Powerplay 2.0 “Open” Rewards

[Screemonster]

There would be plenty of reasons to build hauling ships, only not in PP which should never have been a hauling competition in Solo to begin with.

Fast-tracking is the worst part. I remember when I first looked at powerplay and the idea of the small but regular allowances of cargo and that made me think "wow, so that's a good use-case for things like the federal dropship, a heavily-armoured transport that can carry a modest amount of cargo in safety".

And then I saw that fast-tracking was a thing and instead what you get is people hauling max-cargo cutters to get it all done in a single trip, and naturally doing it in solo because that's the optimum way to fly a shieldless unarmoured cutter, then they go off to some completely-powerplay-unrelated credit fountain activity to pay for the next round of fast-tracking.

 

[Northpin]

then they go off to some completely-powerplay-unrelated credit fountain activity to pay for the next round of fast-tracking.

why? iirc it was a zero sum game
maintaining max rank used to pay 50 millions, fasttracking to keep you there used to cost 50 millions - did that changed?

 

[DemiserofD]

There would be plenty of reasons to build hauling ships, only not in PP which should never have been a hauling competition in Solo to begin with.

Sounds like trade WILL be an aspect of Powerplay 2.0, according to the Frontier Unlocked stream:

One potential aspect is Finance. It's not particularly exciting but some people are really into that sort of idea of, you know, basically just coming in and being like, look we will be very good for your economy and we're going to show you that through these actions so, you know, Basically making really good successful trades with the local system, bumping our economy full of good stuff that they've been after for a long time like all of that sort of sort of good stuff and you show them that your power is good.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Fast-tracking is the worst part. I remember when I first looked at powerplay and the idea of the small but regular allowances of cargo and that made me think "wow, so that's a good use-case for things like the federal dropship, a heavily-armoured transport that can carry a modest amount of cargo in safety".

And then I saw that fast-tracking was a thing and instead what you get is people hauling max-cargo cutters to get it all done in a single trip, and naturally doing it in solo because that's the optimum way to fly a shieldless unarmoured cutter, then they go off to some completely-powerplay-unrelated credit fountain activity to pay for the next round of fast-tracking.

The irony for many is that PP is the busy work for the week and then went off to do other things. Hopefully PPV2 (and it seems so far it has) will correct this.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

I never knew Fallout 76 was about galaxy wide conquest.

One could make the same claim about Fallout 76. Heck, the game mode in question literally had PVP boards as a central(heck, some might say ONLY) engaging aspect.

Once they added PVE, then people preferred to 'conflict' with each other via farming PVE points. Despite the claims by the pvp players that, by playing on that server, they were opting into pvp, the pve players nonetheless continued to protest until that was changed. Not only that, they preferred it so extensively they actively campaigned for PVP features to be limited to facilitate their ongoing PVE activities.

Because to them, 'conflicting' via counter-grinding is fun, while pvp...wasn't.

Really, give the video a look, it's worth a watch. Excellent case study in human behavior.



Frankly, the exact locale is pretty much window dressing. If anything, one could easily say that Fallout 76 is BIGGER than Elite. It takes about 80 minutes - over an hour - to traverse from one side of the map to the other.

Now, obviously the entire galaxy is substantially larger than that, but the bubble is where all powerplay is going to happen, and you can cross that in about 5 minutes flat. With SCO drives even large systems are now substantially smaller than that.

In practical terms, Fallout 76 is now bigger than Elite. Theoretical size doesn't matter much when most of it is empty space.

The exact opposite in PP then.



And in a game where you defend and attack systems in real time why would you want to have to crawl across space?

In my experience of FO76, PvP tends to occur at specific locations, similar in principle to our 'popular systems'.
Bethesda's blocking system and pacifist system aren't anywhere near as robust as Elite's which leads to persistent griefing by particular individuals.
Seal Clubbers near Vault 76, Trap camps at White springs, players attacking events hoping a new player shoots back triggering a massacre...
I have heard that FO76 may be going into or already be in maintenance mode. Given the mass layoffs by Microsoft it doesn't seem beyond possibility the whole thing is being wound down despite the TV show being confirmed for a second season.

 

[Rubbernuke]

In my experience of FO76, PvP tends to occur at specific locations, similar in principle to our 'popular systems'.
Bethesda's blocking system and pacifist system aren't anywhere near as robust as Elite's which leads to persistent griefing by particular individuals.
Seal Clubbers near Vault 76, Trap camps at White springs, players attacking events hoping a new player shoots back triggering a massacre...
I have heard that FO76 may be going into or already be in maintenance mode. Given the mass layoffs by Microsoft it doesn't seem beyond possibility the whole thing is being wound down despite the TV show being confirmed for a second season.

In the wider ED game I'm more than happy with multi modes. However in PP (and V2 it seems) player destruction is actually warranted because it serves a purpose.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

In the wider ED game I'm more than happy with multi modes. However in PP (and V2 it seems) player destruction is actually warranted because it serves a purpose.

With regards to the vid; the problem with the PvP mode was adding the reward (XP boost) which PvPers had previously called for to attract players. Similar to various calls for increased rewards for playing in Open by various Cmdrs.
The fact this attracted PvEers should have been obvious along with the subsequent demands to 'nerf the PvP mode'.
Simply removing the XP boost would have resolved the issue if the video's creator was correct.

 

[Rubbernuke]

With regards to the vid; the problem with the PvP mode was adding the reward (XP boost) which PvPers had previously called for to attract players. Similar to various calls for increased rewards for playing in Open by various Cmdrs.
The fact this attracted PvEers should have been obvious along with the subsequent demands to 'nerf the PvP mode'.
Simply removing the XP boost would have resolved the issue if the video's creator was correct.

Trouble is Powerplay is not strictly one or the other- its situational with PvP moderating. Powerplay is also doing what you describe in reverse- it has imbalanced modes while trying to be competitive.

Additionally the 'XP' in this situation will not change (for your personal rewards) but only the influence on the power.

It boils down to either 1) NPCs become the primary opposition 2) players alone are the opposition or 3) open is weighted because only other players offer any threat.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Trouble is Powerplay is not strictly one or the other- its situational with PvP moderating. Powerplay is also doing what you describe in reverse- it has imbalanced modes while trying to be competitive.

Additionally the 'XP' in this situation will not change (for your personal rewards) but only the influence on the power.

It boils down to either 1) NPCs become the primary opposition 2) players alone are the opposition or 3) open is weighted because only other players offer any threat.

The vid is more applicable to those who want 'greater rewards for playing in Open' generally. I'd still prefer a clean break (assuming we go down that route) as that would actually remove the potential for conflict between modes rather than treating players unequally which I see leading to yet more arguments.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The vid is more applicable to those who want 'greater rewards for playing in Open' generally. I'd still prefer a clean break (assuming we go down that route) as that would actually remove the potential for conflict between modes rather than treating players unequally which I see leading to yet more arguments.

The issue in Powerplay is that its easy to see that other players are the greatest threat- I'm not a big fan of weighting (as its not precise) but unless that threat is made up by PvE means its better than nothing. The other approach is to simply mute tasks in solo that grant power influence- for example the PP FCs in strongholds- hacking or sabotage counts as 0 for your power (but counts as normal for yourself). This does not stop solo doing that task and being rewarded but its 'meaningful' in Open.

 

[Rebel Yell]

What was funny was that - "everyone" with a positive view of PvP or the risks if open play avoids these platforms. I was just enjoying your theorycraft.

We're the exceptions confirming the rule.

 

[Mrc_NorthEast]

It boils down to either 1) NPCs become the primary opposition 2) players alone are the opposition or 3) open is weighted because only other players offer any threat.

For other players to be the threat: If and only if the network instancing works as well: different timezones, different internet latencies and speeds, block lists, winged vs non winged (seems to really matter for instancing), etc.

I wonder if Fdev will do the QA universe for PP 2.0 to test the waters first, and open it up to beta testers. I hope they do

 

[Rubbernuke]

For other players to be the threat: If and only if the network instancing works as well: different timezones, different internet latencies and speeds, block lists, winged vs non winged (seems to really matter for instancing), etc.

I wonder if Fdev will do the QA universe for PP 2.0 to test the waters first, and open it up to beta testers. I hope they do

Timezones never stopped V1 and outside of instancing the rest is a matter of design really.

 

[Вильям Адама]

can you also make an impact on BGS systems only in Open only? Otherwise, it's extremely stupid when someone s on you, and you can't figure it out.

 

[Shurimal]

can you also make an impact on BGS systems only in Open only? Otherwise, it's extremely stupid when someone s on you, and you can't figure it out.

Well, a clever BGS player can be invisible to you in open, too. If my understanding of Apex taxis is correct, it is even possible to avoid generating traffic reports in station local news by moving in and out of the system by using taxis, and they are invisible in supercruise, too, leaving no option for the defenders to pinpoint or hamper your movements.

You can wreak havoc by deliberately failing missions for a faction, raiding Odyssey settlements and doing other on-foot stuff using taxis in open and the system defenders can do nothing against it unless they can camp 24/7 at every Ody settlement in order to kill you on sight if you happen to arrive there. And manage to scan you first for bounties—otherwise the whole base will go berserk on them

If you're extra sneaky, you can do a lot of damage to the controlling faction with purely legal actions so you don't even show up on the bounty board.

Bottom line, making BGS influence to work in open only offers little benefit because a determined saboteur can ghost system defenders even in open. The opposite is also true, a defender can avoid their movements being hampered in open by using Apex taxis to move in the system and proxy bases-of-operations to park their ships for doing non-cargo related missions.

Add to that the fact that background player activities (solo or otherwise) raising systems into boom state/causing wars and other interesting states that offer gameplay opportunities benefits all the other players and I don't see the reason why influencing BGS effects should be restricted to open only.

 

[Rebel Yell]

BGS is a waste of time, except for some money/material rewards.

 

[Вильям Адама]

Well, a clever BGS player can be invisible to you in open, too. If my understanding of Apex taxis is correct, it is even possible to avoid generating traffic reports in station local news by moving in and out of the system by using taxis, and they are invisible in supercruise, too, leaving no option for the defenders to pinpoint or hamper your movements.

You can wreak havoc by deliberately failing missions for a faction, raiding Odyssey settlements and doing other on-foot stuff using taxis in open and the system defenders can do nothing against it unless they can camp 24/7 at every Ody settlement in order to kill you on sight if you happen to arrive there. And manage to scan you first for bounties—otherwise the whole base will go berserk on them

If you're extra sneaky, you can do a lot of damage to the controlling faction with purely legal actions so you don't even show up on the bounty board.

Bottom line, making BGS influence to work in open only offers little benefit because a determined saboteur can ghost system defenders even in open. The opposite is also true, a defender can avoid their movements being hampered in open by using Apex taxis to move in the system and proxy bases-of-operations to park their ships for doing non-cargo related missions.

Add to that the fact that background player activities (solo or otherwise) raising systems into boom state/causing wars and other interesting states that offer gameplay opportunities benefits all the other players and I don't see the reason why influencing BGS effects should be restricted to open only.

Cunning people are not all, alas, it happens when whole squadrons harm another squadron from a private group! And this is far from uncommon, but ubiquitous! It's one thing to see a person in a shuttle and be able to identify them, but it's another when you don't see anyone at all. We patrol the system in search of those who spoil our BGS, but there is no one around, there are no signals, nevertheless, inara shows high cross-country ability, and the influence of the system was falling. And quickly.

It is much easier to annoy from a private group, and staying in the shadows. Moreover, people remain incognito, which is even more annoying.

There was recently a conflict between the federation and the empire, everything was clean and interesting there, we saw everyone who flew on shuttles to conflict zones and who fought in space, and could resist this, at that time we could just go into a private gaming group and beat conflict zones in packs without resistance.

I think it's piggish, and it's not right.

P.S. I am writing through a translator, I hope I have stated everything correctly.

 

[Hekateh]

BGS is a waste of time, except for some money/material rewards.

Less of a waste of time than PP, which is only useful for certain modules.

 

[Shurimal]

Cunning people are not all, alas, it happens when whole squadrons harm another squadron from a private group! And this is far from uncommon, but ubiquitous! It's one thing to see a person in a shuttle and be able to identify them, but it's another when you don't see anyone at all. We patrol the system in search of those who spoil our BGS, but there is no one around, there are no signals, nevertheless, inara shows high cross-country ability, and the influence of the system was falling. And quickly.

It is much easier to annoy from a private group, and staying in the shadows. Moreover, people remain incognito, which is even more annoying.

There was recently a conflict between the federation and the empire, everything was clean and interesting there, we saw everyone who flew on shuttles to conflict zones and who fought in space, and could resist this, at that time we could just go into a private gaming group and beat conflict zones in packs without resistance.

I think it's piggish, and it's not right.

P.S. I am writing through a translator, I hope I have stated everything correctly.

The problem with BGS is that it was concieved as a purely background system, something players shouldn't deliberately play with. Of course, this never worked out. Players will find a way to use game mechanics in unintended ways.

But BGS, even if it has become a playground for player groups, still fills the role of a background system. And player activity should be able to affect certain aspects of the game from any game mode. Because someone in solo doing for example trade in a system, pushing it into boom and creating high demand and prices for Platinum is a positive game effect for all other players. In my opinion it would be unfair for all the miners to deny the positive effect of that lone solo trader moving tens of thousands of tons of cargo into a system. And not only miners, boom state seems to have positive effect to bounty hunters, traders and probably others as well.

A "negative" state is also beneficial to players. For example, someone doing missions in solo accidentally pushes two non-controlling factions into a war. This will create opportunities for other players to participate in conflict zones—a net positive outcome for the game and it would IMO be unfair to deny this emergent gameplay opportunity to all others because the one mission-runner who unintentionally would have caused the war is in solo.

Of course this cuts both ways—IMO player minor factions were a mistake from the beginning and they should all be removed, without exception, with the launch of PP2.0. And no minor faction should be able to expand without limits. The farther away from the home system, the harder it should be to keep the influence of a faction up. The BGS should also see more random events like natural disasters, disease outbreaks, pirate attacks and so on that cause the controlling faction to go into negative states and lose influence. Make it background again and hard to play with.

Powerplay 2.0 should be what BGS is now. More powers, too—Marlinists, a pro-Thargoid faction, anarchists (in the sense of anarcho-syndicalism and other ideas), a competing crime lord counterpart to Archon, communists, libertarians/ancaps all should be represented. The current selection of 11 factions, 1/3 of which are Imperials and kind of allied with each other both in lore and in gameplay, is just not diverse enough for my liking.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Powerplay 2.0 should be what BGS is now. More powers, too—Marlinists, a pro-Thargoid faction, anarchists (in the sense of anarcho-syndicalism and other ideas), a competing crime lord counterpart to Archon, communists, libertarians/ancaps all should be represented. The current selection of 11 factions, 1/3 of which are Imperials and kind of allied with each other both in lore and in gameplay, is just not diverse enough for my liking.

The baseline difference between BGS and PP is exactly that... is the ethos and that should then drive the actions of the players belonging to the power and the power business, more over, a pledge is needed to actively contribute to the powerplay biz. The same doesn't happen to BGS, as MFs/PMFs behaviour is exposed to what happens to the system (traffic, economy etc), everyone can act against or in favour of them and they are almost totally disconnected system-vs-system. Their barebone is litterally the government type in connection with their superpower affiliation... but at the end of the day, they most notable difference is only in their "names".