Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Rubbernuke]

So essentially you're agreeing with "G5 murderboat survived confrontation with a Type-9 ... is to be rewarded"?

In Powerplay, you support a power and others try to stop you doing what you need to do. Anything someone does is with this context, unlike the wider game where attacking and destruction has no reason behind it.

No NPC hauls, and also players cannot haul? Who is doing the hauling then? I must be missing something here.. Could you spell it out for non-specialists?

Taking what I said above you could design it so that only NPC haul fortifications, and that its abstracted. So, in game you'd have a weighted strength for how fast a system fortifies, and is represented by USS of convoys, or SC ships.

If this was woven into a gameplay system you could have states that speed this up, slow it down or temporarily halt it (like infrastructure failures) all based on what attackers do.

 

[Nowski]

In Powerplay, you support a power and others try to stop you doing what you need to do. Anything someone does is with this context, unlike the wider game where attacking and destruction has no reason behind it.

Sure, but you were "correcting" @WhiteHaulerMan 's post which was attempting to provide criteria for the game to give extra rewards based on "risk" and "combat" (as opposed to a simple "play in open == risk == extra rewards" approach), itself an answer to @Doctor Dread 's question of "why should a combat ship with overwhelming firepower advantage get extra rewards for destroying a relatively helpless hauler built vessel? (i.e. how is the game meant to distinguish this case?)

Taking what I said above you could design it so that only NPC haul fortifications, and that its abstracted. So, in game you'd have a weighted strength for how fast a system fortifies, and is represented by USS of convoys, or SC ships.

If this was woven into a gameplay system you could have states that speed this up, slow it down or temporarily halt it (like infrastructure failures) all based on what attackers do.

I suggested automated hauling myself, a while back. What did you mean by "players cannot haul" though? I'm pretty sure I've hauled, and I'm almost certainly a player, so...?

 

[Rubbernuke]

What the PvP players want is to drive hauling into ships that have so much offensive and defensive weaponry that they have almost no capacity to actually store cargo, thus having zero effect on the game because they now can't carry enough to make any difference, so they may as well not bother hauling. While yes you can "haul," you may as well not bother!

Whats the problem with that? It means then there is more consideration beyond time and cargo capacity. For example having a wing member who acts as an escort / interdictor, fortifying less difficult places, or having to fortify contested areas more slowly but be safer.

What you don't want to the default state being total efficiency all of the time, because then the higher strategy layer supporting a power becomes less unpredictable.

Its only other players currently that can do this at scales that matter, since PP NPCs are shockingly poor at doing anything let alone act as a brake on activity.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Sure, but you were "correcting" @WhiteHaulerMan 's post which was attempting to provide criteria for the game to give extra rewards based on "risk" and "combat" (as opposed to a simple "play in open == risk == extra rewards" approach), itself an answer to @Doctor Dread 's question of "why should a combat ship with overwhelming firepower advantage get extra rewards for destroying a relatively helpless hauler built vessel? (i.e. how is the game meant to distinguish this case?)

I was adding my own view that in Powerplay, you have tasks that will put you in danger, and being attacked for PP is not griefing. Its probably my mistake for only going back a few responses and thinking that was what was being talked about.

If you want ways to reward, its been discussed pages ago- my take on that was you have hauler and attacker specific rewards.

Attackers are easy, with a fixed bounty and INF gain for each kill. You'd have a heat map for PP cargo lost per system (visualising what PP station reports do) mixed with modifiers for UM as a whole and credit cost of player ships lost. So systems that have high destruction totals that tick / time period that are seeing UM you get a hefty bonus. Both sides then get rewarded for results- either on kills or on delivery. Niether get anything if they see no-one or fly in areas that are safe.

I suggested automated hauling myself, a while back. What did you mean by "players cannot haul" though? I'm pretty sure I've hauled, and I'm almost certainly a player, so...?

I'm talking about this from a design suggestion standpoint. In the idea ther would be no Power cargo availaible. I'm not talking about V1 or V2 where hauling in various forms exist.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

So essentially you're agreeing with "G5 murderboat survived confrontation with a Type-9 ... is to be rewarded"?

One of the original suggestions/concepts FDEV had for the overhaul was that Open Only PP Interactions were weighted, which is what most of the discussions of the 'pro-open PP' camp are talking about.

So for example (pulling a random figures out just for colour), we have two players: both hauling 100 PP tokens, with one conducting it in Open, the other in a Private Group or Solo, and (again for colour) a weighting of +25% for open mode delivery.

What this would mean is that the Open mode haulers tokens would be worth 125 points towards the fortification/what not of the System for their faction, whereas the player in private group/solo's would be worth 100 points, the 'reward' coming from (i) their work being more productive at a factional level and (ii) higher standing within the faction for the various personal level factional rewards.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Bruh...

View attachment 403883

Its why I'm scratching my head

 

[St0rmFury]

How would one resolve the "haul in solo, relog in open & turn in" conundrum though?

 

[Rubbernuke]

How would one resolve the "haul in solo, relog in open & turn in" conundrum though?

IIRC it was mentioned by Sandro you can mode lock cargo.

 

[Nowski]

Its probably my mistake for only going back a few responses and thinking that was what was being talked about.

Ok. I mean that gets talked about a lot, so it's a fair bet.

I'm talking about this from a design suggestion standpoint. In the idea ther would be no Power cargo availaible. I'm not talking about V1 or V2 where hauling in various forms exist.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I absolutely did not get you were indicating a hypothetical here:

Sadly, no NPC hauls which is the issue- its a shame that players cannot haul at all, and that its automated and players have to stop it. Being automated would also then build in rules of empire size, and hauler composition.

I think "it's a shame" was probably what threw me. Prefixing a hypothetical proposal with regret is a level or two above my forum rhetoric pay-grade, probably.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

How would one resolve the "haul in solo, relog in open & turn in" conundrum though?

The original thing suggested was that changing between modes 'destroyed' the merits or cargo iirc, which seemed a tad overbearing to me.

Personally though, I think a simpler approach would be to have it so the weighting bonus only applies to anything conducted from start to finish in open, with a transfer to another mode between meaning the loss of the weighting bonus on those merits (although, still retaining their 'base' value).

 

[Darkfyre99]

One of the original suggestions/concepts FDEV had for the overhaul was that Open Only PP Interactions were weighted, which is what most of the discussions of the 'pro-open PP' camp are talking about.

So for example (pulling a random figures out just for colour), we have two players: both hauling 100 PP tokens, with one conducting it in Open, the other in a Private Group or Solo, and (again for colour) a weighting of +25% for open mode delivery.

What this would mean is that the Open mode haulers tokens would be worth 125 points towards the fortification/what not of the System for their faction, whereas the player in private group/solo's would be worth 100 points, the 'reward' coming from (i) their work being more productive at a factional level and (ii) higher standing within the faction for the various personal level factional rewards.

And from my point of view, the type of player who chooses modes based on some notion of efficiency, rather than some notion of fun, is exactly the kind of player who’ll choose meta-tactics which will be extremely frustrating to any potential opponent. And said player is likely to voluntarily hobble themselves out of the same sense of efficiency if given the free choice of modes.

 

[Viajero]

Let's get real, please.
So the G5 murderboat survived confrontation with a Type-9 built for haul (with a laser or two, so "combat ship"), and he is to be rewarded?

If that trader was not aligned with a PP2 power, the G5 wouldnt be rewarded much. He would get a PP2 progress reward by destroying any ship that was aligned with an opposing PP2 though, be it an enemy trader or enemy G5 combat ship. And in doing so he would be exposing himself to the risk of his own destruction when confronting those other G5 enemy ships aswell.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

And from my point of view, the type of player who chooses modes based on some notion of efficiency, rather than some notion of fun, is exactly the kind of player who’ll choose meta-tactics which will be extremely frustrating to any potential opponent. And said player is likely to voluntarily hobble themselves out of the same sense of efficiency if given the free choice of modes.

I get what you're saying, and I am no doubt sure the mention of the usual 'metas' would rear their ugly heads (particularly in these forums).

As daft as it sounds, I look on the weighting concept as less about encouraging people like that into open, and more about ensuring those that do remain 'competitive' in terms of their contributions, potentially encouraging the less zealous into engaging with PP more holistic manner than the current layout encourages, possibly allowing a return to the heydays of a active powerplay, where groups of players healthily worked as teams to compete against rivals, strengthening the community and encouraging further longevity for this game.

 

[Viajero]

I look on the weighting concept as less about encouraging people like that into open, and more about ensuring those that do remain 'competitive' in terms of their contributions

Pretty much. A balanced reward (for any PP2 activity including trading related ones) due to the added risk of destruction by enemy PP2 players.

 

[Darkfyre99]

As daft as it sounds, I look on the weighting concept as less about encouraging people like that into open, and more about ensuring those that do remain 'competitive' in terms of their contributions, potentially encouraging the less zealous into engaging with PP more holistic manner than the current layout encourages, possibly allowing a return to the heydays of a active powerplay, where groups of players healthily worked as teams to compete against rivals, strengthening the community and encouraging further longevity for this game.

I get that as well, but from my point of view, there is very little risk in Open… unless you deliberately go looking for it. There is no incentive for me, as a non-combat-oriented player, to deliberately seek it out, even though I play in Open. I do occasionally do just that because I find that kind of thing fun… in small doses

If I didn’t, though, I can easily effectively eliminate almost all risk in Open, even in PvP hot spots, simply by playing outside my local prime time. Even when it corresponds with the global maximum. I don’t have much control over when I play, but if given a choice, I’d much rather play during my local prime time or weekends.

If everyone starts doing this, what you’re going to have a scenario where everyone actively seeks to minimize the chances of PvP to maximize their efficiency. I’ve played games like that before, and it isn’t my definition of fun. Which is why I’d rather they reward the actual risk, not the mode.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I get that as well, but from my point of view, there is very little risk in Open… unless you deliberately go looking for it. There is no incentive for me, as a non-combat-oriented player, to deliberately seek it out, even though I play in Open. I do occasionally do just that because I find that kind of thing fun… in small doses

If I didn’t, though, I can easily effectively eliminate almost all risk in Open, even in PvP hot spots, simply by playing outside my local prime time. Even when it corresponds with the global maximum. I don’t have much control over when I play, but if given a choice, I’d much rather play during my local prime time or weekends.

If everyone starts doing this, what you’re going to have a scenario where everyone actively seeks to minimize the chances of PvP to maximize their efficiency. I’ve played games like that before, and it isn’t my definition of fun. Which is why I’d rather they reward the actual risk, not the mode.

In my time people played to the game, not the timezone. Even in a small Power like Antal we would be on together and there were no shortages of randoms and other powers.

Powers themselves notice when the bulk of other powers are active, to find out when attacks are going on or find windows to attack. How that translates in V2 (i.e. snipes) is anyones guess, but I have a few ideas.

very little risk in Open… unless you deliberately go looking for it.

In PP quite often you have to go to places which are dangerous because those are the areas your power needs help. In a V2 context the alternative is to tend a garden further out and hope no-one attacks....but if its based on influence from a system under attack you'll lose it all unless you help.

And if you have a mix of people on at a mix of times? It won't matter- simply as quite often you'll still see others. For me (when I managed to play a different time) I'd meet other players...one day that was just me v a very angry group of PMF players.

In short- Open is opportunistic encounters. Having lots of people playing at random times just shuffles the deck.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

I get that as well, but from my point of view, there is very little risk in Open… unless you deliberately go looking for it. There is no incentive for me, as a non-combat-oriented player, to deliberately seek it out, even though I play in Open. I do occasionally do just that because I find that kind of thing fun… in small doses

If I didn’t, though, I can easily effectively eliminate almost all risk in Open, even in PvP hot spots, simply by playing outside my local prime time. Even when it corresponds with the global maximum. I don’t have much control over when I play, but if given a choice, I’d much rather play during my local prime time or weekends.

If everyone starts doing this, what you’re going to have a scenario where everyone actively seeks to minimize the chances of PvP to maximize their efficiency. I’ve played games like that before, and it isn’t my definition of fun. Which is why I’d rather they reward the actual risk, not the mode.

Again, all points fair, but as Rubbernuke highlights, if you're pledged in PP and doing PP activities, chances are inadvertently you are looking for it. The incentive (in the case of the perennial PP hauler we talk about, overlooking the other approaches you can go about to achieve your aims in 1.0) is that your actions in those hotspots improve the standing of your faction in some shape or form.

As to playing outside your local prime time, I'd just highlight that (i) if others are doing the same, the new time becomes the 'prime time' and that (ii) the number of times I thought I was playing in an off-peak period in WWII Online before watching in horror as a clutch of allied armoured vehicles would crest a hill in front of me, training their barrels on my unarmed truck, is pretty damn high

 

[Doctor Dread]

It's perfectly balanced: T9 hauls 700+ tons, a G5 murderboat hauls nothing.

And you are welcome to Solo, to utilize 700+ tons. Outhaul them.

Not to your liking? You demand all the merits be done in Open Only? Or be more valuable in Open Only? Very selfish and entitled.

You are free to use any of the three modes. Find one that's to your liking, stay there, contribute, and don't demand all must play this game the way you like.

If you think Solo haul has an upper hand, feel free to use it.

 

[Jockey79]

Consoles won't be playing in PowerPlay 2.0. It'll be restricted to Live only, though Horizons Live and Odyssey will have their own version of Open.

Yikes, console users get slapped in the face, again.

I hope they've pulled ED from the console storefronts. I'd be annoyed if I bought ED on a console now, only to discover it's been dropped from all development.

 

[Heliaxx]

Quite interesting thread. I think it could be good to make the fundamentals absolutely clear - Powerplay is in it's core, a Player(s) VS Player(s) system. NPCs have no impact on it, neither is it in any way random like BGS is to a degree. That's objective.
Now, for the subjective part. I would say if we logically approach this fact, we do have 2 options - we either say well, lets make it simple, whichever group is stronger in the Quantity X Quality ratio should have the advantage. This imo feels like the most fair system because we reward both parts of the equation.
Alternative to this is to say well - we don't care about the player skill part of the equasion.
Personally I think this is much more boring in the long run and not as rewarding for the veterans and even with all the changes... We are essentially back to braindead "who can outhaul who"