Powerplay 2.0 “Open” Rewards

[DemiserofD]

Its almost as if you don't read what I write and ignore that PvP or harder NPCs are required.

I don't think I've missed that? In fact, I've responded to it several times. Let me go back and check.

I think you're missing the point. Power play is meant to appeal to all players, not just a small subset of players who currently enjoy power play. To make combat a requirement for participation dramatically cuts down the number of players who can enjoy the activity as a whole.

You keep repeating this point, but I've never seen you actually support it.

I see no compelling reason why the one leads to the other. If another power is outhauling you, you should put in more effort and skill, and outhaul them right back.

Your argument could equally be made about anything that currently has no value in the game, not just pvp. For example, "If they are hauling more merits than me, I should be able to challenge them to a canyon race, and if I win, their hours of hauling should be erased."

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

After all, it's basically your ONLY point. But the problem is, you simply have no basis for it. You think that pvp or harder NPCs are required, because you believe opposition is required, and you believe opposition must equal combat.

But that's not true at all. Opposition can come in basically any form you like. Competitive hauling CGs, for example, are perfectly competitive, but have no combat to speak of.

You're just wrong. Competition and Combat aren't tied together at all. Unless you can meaningfully address that problem, I can't see anything that backs up any of your other claims.

You also make the point that it's the lack of combat that made PP1.0 boring, but again, that's completely missing the point. PP1.0 was boring because 5C and Upkeep turned the game from a competition against other players, into a competition against the game itself. Powers stagnated because they literally reached their maximum possible size allowed by the game.

And none of what you propose - whether that be open only or better NPCS - would have changed that. They may have reached the same point more slowly, but they still would have reached the same exact point of stagnation.

I also don't understand how now its OK for Thargoid level attacks on hauling- what do you want?

I'm not sure how much you've participated in the Thargoid War, but the impact of Thargoids on hauling is basically zero. You (might) get hyperdicted exactly one time, you boost away from them and resume your journey, that's it. I most recently traveled all the way to Hadad - 39kls out in a Titan system - without getting interdicted ONCE. I have a 100% escape success rate in a T10, of all things. It's absolutely trivial and doesn't meaningfully impact anything whatsoever. Flavor, at best.

So no, the impact of thargoids on hauling is completely irrelevant, and doesn't support your point at all.

When I speak of the Thargoid war as a good model, I speak of the tactical and strategic elements, of the diverse activities that allow all to participate, of the well-made and intuitive UI design. THAT is what they need to emulate, since it's what makes the Thargoid War work.

If they followed your methodology, then nothing would count unless you killed some thargoids along the way, which would instantly exclude a majority of players. So it's very wise that they did not pursue that strategy, and instead made the war accessible to the majority of players. Indeed, neither of the current two best ways to progress the war are combat-related at all!

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Nothing wrong with that, I'm also one who plays PG (& open) and has no interest in doing any kind of PP any longer (I did my 3 specials, all in open , all years ago) and thinks it should be open or have its own launcher tab (as then blocks can be removed, and anyone playing wants to play)

Oh don't imagine I thought there was anything wrong with it . I've spent enough time on the forum that I actually found this perfectly reasonable point of view somehow magnanimous!

 

[Rat Catcher]

Oh don't imagine I thought there was anything wrong with it . I've spent enough time on the forum that I actually found this perfectly reasonable point of view somehow magnanimous!

Oh... that's all right then...

It was Buur... Magnaminous sounds about right... (I like him & Rheeney's approach to the game, they like fun also)

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Sandro back then talked about moving them to brokers and I imagine devs today are still aware of the issue.

As we've gone over several times. However without that guarantee I'd have to vote for status quo as unsatisfactory to either party as that may be.
(Not that guarantees seem to mean anything currently...)

 

[Yumasai]

The point of powerplay is and always has been player competition. The only healthy way to provide that competition is if players that engage in powerplay can actually thwart eachother amidst the execution of their actions.

Allowing your opposition to hide in PG/Solo and work unopposed, really is degrading the potential player-vs-player component that PP 2.0 might very well entail given the other changes.

FDev, lets hope you do what this feature deserves!

 

[DemiserofD]

The point of powerplay is and always has been player competition. The only healthy way to provide that competition is if players that engage in powerplay can actually thwart eachother amidst the execution of their actions.

Allowing your opposition to hide in PG/Solo and work unopposed, really is degrading the potential player-vs-player component that PP 2.0 might very well entail given the other changes.

FDev, lets hope you do what this feature deserves!

Would you say that previous competitive hauling CGs have not been 'healthy competition', then?

 

[Ytterium]

Would you say that previous competitive hauling CGs have not been 'healthy competition', then?

I would say that the people running it in solo/pg are absolutely not being "competed" against to the same extent as those doing so in open.

If you haul in open, not only do you have to contend with other haulers, but you have to contend with the hitmen of the other haulers which increases gameplay variety and challenge beyond a spreadsheet-off and a "who can do xyz repetitive action over and over again" competition.

 

[DemiserofD]

I would say that the people running it in solo/pg are absolutely not being "competed" against to the same extent as those doing so in open.

If you haul in open, not only do you have to contend with other haulers, but you have to contend with the hitmen of the other haulers which increases gameplay variety and challenge beyond a spreadsheet-off and a "who can do xyz repetitive action over and over again" competition.

But it's not open versus solo, it's one side versus the other. Both sides have open and solo players.

 

[galahad2069]

Would you say that previous competitive hauling CGs have not been 'healthy competition', then?

Oh yes it's is very competitive. Also super boring. As the trainwreck called PP1 so clearly demonstrates.

Time to get rid of it and do something that's more directly competitive (and actually fun) instead.

 

[Rubbernuke]

As we've gone over several times. However without that guarantee I'd have to vote for status quo as unsatisfactory to either party as that may be.
(Not that guarantees seem to mean anything currently...)

Or you could simply wait and see what the devs do, since any change to modes is after U19. Even then V2 removes shopper problems for powers, and it comes down to people wanting the modules but not playing- which would be nullified if PP V2 is actually good and rewarding.

 

[Rubbernuke]

After all, it's basically your ONLY point. But the problem is, you simply have no basis for it. You think that pvp or harder NPCs are required, because you believe opposition is required, and you believe opposition must equal combat.

But that's not true at all. Opposition can come in basically any form you like. Competitive hauling CGs, for example, are perfectly competitive, but have no combat to speak of.

I just explained the problem in V1 (and possibly V2) in painstaking detail.

Your model of thinking is that you have two isolated ways of fighting each other- one hauls in isolation, the other does something else in return to balance it out. In PP terms (currently) this means you haul endlessly in isolation or shoot something / haul something in return. This is your 'conflict'- everything is indirect. When you state : 'Would you say that previous competitive hauling CGs have not been 'healthy competition', then? ' its competition of a sort, but the most basic kind that encourages simple grind multiplied by however systems you hold. So imagine how excited people are having one hundred mini CGs of hauling each week where exactly nothing happens, and the most interaction is lowering your uncercarriage.

You're just wrong. Competition and Combat aren't tied together at all. Unless you can meaningfully address that problem, I can't see anything that backs up any of your other claims.

Again- hauling keeps powers alive. There is no other way to keep them going and thus anything that acts on this aspect will affect the overall power and its strategy. Since nothing affects this in solo or PG, it distorts the game by making defence easier. Back long ago FD tweaked the fortification levels by x10 because they realized it was too easy and did not provide enough of a window for things to go wrong (which they can't, because for the most part NPCs do nothing). If combat was not a factor, why up the levels? By your logic they only upped it to waste more of your time rather than have something unexpected happen (like in Open). Two runs become ten, increasing the chance of a problem by 10.

You also make the point that it's the lack of combat that made PP1.0 boring, but again, that's completely missing the point. PP1.0 was boring because 5C and Upkeep turned the game from a competition against other players, into a competition against the game itself. Powers stagnated because they literally reached their maximum possible size allowed by the game.

And how did powers reach that size? Was it because defence was too easy, allowing large powers to remain large because nothing could affect fortification outside of other rival players? One of the pillars of PP is that its conquest- its one power attacking another and destabilising them to the point something falls off. PP V1 fails as there are precious few opportunities because fortification is too easy- and on top of that you have maths with turmoil orders. V2 changes this allowing direct attacks so hauling will be even more vital and if its not vulnerable will have the same problem.

And none of what you propose - whether that be open only or better NPCS - would have changed that. They may have reached the same point more slowly, but they still would have reached the same exact point of stagnation.

NPCs lower efficency of whatever you are doing. Hauling forts would be slower- if the NPCs were difficult some deliveries might never arrive and creates windows for rivals.

Players can and do disrupt in Open-the most recent Winters cycle is an example of this.

The only way to do anything in a system where you can't directly attack the root cause (other players) is to wait when they get bored or not read a PP shipping report to do a snipe- that, and hope maths is on your side. But because NPCs don't fight back, once a power gets wind of it, its easy to fortify. If only something could happen to those haulers... Instead we have your approach which is wait, hope and grind- and even then once fortification gets to 100% CC has to be in deficit to even count, and after that you have an order of systems falling away.

I'm not sure how much you've participated in the Thargoid War, but the impact of Thargoids on hauling is basically zero. You (might) get hyperdicted exactly one time, you boost away from them and resume your journey, that's it. I most recently traveled all the way to Hadad - 39kls out in a Titan system - without getting interdicted ONCE. I have a 100% escape success rate in a T10, of all things. It's absolutely trivial and doesn't meaningfully impact anything whatsoever. Flavor, at best.

So no, the impact of thargoids on hauling is completely irrelevant, and doesn't support your point at all.

By Thargoid war I'm talking about the general difficulty and capability of NPCs compared to PP now. Having NPCs with containment missiles, reverb torps- actual threats (scaled to the player). This also touches on other issues such as station drop zones where NPCs have no space to attack, or that FD could easily use mechanics like hidden trader POIs to make clandestine cargo transfers risky.

When I speak of the Thargoid war as a good model, I speak of the tactical and strategic elements, of the diverse activities that allow all to participate, of the well-made and intuitive UI design. THAT is what they need to emulate, since it's what makes the Thargoid War work.

If they followed your methodology, then nothing would count unless you killed some thargoids along the way, which would instantly exclude a majority of players. So it's very wise that they did not pursue that strategy, and instead made the war accessible to the majority of players. Indeed, neither of the current two best ways to progress the war are combat-related at all!

I agree that the use in V2 of Thargoid like strategy elements is good- however the Thargoids are state driven and not 11 groups of players. And again I'll bring up how players seem OK with elevated difficulty of Thargoid NPCs, but you have a funny turn when that level of difficulty might be applied to PP where it can make a difference for the player escaping, being destroyed or having to fight- so this 'then nothing would count unless you killed some thargoids along the way' is rubbish.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Or you could simply wait and see what the devs do, since any change to modes is after U19. Even then V2 removes shopper problems for powers, and it comes down to people wanting the modules but not playing- which would be nullified if PP V2 is actually good and rewarding.

Which is what we are doing.
Maybe they'll clarify how modules etc. are handled in the next FU... Or another video of waffling, vague non committal statements and some jpegs.

 

[Rubbernuke]

But it's not open versus solo, it's one side versus the other. Both sides have open and solo players.

You are confusing totals of merits handed in and not how they got there.

Solo is you with 2024 kit v 2015 NPCs.

PG is you + x number of others selected by you in wings earning X4 v 2015 NPCs.

Open is you + x number of others selected by you in wings earning X4 v random amounts of others in 2024 era ships.

So saying both sides has the same players is not really accurate. PG and solo have players working in unison, wheras Open has the possility of rivals attacking you.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Would you say that previous competitive hauling CGs have not been 'healthy competition', then?

Oh yes it's is very competitive. Also super boring. As the trainwreck called PP1 so clearly demonstrates.

Time to get rid of it and do something that's more directly competitive (and actually fun) instead.

In your opinion.
A major point of difference between PP and CGs is that the hauling in PP is between two defined ports.
In a CG only 1 is fixed giving the opportunity to explore the Bubble.
CG campers aren't fun to deal with (though represent such a small sub group we know most of them by name).

 

[Rubbernuke]

In your opinion.
A major point of difference between PP and CGs is that the hauling in PP is between two defined ports.
In a CG only 1 is fixed giving the opportunity to explore the Bubble.
CG campers aren't fun to deal with (though represent such a small sub group we know most of them by name).

The difference is that a CG generally has no defined enemy (outside piracy) and very rarely has negative consequences if it fails (although some have had this).

Powerplay 'CGs' have a fail state (undermined costing CC), win state (fortified, gaining CC) and neutral (cancelled) and 10 defined rival power groups / players.

This is why opposition in PP is required in some form, because if enough Powerplay mini CGs are failed the power enters turmoil. In V2 this is compressed further where super valuable systems (or strategic ones supporting multiple other systems) are natural targets and that fortifying and UM don't have caps (given what we know so far).

 

[Felix DiCestria]

The difference is that a CG generally has no defined enemy (outside piracy) and very rarely has negative consequences if it fails (although some have had this).

No negative consequences...
Recent competitive CGs including the Alexandria, Gran Gran vs. some Federal mining outfit, and Fed democrats vs. Fed corporates...
Though the main point being the CG campers just being time wasters with no real impact.

 

[Rebel Yell]

But it's not open versus solo, it's one side versus the other. Both sides have open and solo players.

Is not solely about "having"... the distribution of players across the various game modes could be meaningful, as some sides condone/encourage players to actively contribute the power from solo/PG modes, when others don't (by choice). This does affect substantially the gameplay and how each powerplay community is organised and how is being managed.

 

[Shurimal]

Would you say that previous competitive hauling CGs have not been 'healthy competition', then?

Difference is, during a competitive hauling CG if you want the personal awards for participating, you have to haul. Killing opposing side's haulers doesn't gain you anything (other than maybe RP). The competition is which side hauls more and you can't undermine the other side—there's no "negative" progress bar as with powerplay.

Powerplay is more like if the CG has one side tasked with hauling and the other side tasked with destroying as many ships in the system as you can. Then destroying haulers will give you 2-in-1 benefits: you reduce the haulage of the opposing side and increase the number of destroyed ships for your side. Which is what fortifying/undermining boils down to.

 

[Rubbernuke]

No negative consequences...
Recent competitive CGs including the Alexandria, Gran Gran vs. some Federal mining outfit, and Fed democrats vs. Fed corporates...
Though the main point being the CG campers just being time wasters with no real impact.

But the 'enemy' is ill defined and players assume its just implied most of the time. Timewasting and destruction have very little use in a CG compared to PP though.

 

[galahad2069]

In your opinion.

I my opinion what?
You mean PP1 isn't a trainwreck and it's the epitome of fun amongst all the possible implementations of competitive gameplay?