Incrementally Improving PowerPlay - Make PowerPlay Open-Only

[GloatingSwine]

Ultimately, Frontier's business decision is that console players who don't pay the online tax for their platform get to play the full game of Elite Dangerous, and that includes contributing to their chosen power in Powerplay.

Any changes need to accomodate that business decision, which is why every "open only" suggestion is doomed to failure.

Unless Powerplay is reworked to a 100% direct PvP mode which solo players inherently couldn't participate anyway, with rewards solely of interest to direct PvP "open only" is a non-starter.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

In an open context haulers become like gold dust
So, time plays no factor in Powerplay? Each cycle is finite. Making the enemy work twice as hard means they are twice as likely to fail.

Why like gold dust? You mean rare or vaulable? If rare, (and as you seem to be implying, often stopped) then it would imply all powers would go through a massive collapse should it go open only. If you mean valuable, well, yes, because they are the main contributors to powers, and i've not disputed that.

Regard the second part, of course time plays a factor, but again, i'm talking about an all things being equal situation, which is all we can do without setting up a wide range of possible scenarios. As soon as you get an imbalance between teams, the stronger team has the advantage anyway and as long as they are not stupid, it doesn't matter if it is open only or mixed mode, the stronger team will win. If equal, then those hunting are not contributing, they are sitting there doing nothing until a target comes along, therefore all the hauler has to do is get through once and they are ahead.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

As things are now, having the possibility to avoid all opposition by switching to Solo/PG, yes, PVP is not as effective as it should be. This is what this proposal tries to change.

And i think it will not produce the results some expect if players are clever and skilled (or git gud).

I might be wrong but from what you're saying here I think you haven't done a lot of PvP.

I've done a bit, but i'm certainly no expert. But i've certainly listened to a lot of PvPers and the consensus seems to be, anyone can escape a gank if they are prepared for it. So... either we are being lied to or...?

As mentioned in the OP, this is only one of a set of proposals and there will be another one that addresses the issue about blocking preventing instancing.

Sure, but i suspect that one is not going to change and if the overall proposal relies on FD changing blocking, then it all falls apart. And by the way, FD have no control over console blocks. Furthermore, even if FD did change how the block works, competitive haulers will utilize other methods to ensure they get through without opposition. This is the problem with any sort of competitive play... it attracts competitive people who will break/bend the rules. Look at the current state of powerplay with 5C tactics.

I wish Frontier did a complete rework of Powerplay but as stated in the OP, these proposals are about improving what the game already offers with relatively simple tweaks. This is not about rebuilding things from scratch. Open Only by itself won't make Powerplay reach perfection but it would improve a lot.

I understand what people are trying to do. I think they can't see the wood for the trees.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You are confusing personal gain for a powers gain. Some players just want to PvP in a structured, tactical way.

So, my point stands. You have someone signed up for a power who is only there for their personal gain, not to make gains for the power. Again, all things being equal, each Power will have a number of players who just sit around blowing up haulers (if they can) and not be contributing to their power but slowing down other powers.

Now, i do see something interesting here in relation to Archon, who is the most likely to attract more hunters than haulers. What i expect would happen here then in Archon would remain a small power (not much hauling going on) but they would be known as an annoyance to their neighbouring powers as their hunters will be flying around trying to take out haulers. In a way, its like structured ganking So, it seems to me that the more PvPers a power attracts, the less sucessful it will be at Powerplay overall.

 

[jamenator94]

I've done a bit, but i'm certainly no expert. But i've certainly listened to a lot of PvPers and the consensus seems to be, anyone can escape a gank if they are prepared for it. So... either we are being lied to or...?

Its very easy for people to escape ganks - but that doesn't mean the PvPer has failed wrt powerplay. If you force a highwake (the only way to escape a cutter with groms) then the hauler has not delivered their cargo and must start again from the star. Same goes for undermining, you may not kill them, but you prevent them from getting any merits.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

And what if that system is a high CC system you can't afford to lose? Or, its a heavily contested prep system? Or expansion? Or, from the proposal is a mega UM system?

You can't ignore everything.



Every disruption causes problems somewhere.



Which is why blocking needs to change too. Being able to block someone who wants to kill you in a feature about killing is.....silly.

Then you go in, and make that deliverly. Or wait a little bit. These things happen over the space of a week. Keep checking in or have someone in your power reporting the state in the system. Wait until the PvPers have gone to bed, plan your playtime as much as possible to avoid the worst resistance. Again, it all depends on what is a realistic figure for getting through and making a delivery against opposition.

Again, all things being equal, and assuming everyone isn't hauling, that some people are hunting, then there might be some opposition as you go in. Or maybe they are all busy with another target (remember, you i think noted there might be a wing, but if people are wing hunting, that makes it harder for the target but easier for everyone else making deliveries.

So again, we need to consider what is a reasonable % of successful deliveries for a typical situation when you are facing opposition? If the chances are very low, let's say 10%, you might find haulers quitting Powerplay enmasse, because few people like those sorts of odds. If its high, say 90%, then its completely ineffective, and Rinzler and co assure us it should be 100% as long as you listen to their advice! (again, are you disagreeing with the almightly Rinzler? Who can survive any gank attempt in a type 7!). Or is 50% more realistic?

I'd like to know what you think is a realistic value (again, assuming competence of both hunter and hauler).

As i just mentioned, its a competitive feature. Consoles aside, where blocking will remain regardless (and it might just cause some people who have the option to switch to console to do powerplay) competitive players, lacking perhaps in sportsmanship, will use other methods to ensure safe deliveries.

Competitive people can be absoloute jerks (c.f. 5Cing).

 

[Rubbernuke]

So, my point stands. You have someone signed up for a power who is only there for their personal gain, not to make gains for the power. Again, all things being equal, each Power will have a number of players who just sit around blowing up haulers (if they can) and not be contributing to their power but slowing down other powers.

Now, i do see something interesting here in relation to Archon, who is the most likely to attract more hunters than haulers. What i expect would happen here then in Archon would remain a small power (not much hauling going on) but they would be known as an annoyance to their neighbouring powers as their hunters will be flying around trying to take out haulers. In a way, its like structured ganking So, it seems to me that the more PvPers a power attracts, the less sucessful it will be at Powerplay overall.

You assume a lot.

have a number of players who just sit around blowing up haulers (if they can) and not be contributing to their power but slowing down other powers.

This is actually valuable and is contributing to the power as its attacking and destabilising others.

Now, i do see something interesting here in relation to Archon, who is the most likely to attract more hunters than haulers. What i expect would happen here then in Archon would remain a small power (not much hauling going on) but they would be known as an annoyance to their neighbouring powers as their hunters will be flying around trying to take out haulers. In a way, its like structured ganking So, it seems to me that the more PvPers a power attracts, the less sucessful it will be at Powerplay overall.

And, from being inside the group that runs Archons affairs this is not true and a load of twaddle. Pledges are usually swing role and fill in when needed.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Why like gold dust? You mean rare or vaulable? If rare, (and as you seem to be implying, often stopped) then it would imply all powers would go through a massive collapse should it go open only. If you mean valuable, well, yes, because they are the main contributors to powers, and i've not disputed that.

Haulers become the most important players on the board. And, smaller powers is what should have happened anyway- the reason why the game board is stuffed full is because hauling is too easy.

Regard the second part, of course time plays a factor, but again, i'm talking about an all things being equal situation, which is all we can do without setting up a wide range of possible scenarios. As soon as you get an imbalance between teams, the stronger team has the advantage anyway and as long as they are not stupid, it doesn't matter if it is open only or mixed mode, the stronger team will win. If equal, then those hunting are not contributing, they are sitting there doing nothing until a target comes along, therefore all the hauler has to do is get through once and they are ahead.

And this is where the challenge comes in- some people want the challenge of being the underdog.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Then you go in, and make that deliverly.

Which has taken you 9 x the time to do, and been much more involving.

Or wait a little bit.

How long? Where are you waiting? In Powerplay there are limited places you go to do things.

These things happen over the space of a week.

So they do. But the longer you wait the less you are doing.

Keep checking in or have someone in your power reporting the state in the system. Wait until the PvPers have gone to bed, plan your playtime as much as possible to avoid the worst resistance. Again, it all depends on what is a realistic figure for getting through and making a delivery against opposition.

Which all sounds more engaging then just blind haul races, doesn't it?

Again, all things being equal, and assuming everyone isn't hauling, that some people are hunting, then there might be some opposition as you go in. Or maybe they are all busy with another target (remember, you i think noted there might be a wing, but if people are wing hunting, that makes it harder for the target but easier for everyone else making deliveries.

Which is how it should be.

So again, we need to consider what is a reasonable % of successful deliveries for a typical situation when you are facing opposition? If the chances are very low, let's say 10%, you might find haulers quitting Powerplay enmasse, because few people like those sorts of odds. If its high, say 90%, then its completely ineffective, and Rinzler and co assure us it should be 100% as long as you listen to their advice! (again, are you disagreeing with the almightly Rinzler? Who can survive any gank attempt in a type 7!). Or is 50% more realistic?

Deliveries will get through- what does matter is how long it took you to do that task and how you had to respond to rapidly changing events (the fun part). Smaller ships, less cargo, teamwork....this is what structured PvP looks like.

I'd like to know what you think is a realistic value (again, assuming competence of both hunter and hauler).

Who knows? Until you do it for a month you'll never really know.

As i just mentioned, its a competitive feature. Consoles aside, where blocking will remain regardless (and it might just cause some people who have the option to switch to console to do powerplay) competitive players, lacking perhaps in sportsmanship, will use other methods to ensure safe deliveries.

Which if FD actually think a bit for once since they know what the parameters are now.

Competitive people can be absoloute jerks (c.f. 5Cing).

Because the system is designed poorly. Sandro, myself and others have proposed systems that make life much better.

 

[Danieros]

Without cross play you're looking in at least 3 non-interacting channels, without even getting in the blocking and instancing shenanigans of Elite's P2P nature and whatever bugs could be found to further exploit it. The Ideal PP in this regard is just too much for what elite can currently offer.

A bonus for doing PP stuff entirely in open sounds like a more reasonable approach.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Without cross play you're looking in at least 3 non-interacting channels, without even getting in the blocking and instancing shenanigans of Elite's P2P nature and whatever bugs could be found to further exploit it. The Ideal PP in this regard is just too much for what elite can currently offer.

3 is better than 9, and at least people can fight others on the same platform (as opposed to having 8 invisible dimensions to think about).

A bonus for doing PP stuff entirely in open sounds like a more reasonable approach.

You'd need a 95% plus bonus to offset AFK PG merit farming.

 

[Phoenix13]

Yes to powerplay. Keep BGS as anything. PP and BGS use the same core mechanics. Players that enjoy pvp can do so in open-only powerplay, and those who don't can work the BGS anywhere else. Also it would be good if the modules were then moved out of pp so everyone has the opportunity.

PP is supposed to be competetive... but it's not because you can't directly compete with players since everyone is in solo.

 

[CDR1953]

It is time for FDEV to change Elite Dangerous, Power Play (PP) to Open Mode by Incremental Improvements. Especially, if FDEV wishes to keep their present membership and to recruit a future player base with future upgrades. After a few years, I have noticed two groups (PP members) aligned with Independent (Yuri Grom) and Empire (Zemina Torval) have stopped PP and given up on the game and have quit. Many have just left the game because of the present PP with PG, 5C and Solo modes. Also, numerous players have quit the game from the other Galactic Powers because of the present mode of PP. Being here for several years, Elite Dangerous continues to lose numerous players, because of the present format in PP with Solo, 5C or PG. The present format allows one or two powers to dominate because they can 5C, go Solo or Private Group in PP without any negative consequences or penalties. Yes, it is time for FDEV to make some incremental improvements to Powerplay. Moreover, it is time to take the suggested changes proposed by Foursyth with the incremental improvement of PowerPlay. This has been under discussion with most players and Groups with FDEV reps for a long time and has been ignored or discounted by FDEV management to other improvement such as Fleet Carriers. The Upgrades of Fleet Carriers and upcoming player changes on planets with missions have not excited the present community of players and will not excite future player base without PP being in Open mode as suggested by some of the peeps with an incremental changes to the current system in this forum. The strategy of the game continues to lessen the game mode expansions without a series of changes to Power Play in open mode. As previously discussed in this forum, this includes the need to make any objectives by players that play in Solo and PG not equal in PP Open mode to make the Elite Dangerous viable and fun game experience in the future. Management at FDEV may be missing a great opportunity concerning OPEN Mode changes and improvements.

 

[jamenator94]

So again, we need to consider what is a reasonable % of successful deliveries for a typical situation when you are facing opposition? If the chances are very low, let's say 10%, you might find haulers quitting Powerplay enmasse, because few people like those sorts of odds. If its high, say 90%, then its completely ineffective, and Rinzler and co assure us it should be 100% as long as you listen to their advice! (again, are you disagreeing with the almightly Rinzler? Who can survive any gank attempt in a type 7!). Or is 50% more realistic?

If the PvP wing is UNCONTESTED then pretty close to 0% of haulers will be able to make deliveries. Like I said twice already, surviving is not delivering, it is trivial for the hauler to avoid death but very difficult to make it all the way to the station.

The point is then for both powers to have PvP players online, or have some haulers switch to PvP fits to fight for control of supercruise, i.e. contest the enemies PvP wing. Through coordination your haulers can then successfully make it to the station. You don't even have to win the PvP fights, just keep the enemy occupied long enough for the haulers to get through.

 

[Khan Tannhauser]

Without cross play you're looking in at least 3 non-interacting channels, without even getting in the blocking and instancing shenanigans of Elite's P2P nature and whatever bugs could be found to further exploit it. The Ideal PP in this regard is just too much for what elite can currently offer.

A bonus for doing PP stuff entirely in open sounds like a more reasonable approach.

This is not about "the Ideal PP" because we all know Frontier won't put the resources to make a complete rework. This about having a better PP by doing relatively small tweaks. Also, if you read the OP carefully it mentions there will be another proposal about how blocking affects instancing.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Ok, so i've rustled some jimmies with my points, and hopefully this is a good thing. I might be totally wrong in my assessment of the situation. Others are looking at it from close up, while i'm looking at it from a distance, and we have different perspectives.

So, while i could be wrong, hopefully those who have countered my points have stopped to actually think whether I may have made some valid points and what else could be done to Powerplay to ensure the things i'm saying are not right. Of course, if someone is steadfast in their belief that i don't have any valid points, they are not going to reassess their own. But it might be worth it, just to double check your own assumptions about how things will play out.

As I said earlier, in relation to this specific topic (open only for PP), all i really care about is if it happens, powerplay dissapears entirely from PG/solo. I've been playing Open almost exclusively for months, but the removal of PP form PG/solo would tempt me back into those modes!

Good luck in your campaign @Rubbernuke - i'm sure we will have many more chats on this topic in the years to come. I hope you get what you want, but i very much doubt that you will.

 

[Khan Tannhauser]

Ok, so i've rustled some jimmies with my points, and hopefully this is a good thing. I might be totally wrong in my assessment of the situation. Others are looking at it from close up, while i'm looking at it from a distance, and we have different perspectives.

So, while i could be wrong, hopefully those who have countered my points have stopped to actually think whether I may have made some valid points and what else could be done to Powerplay to ensure the things i'm saying are not right. Of course, if someone is steadfast in their belief that i don't have any valid points, they are not going to reassess their own. But it might be worth it, just to double check your own assumptions about how things will play out.

As I said earlier, in relation to this specific topic (open only for PP), all i really care about is if it happens, powerplay dissapears entirely from PG/solo. I've been playing Open almost exclusively for months, but the removal of PP form PG/solo would tempt me back into those modes!

Good luck in your campaign @Rubbernuke - i'm sure we will have many more chats on this topic in the years to come. I hope you get what you want, but i very much doubt that you will.

If by "looking at it from a distance" you mean you have very little idea of how PP and PvP works, I agree. You keep going in circles while ignoring the points of the people replying to you so there's no much point in arguing.

 

[jamenator94]

If by "looking at it from a distance" you mean you have very little idea of how PP and PvP works, I agree. You keep going in circles while ignoring the points of the people replying to you so there's no much point in arguing.

Couldn't have put it better lol

 

[PaulieWotsit]

Lost this ps4 Commander at "open only" for the usual reason

 

[Darkfyre99]

And now, what “everyone's” been waiting for... my thoughts on PowerPlay: Open Only.

First, the TLDR version:

I think PPOO will create a host of negative side effects without providing the benefits it will allegedly bring. As a result, this will further reduce the already anemic powerplay community further. But given that this "macro-political gameplay simulation" is already mostly-dead, at this stage I'm in favor of trying it anyway... if only to see the results.

And now, the long version:

First, some personal background. I'm an open power player currently on sabbatical, though still currently pledged to ALD. I say that because I was active in Powerplay from day one, primarily because I liked the added dimension Powerplay gave to my day-to-day activities, and not because I particularly cared who "won" or "lost." I was involved in the BGS side of the things after the first few months, because I don't enjoy ABA cargo hauling or combat-farming. I'm on sabbatical from Powerplay because Frontier finally made exploration fun for me, and I see no reason at this time to rush my return to the Bubble.

One of the few things that would get me to Buckyball it back to the Bubble would be improvements to Powerplay, especially integrating Powerplay into the mission system. I remained silent on the other topics, because they weren't anything I had something to say on. Being an inveterate role-player, I frequently take sub-optimal actions* because they're in character, so anything that improves Powerplay is for the better in my book.

This does not. Elite: Dangerous has entirely the wrong network architecture to get the effects you want. It’s peer-to-peer, with instancing handled by Frontier. Frontier, rightly, focuses on ensuring that players have a fun experience. This means that players are instanced with friends first, a host who has a stable connection to the player second, and maximizing player occupancy not at all. To have the effects you want, this game needs to be client-server.

Currently, it dosn’t take much to find yourself in an instance of one, even in a busy system. If you have a firewall with reasonable security settings, you have to explicitly give ED permission to violate them to see anyone. If someone’s watching Netflix in your home, you’ll find yourself alone in your own instance. If you’re playing outside your local prime time, you’ll probably find yourself in your own instance. Generally, you have to take steps to actually instance with friends, rather than the other way around.

Which makes Open Only a poor solution to the fifth column problem. They’re already acting in bad faith, so I have no doubt they’ll take steps to ensure that they won’t be instanced with anyone they don’t want to.

The other argument for Open Only is that it will attract more players to PowerPlay. And I have no doubt that there’s a cohort of players who very much enjoy asymmetrical PvP combat... as long as they’re not on the receiving end of the equation. And they will flock to Powerplay like crows on roadkill. But they’ll soon get bored, because all the players who currently in Solo and PG, because they don’t enjoy PvP combat at all, will either quit or take measures to ensure they won’t be instanced with anyone they don’t want to.

The net result will be fewer players playing Powerplay, those who seek PvP getting frustrated by all the cheating going on, but at least thePowers will be smaller.

But at this stage, I see very little harm in trying it anyway, given how anemic participation allegedly is these days. Who knows, maybe EDPP will be one of those rare exceptions that bucks the typical trend regarding asymmetrical PvP over the last 35+ years.

____
* If you want to see a classic example of my sub-optimal decisions in action: I'm currently pledged to ALD, who is a combat-oriented Power that offers a weapon, and I'm a non-combat player. AD would be a much-better choice for my play-style. That being said, I'm playing a traditional Imperial character. As such, she supports ALD because she represents the traditional side of Imperial society. AD, no matter how appealing she is from a gameplay perspective, is a radical who seeks to undermines one of the pillars of Imperial society.