting potential they described in the last stream to be a thing.

Now, I am not in any way averse to new ways of making open more enjoyable, of making it more welcoming. But under no circumstance should that come at the cost of the other two equally valid modes.

They need to earn their validity by offering balanced outcomes in a competitive, multiplayer feature.

Benefits to open could be far better achieved via changes to matchmaking, allowing friendly players to find others to play with, or rebalances to pvp, to make minigames like interdiction winnable for the target. Also, changes to crime and punishment, to create safe zones for players to get their foot in the water without getting murdered. High security systems might have Shield projectors on police ships and stations, for example, preventing any nearby player ships from being killed.

Sounds like you don't go to open much. But no harm in making some safe zones I guess. We have station interiors that constitute such zones while on-foot.

But to me, giving people extra Rewards just for playing in open is ludicrous. The people who want to play in open are already playing in open; the only possible reason for such a change would be to obligate the people who don't want to play in open to play in open. And if you discard any sense of superiority between the modes, there is absolutely no reason to do that.

Basically, if you want more people to play with you, make it a more welcoming and enjoyable experience, don't just try to bribe them(or punish them) into complying.

Treating opponents decently is a decent idea for sure. But people who have no aversion to playing in open should not be incentivised to play in solo/PG due to features being unbalanced in favour of closed modes.

 

[galahad2069]

make minigames like interdiction winnable for the target

No need to make player interdictions winnable. They already are. Always have been.
They are just harder to win than NPC interdictions (but most probably still easier than Thargoid interdictions, although I never really tried to win those so I cannot be sure).

 

[angusmadmac1]

I'm going to have to side with @Rubbernuke ( yeah I'm surprised as well). NPC's don't give an effective opposition never really have ? I'm not in any way saying open only as I dont think that is an answer . But at least have harder NPC's to give more of a challenge or at least make it so that ships with no defenses ( not weapons, but shields ).

 

[SergMx]

I'm going to have to side with @Rubbernuke ( yeah I'm surprised as well). NPC's don't give an effective opposition never really have ? I'm not in any way saying open only as I dont think that is an answer . But at least have harder NPC's to give more of a challenge or at least make it so that ships with no defenses ( not weapons, but shields ).

Thargoids its NPC.

 

[Northpin]

I don't think that there is a strong case that balance should be shifted towards open. There seems to be a presupposition that open is the 'real' Galaxy; that solo and PG are cheats used to unfairly influence it.

In reality, the only purpose of open is to allow players to seek out an enjoyable multiplayer experience. The only reward you get - the only reward you should get - for playing in open is the enjoyment of playing in open.

Basically this

Open does not need nor deserves any bonuses or perks over the other modes.
We paid the same for the same game under the principle that everyone should forge their own path -while not being punished for doing so.

 

[DemiserofD]

Without change or a bias towards instability you get stasis

Sure, but pvp won't achieve that. You really give it a lot more credit than it's due; pvp can reach stasis exactly like anything else. Indeed, probably more easily than anything else. If both sides have skillful and dedicated pvp squads on the ball, absolutely nothing will get done.

You seem to assume that adding pvp will just fix everything by default. You're just wrong, plain and simple. Not much more to say.

And since you're wrong about that, every other thing you say is irrelevant. Bad theory, based on a flawed premise.

Open is the only really 'new' thing possible in Powerplay (at least V1) given it adds uncertainty to a very rigid system. Plus in the end its silly to assume it would fail, because until you try you simply don't know.

That's also not true. Look at the Thargoid War. Highly-active, dynamic, engaging for a significant body of players. All PP2.0 needs to do is emulate that and its various systems, and poof, functional powerplay.

 

[DemiserofD]

But people who have no aversion to playing in open should not be incentivised to play in solo/PG due to features being unbalanced in favour of closed modes.

Hard disagree. As an analogy, just because combat players enjoy combat ships, doesn't mean we should make all combat ships as good at hauling as the haulers. Similarly, different modes are good for different things. That's not just acceptable, it's by design.

If you're mad the other side is outhauling you, then get out of your combat ship and swap to a hauler. Don't demand they swap to a combat ship so they're worse at hauling and you can keep up. That's just childish.

Not every aspect of this game is beholden to your ability to kill them. That is by design, a design that has been front and center since the game was released. Get over it.

---

Now, that said, I am in no way against the idea of a place for pvp to be relevant.

For example, imagine if Powerplay Stronghold Carriers existed exclusively in Open, and in order to attack or defend them, you needed to be in a single, server-hosted instance.

This gives a reason for pvp, as you want to either kill the attackers or defenders. It also gives a reason for both sides to want to be in the same instance, since they can't exactly defend it if they're not in the same instance as the attackers. And most importantly, it gives a reason for even beginners to get in a pvp ship, since even delaying the attackers will slow their progress. They'll die, but they'll still succeed better than if they didn't try at all. It also would add diversity to pvp, since it would be about more than just killing the enemy, but also damaging the NPC targets, and different weapons are better at different goals.

This makes pvp relevant to powerplay, encourages open play, encourages pvp, and does not infringe on anyone else's gameplay, only impacting the people who WANT to be there.

That's exactly the sort of thing that could make pvp actually a valid playstyle in Elite.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Sure, but pvp won't achieve that. You really give it a lot more credit than it's due; pvp can reach stasis exactly like anything else. Indeed, probably more easily than anything else. If both sides have skillful and dedicated pvp squads on the ball, absolutely nothing will get done.

You seem to assume that adding pvp will just fix everything by default. You're just wrong, plain and simple. Not much more to say.

And since you're wrong about that, every other thing you say is irrelevant. Bad theory, based on a flawed premise.


That's also not true. Look at the Thargoid War. Highly-active, dynamic, engaging for a significant body of players. All PP2.0 needs to do is emulate that and its various systems, and poof, functional powerplay.

Sure, but pvp won't achieve that. You really give it a lot more credit than it's due; pvp can reach stasis exactly like anything else. Indeed, probably more easily than anything else. If both sides have skillful and dedicated pvp squads on the ball, absolutely nothing will get done.

You seem to assume that adding pvp will just fix everything by default. You're just wrong, plain and simple. Not much more to say.

That's also not true. Look at the Thargoid War. Highly-active, dynamic, engaging for a significant body of players. All PP2.0 needs to do is emulate that and its various systems, and poof, functional powerplay.

Its almost as if you don't read what I write and ignore that PvP or harder NPCs are required. I get you don't like PvP that much, but for gods sake read what I'm writing. Even angusmadmac1 understood what I was talking about. I also don't understand how now its OK for Thargoid level attacks on hauling- what do you want?

So for the millionth time -either players become NPCs or NPCs become players. Without a measured counter acting against all players the total collated effort is going to essentially be identical each month with no variation for others to exploit (which happens now in PP) with the greatest weapon being boredom and complacency.

Plus if its so bad how do current Powers get by in Open? If 'nothing gets done' how did Winters expand? You contradict yourself in that if nothing gets done, a power thats UMed fails and by definition is unstable in PP. Granted too much instability is also bad, but the bias has to be on attack to keep the feature moving (since its based on territorial aqquisition).

You fail to grasp that current NPCs are ill suited for how V1 is set up. NPCs lack perstistence, consistency and variability while PP is a bubble wide area and they simply can't scale to that. Between PP areas such as expansions, prep systems everything is essentially empty with the (vanishingly) occasional PP NPC in SC. This is where Open comes in, because players can go and do things the NPCs can't. They can be random, variable in battle tactics, work to a strategy and adapt. Its this what Open brings because its filling the gap NPCs create. This is why I say 'players like NPCs'- because its here NPCs don't work and players do.

V2 seems to be better in that its more per system based, but it still relies on V1 mechanics so it remains to be seen what acts on players.

And since you're wrong about that, every other thing you say is irrelevant. Bad theory, based on a flawed premise.

How convenient, as always.