The Powerplay discussion thread.

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
In that case, my suggestion of restricting PvP to CQC will suit everyone. Fighting for your chosen power fits the bill for Viajero nicely -

Not at all I am afraid. I think I already responded to that, maybe it wasnt clear:

I am definitley looking forward to CQC.

But that is not the goal of this thread. What I am suggesting in the OP is a way to facilitate that those who want to PvP can meet effectively, and do it all within the territorial and strategic Powerplay context and mechanics, and not just roaming around uselessly (we ll have CQC for quick action fixes).

The kind of "hotspots" that I suggest in the OP have clearly a location component, multiple ones in fact (as opposed to just an arena) if we have several of them, lets say around 20 or 25 of them. Each location with a specific implication with regards to all the differnet powers bubbles of influence. It will also channel player initiatives and plans physically (weather in Open or in Solo) by virtue of their coordinates and how they relate to Powers. The coordination and logistics required by wings to organize effectives assaults, or defenses, etc is all part of the "strategic context" of the proposal, much like other normal control systems today. Except these hotspots would be facilitating that activity and become an integral part as well of the PP game. It is not just the actual fight in it, it is all that surrounds it as part of the full environment in Powerplay.

An arena, as fun as it may be, is just that, an arena.

So, no, a PP arena is not what I am proposing I am afraid.
 
Last edited:
A type of system like the one I propose in the OP is nothing else than a way to embed and funnel a more meaningful context into any existing PvP action, a very simple one at that, and allegedly not as thorough as the integration of the full background simulation that I posted in that other thread etc, but one has to start somewhere.

I think one has to start at the basic level if he wants to ignite real interest in contextual PvP.

If you reject the idea of quantifying resources, like FD did, you reject the idea of inserting real meaning into ongoing struggle, which is supposed to culminate in small/medium/large scale PvP encounters. If I am not motivated to represent specific power/local or major faction, why would I feel attached to any specific power/faction and be willing to protect my land from invaders, either by the way of trade or by fighting or in any other cunning way? Resources ARE unlimited. What's the point then? Theme-park philosophy of embedding mini-games upon the foundation of an economy/political system frozen in one state is missing the simple fact that all of that fighting can be perfomed equally well within casual framework of a CQC arena, or randomly shooting people across populated space without any reason whatsoever.

Without going into too many further and unnecessary details, Johnny Spaceboots describes pretty well what is missing from the current system at the fundamental level: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=98406

I dont think I have asked for "giant massive pvp battles" either. It seems you assume too much and read too much into things. I am perfectly aware that ED has not been designed around massive battles. 2 or 3 wings tops is perfetcly ok with me. What I am suggesting is not MOAR pvp, but just a way to facilitate that those who want to PvP can meet effectively, and do it all within strategic Powerplay context and meaning, and not just roaming around uselessly.

Pretty sure I didn't accuse You of asking anything of the sort. Pretty. My point is that 1 pvp per week is well within "rare and meaningful" promoted by the dev. team, precisely because limitations I mentioned above will make it challenging to support anything bigger than that consistently. Hence, players are spread around the populated space, by the way of powerplay, making the whole experience more stable, from the technical viewpoint. Which ends up in two loosely connected mini-games, & PP, both with a depth of iPhone games. How can that inspire people to look for each other in order to kill with a good reason and be motivated to protect the territory till the last drop of blood, I do not know.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your efforts to carve the game out of that, which we already have. It's just happens to be my opinion that things ARE missing at the basic level.

With all respect.
 
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.


With all due respect you cannot discuss what you brought up without the modes debate. You see systems PP numbers changing by large amounts all the time yet may not see 1 CMDR in the system no matter how many times you jump to reinstance or whatever method you use. The CMDRs have to be there to be contributing in such numbers so if you never see them then it is a modes issue.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
With all due respect you cannot discuss what you brought up without the modes debate. You see systems PP numbers changing by large amounts all the time yet may not see 1 CMDR in the system no matter how many times you jump to reinstance or whatever method you use. The CMDRs have to be there to be contributing in such numbers so if you never see them then it is a modes issue.

If you wish to discuss the modes, please do so in the relevant thread as requested:

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.
 
Who ever it was that mentioned giving High intensity zones and civil wars in contested systems and having the victor contribute massive PP points was a genius.... I think we should do that, that way those that wanted to avoid the PVP could by just not entering the battle.
 
Powerplay Timer widget for your Chumby

Hi All.

Anyone own a Chumby? Are you participating in Powerplay?

Well, if so, I've just published a new widget that might be of use to you...

It's a countdown timer which defaults to 30 minutes - the 'cooldown' time between being able to get more resources for your courier type Powerplay missions.

Don't own a Chumby but still want to use the timer? Can do if you use a Flash enabled browser and visit here

Now if Frontier could just say when each Powerplay week ends exactly, I can see another countdown widget being written, that counts to the end of each Powerplay week...
 
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 :)

Lol. Like it Ben!:D

- - - Updated - - -

Totally agree but why the Empire watermark on your post ? (top right )

OOps...never noticed it..have to get rid'o'that for sure????:eek: I've been sabotaged!!! :mad:
 
There is supposed to be a non-aggression pact in place with Hudson and Winters if you follow the reddit, but some dirty Winters people continue to try to make inroads on systems bordering Hudson space instead of moving towards the empire.

I don't think it's dirty. It's simply that there is no organization in powerplay and no in-game means to organize within the power either. This mode is desperately crying out for a "treaty mode" or something which would allow members to vote on a treaty of some sort, which would automatically disregard attempts to take territory from those you have a treaty with.

Most players are not on reddit.

OOps...never noticed it..have to get rid'o'that for sure????:eek: I've been sabotaged!!! :mad:

Settings> General Settings> Elite Faction. ;)
 
Last edited:
Totally agree but why the Empire watermark on your post ? (top right )
.
Cheers all for pointing out the watermark...now fixed, and showing the Federation (before in all probability it fades into obscurity, to the sound of approaching Imperial Lasers and the marching boots of their space marines as they kick down our doors):(
 
Last edited:

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your efforts to carve the game out of that, which we already have. It's just happens to be my opinion that things ARE missing at the basic level.

Oh and I d agree, hence my other posts et al. Although I think I understand why people want to fight for territory even if some things are missing. I know I do :p the territorial contest in and on itself is enugh justification for many. If the was fully integrated it would be even more awesome.

So this OP proposal could be a reasonable option if FDEV prefers to stick to PP mechanics instead of integration with the background sim. The choice is obviously theirs, we can just propose some ways.
 
Last edited:
I would support Hudson, I even pledged but he doesn't pay me good neough, sorry I am no loyal soldier, I am a mercenary, I go there where the credits go and PP apparently DRAINS credits.
Give me a task with a good pay and I'm in.

To be honest, I like the federation more than the empire but the pay is for poor and worthless tasks. I am a fighter and not a dumb trader who supplies every 30 minutes a system with 10 uninteresting goods that give me 1k cr.

I am talking about millions not thousands, MILLIONS!
.
Hi Commander Crimson Kaim!
.
I am an armed trader making millions as I go about my very risky dealings.... but I also play PP alongside...doing the half hour bit when able, doing the required "hits" when the mood takes me....I certainly do NOT grind, nor ever will... just too boring... even playing PP on my ad-hoc terms I'm up to Rank 2 by the third week, I certainly fit it in around my "usual" activities but I do find myself "caring" about what happens to our little part of the galaxy... it gives a (very mild) sense of belonging. I also find the "hostile" status in some systems to be quite a blast in outwitting the opposition. With PP you certainly get more feel of depth in the game even if you are not up to your neck in it!. I was dead set against PP in the beginning but have changed my opinion 100% about-face. Give it a try, you might just like it and you can always leave at the drop of a hat!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you wish to discuss the modes, please do so in the relevant thread as requested:
If incentivising PvP in open play is such a dead cause it cannot be allowed to enter the discussion, well... fine.

In that case the only way to fix PvP that I can see is to cordon it off into its own neat tidy box in a corner of the main menu somewhere and make it an entirely separate deathmatch mode from the freeroam galaxy, with its own balancing, rankings and progression. Good, I'll never need to play Open anymore.

Henceforth, Elite: Dangerous to me will be the spiritual successor to Descent and Shattered Horizon.

I'll probably enjoy it more than the current game, but... when will someone make a multiplayer version of Elite? I'd kickstart that in a heartbeat.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
If incentivising PvP in open play is such a dead cause it cannot be allowed to enter the discussion, well... fine.

In that case the only way to fix PvP that I can see is to cordon it off into its own neat tidy box in a corner of the main menu somewhere and make it an entirely separate deathmatch mode from the freeroam galaxy, with its own balancing, rankings and progression. Good, I'll never need to play Open anymore.

The single thread on that topic is in place so that all discussion (and the innumerable threads that are created with "new" views on the core features that allow player freedom) are in one convenient place to ensure that parallel discussions do not require participants to duplicate posts or cross-link threads.

It would seem that Frontier are already well on the way to satisfying your suggestion - CQC will be with us at some point in the not too distant future.
 
Last edited:
The single thread on that topic is in place so that all discussion (and the innumerable threads that are created with "new" views on the core features that allow player freedom) are in one convenient place to ensure that parallel discussions do not require participants to duplicate posts or cross-link threads.

It would seem that Frontier are already well on the way to satisfying your suggestion - CQC will be with us at some point in the not too distant future.

CQC will just make sandbox open pvp dead. I'd rather play WT for arena - CQC will probably have 0 risk just making it really meaningless/arcade
 
Last edited:
I would like to add a couple of points to the plan list. Expansion and Control seems to be pretty much set in stone by now, but there is still something that can be done in preparation to improve our situation.

1. Grebegus is IN with 49844 points and with a huge distance to Sivara (32283) and Kalana (32027). Nothing to be done about it. The system is just very close to our borders.
2. We have only 1069 CC to spend, which means, that only the first 7 systems can be expanded into. This is a total of 973 CC, i.e. we waste 96 CC. It also means that Conii (a decent system with 84 CC profit) will fall OUT.
3. There is HIP 10786 with a ridiculous 7 CC profit on place 6 with 18773 preparation points.
4. Place 7 (Cailli with 17908 pp, IN) and place 8 (Conii with 17225, OUT), which are good systems are close behind.

My proposition is that we IMMEDIATELY stop preparing HIP 10786 and push everything into Cailli and Conii to get them on places 6 and 7 and push HIP 10786 back to place 8. The total sum for the first 7 systems would be 1048 and we would waste only 21 CC, which means HIP10786 is OUT.

We may be able to fix this HIP problem with nominations, or maybe we can't, depending on the voting behavior.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
[Brainstorming] Ideas for Encouraging Players to Powerplay in Open

This thread is for discussions around how to encourage players to engage in Powerplay in Open mode specifically - the OP of Post #2 has some ideas as to how this may be achieved.

When participating in this thread, the same thread rules as in The Solo vs Open vs Groups - Part the Second [Now With Added Groups] thread apply.

Discussion on the modes themselves should not take place in this thread and will be considered off-topic.
 
Last edited:
GUYS,
DO NOT PREPARE HIP 10786 (and GREBEGUS)

REASONS:
1. We will lose trading route with this system (prices will go up)
2. We will lose possiblity of preparing much better system (we have only finite number of slots to prepare!)
3. This systems, will create little CC income (10 times less than other we need to prepare)

GREBEGUS is currently top 1 position, so this is lost (we would need to move up EVERY other system above it), while HIP 10786 is still doable to prepare other systems above it.
 

atak2

A
Some brainstorming ideas I have had for balancing the game in general

EDIT:

I will try to articulate the reasons why I made the thread. All of my brainstorming covered several topics but here are the main themes that my poorly thought out ideas were coming from:


1. People that are already involved in Open in Powerplay - A way of funnelling those players to choose combat on the frontline (rather than ambushing unprepared players all over enemy territory) and to incentivise the players on the frontline to attack and find other players preferentially over npcs.


2. Players that prefer to be in Open but find Powerplay objectives are best done in other modes in order to be more efficient - Finding some way to make it that all players find that their preferential mode is just as efficient for Powerplay objectives as the other modes. If Open punishes Solo players etc for not playing Open then my brainstorming in the opening post has so far failed.


3. Accepting that all modes will always continue (including the Xbox population) finding a way beyond filling up bars for players to conduct indirect Powerplay warfare across the modes - for example players in a private group could work together to build and deploy a capital ship for their empire that sits in a system across all modes with the intention of slowing or stopping progress being made by Open players in that system.


4. General ideas for just improving Open for anyone so they feel they can participate there if they so choose but again without Open punishing Solo/Group players for not being in Open.


Influenced by the the mod Viajero's thoughts in this thread I have some general ideas I think might work (but need fleshing out):

These ideas cover several topics but I didn't want to spam the forum with threads.

Powerplay - Merit Multipliers

Combat:

My concept involves a new temporary ranking for Powerplay activities called Valour. The idea revolves around a multiplier that temporarily increases the amount of merits you make based on how many enemy players you encounter in that moment. The more enemy faction players that are with you in the instance/combat zone the higher the Valour multiplier rises. As soon as the enemy presence decreases the Valour multiplier also decreases down to 0 if there are no enemy player threats around or if you die. This would hopefully give an incentive for players to go and seek out other players and the increase in merits recognises the risk of player interaction but does not give the risk bonus to players who are encountering just npcs like solo (as this would be unfair to solo/group players).

This would also reward players who are skillful. If they manage to fight off larger numbers they can gain enough merits to lessen larger numbers of enemy players activities (rather than an artificial bottleneck instance).

Also Valour could possibly have an extra multiplier based on whether the system is on the frontline of faction territory. This would hopefully incentivise the player to fight on the frontline and slightly dissuade players from attacking hostile faction ships deep within enemy territory.

AI Factional Capital Ships that spawn in a system where there has been constant large amounts of faction player combat activity. This would give a way for PCOpen/XboxOpen and various private groups to fight and counter each other. If an AI capital ship spawns all the faction players in that system that the ship belongs to gain a massive multiplier in merits. The other factions and instances would have to either destroy the ship (which would take a lot of concerted effort over the various game modes) or bring enough player numbers to spawn their own capital ship to fight the other capital ship. This needs more thought if anyone can weigh in on this.

Trading:

I think traders involved in Powerplay objectives (carrying Propaganda etc) also need a bonus multiplier. For this I was thinking of another temporary multiplier called Hazard Pay. The incentive here is that Powerplay traders get a bonus multiplier based firstly on the number of enemy player ships they detect in the systems they travel through. The traders would also gain bonus merits for every player interdiction or enemy player encounter they escape. As soon as the trader dies or completes their delivery objective the bonus multiplier resets.
EDIT - The trader delivering the propaganda would have to not be able to gain any other combat merit bonus as I think we would find a situation where combat players carry propaganda with no intention to deliver it. Maybe a time limit on delivering the propaganda as well. Any ideas on this would be welcome.

General Pirating and Trading

Pirating:

Much like my ideas with Powerplay I believe pirates should have temporary ranking multiplier called Infamy. The notion behind this is that pirates should get an infamy bonus at anarchy stations (such as better black market prices, reduced outfitting costs etc.) based on how many player traders they manage to successfully gain cargo from without killing. The infamy bonus would reset on player death.

The Infamy multiplier could also become negative (as you gain a poor reputation from killing players) until the player gains the status of Raider. This Raider status would be like an Ultra-wanted status where basically everyone is hostile to the Raider. After a certain amount of time (as long as they kill no more players) the Raider status would disappear. I'm not sure whether the pirate's death should reset this status.

Hopefully these ideas would incentivise a pirate to try and gain cargo from player traders without killing them. Npcs would not affect any of these multipliers/statuses.

Trading:

Much like the pirating concept I've also been trying to come up incentives for open trading based on the number of hostile players a trader encounters. Like my powerplay trading idea a multiplier based on how many enemy player encounters they have during a trading run. So far I have been unable to come up with a multiplier that is not immersion breaking (why would a trader be paid for avoiding pirates?). If anyone can come up with a good idea for this please state it.

One thing I have been toying with is that if a Trader is killed by a player Raider in a non-anarchy territory then they get no insurance costs to rebuy their ship as the system authority pays it as an apology for not being able to keep raiders out of their system.

One last idea was incentivising the use of pure trading ships. A trader in a large T9 etc could get some sort of small escape shuttle where they can fly back to a station and get their trading ship back at reduced insurance cost (as the insurance company doesn't have to recover their escape pod). The escape shuttle would be very small and incredibly hard to detect on radar so the pirates would not be able to find it easily/at all. A trading anaconda etc could also have this escape shuttle but would have to sacrifice cargo space and/or outfitting slots for it.


Thanks for reading and let me know if you can expand any of my ideas to make them work better.
 
Last edited:
These modifiers could really add some more details (I liked the pirate-part the most) however at the end your system would become a money printer.
And as far as I can see money is plenty already in the game without meaningful spending options.
 

atak2

A
These modifiers could really add some more details (I liked the pirate-part the most) however at the end your system would become a money printer.
And as far as I can see money is plenty already in the game without meaningful spending options.

Thanks for the input. Bear in mind these multipliers would reset on player death and perhaps they could degrade - for example with the pirate infamy - if they do not keep up the good pirating the infamy bonus disappears.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom