Powerplay cycle results


Oh I see, when Delaine has a bugged system, nobody cares...

Oh why I fight against so much odds, not just players/solo offensive, even developers are working against Delaine now...

FDevs... we aren't blind, nor do we have Anosmia, we see and smell favoritism...

I guess my days in Elite is numbered...

*Chuckles in the background*
 
Last edited:
Oh I see, when Delaine has a bugged system, nobody cares...

Oh why I fight against so much odds, not just players/solo offensive, even developers are working against Delaine now...

FDevs... we aren't blind, nor do we have Anosmia, we see and smell favoritism...

I guess my days in Elite is numbered...

*Chuckles in the background*
Funnily enough i've been winding down on ED ever since PP came out.
 
We have no idea how many pledgers there are in a power... With every man, woman and their dogs all going after separate things without a consolidated approach the whole power play thing is total chaos.

Fair enough, but even modern day powers don't know how many votes they will collect in an election; this is part of the 'power play'. Even if we had effective communication, only FD would know the real statistical power of each power group, and how motivated that group is towards a single or multiple chaotic goals. You are right - FD needs to release more stats info to make leadership more effective, like the way opinion polls guide modern governments. (I'm not saying we should run PP goals based on forum polls though! LOL!).

... Only people with a rating of 4 or 5, and pledged after a certain amount of time, will be able to post these notes as a way to 'guide' the other commanders. These 'top commanders' would also have the ability to cut expansion systems from the list, but ONLY if these systems would generate a negative income. I'm just throwing ideas out now.

Also, as Whiterose, a 'pledged' counter, or some type of statistics tab, giving us info on the number of pledged commanders, and how many we have in each rating bracket.

Like it or not, I really believe that Powerplay is essentially a 'guild' system, and we need the communication abilities that go along with functioning within a 'guild'.

Careful with this one - there are mobile internet groups who could (and would want to) sabotage an essentially player-led system such as this.

Part of FD's plan is watching us work all this out. There is value in letting us play all this out in the forums, on Reddit and elsewhere. Our angst is fuel for the stories they can weave into the Elite lore should they wish to. In the face of chaos (current situation) a few enterprising individuals (or groups) will make sense, and in time emerge as definitive leaders for their power. Will it be 'in time to save the game'? Time will tell.

Emergent Leadership relies on communication - and what we are missing is not the overall allegiance (pledge to power is in-game) - we need the guild system to marshall and focus smaller groups of players, but larger than a Wing. Its the middle tier of communication that's missing. ED should follow Eve's comms structure , not to copy it outright, but because natural human group interaction tends to follow along those lines;

Real World:
Individual<Family<National Government<Allies/Axes (East, West, Middle East etc) (rough, but bear with me, no offence or marginalisation intended)

Eve:
Individual<Corp<Fleet<Alliance< (fleet and Corp are interchangeable based on objective and composition)

Elite Dangerous:
Individual<Wing< ((Leadership Vacuum)) <Power

We need the middle ground to communicate and organise on, to remove the leadership vacuum, to form alliances out of multiple groups. Enable a 'few' human players with the time and motivation to lead and focus the efforts of the chaotic masses. This replicates the Power's Hand in Affairs and allows for the emergent gameplay on the Power scale that many crave.
 
Most likely not. They'll only do it for their precious Empire.

definetely not... because i´m with empire, and can´t do anything at the momen.....
i can´t prepare fortify, undermine, or anything other..... so why did i work up to rank 5 when i am now can´t do anything to maintain it....
this is crap....
 
I love how we won't hear a word on what went wrong so that we have no way to check that everything is working fine.

Just a silent "fix" and that's it. I guess I am done with this joke of a game.

If you followed the powerplay ideas thread you will see they noted there was potentially a problem there and were considering changing it. They made a suggestion there how it could be changed and hadn't made a decision on whether to implement. However, this cycles problem promoted them to implement their proposed change, probably sooner than they planned.

If you are going to complain, at least make sure you are armed with info before doing so ;)
 
Right, genuine question here relating back to the subject of communication.

I see so many people clamouring for in game ways to communicate and organise with your power. Ways which, of course, players can choose to ignore. Is it not fair to say that those people who genuinely care and want to help their power would seek out and gave already sought out communication channels out of game?

People who want to do their own thing will do their own thing even if they have a chat that people are spamming in their top left hand corner and might even turn it off if they can to stop it bugging them.

Would anything REALLY change?
 
Probably misunderstanding this all, but Assisa was in deficit, and Mahon actually climbed from 6th place to 5th, as I thought was logical since he did well last week. Now we are back to 6th again, and with a red arrow.

Also, how are the Power Ranks calculated. We(MAHON) should be much higher, since overall we are doing better than Torval, yet lower in standing.

I don't get this powerplay stuff anymore.
 
Emergent Leadership relies on communication - and what we are missing is not the overall allegiance (pledge to power is in-game) - we need the guild system to marshall and focus smaller groups of players, but larger than a Wing. Its the middle tier of communication that's missing. ED should follow Eve's comms structure , not to copy it outright, but because natural human group interaction tends to follow along those lines;

Real World:
Individual<Family<National Government<Allies/Axes (East, West, Middle East etc) (rough, but bear with me, no offence or marginalisation intended)

Eve:
Individual<Corp<Fleet<Alliance< (fleet and Corp are interchangeable based on objective and composition)

Elite Dangerous:
Individual<Wing< ((Leadership Vacuum)) <Power

We need the middle ground to communicate and organise on, to remove the leadership vacuum, to form alliances out of multiple groups. Enable a 'few' human players with the time and motivation to lead and focus the efforts of the chaotic masses. This replicates the Power's Hand in Affairs and allows for the emergent gameplay on the Power scale that many crave.

You don't even need a guild system.

It's a rather different genre, and the specific mechanics are different as a result, but this is conceptually a very similar problem as was suffered by WW2 Online back in the day. Originally, players could attack and capture nodes (townsin this case, rather than star systems) wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted. This caused loads of problems, including people taking towns that made no sense. The response to that was to create a high command for each side that could declare Attack Objectives, meaning players could only take objectives in towns with an active AO. This both ensured a concentration of players at each AO, and ensured that there was also some sort of direction (not necessarily intelligent direction, mind...) and overall strategy involved. It had 'guilds' as well (in this case, squads), but the AO system was entirely separate. That said, I don't see the problem with allowing the formation of in-game player organisations; it's a good way to populate what's ultimately a very, very large environment with stuff. The issue is where you draw the line to prevent E:D becoming EVE 2.0.

Now, there's obviously a difference between a hierarchical command structure - even a simple one as in WW2OL - in an objective focused game set in WW2, and an open world space sim billed as a game you can play how you want.

My suggestion would be that PP provides the perfect vehicle for a player-led, player directed mechanic for those who want it (because if I want a player-directed group experience, currently I can't play as I want, no?), but it would require significant overhaul for that to be appropriate. For a start, the rewards should be all monetary, so players that want to do their own thing rather than be 'told what to do' don't get penalised; the real benefit would be the gameplay, not special widgets. If that aspect must be retained, move it into a PP-independent relationship system exactly like we have now with the Empire/Federation/Alliance/Minors, with the special weapons becoming available after a certain relationship. You'd have to balance it so that it's only possible to have very good relations with one power at a time, though.

Second, strip out the grind from PP itself, and instead use many of the current mechanics to link PP and normal play. Have the powers give missions, available to players with high enough reputation, to ferry PP tokens and the like around for monetary reward.

Third, have expansion be directed by a player-led faction organisation that chooses objectives. This is the player-directed mechanic. Once a target has been decided on, each side should start getting sites in that system to either attack or defend vs NPCs, the frequency and difficulty of which depend on how many resources each side can move into the area. The more resources you have, the easier they should be. Likewise, players should be free to attack the other side's assets outside of those mission areas. The upshot of this is that players have to organise themselves to get the required supplies into the expansion area, to protect those incoming supplies - because the other side can attack them on the way in - and to attack the objectives in the target system... or indeed, to stop the other side from attacking their objectives, if on the defence.

The objectives should be different for each power as well. For example, Hudson might have objectives that are straight up conquest, whereas Ashling Duval would have stuff like defending humanitarian ships. Tailor them to the power in question so as to provide some personality. They'd also only be able to be declared on systems that meet the prerequisites - Hudson isn't logically going to be able to attack an Imperial system without starting a war between the Federation and the Empire, so any 'police action' he takes should have to be directed against a Federation or independent star system. Setting up future expansion targets to be eligable is another thing that the player organisation would have to do.

Fourth, players who want to participate in PP, but don't want to be part of a player-directed organisation. That's fine; if the organisation is the Power's private mercenary army, individual players who want to do their own thing can be the Power's privateers. Issue them with a letter of marque and pay them for wreaking havoc in the opposition's star systems... or for delivering humanitarian aid to systems in civil unrest or whatever. Again, tailor the activities that get the player compensated to the power.

Finally, this all needs to be tied together, rather than operate mostly independently of the rest of the game like PP seems to now. The resources available to fuel expansion should depend on the overall state of a Power's economy, meaning that PP is tied into the 'normal' game at that point. The more PP-related trade missions that get done, even just the number of normal goods shipped about by non-aligned players, should all play a part. This, of course, incentivises PP players to protect their territory, and the other side(s) to try and destabilise it. It also means that the 'organised' PP players and the independents have some sort of relationship to each other.

It would also require at least a minimally effective in-game organisational tool, even if it's just a faction-wide chat, but preferably including some sort of in-game bulletin board system so that the current strategy can be explained, and to list future targets so people can work on getting those systems into a state where they can be expanded to.

The big overall advantages of this are that, first, it prevents a situation where all the incentives are perverse incentives that will ultimately lead to collapse (that is, the situation as it stands now), and second, that it creates a community around each Power. As anybody who's ever played a game like Cybernations knows, even if your mechanics are as deep as a puddle in the middle of a 30 degree heatwave, if you have a strong community, that doesn't matter. As it stands, PP doesn't have the engaging mechanics to stand on its own, and it totally lacks any effective way to assemble a community around each power. It really needs one or the other, ideally both.
 
You don't even need a guild system.

It's a rather different genre, and the specific mechanics are different as a result, but this is conceptually a very similar problem as was suffered by WW2 Online back in the day. Originally, players could attack and capture nodes (townsin this case, rather than star systems) wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted. This caused loads of problems, including people taking towns that made no sense. The response to that was to create a high command for each side that could declare Attack Objectives, meaning players could only take objectives in towns with an active AO. This both ensured a concentration of players at each AO, and ensured that there was also some sort of direction (not necessarily intelligent direction, mind...) and overall strategy involved. It had 'guilds' as well (in this case, squads), but the AO system was entirely separate. That said, I don't see the problem with allowing the formation of in-game player organisations; it's a good way to populate what's ultimately a very, very large environment with stuff. The issue is where you draw the line to prevent E:D becoming EVE 2.0.

Now, there's obviously a difference between a hierarchical command structure - even a simple one as in WW2OL - in an objective focused game set in WW2, and an open world space sim billed as a game you can play how you want.

My suggestion would be that PP provides the perfect vehicle for a player-led, player directed mechanic for those who want it (because if I want a player-directed group experience, currently I can't play as I want, no?), but it would require significant overhaul for that to be appropriate. For a start, the rewards should be all monetary, so players that want to do their own thing rather than be 'told what to do' don't get penalised; the real benefit would be the gameplay, not special widgets. If that aspect must be retained, move it into a PP-independent relationship system exactly like we have now with the Empire/Federation/Alliance/Minors, with the special weapons becoming available after a certain relationship. You'd have to balance it so that it's only possible to have very good relations with one power at a time, though.

Second, strip out the grind from PP itself, and instead use many of the current mechanics to link PP and normal play. Have the powers give missions, available to players with high enough reputation, to ferry PP tokens and the like around for monetary reward.

Third, have expansion be directed by a player-led faction organisation that chooses objectives. This is the player-directed mechanic. Once a target has been decided on, each side should start getting sites in that system to either attack or defend vs NPCs, the frequency and difficulty of which depend on how many resources each side can move into the area. The more resources you have, the easier they should be. Likewise, players should be free to attack the other side's assets outside of those mission areas. The upshot of this is that players have to organise themselves to get the required supplies into the expansion area, to protect those incoming supplies - because the other side can attack them on the way in - and to attack the objectives in the target system... or indeed, to stop the other side from attacking their objectives, if on the defence.

The objectives should be different for each power as well. For example, Hudson might have objectives that are straight up conquest, whereas Ashling Duval would have stuff like defending humanitarian ships. Tailor them to the power in question so as to provide some personality. They'd also only be able to be declared on systems that meet the prerequisites - Hudson isn't logically going to be able to attack an Imperial system without starting a war between the Federation and the Empire, so any 'police action' he takes should have to be directed against a Federation or independent star system. Setting up future expansion targets to be eligable is another thing that the player organisation would have to do.

Fourth, players who want to participate in PP, but don't want to be part of a player-directed organisation. That's fine; if the organisation is the Power's private mercenary army, individual players who want to do their own thing can be the Power's privateers. Issue them with a letter of marque and pay them for wreaking havoc in the opposition's star systems... or for delivering humanitarian aid to systems in civil unrest or whatever. Again, tailor the activities that get the player compensated to the power.

Finally, this all needs to be tied together, rather than operate mostly independently of the rest of the game like PP seems to now. The resources available to fuel expansion should depend on the overall state of a Power's economy, meaning that PP is tied into the 'normal' game at that point. The more PP-related trade missions that get done, even just the number of normal goods shipped about by non-aligned players, should all play a part. This, of course, incentivises PP players to protect their territory, and the other side(s) to try and destabilise it. It also means that the 'organised' PP players and the independents have some sort of relationship to each other.

It would also require at least a minimally effective in-game organisational tool, even if it's just a faction-wide chat, but preferably including some sort of in-game bulletin board system so that the current strategy can be explained, and to list future targets so people can work on getting those systems into a state where they can be expanded to.

The big overall advantages of this are that, first, it prevents a situation where all the incentives are perverse incentives that will ultimately lead to collapse (that is, the situation as it stands now), and second, that it creates a community around each Power. As anybody who's ever played a game like Cybernations knows, even if your mechanics are as deep as a puddle in the middle of a 30 degree heatwave, if you have a strong community, that doesn't matter. As it stands, PP doesn't have the engaging mechanics to stand on its own, and it totally lacks any effective way to assemble a community around each power. It really needs one or the other, ideally both.


I logged in just to give you rep for this well thought out post.
I hope someone from FD takes note.
 
If you followed the powerplay ideas thread you will see they noted there was potentially a problem there and were considering changing it. They made a suggestion there how it could be changed and hadn't made a decision on whether to implement. However, this cycles problem promoted them to implement their proposed change, probably sooner than they planned.

This isn't looking at the thread with rose-tinted glasses so much as looking at it whilst wearing rose-vine glasses with rose-coloured lenses, a couple of roses attached to the temples and a small rose perfume vapouriser attached to the nosepads. I'd explain where your post deviates from reality but am pretty sure that such criticism of FD would be invisible to you.
 
This is Powerplay: Thankyou Mr Nytov:
Once Crawfish, Swan and Pike
Set out to pull a loaded cart,
And all together settled in the traces;
They pulled with all their might, but still the cart refused to budge!
The load it seemed was not too much for them:
Yet Crawfish scrambled backwards,
Swan strained up skywards, Pike pulled toward the sea.
Who's guilty here and who is right is
not for us to say-
But anyway the cart's still there today.
 
To be honest I've found PP to be a disincentive to play. I was having fun, keeping my nose clean and being allied with everyone. Doing a bit of trading here, a bit of bounty hunting there. Gradually building up my fleet and sprinting across the galaxy to take part in community goals that tempted me with good rewards. I couldn't wait to get home from work so that I could get into the game. Now I'm sitting here with an hour to go before I have to go out and I'm on the forum instead of in the game

I pledged to Arissa, mainly because she's a bit of a and I wanted the triple shot rail gun, but I think I've had enough now.

Murdering Elite haulers hasn't done my combat rating any harm at all but the downsides of PP have meant that there are now huge areas of space that are not available to me for bounty hunting because I have bounties on me there and as soon as I enter a RES all the security forces go for me, and the community goals are all but dead. They might as well take them out of the game. There are three running now with a total of 80 players taking part according to the active goals thread. No chance of hitting tier 1 let alone finishing the goal.

I think I'm just going to un-pledge and try to go back to my old style of play but I have a sinking feeling that the game has evolved to be something I'm enjoying less so sadly, after several thousand hours of fun it might be time to move on. I'm not complaining. This game has been the best value for money I've ever experienced in a game. In terms of price per hour played I must be down to a few pennies per hour now.

If PP is the way the majority of players want to play then that's great, but I've always seen my gameplay more as the Malcolm Reynolds type of thing. Roaming the galaxy, having adventures and going wherever the fancy takes me. I'll see if I can recapture that by un-pledging.
 
Last edited:
This isn't looking at the thread with rose-tinted glasses so much as looking at it whilst wearing rose-vine glasses with rose-coloured lenses, a couple of roses attached to the temples and a small rose perfume vapouriser attached to the nosepads. I'd explain where your post deviates from reality but am pretty sure that such criticism of FD would be invisible to you.

Erm... ok. Well, i guess there is no response to that since you won't point out where i'm wrong, and instead resort to making a personal comment instead.
 
Hey Zac, since you're investigating and changing stuff around powerplay, how about you finally investigate issue with NANOMAM influences going crazy? 20-30% drop just after your update? Or at least tell us if you are manually keeping it independent. Or is it that you work only on Empire issues?
 
Erm... ok. Well, i guess there is no response to that since you won't point out where i'm wrong, and instead resort to making a personal comment instead.

Okay right short version:

they noted there was potentially a problem

It's an obvious and definite problem which has been talked about on the forums for more than two weeks. It was ignored by FD until it hit crisis point.

They made a suggestion there how it could be changed

The suggestion so vague as to be useless in terms of being able to provide meaningful feedback. Requests for clarification went ignored.

However, this cycles problem promoted them to implement their proposed change, probably sooner than they planned.

They didn't implement their proposed change, not least because their proposed change wouldn't have fixed the issue. What they did instead was that they fudged the numbers for a single power, ignoring the fact that this massively advantaged that power and disadvantaged all of the others, and said they're going to implement a new system next cycle.

And a couple more points for you:

The new system is not the system that was suggested in the original ideas thread (being now based on number of control systems rather than total exploited systems) but again there is so little information available on the change that it's impossible to provide any meaningful feedback or plan accordingly. Players are left in a similar situation to that which they were before, except that they have to spend their time and effort again working out whatever system FD have dreamed up and attempt to play Powerplay in its context.

Those who did plan around the original overheads mechanism now have long-term problems with their powers due to being forced to pick "bad" systems in an attempt to avoid excessive overheads.
 

raeat

Banned
So now, not only did A.L-D's empire jump around from #1 to #10 to #2 (at last glance), but the deficit the A.L-D players had so richly earned has mysteriously vanished to become a positive value ...AND... her holdings expanded, which should not have been possible with a deficit of CC. Is there ANY reason to continue with this Power Play crap if no one else can win and A.L-D can't lose, and being unpledged means you have absolutely zero influence at all?

Who devised this ridiculous system? Talk about making sure something works before implementing it...
 
If all the powers had the same calculations then there's no reason for FD to step in (bar changing the whole system, due to a lack or inability of internal testing), the only conclusion is that FD have a plan for power play and it includes us as only observers, so they will do whatever they like to push any powers in any direction they want.
 
Back
Top Bottom