The Powerplay discussion thread.

Derath

D
Robert Maynard said:
Simply put, PvP is optional in this game. The three game modes usually enter into the debate when PvP proponents feel that they lack players to target.
Click to expand...

No they don't, it enters the discussion when it comes to consequences of their PvP

Edit: and don't reply "consequences, there aren't any!" because thats the whole point ;)
 
Last edited:

Parmo

Parmo
To the OP:
What was the purpose, primary objective of Powerplay?
To encourage PvP? To encourage Solo? or Group?
I have read recently that there about 500,000 'active' users.
How many have pledged to PP? We, the players and other interested parties, don't know.
Of those that have pledged how many play PP in Solo?
We can think all we like about how PP is affecting but without solid data the thinking is a waste of a precious resource.
PP is not for me, I'm a lone pilot of the Elite84 ilk. But having looked at it I just feel it has not been thoroughly thought out. At one level it is too complicated and at another it has too few levels. Yes that sounds perverse. It feels like a bolt on fixed with a nut that has an incompatible thread.
I do wish that you get what you hope for in that you and your wings find similar minded players that are 'enemies' and have a rough-and-tumble.
 

Derath

D
Robert Maynard said:
Not really, in my opinion - a large part of that debate is that some players don't want other players to have a free choice as to how to play the game when it suits them.
Click to expand...

They don't, but ask yourself why that is, is it because they really are against free choice, or is it because their actions lack consequence because the other side can simply choose to ignore them, Open vs Solo turns PvP into casual destruction for fun, as no other action is possible.

Free choice in how to play the game applies to both sides, someone always loses out.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
Derath said:
They don't, but ask yourself why that is, is it because they really are against free choice, or is it because their actions lack consequence because the other side can simply choose to ignore them, Open vs Solo turns PvP into casual destruction for fun, as no other action is possible.

Free choice in how to play the game applies to both sides, someone always loses out.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that, by not forcing all players to stay in the same mode and allowing all players to select a game mode on a session by session basis, Frontier have decided to support player choice rather than removal of same. This was reiterated in DBOBE's interview with Arstechnica at E3 this week - "There are no changes planned to separate solo and online saves, and players will continue to inhabit the same shared galaxy whether they’re in solo or multiplayer—again, continuing with Braben’s contention that there’s no ‘right’ way to play."

Anyway, rather than be leading this topic into a merge, I'll say no more on these core features of the game - should anyone wish to continue the discussion, I'll be in the Solo vs Open vs Groups - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms] thread.
 
Last edited:

Lord_Crazy

L
Mohrgan said:
I don't see any reason to incentivize PvP. Why do we/FD need to prop something up like that? If there isn't enough players into PvP then that's by the players choice. FD may be interested, but I don't see a need.
Click to expand...

Well I see a reason: some people just cannot afford PvP. It's not a choice, it's just that just playing few hours a week does not give me enough credits to go blow up a Vulture or a Python in PvP. PvP is a very expansive activity for bad pilots like me :D
 

hems303

hems303
URGENT PLEA to all Federation CMDR's in Powerplay

Hi All Fellow Federation Commanders
.
We desperately need to co-ordinate all of our "individual" efforts to support (and even grow) the Federation. CO-ORDINATION is the watch-word. This does not mean following orders as such, but the supply of up-to-date information directing effort where it is badly needed..
If we do not act together as a "team" (loosely, Open play or otherwise); just as the Empire ARE doing right at this very moment; We will fail and the Federation will become a third-rate backwaters power!:(
.
EXAMPLE:

Loyal Federation CMDR's are "Fortifying" Control Systems way past the 100% needed. Any effort beyond the 100% trigger is WASTED EFFORT (other than the individual CMDR getting their personal PP "Merits"):eek:
.
Can I implore Federation CMDR's to at the very least check out such tools as Reddit.com to see just what areas need working on in each weekly cycle of Powerplay (It's also a friendly arena for contact with other CMDR's. You can get involved as little or as much as you wish:
.
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteHudson
.
ALSO: In the future (AS SOON AS POSSIBLE) we, The Federation must forge alliances within, a.k.a. Felicia Winters AND the Alliance a.k.a. Edmund Mahon, otherwise we will all be crushed under the heel of the imperial boot!:mad:
.
Long live The Federation!
 
Last edited:

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Viajero
The goal of my OP was not to discuss Open vs Solo or to incentivate PvP vs Solo, there is a thread for that.

It is rather to discuss how to funnel or facilitate that those that want to PvP do so without having to waste hours to find each other and within a meaningful Powerplay context if possible.
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
Viajero said:
The goal of my OP was not to discuss Open vs Solo or to incentivate PvP vs Solo, there is a thread for that.

It is rather to discuss how to funnel or facilitate that those that want to PvP do so within a meaningful Powerplay context if possible.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Apologies for responding to posts regarding the other topic - I have already re-directed participants who wish to engage in further discussions on that topic to that thread.

Further discussions on that topic in this thread will therefore be considered to be off-topic and dealt with as such.
 
Last edited:

RingoD123

R
I don't think overheads are part of an equation at all, I think they are arbitrary numbers that FD can change at will during server downtime to force any narrative they see fit, regardless of player efforts.
 

Commander Wolzan

C
There's the beginnings of a good community happening out there on the Hudson sub reddit. There's a mumble server which is starting to see more and more joining and in game faction chat via the steam overlay. I bound it to a button on my x52 and it works really well.

Definitely worth checking out for any Hudson supporters who want to connect with others.
 

Ben Ryder

Ben Ryder
Ah have a go with the little guy Antal, smallest community where you really can make a difference and see it grow and take shape. I've been with them for a couple of days and it really is a fresh community that needs some TLC and support. No trying to Hi Jack this thread so I wont post again. Just passing through and sticking up a publicity poster :)
 

kilvenny

kilvenny
Robert Maynard said:
I would not expect that Frontier would make such a change as forcing players from Solo to Open if they engaged in combat in a combat zone would be inconsistent with the encouragement that Frontier have given to us all: "play the game how you want to" - the forcing aspect would seem to be more "play the game how others want you to". No player is required to be content for any other, however they can choose to do so.

Anyway - if this thread degenerates into another incarnation of the "Solo vs Open vs Groups" thread, it will be merged there....
Click to expand...

Ok - I was trying to suggest a focal point in power play that would draw pvp players together, I guess I unintentionally went to far, my apologies. I will keep silence going forward.
 

Araviel

Araviel
i agree, like to get this back on topic, though i am also a little confused atm, can we talk about how to incentivize PvP whitout involving the modes?
i think this is mostly what i have been on about, as i tried to explain i feel that i need a incentive to be facilitated into pvp.
im just not that kind of player that goes around and shoot others whit out reason and i think there is many others like me.
and even if i atm have found a bit of reason, i think there are others who have a hard time whit it.
 

jgm

jgm
Ian Doncaster said:
Yes - added in this cycle's data yesterday, and it didn't change the fit curves that much. I'm fairly confident that - especially at high sizes - "systems cubed" or something close to that is the dominant factor. There are definitely other factors involved, though - Mahon, for instance, has had smaller overheads in both cycles than would be expected from the curve (this cycle they have basically the same number of systems as Patreus and Duval but only about 3/4 of the overheads)

Based on that, and assuming the average exploited system gives about 8 CC (seems close enough for the big ones like Hudson or Lavigny-Duval), but maintaining its control system costs you about 2 CC (more for a distant one, of course), then the ideal size for a power in terms of CC surplus is probably 250-350 systems. Beyond that new exploited systems probably cost you more in overheads than you get in direct income ... to the point where somewhere around 550-650 systems you can't maintain a CC surplus (depending on how good at fortifying without opposition you can be, and what the other factors are)
Click to expand...

Yeah this is interesting, and running the numbers it certainly points to the larger powers falling apart.

Time to write an inflammatory post :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom