The Powerplay discussion thread.

[Mohrgan]

There should be bigger rewards in merits in open play and really low insurance cost for dying in open like 90% discount. So it will encourage more players to get in open play. Why is that ?Because people know that against pve they have bigger chance of surviving so they can take risk of higher insurance cost, but in open play they know they got higher chance of dying on other way many players who would get into pvp they would not be afraid to fight and take their chance into fight to get a reward.
Next thing is ships should be balanced, right now FDL and Clipper are too OP make their boost speed slower so smaller ships got better chances of getting distance.

The eternal question: Why should FD have a desire for more players in Open, enough to anger the Solo/Group crowd? Isn't it all the same to them where people play? Wouldn't they just be more interested in giving as many options as possible?

Without insisting that ships be balanced around PvP powerful ships would just be fun, not a thorn in the side of someone who hasn't gotten one yet. By letting PvP just be what develops, what organically happens with the Dev's best rule set, you rule out the roller coaster ride the Balance Dance that happens in games. The Galaxy is cruel, sometime someone out-flies you, sometimes they out gun you. That is your challenge.

 

[Sharky]

I always used to play in open. But with PP I now won't as I use a hulking transporter that is easy bait for PvPers to lug my tonnage of merit tickets back and forth.
Why risk big repair bill..not to mention losing the tickets that took a few hours of sitting in a port to collect when I get same benefit in solo with only NPC's to worry about (or not).
It seems the people making the loudest noise are people who mainly PvP. I do not so it is still a boring grind (PP that is) but with much less risk in solo than in open.

 

[Araviel]

Once again the choice is clear. Rewards wins out over experience. By and large PvP is valued only through it's rewards. If you need to bribe participants, why not just promote PvE. NPC's never storm the forums asking for nerfs. Updated - - -

the A.I buffs saved the game for me, and im having lots of fun trying to solo strong signal sources atm. but its still not quite like fighting a real and skilled player.
and why im able to solo the strong signals is mainly because i partly can predict the A.I behaviour. and im afraid that ill soon have it nailed down and it will become a routine thing again.
so far i have never played a game where that was not the case whit me vs the A.I (Sarah take notes here and make them more unpredictable pls)

I don;t see that PvP orientated players have a 'right' to have victims. That's an absurd notion.

right now that is what open mostly is, its gankers vs victims.
i want it changed into warriors vs warriors.

why would anyone form up a gang to defend against a invading force if there no reason to do it?
one side is rewarded for being in hostile space while the other side has to settle whit low home territory rewards.

and ask yourself, would you Pve if you had no reason for it? if npc's did not give you bounties or if you did not get any rewards from missions?
i don't think you would and in this essence i think we have the same mindset.

 

[Cmdr Eran Mintor]

In the past 24 hours I have been in Power Play I have racked up over 16 Commander Kills. I have had some instancing issues, but that's to be expected and the lag isn't terrible.

To me, the reward for PVP in PP is better than grinding merits, although I've been doing both. I can get a lot closer to undermining someone if I remove their merits from the pool rather than try to catch up with them. The insurance cost is also a deterent for people to continue operating somewhere they're being hunted (unless they run to solo, and I pity them then).

 

[Mohrgan]

I think you make a point that supports my argument. With virtually no reward for PvP, what makes you consider Elite a PvP centered game? I concede that it has PvP in it, but I can see no validation that FD considers PvP anything other than an interesting byproduct. Something that is available to those who seek it.

People can and are forming up gangs to rid the skies of the opposition. You can travel to an opponents' system and down all the ships you can find for credits. Just like a Group player would. And it sounds like you won;t have to face much opposition, so it won't be any harder to do.

 

[gumbie]

The E playerbase doesn't want gameplay, it wants "rewards".

FD do make tentative moves to improve the gameplay but whenever they do they get huge forum backlash. The E community much like society is beyond hope at this point.

 

[5thNovember]

The E playerbase doesn't want gameplay, it wants "rewards".

FD do make tentative moves to improve the gameplay but whenever they do they get huge forum backlash. The E community much like society is beyond hope at this point.

I agree with this for the most part. I've been enjoying PowerPlay, but only because it gives me a legitimate reason to shoot down other players. I have found that around half of the PP players are down with it, and will engage without whining. However some players still act surprised, if not angry, when they are attacked. Twice last night I was asked 'why?' as I whittled their shields. Its really pretty simple - you're in an enemy power. If you're an enemy I'm going to shoot at you, with glee.

 

[Araviel]

I think you make a point that supports my argument. With virtually no reward for PvP, what makes you consider Elite a PvP centered game? I concede that it has PvP in it, but I can see no validation that FD considers PvP anything other than an interesting byproduct. Something that is available to those who seek it.

i sure don't consider elite to be a pvp centered game, but that does not mean i would not like it to be more so.
and Pvp players are valid customers to and i know plenty of people who would buy the game, or that has left but would come back and maybe buy expansions if the situation was improved.
i think thats plenty of validation.
and that i am the last player standing of all my pvp friends who originally bought the game i thinks speaks for that the availability is not enough.

People can and are forming up gangs to rid the skies of the opposition. You can travel to an opponents' system and down all the ships you can find for credits. Just like a Group player would. And it sounds like you won;t have to face much opposition, so it won't be any harder to do.

seal clubbing might be your preferred play style, but it sure as hell ain't mine

 

[Mohrgan]

Yet, CQC won't satisfy you because it's a closed system. They can't win. They offer a outlet, and you reject it.

You can puff your pixelated chest up all you want, but I do just want to putter around and kill NPC's. That's my thing, mostly. I do have a competitive side. But I'm old, and I have solved those issues long ago. IT is widely known that certain combinations of Rank, Ships, and Quantity can be a real challenge to overcome. That is about as much as I wish for. And, I thank FD for supplying me with that experience.

 

[obliterator]

You can be rewarded for PvP. You can hunt PC bounties. You might make an argument, based on rewards equaling legitimizing, that BH'ing is the only sanctioned PvP outlet. This is exactly why I say PvP is a byproduct, not a direct goal. There is no systematic reward for PK'ing. I hope CQC brings some relief to the frustrated PvPers, but I can't see a need to prop up an activity that can't sustain itself.

The fact that an activity can or can't sustain itself is dependent on the state of the game, not the legitimacy of said activity. By your logic, if trading was suddenly nerfed so that it would be impossible to make any profit out of it, then it would simply lose its legitimacy (based on rewards equaling legitimizing) and wouldn't deserved to be fixed. And by that logic, anything that is currently not working shouldn't be fixed because it's not legitimized by the game.

Your argument is a circular fallacy: BH'ing is the only sanctioned PvP outlet because PvP is a byproduct, but PvP is only a byproduct because BH'ing is the only sanctioned PvP outlet. Pvp shouldn't be buffed because it's not an important part of the game, but it's not an important part of the game only because it has never been buffed.

Paying players to PK would only serve to be Opens' final nail....

Again... We're talking about PvP, NOT PK. There's a difference between paying players to kill everyone on sight, and simply giving more opportunities and incentives for players to face each others.

 

[ellobo29]

Mohrgan is clearly against PVP in open, period..... Thats why we have solo.... for people like him. I want realism and PP is an ongoing war and that means fighting other players in pvp. Lets be honest, fighting NPCs in this game is pretty easy and boring. Only another player can give the challenge that I need to enjoy this game. I expected PP to give more incentive to PVP and it has let me down in that regard because right now its rare to find fights......

Im not looking to PK.... but if you are not an allied power... if you cross over into my territory I will attempt to kick you out.

 

[fademist]

Mohrgan is clearly against PVP in open, period..... Thats why we have solo.... for people like him. I want realism and PP is an ongoing war and that means fighting other players in pvp. Lets be honest, fighting NPCs in this game is pretty easy and boring. Only another player can give the challenge that I need to enjoy this game. I expected PP to give more incentive to PVP and it has let me down in that regard because right now its rare to find fights......

Im not looking to PK.... but if you are not an allied power... if you cross over into my territory I will attempt to kick you out.

if PP was war players would have join to fed navy--empire navy-alliance navy etc..this is just the struggle to riches for some lazy npc's with photos;p

 

[Araviel]

Yet, CQC won't satisfy you because it's a closed system. They can't win. They offer a outlet, and you reject it.

You can puff your pixelated chest up all you want, but I do just want to putter around and kill NPC's. That's my thing, mostly. I do have a competitive side. But I'm old, and I have solved those issues long ago. IT is widely known that certain combinations of Rank, Ships, and Quantity can be a real challenge to overcome. That is about as much as I wish for. And, I thank FD for supplying me with that experience.

no they did not offer us an outlet whit CQC, they clearly stated that it was men't for quick in and outs and not something you would sit and engage in full over a weekend.
it is made more for the kind of people who gank in starter systems then us who wants deep and meaningful pvp.

it is cool that you just want to putter around and kill npc's, i got no problem whit that.
but i would like to ask you to stop opposing our player group, there is room for us in Elite and we do not impose any threat to your play style. we are not the ones who oppose group or solo play, and we are not the ones who gank innocent traders or newbies in the starter systems.
all we wan't is to fight each other in a way that has some purpose and reason.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

That's complete . The game itself makes it hard for willing players to find other willing pvp players. They have a hard time finding each other, but it's not because they don't want to.

It's also more "effective" to play solo, and it shouldn't be that way.

Some of us like solo, and only play solo. No mode switching.

Back on topic: Power Play simply does not pay (enough). And I find few compelling characters to cheer for. I would rather be a counter in a boardgame, than play Power Play.

 

[Yodafone]

I have only recently turned to solo play and I'm not even currently participating in PowerPlay although I did pledge to a power (ZH). This has had the obvious knock on effect of painting a "Hudson Hostile" bullseye on my hull where I am currently trading imp slaves in the Empire. Npcs I can deal with but any player who sees/saw my hostile status who would be interdicting me and were a constant irritation and/when they aren't really sure the reasons for the interdiction or conflict, they simply do it none the less. This "HOSTILE" status needs to go, perhaps a KWS should be needed to consitute it, otherwise whilst I am trading I will continue to do so in solo. Shame really but it was getting ridiculous and I was losing credits left right and centre.

 

[Araviel]

I have only recently turned to solo play and I'm not even currently participating in PowerPlay although I did pledge to a power (ZH). This has had the obvious knock on effect of painting a "Hudson Hostile" bullseye on my hull where I am currently trading imp slaves in the Empire. Npcs I can deal with but any player who sees/saw my hostile status who would be interdicting me and were a constant irritation and/when they aren't really sure the reasons for the interdiction or conflict, they simply do it none the less. This "HOSTILE" status needs to go, perhaps a KWS should be needed to consitute it, otherwise whilst I am trading I will continue to do so in solo. Shame really but it was getting ridiculous and I was losing credits left right and centre.

i must ask what the reason for you was to play in open in the first place then?
if it was to have friendly chats then you have to group options whit groups like mobius.
i see no no reason why one player group has to suffer a nerf to a game mechanic to cater to the needs of another here.

 

[Yodafone]

i must ask what the reason for you was to play in open in the first place then?
if it was to have friendly chats then you have to group options whit groups like mobius.
i see no no reason why one player group has to suffer a nerf to a game mechanic to cater to the needs of another here.

You perhaps misunderstand. I've nothing against getting interdicted by the player even if I've invested 3 million in my cargo hold, it's simply the fact that pledging to a power seems to hinder your progress anywhere else in the galaxy that isn't aligned with your power simply because of the obvious Hostile status. Players would interdict you simple seeing the red "enemy" warning so much much more. I wouldn't consider going trading in a system I was wanted in (well not much anyway). PP doesn't seem to work together with the rest of the game in this regard with such an obvious "hostile" status for everyone to see with no way to clear it. Some might say don't pledge to a power then but I want to participate in both. Now I've changed my type-7 for a Python I may consider changing back to open I'd expect, in the type-7 I had no counter and like I say was losing money trading not gaining it.

Edit: perhaps removing the "hostile" status is a bad idea, was the first thing that came to mind, I'm simply telling my story really as to what made me choose solo play. I didn't like doing it, was my first time quite frankly, but had little choice if I want to trade in enemy space. Perhaps I can't have it both ways and pledge to a different power and exploit slaves in enemy space. Solo play gives you that option, perhaps it shouldn't and is the real problem right there, PP and the option to switch is perhaps one of the reasons PP is not compatible with both. Now I have my Python I am back in open none the less

 

[Captain N]

I think you make a point that supports my argument. With virtually no reward for PvP, what makes you consider Elite a PvP centered game? I concede that it has PvP in it, but I can see no validation that FD considers PvP anything other than an interesting byproduct. Something that is available to those who seek it.

I can answer that question. It's because PvP is the one and only part of Elite that stays enjoyable and interesting after the first few hours when it's not yet completely repetitive, predictable farming.

Since it's the hands down best part of the game, it's natural to concentrate on it no?

 

[Comrade Napoleon]

To OP ; ower play is completely useless imo and has not added anything to the game game. It is rubbish.

Cheers Cmdr's

 

[jgm]

Doing a quick plot of the overhead numbers at the end of last cycle versus the numbers of controlled and exploited systems, overhead is extremely close to being exactly proportional to the number of exploited systems (or possibly the number of controlled plus exploited systems) cubed.

Spreadsheet-best-fit lines suggest that the power is 3.02 (ex) or 3.06 (ex+co) rather than exactly 3 ... but I suspect actually what's happening is that the power relationship is a perfect cube and there may be some additional factors other than just raw system numbers which have minor additional effects.

If you want a very rough approximation: "total systems, cubed, then divided by 100,000" is not perfect but not far off.

So ... as a power gets bigger, it gets even more crucial for its preparation to be focused on top systems. All those people super-opposing Hudson and Winters expansion are probably actually doing them a favour - an accidental minus-fifth column, if you like - because Hudson especially is at the stage where much further expansion will cause really serious overhead problems.

I'll add this cycle's numbers in to the plot this evening or tomorrow and see if that confirms or refutes this theory.

Interesting idea. Have you tried this with the latest data?