Powerplay Powerplay Solo/Private Exploit Problem

Jenner

I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
Give it up withnail, the non-moderating moderator is defending the company line.

I noticed his intentional dodge about 'It's the people, stupid!' - I cannot believe he cannot separate PowerPlay from the rest of those who would play the game. PowerPlay is team-vs-team sport, but the other team is never on the field for direct confrontation... what's the point.

Moderators on this forum have the right to voice their opinions and take part in discussions as long as we are not posting with our 'mod flair' (ie-blue background). When we engage in a discussion it is typically expected that we recuse ourselves from moderating that same discussion.

Please afford everyone the same courtesy and respect no matter who they are.

Let's all stay on topic and avoid sniping one another. Thanks.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Give it up withnail, the non-moderating moderator is defending the company line.

It's much simpler than that - I have been a backer / player of this game longer than I have Moderated these forums. I just happen to agree with Frontier's design decision with respect to PvP / PvE, i.e. PvP does not dominate this game.
 
Are you certain? I was wondering about NPC contributions, so I did some rudimentary testing - possibly counter to a certain PP groups efforts (sorry!) and I suspect there may be some NPC triggering. Granted I can never control all the variables, but here is what I did & observed.

1. Tracked the prep/fort/undermining late during cycle, focused watching #/% of systems receiving no Fort support.
2. Checked PP group postings to check the least supported systems against their 'do not deliver to' list.
3. Did deliveries to the lowest supported systems.
4. Without fail, following my deliveries, these systems received far more absolute #s of merits and % increases than my 150 merits to each one.
5. Other low supported systems that I did not deliver to, I noticed no change to.

It's entirely possible that my minimal efforts coincided with larger player actions, but... I've done this a few times now and noticed the same pattern. So, either some fantastic coincidences, complete with perfect timing, or maybe player actions trigger some NPC support?

Or maybe FDev added a bit of code to amplify the first contributions to a system
 
PP NPCs in nav points are cannon fodder for underminers and do nothing. Allied PP NPCs in control systems do nothing and are cannon fodder for underminers.

All other NPCs are window dressing essentially. If players do nothing, powers go no-where.

Powerplay is 100% player driven. If numbers go up, its players doing it.

Fair enough - as I said I will happily defer to you on this.

Two things strike me though:

Firstly: If I had been made aware that PP was totally player-driven and not some BGS activity with players adding to it, I might have been tempted to join in more. So maybe a bit of proselytizing / advertising that information might entice more players.

Second: Shame then that engineered meta-combat ships are in the game because that really is a disincentive for casual players to join in PP activities "in Open".

So I suppose that means that one "band" of PvP players is adversely affecting the PP "band" of PvP players. ;)
 
Fair enough - as I said I will happily defer to you on this.

Two things strike me though:

Firstly: If I had been made aware that PP was totally player-driven and not some BGS activity with players adding to it, I might have been tempted to join in more. So maybe a bit of proselytizing / advertising that information might entice more players.

Second: Shame then that engineered meta-combat ships are in the game because that really is a disincentive for casual players to join in PP activities "in Open".

So I suppose that means that one "band" of PvP players is adversely affecting the PP "band" of PvP players. ;)

I agree that FD forgot about PP, and that it needs to be advertised more and developed more. There are some fantastic groups supporting each power and it brings players together for a common purpose. Now, with Squadrons on the way it hopefully makes sense to FD to update PP too, as they are both social constructs.

Its actually quite rare to be killed in open if you know what you are doing, and if there is a problem quite often the word goes out and patrols pop up to help.

IMO its the fear of these meta ships that is the problem and not the ships themselves- yes they are potent, but if you fly in a straight line and become flustered you will die. If you are evasive and have a plan you have a good chance of escape- and if you don't know what to do, there are people who can teach you.
 
I have noticed an issue/exploit in the Powerplay mechanics of the game. Players can use solo/private mode to undermine expansion and fortification efforts without the victim factions being able to retaliate. This leads to the attacking faction being able to camp nav beacons and combat zones and farm merits without any sort of real opposition. Please make it to where Powerplay actions can only be performed in open play as Powerplay is a multiplayer mechanic and should be treated as such.

That's not an exploit at all, it's working as intended. How do you think most players play PowerPlay?
 
Asking without sarcasm: what's wrong with creating content for PvP players?

Absolutely nothing, and if the discussion was about creating content for PvP players, you would have my support. I would love to see Commanders earning bonus merits when they complete activities in the face of actual opposition, as opposed to merely playing in Open, where you're not likely to encounter any opposition if you play outside of local prime time. It's second on my list of how I'd like to see Powerplay improved, with #1 is Powerplay Missions. I don't enjoy ABA cargo runs or combat farming, so I help my chosen Power by manipulating the BGS for fun and profit, primarily in Open, by putting Patronages and Feudal local factions into positions of power. Let me run a variety of missions to fortify or undermine, and I'll repledge in a heartbeat.

What the OP is talking about isn't creating content for PvPers. Instead, they are talking about removing access to content from PvE players, unless they are willing to be content to a certain type of PvPer who is so pathetic at PvP, that they need pure PvE players in Open because the current Open population is too deadly for their tastes. Personally, I think Powerplay is on shaky enough ground as it is without forcing most of the Powerplay player base to choose between either playing in Open only, or quitting Powerplay completely.
 
Moderators on this forum have the right to voice their opinions and take part in discussions as long as we are not posting with our 'mod flair' (ie-blue background). When we engage in a discussion it is typically expected that we recuse ourselves from moderating that same discussion.

Please afford everyone the same courtesy and respect no matter who they are.

Let's all stay on topic and avoid sniping one another. Thanks.

I will continue to speak out when I see quote spamming and derailment of threads, which is what happens here.

It always seems to get hijacked from a discussion on PvP in Powerplay to a list of quotes made by Frontier staff, which everyone has heard before to death.

Now to move on: a serious problem in Powerplay is AFK turret condas sat in PG farming merits because the NPC's find them invincible. This is an exploit of a private group, whereas in open it would not be possible (because guess what? Open is harder and players are better then NPC).

If everything is going to be equal in Powerplay then Frontier need to make the NPC's far more difficult and b) make afk turret condas a thing of the past.


Given the above, it is clear that Powerplay in open is far more difficult than Powerplay in PG or solo.

Powerplay is flawed when the modes are not equal. It is a shame because it's meant to bring players together as a team and compete against each other (can't do that in PG/solo).

I wouldn't mind non-Powerplay players commenting if they bring something to the discussion about problems affecting Powerplay, but if they have no knowledge of it and clearly don't understand day-to-day mechanics they lose all credibility and the ones on this thread are clearly pushing their own agendas and derailing discussion.
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
It always seems to get hijacked from a discussion on PvP in Powerplay to a list of quotes made by Frontier staff, which everyone has heard before to death.

.... when the discussion moves to hijacking PowerPlay itself with proposals from players who prefer PvP, i.e. "make PowerPlay Open only" or "nerf contributions from Solo / Private Groups".

If everything is going to be equal in Powerplay then Frontier need to make the NPC's far more difficult and b) make afk turret condas a thing of the past.

Given that ATR will encourage players to "move on" when farming System Security (as a means to address the AFK-Turret-Boats BGS-tanking issue), the same could be applied to PowerPlay (if it hasn't already been in 3.0).
 
Last edited:
Given that ATR will encourage players to "move on" when farming System Security (as a means to address the AFK-Turret-Boats BGS-tanking issue), the same could be applied to PowerPlay (if it hasn't already been in 3.0).

ATR will not solve Powerplay turretboating since farming happens in lawless combat zones during expansions.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
ATR will not solve Powerplay turretboating since farming happens in lawless combat zones during expansions.

Then it might make sense that the Power to which the farmed NPCs belong should be able to send its own ATR (or equivalent) out against the attacker, regardless of system security level.
 
That's right.

Now you need to solve the discrepancy between farming mindless NPCs and farming NPCs whilst dealing with engineered players trying to kill you.

Then you might get parity.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Now you need to solve the discrepancy between farming mindless NPCs and farming NPCs whilst dealing with engineered players trying to kill you.

Therein lies the fundamental issue - this game has always offered direct PvP as an "optional extra" and Frontier themselves set the "difficulty" of the game - that there are players who exceed the capabilities of NPCs is undoubted, similarly with their choice of ship, loadout and Engineering, however Frontier almost certainly won't recalibrate game difficulty based on apex predators....

.... remembering the "un-fun" experienced by a significant proportion of the player-base with the bugged NPCs at the 2.1 release.

In a previous discussion topic, when the subject of the relative difficulty of the modes cropped up, Sandro had this to say:

Hello Commander Ozram!

I think you are perhaps conflating two separate issues: the amount of challenge present in each game mode, and player versus player interactions. I think these are so fundamentally different that comparisons might not be particularly useful.

The challenge of playing in solo being too low (without taking sides) is a valid argument to make, although it might better be phrased as "the opportunities for challenge are too low in Elite Dangerous". It's actually something we are interested in looking at.

However, cranking up difficulty will not make Open more enticing. Conflict between actual people, even within a game, is a very different matter to taking on NPC ships. It has many psychological and social elements that would otherwise not be present. Incidentally, increasing the difficulty of NPC engagements would also make Open harder rather than fairer, so there's also that.

Perhaps the bottom line is the different modes are there to enable Commanders to play how they want to. We don't want everyone to play in Open because we want some sort of Armageddon PvP scenario. We just think that playing with other people, both cooperatively *and* adversarial, can be more fun, which is why we advocate Open play.

So in the context of a karma system, people playing in Private Group or Solo mode are not relevant. Why should folk in Open be interested in what goes on there? This is about making player versus player interactions more equitable *in Open*, getting more folk in there, surely?
 
Last edited:
Cool, a thread about this on the Powerplay section. Gives me the opportunity to test the waters for some brainfart I had a while ago and get some feedback.

Since the desire is to have content that encourages PvP coupled with the desire to preserve content for PvE, some time ago I wondered whether it might be a solution to split Powerplay influence in 2 part. Military influence, civilian influence.

Civilian influence is the way Powerplay's influence works at the moment. So the PvE content will remain the same as it is. Military influence is determined by skirmishes between pilots of the Pilot Federation, plus control over some strategic point in a system. The latter to tempt other players out to defend that strategic point. Whether that's a nav beacon or the most important station in the system.

Both military and civilian influence count towards control over systems. You can have a system whose citizens have an allegiance to Team B, but the military influence of Team A means the system is under military oppression. On the other hand, if Team B accumulates enough civilian influence it can decide to revolt and no longer be bossed around by Team A military.

Example:
Team A is looking for military dominance over Team B. Team A is scouting the relevant systems, but there's no Team B players around. By taking control over the strategic point and destroying Team A's ships (NPCs) military influence will slowly accumulate, triggering Team B to either go out there and do something about it, or work extra hard to increase civilian influence to overcome the military influence. When Team B decides to respond, you will get PvP action around that strategic point and the results of that will weigh heavy on the military influence, since it involved Pilot Federation member fighting each other.

Actions in Open can be countered in Solo/PG, action in Solo/PG can be countered by actions in Open. Plus the strategic point will alert players in all modes somethings going down in Open and could be an incentive to engage in Open without removing PvE content. I feel it would be better for the game if interaction between modes is introduced rather than features from modes were removed.

And that's just adversary aspect, because to most efficiently gain control over a system a combination of civilian and military (hearts and minds coupled with shock and awe) operations will work best. So there will also be cooperation between players in different modes.

So, that's the idea. But I don't play power, so it's likely I'm talking ballcocks.
 
Therein lies the fundamental issue - this game has always offered direct PvP as an "optional extra" and Frontier themselves set the "difficulty" of the game - that there are players who exceed the capabilities of NPCs is undoubted, similarly with their choice of ship, loadout and Engineering, however Frontier almost certainly won't recalibrate game difficulty based on apex predators....

.... remembering the "un-fun" experienced by a significant proportion of the player-base with the bugged NPCs at the 2.1 release.

In a previous discussion topic, when the subject of the relative difficulty of the modes cropped up, Sandro had this to say:

I'll break it down from my experience:

* * *

Solo / PG:

Fortifying- Task: move item x to either your capital or move x to your control systems a set amount. Opposition is minimal and down to a few random pirate interdictions. Unless you fly in an unshielded cardboard box there is no risk at all of NPC based destruction. You do this over and over until you reach 100% fortified and then move onto the next system. Here, the only opponent is time constraints and the undermining bar going up. People complain of grind? Solo forting is self imposed grind.

Undermining- Task: fly to a rival control system and kill as many PP NPCs as you can. Opposition are non mil spec ships in SC or at Navs. With an appropriate PvE ship you can mow down as many as you like as engineered ships have shields a mile thick and have destructive weapons far beyond NPCs you face.

Prep- Task: take item y to system z to move z up a list. Here you are in competition with other powers and other commanders who might want other systems nominated. Unless you fly in an unshielded cardboard box again there is no risk at all of NPC based destruction. You do this over and over until Thursday morning and see if you 'won'. 5C players can use Solo with impunity to cause misery to powers (mitigated by consolidation but not 100% effective).

Open:

Fortifying- Task: move item x to either your capital or move x to your control systems a set amount. Opposition is active and dangerous, and you also have a few random pirate interdictions. You have to have decent ships and skills to evade hunters after you- running shieldless for more space can cost you everything. So do you run fast, or do you use thick shields? Here players can use Engineered effects and PP weapons on you too....Solo / PG players never see nearly 50% of weapons or effects used on them. So, do you convoy in wings? Is that hollow square after me? When you have 700 cargo to protect, things get very, very tense.

Undermining- Task: fly to a rival control system and kill as many PP NPCs as you can. Opposition with other players out to stop you, it becomes a game of cat and mouse where you risk destruction from wings of engineered ships not unlike yours. Wings get bonuses for undermining which makes them more efficient though. So, do you risk holding onto your 10k merits for that snipe (that could tip the balance?) or do you cash in regularly? Do I fly into a control systems capital and blockade (or inbound fortifiers)?

Patrol-Open only: Task: stop undermining activity, stop hostile BGS manipulation and respond to attacks on your ships. Using tools like Discord and Reddit scramble to meet emerging threats.

Prep- Task: take item y to system z to move z up a list. Here you are in competition with other powers and other commanders who might want other systems nominated. In Open you can see who is doing this, and if you are legitimately prepping you can be intercepted and destroyed to tip the balance.

Chat- Task: finding misguided players in space (who do not read Reddit, Discord or FD forums) and finding out why they are prepping system x, or fortifying system y. Several times I've flown out and found errant commanders and brought them on board.

* * *

Now, based on that very brief description what looks and plays better? What fits the 'paramilitary attack' concept better? Who is taking more risks and facing more danger?

There is a huge disparity in what a player has to face in Solo / PG compared to Open. People can shoot at you, and with weapons and effects you never see in Solo. In Solo you chase a status bar in 30 minute chunks. I can sum up Open Powerplay players (and Open players in general) like this:

“All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.”
― Richard Adams, Watership Down

But instead I'll quote myself- this is the reality of Powerplay:

London Blitz:

"Hello? Is that Hugh Trenchard?"

"Its three in the morning, Winston. What do you want?"

"Well Hugh, I need to find out who is bombing London. Do you know?"

"What do you mean Winston? I can clearly see bombers over the city from my window."

"But who is sending them, Hugh? We really need to know."


Battle of Britain:

"Winston, we are under attack! Huge waves of bombers are over us! Our country is being blown apart!"

"What do you mean? Its a sunny day Attlee. I can't see any bombers in the sky at all."

"But, can't you see them sir? Look at the smoking ruins around us!"

"Clement, have you been on the gin again? Under attack from invisible ghost planes?"
 
Therein lies the fundamental issue - this game has always offered direct PvP as an "optional extra" and Frontier themselves set the "difficulty" of the game - that there are players who exceed the capabilities of NPCs is undoubted, similarly with their choice of ship, loadout and Engineering, however Frontier almost certainly won't recalibrate game difficulty based on apex predators....

.... remembering the "un-fun" experienced by a significant proportion of the player-base with the bugged NPCs at the 2.1 release.

In a previous discussion topic, when the subject of the relative difficulty of the modes cropped up, Sandro had this to say:

Blah blah blah.

Answer this with your own opinion and not someone else's statement:

Does a player in open have the same level of difficulty in opposition at an expansion as the player who is in PG/solo?

A romanticized figment of someone's imagination? Yeah, I'll agree with that. The image some Open players seem to have of themselves as brave noble players does indeed invoke that image.

Another one that I suspect doesn't participate in Powerplay.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Now, based on that very brief description what looks and plays better?

That depends on whether one likes to engage in PvP - as playing a game all comes down to "fun" and, for some, PvP there is no "fun" in engaging in PvP.

What fits the 'paramilitary attack' concept better?

The PowerPlay concept was designed by Frontier - that players have possibly interpreted it differently or seek to attach different meaning to it is another matter.

Who is taking more risks and facing more danger?

If players in Open encounter opposing players then there may, depending on relative ability, ship, loadout, Engineering, be more risk.

Players that encounter no-one in Open face no additional risk.
 
A romanticized figment of someone's imagination? Yeah, I'll agree with that. The image some Open players seem to have of themselves as brave noble players does indeed invoke that image.

The irony of course is that 90% of my time is spent in Solo, and that my best experiences in Powerplay came from the 10% I had in Open mode.
 
Another one that I suspect doesn't participate in Powerplay.
Yeah, because Open players only exist in Powerplay and do not post elsewhere on these here forums, plus I indeed said in a previous post where I made my suggestion I don't play Powerplay. But since you do, I would like your opinion on that suggestion.

Or am I as a non powerplayer not allowed to make suggestions? :)
The irony of course is that 90% of my time is spent in Solo, and that my best experiences in Powerplay came from the 10% I had in Open mode.
The irony is lost on me since I did not target my comment at you, but at 'some Open players'.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom