Powerplay 2.0 “Open” Rewards

[DemiserofD]

Honestly, the more I think about it, why not just have NPCs fill the role that people want players to fill?

PVP hauling bears little resemblance to normal hauling, and is not particularly enjoyable to either haulers or pvpers. Everyone wants to be the wolf, nobody really wants to be the rabbit.

That being the case, why not just have NPCs flying around in the system that need to be attacked and defended?

They could be amped up substantially to give pvpers a proper challenge, without requiring a rabbit player at all. Plus, it solves the problems of collusion and all that.

Heck, you could even give them Hollow icons. Most pvpers probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference, given that there's not much communication going on, and the approach to escaping being attacked is pretty much identical in all cases.

That way, PVP players can have what they want without impacting the hauling players at all!

 

[rootsrat]

We could do the math, if you like. But the thing you have to remember is, PVP ships only need to accelerate. As soon as they get going fast enough, they can begin the interdiction. Hauling ships, by contrast, must still slow down. And super Cruise overcharge has virtually no impact on slowing down, only accelerating.

The results seem fairly obvious to me. Hauling ships will likely save about 50% of their time. PVP ships will save 90% or more.



The problem is, you are conflating competition with pvp. Not all competition puts your ship at risk of being destroyed.

I love competition. I do not overly enjoy pvp, though I do engage in it from time to time.

And the fact of the matter is, the proposed system would put all players under the thumb of PVP players, who will have ultimate control over whatever other activities are allowed to occur.



Can they fight back? No. Can they win? No. The only option is for them to High wake away. And that is not a win, that is just another version of loss. Honestly, given the current devalued state of credits in this game, it may be more of a loss than actually dying.

But more importantly, it is forcing me to engage in a style of gameplay I simply do not enjoy, where the best possible result is for me to never see any attacking players. What possible incentive do I have not to switch over to my Wi-Fi connection to avoid instancing with anyone I don't want to see?

Worse still, it has substantial knock-on effects with block lists, which are a critical part of the current moderation infrastructure of the game. Frontier would need to dedicate a substantially larger number of support members to handle griefing.

So I am just not going to play. And if players like me aren't going to play anyway, why not just Short Circuit the entire thing, create a dedicated PVP Arena where PVP players can actually play with each other like they eventually will anyway, and shorten the entire debate?

Look, the bottom line is, you won't convince me and I won't convince you.

I have simply expressed my opinion on the matter, I wasn't really looking to "I'm right and you're not" kind of discussion, because they are just pointless, endless ping pong. I've been on these forums for way too long to keep doing that bud

So let's just agree to disagree.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

We could do the math, if you like. But the thing you have to remember is, PVP ships only need to accelerate. As soon as they get going fast enough, they can begin the interdiction. Hauling ships, by contrast, must still slow down. And super Cruise overcharge has virtually no impact on slowing down, only accelerating.

The results seem fairly obvious to me. Hauling ships will likely save about 50% of their time. PVP ships will save 90% or more.



The problem is, you are conflating competition with pvp. Not all competition puts your ship at risk of being destroyed.

I love competition. I do not overly enjoy pvp, though I do engage in it from time to time.

And the fact of the matter is, the proposed system would put all players under the thumb of PVP players, who will have ultimate control over whatever other activities are allowed to occur.



Can they fight back? No. Can they win? No. The only option is for them to High wake away. And that is not a win, that is just another version of loss. Honestly, given the current devalued state of credits in this game, it may be more of a loss than actually dying.

But more importantly, it is forcing me to engage in a style of gameplay I simply do not enjoy, where the best possible result is for me to never see any attacking players. What possible incentive do I have not to switch over to my Wi-Fi connection to avoid instancing with anyone I don't want to see?

Worse still, it has substantial knock-on effects with block lists, which are a critical part of the current moderation infrastructure of the game. Frontier would need to dedicate a substantially larger number of support members to handle griefing.

So I am just not going to play. And if players like me aren't going to play anyway, why not just Short Circuit the entire thing, create a dedicated PVP Arena where PVP players can actually play with each other like they eventually will anyway, and shorten the entire debate?

Without wanting to sound rude, I think the assumption is that powerplay can live without players like this being involved. Or at least only being involved specifically in aspects that suit their tastes. And I think the diversity of activities and locations suggested in PP2.0 will make the latter straightforward to achieve - even with open-only. In fact it's already possible now. Contested expansions are really the only place you expect a likelihood of PvP.

 

[DemiserofD]

Without wanting to sound rude, I think the assumption is that powerplay can live without players like this being involved. Or at least only being involved specifically in aspects that suit their tastes. And I think the diversity of activities and locations suggested in PP2.0 will make the latter straightforward to achieve - even with open-only. In fact it's already possible now. Contested expansions are really the only place you expect a likelihood of PvP.

I've said it before, but if the starting assumption is that you outright reject anyone who doesn't enjoy playing the way you do, it's not going to see great success. After all, pvpers make up a very small portion of the total playerbase.

Because I do agree with you; the vision you describe would work just fine - as long as the only players are pvpers.

But again, if you're going to hit that point anyway, why not just go with my suggestion and have a dedicated pvp zone? That lets you have all the benefits of the pvper-only system, AND create something actually usable - and enjoyable - by the rest of the playerbase.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I've said it before, but if the starting assumption is that you outright reject anyone who doesn't enjoy playing the way you do, it's not going to see great success. After all, pvpers make up a very small portion of the total playerbase.

Because I do agree with you; the vision you describe would work just fine - as long as the only players are pvpers.

That doesn't make any sense because PP1.0 already has a substantial constituency of open-only PvEers. And plenty of options of doing useful tasks in open, but without PvP. The discouragement to players comes down to the gameplay being rather dry.

But again, if you're going to hit that point anyway, why not just go with my suggestion and have a dedicated pvp zone? That lets you have all the benefits of the pvper-only system, AND create something actually usable - and enjoyable - by the rest of the playerbase.

I think what I'm saying is, rather than get a feature to bend over backwards to satisfy a very stilted concept of how PvP could be involved, so that everyone can do it (but potentially not very many people enjoy it), the philosophy of PP2.0 seems to be more "let people do every kind of thing so that everyone can involve themselves in PP regardless of personal gameplay taste". I suspect that "PvP zones" will emerge from the design. As I've described, they basically already have in PP1.0. But they'll emerge in a softer, organic way, rather than a jarring, walled-zone way.

 

[DemiserofD]

That doesn't make any sense because PP1.0 already has a substantial constituency of open-only PvEers. And plenty of options of doing useful tasks in open, but without PvP. The discouragement to players comes down to the gameplay being rather dry.

I once watched an 'open only powerplay' stream, and in over three hours of stream time doing powerplay, he never once was attacked by a hostile player. In my opinion, the ability for 'open only pve' to really exist is largely contingent on the broad failure of powerplay 1.0 to acquire a significant playerbase in the first place.

If powerplay 2.0 has anything resembling an active playerbase on the scale of the thargoid war, that will become impossible, and the majority of those players will either swap to solo, quit, or throttle their connections.

I think what I'm saying is, rather than get a feature to bend over backwards to satisfy a very stilted concept of how PvP could be involved, so that everyone can do it (but potentially not very many people enjoy it), the philosophy of PP2.0 seems to be more "let people do every kind of thing so that everyone can involve themselves in PP regardless of personal gameplay taste". I suspect that "PvP zones" will emerge from the design. As I've described, they basically already have in PP1.0. But they'll emerge in a softer, organic way, rather than a jarring, walled-zone way.

It seems to me that the current game design they're working on has no open-focused design at all, and they're going to release that first before considering whether they should add open-only features.

It would be something of a worst-case scenario for pvpers if everyone was playing in open, but due to the wide-spread nature of the conflict - despite pvpers theoretically existing - they had little to no actual impact on the game.

Functionally speaking, in order for pvp to be relevant, it requires external effort to concentrate players into single locations, even in open. Since Powerplay will encompass the majority of the bubble, I don't see intentionally concentrating pvp into dedicated zones as 'stilted'; if anything, it will likely be necessary.

I guess my point is, you can't just assume that making open obligatory will fix anything. It seems just as likely to me that it could break everything, or make absolutely no difference whatsoever. Getting things just right is a very fine line, that will likely need to be approached more intentionally.

All we really know for sure is that it will intentionally alienate the majority of players; whether or not it actually achieves that intention will depend on implementation. But bare minimum, that's not exactly a great way to start.

 

[heathenlamb]

Well, that cannot possibly be true, since 'everyone' includes me as well, and your suggestion would make PP2 as unfun as possible for me.
I certainly would not touch an 'A to B hauling in Solo' kind of 'gameplay' with a ten foot pole.

But ALOT of us would .... hence why OOPP isn't what we desire.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Functionally speaking, in order for pvp to be relevant, it requires external effort to concentrate players into single locations, even in open.

This is probably the most relevant statement.
During all the years I've been trading I only tend to encounter hostile players in CG systems.
The PvPers seek player concentrations, so by being aware of these allows you to avoid such encounters.
The PP bubble system concentrated things on particular systems, so the new version with individual systems should allow greater dispersal and not provide such a predictable target.
Even if that forces PvPers to roam more widely they would still be drawn to concentrations.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It just wouldn't BE hauling, and would once again reduce Powerplay down to an insignificant corner of the game that nobody bothers with. Not a great option.

I have to ask what is hauling to you in PP then, especially when you have ten other powers who want to beat you? Each power is hostile to each other, are you expecting them not to do anything and just let you go?

 

[Rubbernuke]

This is probably the most relevant statement.
During all the years I've been trading I only tend to encounter hostile players in CG systems.
The PvPers seek player concentrations, so by being aware of these allows you to avoid such encounters.
The PP bubble system concentrated things on particular systems, so the new version with individual systems should allow greater dispersal and not provide such a predictable target.
Even if that forces PvPers to roam more widely they would still be drawn to concentrations.

The difference will be three-fold in V2:

1: all systems have an intrinsic value based on population and other factors (which I assume are wealth status, market type etc). High value systems are more desirable as they count for more calculating the new galactic standing.

2: some systems act as support for other systems- so if they were to be lost they'd make other systems vulnerable to attack.

3: the new UM mechanism is unlimited (or appears to be from FU #4)- which means once an attack on 1 and or 2 above happens it can snowball into a larger and larger fight (similar to Sandros uncapped UM idea in FT 1).

Taken together, certain systems at various times will become 'hot' and focus player attention- so organically over time a powers topography will develop weak areas that act as flashpoints.

 

[Rubbernuke]

My suggestion (see above - in a nutshell: make PP cargo materials, not commodities, so no cargo rack required, you can 'haul' in your best combat ship) would solve that problem immediately.

Thats pretty nifty.

So if they were to go Glaive route you'd be looking at something very fast with a lot of firepower.... ah...
View attachment 392116
Which would mean the T8 is the fast hauler counterpart...

If you had lots of SC combat, perhaps (for SCO). But as I pointed out my idea tries to limit SC, and bring more gameplay back into realspace where the bulk of anything should happen.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Worse still, it has substantial knock-on effects with block lists, which are a critical part of the current moderation infrastructure of the game. Frontier would need to dedicate a substantially larger number of support members to handle griefing.

In a mode about random interaction where destruction is not wrong, in a feature about being #1 out of 11 powers (and doing it by whatever means).....you can't call it griefing.

Even Frontier want you to kill- 'Destroy Enemy Commanders'....very specific wording considering they could have said 'Destroy Enemy Ships' like they do now.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I once watched an 'open only powerplay' stream,

I think this tells everyone how qualified you are to talk about the experience of powerplay in open

and in over three hours of stream time doing powerplay, he never once was attacked by a hostile player.

But also, seems like open-only powerplay won't be much of an issue for you or anyone else who worries about PvP in open.

In my opinion, the ability for 'open only pve' to really exist is largely contingent on the broad failure of powerplay 1.0 to acquire a significant playerbase in the first place.

If powerplay 2.0 has anything resembling an active playerbase on the scale of the thargoid war, that will become impossible, and the majority of those players will either swap to solo, quit, or throttle their connections.

Even in the early days of the Thargoid war when engagement was an order or two of magnitude higher than it bacame, you had to go some to find wingmates. Several systems that were receiving a lot of focus would always be the only way to guarantee a gang to work alongside, whether in open or AXI PG. If anything I think PP2.0 will be more spread out (a single power has as many exploited systems as the whole of the Thargoid invasion affects).

It seems to me that the current game design they're working on has no open-focused design at all, and they're going to release that first before considering whether they should add open-only features.

It would be something of a worst-case scenario for pvpers if everyone was playing in open, but due to the wide-spread nature of the conflict - despite pvpers theoretically existing - they had little to no actual impact on the game.

It will always remain relevant at certain focus systems, just like now. But I take the point that instead of several target expansion systems there'll be a myriad of potential expansion targets. That would seem to place an even greater imperative on open-only, since players will be spread out.

Functionally speaking, in order for pvp to be relevant, it requires external effort to concentrate players into single locations, even in open. Since Powerplay will encompass the majority of the bubble, I don't see intentionally concentrating pvp into dedicated zones as 'stilted'; if anything, it will likely be necessary.

I guess my point is, you can't just assume that making open obligatory will fix anything. It seems just as likely to me that it could break everything, or make absolutely no difference whatsoever. Getting things just right is a very fine line, that will likely need to be approached more intentionally.

All we really know for sure is that it will intentionally alienate the majority of players; whether or not it actually achieves that intention will depend on implementation. But bare minimum, that's not exactly a great way to start.

This seems to create a very important role for the existing communities. They'll each have a role like AXI does for the Thargoid war. The systems they focus on become the ones with rapid progress and visible activity; players even outside these groups, and with no out-of-game information, will be drawn to the activity. But you don't have to go there. If we jave open-only, then it effectively becomes a soft way of choosing "open" (lots of players, encounters likely), or "solo" (little activity so far, probably no encounters). Add to that the availability of activities for which PvP has little leverage and you potentially get even more options.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

But ALOT of us would .... hence why OOPP isn't what we desire.

Presumably you're heavily involved in PP1.0 then, which offers that in spades?

 

[heathenlamb]

Presumably you're heavily involved in PP1.0 then, which offers that in spades?

Presumably.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

The difference will be three-fold in V2:

1: all systems have an intrinsic value based on population and other factors (which I assume are wealth status, market type etc). High value systems are more desirable as they count for more calculating the new galactic standing.

2: some systems act as support for other systems- so if they were to be lost they'd make other systems vulnerable to attack.

3: the new UM mechanism is unlimited (or appears to be from FU #4)- which means once an attack on 1 and or 2 above happens it can snowball into a larger and larger fight (similar to Sandros uncapped UM idea in FT 1).

Taken together, certain systems at various times will become 'hot' and focus player attention- so organically over time a powers topography will develop weak areas that act as flashpoints.

Indeed, and this appears to be a straight improvement over the current design.

My only concern is access to the content (primarily the modules) for those players who only use PG/Solo. This if Fdev do go down that route it would be best to pass the modules to Tech Brokers and have a clean break from PG/Solo.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Presumably.

So why is it you think FDev are reworking powerplay? Is it to remove the frustration and cost of 10-at-a-time fasttrack loading (which presumably is the only thing that bothers you right now)? Or is it something else?

 

[rootsrat]

Even Frontier want you to kill- 'Destroy Enemy Commanders'....very specific wording considering they could have said 'Destroy Enemy Ships' like they do now.

View attachment 392144

Well spotted.

/thread

 

[Screemonster]

As a leader of a large BGS group (both manpower and controlled systems wise) I personally wholeheartedly support the notion to reward players more for playing in Open - when it comes to both BGS and Powerplay.

Yeah. I'm just gonna reiterate what I said earlier:

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.

All the complaining about the idea of open only anything is completely missing the part where powerplay is a completely optional, opt-in layer of the game and the solo-only crowd who treat pvp like a dirty word won't even let us have that.

 

[Screemonster]

Indeed, and this appears to be a straight improvement over the current design.

My only concern is access to the content (primarily the modules) for those players who only use PG/Solo. This if Fdev do go down that route it would be best to pass the modules to Tech Brokers and have a clean break from PG/Solo.

Yeah, get rid of the requirement to do minimum-effort powerplay participation in order to access those modules and you get rid of a bunch of hangers-on who don't actually want to take part but feel forced to.

I'm reminded of a vid I saw recently about the fallout 76 leaderboards which were a fun pvp activity where a key feature was a marker showing you where the top ranked players were so you could hunt them down, but then the devs opened up pve stuff to it, a bunch of non-pvp players got involved and got to the top of the leaderboards, then got mad and started screaming for the marker to be removed because they wanted the rewards of the competitive adversarial gamemode but didn't want the risks.