The Powerplay discussion thread.

[[HJ]-RedRaven]

Nah, in a T6. Probably running local trade routes inbetween zipping off to grab allocations.

I call shenanigans. T6's do NOT 'zip'.

I honestly think the vast majority of undermining action is all in SOlo - hence you never see another CMDR even though the counters go up.

It should be easier for the controlling power to fortify a system rather than have 6-7 other power's players actively undermining it but both heading for the same tonnage counter. The undermining counter should be significantly higher than the target set for the incumbent controlling power.

 

[[HJ]-RedRaven]

quick question - once the fortification trigger gets met is it pointless to continue?

It looks from the Control tab in the PP screen that there is a second trigger (a second white diamond at the top of the red/yellow bar graph)... its very high, but I presume if you get to it, then the opposition has to do the same?

 

[Andromalius]

#2 is only a problem insofar as people plan to switch factions ever 4 weeks to go shopping, so they don't give a fig about the faction they are in. The "fix" is to remove Power equipment when you leave the power.
Overall, this was a rushed update with a rushed testing in a rushed game. It's a pity, because like all resource games, the start is primordial and it has been botched forever.

This is how the whole game is designed

You keep saying that but it doesn't make it true you know. Any game designer worth its salt doesn't design a system where one side has to put 9x as much as the other to come ahead. If you really believe they designed that on purpose, you really believe they have low IQ.

 

[therealstubot]

There are a few of us that think what you're saying is true. It appears to me as well, that RES hunting has been nerfed... severely. There are other posts regarding this subject. A lot of them.

There are some who say it's now "fixed", that it was broken previously and now it's just right. That the previous RES scheme was a "money printing machine". You simply show up, hold down the fire button and rake in the cash. I don't necessarily agree with this. Puritans say that bounty hunting should be hitting the bulletin board, getting jobs that way, tracking down leads, not waiting at RES for money to fall in your lap. This has some merit.

I haven't seen a single wanted Anaconda at any High or Low Intensity Resource Extraction Site since power play came on line. I've only seen a hand-full of clippers and dropships. I have had a few instances of "the old times" at plain ol' Resource Extraction Sites, but only after the last, post-powerplay patch of a few days ago. I have sold my kill warrant scanner and headed into a conflict zone for thrashing on a grand scale, albeit at a lower hourly wage. I get an hour or two to play a night, and I've hit a mil once after an extraordinary set of circumstances put me in the right place at the right time for a series of kills. But a Python in a conflict zone is only $50k and a Python can put a serious hurt on my FDL If I'm not careful. So, I guess I'm complaining that it's more work for less money. I tend to spend a LOT more on repairs than when I'm in old time RES farming too, I think because it's not a steady stream of enemies, your shields have a chance to regenerate between fights, and each fight nets enough to cover your expenses plus.

It's common knowledge that the old standby "Nav Beacon" is unchanged, and still offers lively bounty hunter game play, with a varied, but mostly small, fast ( light on the bounty ) ships. I see about $200k-$400k per hour in my old vulture, which is a killin machine.

I currently run a FDL and I'm a rated combat Dangerous. I want to trade in my FDL for a Python and get some better gear and finally get out of the fighting for a living and into trading or exploring, or something. But probably not till after I hit Elite.

 

[Augh-Apoc]

Anytime I say anything about the affect solo play has negatively on the open world I get the same response:

"I hate pew pew lasers / all you want is pvp / players should be able to choose the way they want to play!"

Do you guys just all have the same sentences lined up for copy / paste?

-nobody is asking you to like pew pew lasers
-nobody is suggesting you should participate in pvp
-I'm not saying all I want is pvp
-I'm not suggesting that solo be removed or that people should not be allowed to play however they want

If solo players want to compete against each other without ever seeing each other - that's fine. It doesn't bother me one bit. But just let them compete against each other then! A separate universe background sim for solo would solve all of these problems. It wouldn't change a damned thing about solo for anyone - it wouldn't take away anyone's CHOICE to play solo...

And it would make so many open players not feel like they are watching numbers tick up on a screen while ghosts are running around the galaxy mysteriously.

Heck - Community goals might even actually bring people together! Maybe pirating wouldn't be dead. And solo players could still compete against PG / solo players in the CG without ever encountering any of us AWFUL open players... !!! :O

 

[SteveLaw]

Anytime I say anything about the affect solo play has negatively on the open world I get the same response:

"I hate pew pew lasers / all you want is pvp / players should be able to choose the way they want to play!"

Do you guys just all have the same sentences lined up for copy / paste?

-nobody is asking you to like pew pew lasers
-nobody is suggesting you should participate in pvp
-I'm not saying all I want is pvp
-I'm not suggesting that solo be removed or that people should not be allowed to play however they want

If solo players want to compete against each other without ever seeing each other - that's fine. It doesn't bother me one bit. But just let them compete against each other then! A separate universe background sim for solo would solve all of these problems. It wouldn't change a damned thing about solo for anyone - it wouldn't take away anyone's CHOICE to play solo...

And it would make so many open players not feel like they are watching numbers tick up on a screen while ghosts are running around the galaxy mysteriously.

Heck - Community goals might even actually bring people together! Maybe pirating wouldn't be dead. And solo players could still compete against PG / solo players in the CG without ever encountering any of us AWFUL open players... !!! :O

Tell me, what's the difference between someone playing in Solo who you can't see and someone playing Open with whatever variables the game uses such that the matchmaker doesn't place them in any instance with anyone in your Power?

However, if you separate Open and Solo "servers" then it would make a difference to Solo (and Open). It would make the universe less dynamic. It's funny that it's the Open players who seem to want to move closer to an offline game (fewer players influencing the galaxy). You can't have 100% influence in a system. There are thousands, millions, billions of people in a system, human players are used to simulate those people and how they change the politics of a system. By reducing the numbers of human players who influence the system/galaxy you are reducing the amount of change in the galaxy. You are changing the fundamental core of the game (the background simulation). Power Play relies on that.

People keep forgetting that they are one pilot among a galaxy of billions upon billions of people. One tiny, tiny cog in a giant machine. What makes you think that you should be able to control what happens in a system? You can only add your minuscule effort into the mix and hope that it is enough to tip the balance in your favour.

 

[TargetLost]

We know already that both are wrong. It looks to be something inbetween them. (and yes totaly far off from their description.)
We will know a lot more tomorrow when we have the next numbers.

 

[jgm]

Anytime I say anything about the affect solo play has negatively on the open world I get the same response:

"I hate pew pew lasers / all you want is pvp / players should be able to choose the way they want to play!"

Do you guys just all have the same sentences lined up for copy / paste?

-nobody is asking you to like pew pew lasers
-nobody is suggesting you should participate in pvp
-I'm not saying all I want is pvp
-I'm not suggesting that solo be removed or that people should not be allowed to play however they want

If solo players want to compete against each other without ever seeing each other - that's fine. It doesn't bother me one bit. But just let them compete against each other then! A separate universe background sim for solo would solve all of these problems. It wouldn't change a damned thing about solo for anyone - it wouldn't take away anyone's CHOICE to play solo...

And it would make so many open players not feel like they are watching numbers tick up on a screen while ghosts are running around the galaxy mysteriously.

Heck - Community goals might even actually bring people together! Maybe pirating wouldn't be dead. And solo players could still compete against PG / solo players in the CG without ever encountering any of us AWFUL open players... !!! :O

The problem is that some people see threads like this that attempt to discuss valid problems with parts of the game mechanics as attacks on their "right" to play the game however they want, regardless of the fact that it has a tangible impact on how much others enjoy the game. There's a middle ground between forcing players to play in a particular mode and allowing players in different modes to affect each other that could prove beneficial to the whole game but any attempt to discuss it is shouted down.

Anyway: there are issues with Powerplay and it's impossible to say if they are going to be addressed or not, but it is worth keeping creating threads like this and highlighting where the issues are and giving potential solutions. There's always a chance that FD are listening.

 

[SteveLaw]

The problem is that some people see threads like this that attempt to discuss valid problems with parts of the game mechanics as attacks on their "right" to play the game however they want, regardless of the fact that it has a tangible impact on how much others enjoy the game. There's a middle ground between forcing players to play in a particular mode and allowing players in different modes to affect each other that could prove beneficial to the whole game but any attempt to discuss it is shouted down.

You propose changes because something has a tangible impact on how much some players enjoy the game. Fine. But then those proposals have a tangible effect on how much other players enjoy the game. You improve the enjoyment of players who like to have control through PvP at the expense of players who like to changes modes. So it just shifts the problem to someone else. It solves one issue but creates another.

With both of these being equal (someone is having their enjoyment reduced either way) then it is better all round to leave the game as it is. As it has always been and in the form that everyone paid for. Come up with ideas that don't just shift the problem to someone else and people will be more accepting.

 

[Crowax]

It it's not the #2, I just wasted 50mil. If it is #2 I just made infinite credits.. Either way, feels great, like playing a lottery

 

[kazana]

In real life, I'm a financier that deals with complex math. Amateur redditers have been doing a mess of a job calculating the effect of merit decay and earning merit over time. I want to put the issue to bed, but we will need input from FD before getting a final answer.

Well, that... or three data points. You say you're good at math, you can figure out how.

 

[Jezzah]

Good luck with verification mate. Your post is well put though so you never know you might get a response.

 

[bitstorm]

I suspect both are equally valid, it depends on what FD are trying to acheive.

Grinding out 1000 merits a week under system #1 for a whole year would result in a player having 1875 merits.

Doing it under system #2 the player would have 7901 merits, grinding 1266 merits per week for a year would get you rank 5 after 1 year... just.

#2 actually rewards staying with a power for a prelonged period, which to my mind is preferable.

While with #1, you are what you did in the last 3 weeks, everything before that is forgotten about.

 

[Ant_Solo]

It is hardly a complicated bit of Maths and you don't need 4 weeks to work it out. If you have been playing for 2 weeks already, you can have the answer tomorrow. Just look at your total merit and your earned merits today and then again tomorrow morning. If you haven't been playing PP yet then tomorrow is the start of week 3 and the rest of us will know then. I'm sure someone will post it.

They have explained, its in the manual.

1. I joined powerplay yesterday after very recently purchasing the game
2. It's not my job
3. Theory is easier than practice and I don't have 4 weeks to do accounting for a fictional video game
5. Why should the mechanics of the game not be clarified for new players?

 

[GluttonyFang]

If you really believe they designed that on purpose, you really believe they have low IQ.

Oh dear, watch the ad hominem please?

If you don't, you must have low IQ.

See what I did there?

On topic:

Power hopping should be available and people who put in the effort to get the faction weapons should get to keep them. Since FD's policy is to try to appeal to absolutely everyone and anyone to gain a large audience/revenue, it makes sense that they are appealing to the meta-players that want to be competitive. Think about Cytoscrambler + Pulse Disruptor + Prismatic(probably spelled it wrong) Shield. If they function as they are intended and don't get nerfed to the ground, think about how much of an edge a player gets with these weapons combined.

And the entire point of powerplay is to get people invested and participate in a "sophisticated" gameplay after exploring Elite in a regular sense for an extensive amount of time. I don't see why not reward those that do invest a lot of time.

As the usual defense: "Play the way one wishes to play"

I would laugh just for the pure controversy that design principle sparked, but in the end if that is what FD is using as a categorical imperative, it is what we have to deal with since they get to control/manipulate the game.

 

[Thanewright]

Well so far, In practice, It's been:

Week1 : Earned 100 merits.
Week 2: Carried 116 merits over (?)
Week 2: Earned 1530 merits.
Week 3: Carried 1588 merits over (this is week 2 merits earned + (carried over from week 1)/2)
Week 3: Earned 600 merits.
Week 4: Find out tomorrow!

Assuming "carried over from week 1" was a glitch, it looks like the formula is:
Carried over = Earned last week in full + earned week before/2 + earned week before that/4
But the manual suggests 3 rounds of halving. Does that mean last weeks *should* be halved, and they weren't? Or does that mean you get "and week before that/8"?

So many unknowns, better to just wait for tomorrow morning and see what we get.

 

[bitstorm]

So many unknowns, better to just wait for tomorrow morning and see what we get.

Maybe 1394?

 

[jgm]

And the entire point of powerplay is to get people invested

And the problem with the other side being able to change your situation without you being able to do anything about it is about as far away from invested as you can get.

The amazing thing with Powerplay is that they put in half-decent mechanisms along with the poor mechanisms. So if you look at expansion, for example, there have been some decent battles to gain ownership of systems. Preparation, although by no means perfect, has lead to move and counter-move. Control has no such feature, which is a shame because it is the dominant activity that powers will find themselves carrying out as they grow.

 

[CrazedHatter]

Question about PowerPlay Weekly Payouts

Hi there,

I have a unique situation coming up soon that I was hoping to get some Dev clarification on. I am going on vacation starting July 1st, and will return July 9th, as a result, I will miss the end of the next cycle, and will not return until the start of the cycle following that. So my question is will my payout that I would normally pick up on July 2nd still be there for me on July 9th with whatever (reduced) payout I will get for the next week on my leftover merits?

Thanks for your feedback!

 

[FuzzySpider]

A way to salvage powerplay with existing game assets

There have been loads of ideas on how to do this that were discussed in beta, this thread in particular gained traction for obvious reasons (that thread should be copy/pasted here as food for thought). But nothing got changed. Perhaps the game as it stands doesn't support it? Perhaps it's too much work to implement such a thing?

Well here is an alternative that might just work, that is definitely possible.

Get rid of the entire structure as it stands now. The tacked on board game, the merits, the command capital, and whatever else is going on. DEFINITELY get rid of the arbitrary "turn based" mechanics where things flip after a week. That's about as organic as a Ford Cortina, and screams "video game!" at my attempts at immersion.

Instead have minor factions affiliate themselves with the powers. So within each system currently within a powers territory have the dominant minor faction "owned" by the major power, depending on the major powers ethos (so for example Archon owns the unfettered powers, Hudson owns corporate and military, Patreus owns military factions etc). If the owned faction is the most dominant in the system then that power controls the system.

Spreading power territory could be handled like this: Have powers also affiliate themselves with the relevant faction on the borders of their space but outside their territory. So for example Archon could "own" the Blue Camorra in a system next door to one in his territory, but that faction should have its initial influence set to 0%. In order for Archon to spread into that system players for that faction should head to the system and start doing bulletin board missions for the Blue Camorra, working for them, aiding them however they can, until they become the dominant force in the system.

If that faction gains the biggest influence in the system the faction then takes over the system. Whatever the time of day or whatever the period of the week. And then the unfettered factions in the system near to that system would fall under control of Archon.

In the event of two powers with a similar ethos having borders you'd create a new faction of the same type (but a different name) which would become rivals in the system, perhaps even spawning CZs.

Advantages:

1. This would be mission based, and thus more fun than running leaflets around.

2. This wouldn't need a whole load of work to set up.

3. This is far more organic than what we have now.

4. It would be difficult for a single player to bring the influence of any minor faction up that fast on their own, thus this would encourage the teamwork that was supposed to be a part of powerplay.

5. It would give people a reason to carefully consider the power they align themselves with (people who want anarchy would have to go with Archon, people looking to spread corporate influence would go with Hudson etc), this would make people more invested in what they were doing rather than just feel like they were chasing a special module.