The fundamental problem with making Powerplay Open-Only.

[DemiserofD]

Thats the point- Powerplay needs bias to combat to make powers unstable the larger they get, which in turn allows more systems to fall away and be fought over. Right now the bubble is stuffed full, and only poor moves left. If more powers fought and fell apart they'd be more to fight over.

What makes you think this would make powers unstable? The fundamental aspects of powerplay would remain unchanged, the same aspects that brought this problem, and both sides would be equally hurt. Heck, it might even make defending powers MORE stable, while making aggression more impossible, making things even WORSE.

But basically, you can't claim that oopp would fix any of these problems. They're more fundamental than that.

Like there is a lot of players left in Powerplay- people have voted with their feet.

Do you really think that's because of this, and not because of the stark lack of content related to powerplay? Making things open only doesn't make the fundamental content any less boring.

Powerplay is not about 'calm'.

Why not? Many people enjoy a more structured and calm race rather than frenetic pvp battles. Who are you to take that away from them? And how can you say that ejecting those players would increase the playerbase, rather than diminish it?

FD and OA asked the question openly (if you excuse the pun) and you got an answer. Its better than speaking for a silent player, surely?

They asked a question and got an answer, I dont dispute that. I just dispute whether or not that answer is actually representative of the playerbase. It's pre-biased by the people who are already here, answering polls.

If FDev's data really supported the polls and didn't show the opposite, I'd suspect that they'd have made changes already. The fact they haven't makes me more inclined to believe they discovered their polls don't offer a representative view of their community as a whole.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That's the exact point I made in the OP. Right now, you CAN stop people; you outhaul them. It's completely biased against combat players, but completely fair for haulers.

Outgrinding people killed Powerplay to begin with, how is relying on more of that going to help?

Why is moving things such that it's completely biased in favor of combat players any better? It's still completely biased, just in a different direction.

Because powers need to be vulnerable in a way thats not via 5C- i.e. powers can attack another in ways that are unexpected and not railroaded (like outhauling someone).

As I said in the OP, pvp will NEVER be the same as pve, and it's impossible to make it so, because pvp is based on relative player skill, while pve is stagnant. If some players get better, others will also get better, meaning pvp stays the same, with the same top players having complete dominance over everyone else. It is literally impossible to balance npcs in the way you desire. It's simply not physically possible.

Powerplay is one half PvE and then...nothing in solo or PG. In Open you have other players to stop you, here you have nothing. If FD filled this gap, we would not be having this conversation.

Unfortunately, so would undermining, meaning the fundamental problems of stagnation would remain unchanged. Changing to open only wouldn't fix anything in this regard.

No it would not. Powers don't fortify, UM, prepare in lockstep- some weeks powers will have nothing to do, while in other weeks they'll be the ones trying to expand.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

PP for me is a way to get PP items, nothing more.

That is because none of the PP factions stand for values I would support, nor do any support the democracies of the galaxy due to the way it is set up. But as an external observer I support OOPP.

I support OOBGS a lot more, and as I said anything that alters the galaxy. Most people I know who play BGS as a primary part of the game feel the same. I accept that may just be the circle I have dealings with, but some of those were ardent "BGS all modes" supporters until they had to combat an unknown and unidentifiable enemy from Solo/PG attacking them. They had nobody to negotiate with, nobody to blame and nobody to stop as they were hiding away in Solo/PG. They all changed their minds after the experience of those modes being used to hide an attack from safety of consequences or being identified.

As it's always easier to destroy than build, this makes an unbalanced and unfair playing field.

For those that would feel the universe and game is emptier when they cannot effect the wider galaxy from PG/Solo, I'm afraid I would say if you want to interact and change the galaxy be a mode where the universe and galaxy can interact and change your course. Sitting on the fence wanted the good bits but not the so called "bad" just enables sneaky underhanded gameplay to hurt others with no consequences.

So I declare, I would want to see OOPP and OOBGS. I doubt I will get it, but that will not stop me, as a 100% PvE player, wanting it and all the consequences it brings

Key here seems to be the invisibility and inability to connect on any level with the group in question. That could remedied. Make activities in solo and PG above a certain level leave an identifiable mark visible to other players - something more live and granular than the bounty boards, of course. And maybe provide cross-mode NPC-mediated interaction or something like that.

There was a very recent thread on this sort of thing that I contributed to that I can't find right now...

 

[DemiserofD]

Outgrinding people killed Powerplay to begin with, how is relying on more of that going to help?

I don't think outgrinding itself caused powerplay to 'die'(if you can call it dead right now, when there are still a fair number of players active). I think that's entirely because of a lack of powerplay-related content. The game has to be interesting, first and foremost, but changes in that regard don't have anything to do with oopp.

As I mentioned in the OP, the solution is to improve the systems in open that help players work together, so they have a reason to go to open, a reason strong enough to overcome the many downsides.

If you gave Powers mission boards, which included Wing missions, and you then facilitated player matchmaking into their wing missions, this would directly encourage open play without forcing players to go to open. That's the sort of change that would actually make a positive difference, not just drive some players away for the sake of some others.

Because powers need to be vulnerable in a way thats not via 5C- i.e. powers can attack another in ways that are unexpected and not railroaded (like outhauling someone).

Again, why would oopp increase vulnerability? It would still be just players against other players, only now it would be in the domains of combat, rather than hauling. But the same fundamental issues persist, and that means the same problems would persist. I see no reason why oopp would fix any of them.

Powerplay is one half PvE and then...nothing in solo or PG. In Open you have other players to stop you, here you have nothing. If FD filled this gap, we would not be having this conversation.

To repeat; you cannot make AI enemies that represent pvp players and builds, because pvp is a constantly shifting and fluid thing that always is biased in favor of the top 10% of players. Again, read up on the Pareto distribution. It is quite literally impossible to simulate this with npc enemies. In fact, the most fair way to represent this would be AI that kills 100% of players it encounters instantly, as this would only be unrealistic against 10% of players while remaining realistic to 90% of players.

No it would not. Powers don't fortify, UM, prepare in lockstep- some weeks powers will have nothing to do, while in other weeks they'll be the ones trying to expand.

So? The exact same things already happen, and would continue to happen. OOPP wouldn't change that. And it wouldn't fix anything.

 

[Rubbernuke]

What makes you think this would make powers unstable? The fundamental aspects of powerplay would remain unchanged, the same aspects that brought this problem, and both sides would be equally hurt. Heck, it might even make defending powers MORE stable, while making aggression more impossible, making things even WORSE.

Because if every fortifier goes to one system, thats a bottleneck. If you don't want someone preparing a system and you can't match them in hauling, you can try to destroy haulers. Uncapped UM would force powers to defend, pressurizing them into diverting more time and energy.

Currently you can haul 100% fortification in solo and never see another rival powers NPCs. In a feature about rivalry, is that good?

But basically, you can't claim that oopp would fix any of these problems. They're more fundamental than that.

Open Powerplay as described by Sandro is the best that can be wrung from what we have. If they rewrite it then great, but so far thats all they have offered us.

Do you really think that's because of this, and not because of the stark lack of content related to powerplay? Making things open only doesn't make the fundamental content any less boring.

If you had ever been engaged in an Open conflict between powers you'd see how the feature becomes more than the sum of its parts. I agree its not all (merit decay and lack of reward were other issues) but for many it was just faceless grind and they left.

Why not? Many people enjoy a more structured and calm race rather than frenetic pvp battles. Who are you to take that away from them? And how can you say that ejecting those players would increase the playerbase, rather than diminish it?

Only by doing it would you really know. And whats calm about rivals wanting to screw each other over? People forget what Powerplay is about- dominance.

They asked a question and got an answer, I dont dispute that. I just dispute whether or not that answer is actually representative of the playerbase. It's pre-biased by the people who are already here, answering polls.

OAs poll was from 7700 people. 50% wanted Open only, 25% wanted weighting and 25% wanted it to remain the same. Right now going by numbers inside Powerplay you have a dwindling playerbase.

If FDev's data really supported the polls and didn't show the opposite, I'd suspect that they'd have made changes already. The fact they haven't makes me more inclined to believe they discovered their polls don't offer a representative view of their community as a whole.

FD develop and drop anything that does not get used- they only actively develop popular features. Its why CQC, MC and a whole raft of other things remain idle.

 

[DemiserofD]

Because if every fortifier goes to one system, thats a bottleneck. If you don't want someone preparing a system and you can't match them in hauling, you can try to destroy haulers. Uncapped UM would force powers to defend, pressurizing them into diverting more time and energy.

Currently you can haul 100% fortification in solo and never see another rival powers NPCs. In a feature about rivalry, is that good?

I don't think these two points are related.

1. Yes, the game is about rivalry, but that doesn't necessarily imply pvp.

2. If every fortifier goes to one system, then by nature, every combat player will also be there. This means that unless there's a sharp difference in the number of combat players compared to the number of haulers, the same side will win regardless. The only real change is that the only important players will be the combat players. Why is it fair to bias things completely towards combat?

But it still wouldn't change stability at all. The defending power will still have the advantage in every case; oopp wouldn't change that at all.

Open Powerplay as described by Sandro is the best that can be wrung from what we have.

I disagree, and I've outlined in the OP why.

If you had ever been engaged in an Open conflict between powers you'd see how the feature becomes more than the sum of its parts. I agree its not all (merit decay and lack of reward were other issues) but for many it was just faceless grind and they left.

I just think that before we take a unilateral action that forcibly rejects a significant part of the playerbase for potentially no benefit, we should look into any and all alternatives. Can you really deny that one of the fundamental problems of powerplay was that it was dull as dirt?

Why not fix that first, and once we have a game that's actually fun to play, then we consider whether open only is truly necessary?

Only by doing it would you really know.

Yes. And after you do it, you're committed, there's no going back. Do you really want to do that, based on nothing but assumptions and hopes that it will make things better? Especially when there's no compelling evidence that it would actually achieve its goal? Why not focus first on things that we KNOW will make things better; improving the powerplay system, adding missions, reworking the hierarchy to prevent 5C play, etc. Those are things we can do at no risk, and why not?

I can't see any good reason to skip over all of them, just for a system that has unclear benefit.

OAs poll was from 7700 people. 50% wanted Open only, 25% wanted weighting and 25% wanted it to remain the same. Right now going by numbers inside Powerplay you have a dwindling playerbase.

Again, players who vote in polls are heavily biased in a certain direction. There are millions of players who own Elite, a poll of 7700 is by no means representative.

FD develop and drop anything that does not get used- they only actively develop popular features. Its why CQC, MC and a whole raft of other things remain idle.

Perhaps they'd care more if people paid more attention to the actual important parts, rather than continually asking for features they have little reason to believe would actually work?

Hence, this thread. I want to highlight the actual issues with powerplay, not the ones people just think exist. At least not until I see a LOT more proof.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't think outgrinding itself caused powerplay to 'die'(if you can call it dead right now, when there are still a fair number of players active). I think that's entirely because of a lack of powerplay-related content. The game has to be interesting, first and foremost, but changes in that regard don't have anything to do with oopp.

If the routine missions were action packed, you'd forget the humble underpinnings. But you can't, because nothing happens. There is no rich and vibrant interactions, no need for skill or teamwork.

As I mentioned in the OP, the solution is to improve the systems in open that help players work together, so they have a reason to go to open, a reason strong enough to overcome the many downsides.

And they do in Open- against other likeminded teams. Its a feature about rivalry and gang warfare, being the top dog. Why not actually live up to that?

If you gave Powers mission boards, which included Wing missions, and you then facilitated player matchmaking into their wing missions, this would directly encourage open play without forcing players to go to open. That's the sort of change that would actually make a positive difference, not just drive some players away for the sake of some others.

So you are suggesting rival powers not be rivals really? Whats the point then of undermining each other, you can't do that and not expect retribution nor can you do that in a positive way.

Again, why would oopp increase vulnerability? It would still be just players against other players, only now it would be in the domains of combat, rather than hauling. But the same fundamental issues persist, and that means the same problems would persist. I see no reason why oopp would fix any of them.

If a player has to change how they fortify / haul / shoot, in that they are slowed, intimidated to stop etc then that power suffers and interferes with that powers weekly plan. It means you have to use more evasive ships that carry less, and that if you are under pressure you make more mistakes. It means you need to co-ordinate with others, to be a team actually flying ships rather than chasing UI bars.

Have you ever flown in Open in a hauling CG? Compare how that runs to one in solo and how many sucessful runs you do. Then multiply that to Powerplay levels, and that disruption in a set timeframe against what you are trying to achieve.

To repeat; you cannot make AI enemies that represent pvp players and builds, because pvp is a constantly shifting and fluid thing that always is biased in favor of the top 10% of players. Again, read up on the Pareto distribution. It is quite literally impossible to simulate this with npc enemies. In fact, the most fair way to represent this would be AI that kills 100% of players it encounters instantly, as this would only be unrealistic against 10% of players while remaining realistic to 90% of players.

Then you have a problem and a fundamental issue- if you can't provide a way to make solo dangerous to the point of making deliveries 100% efficient and safe you don't have a game, do you? It means fortification can never be stopped, and with consolidation means defence is easy, leading to all territorial gains being safe too, leading to a full bubble.

So? The exact same things already happen, and would continue to happen. OOPP wouldn't change that. And it wouldn't fix anything.

Well it would, because like I said not every power does the same things in parallel each week. Some weeks one power can camp anothers capital and severely disrupt fortification while another UMs? This is in stark contrast to solo where you can fortify totally and never have these pressures.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't think these two points are related.

1. Yes, the game is about rivalry, but that doesn't necessarily imply pvp.

Powerplay is about gang warfare in the shadows of the bubble. You pledge and assume you'll see retribution from either other players or NPCs. But it never happens in solo, meaning something is not working when you should at least see some pushback.

2. If every fortifier goes to one system, then by nature, every combat player will also be there. This means that unless there's a sharp difference in the number of combat players compared to the number of haulers, the same side will win regardless. The only real change is that the only important players will be the combat players. Why is it fair to bias things completely towards combat?

Until you do it, you'll never know. And as I said, you'll see a chaotic mix where powers gang up on others. We also can't assume its going to be everyone at once either- it might become a complex system where scouting becomes important and people report gaps or quiet spots. Powers build profiles on each other, adding a real time element would build on this more.

But it still wouldn't change stability at all. The defending power will still have the advantage in every case; oopp wouldn't change that at all.

If you can't do something like fortify, or that uncapped UM saps your time defending one place over another then it would affect stability as you can apply pressure on profitable systems and keep your rival pinned leaving them vulnerable.

I disagree, and I've outlined in the OP why.

And like I've repeatedly said, FD have not shown a willingness to radically change Powerplay. The changes they offer are mathematical with not a lot else. If they change their mind then great, but so far they are only going to invest the minimum amount of time required, which means nothing radical.

I just think that before we take a unilateral action that forcibly rejects a significant part of the playerbase for potentially no benefit, we should look into any and all alternatives. Can you really deny that one of the fundamental problems of powerplay was that it was dull as dirt?

And I have, along with loads of other people. Just check out my posting history and you'll see I've approached Powerplay from every angle possible.

Why not fix that first, and once we have a game that's actually fun to play, then we consider whether open only is truly necessary?

The BGS' fun comes from variety. Powerplays fun comes from player interactions between hostile teams. Whats missing from this design is making that mingling of rival teams integral to the flow of the feature and not a redundant curio.

Yes. And after you do it, you're committed, there's no going back. Do you really want to do that, based on nothing but assumptions and hopes that it will make things better? Especially when there's no compelling evidence that it would actually achieve its goal? Why not focus first on things that we KNOW will make things better; improving the powerplay system, adding missions, reworking the hierarchy to prevent 5C play, etc. Those are things we can do at no risk, and why not?

Unless you try it, you'll never know. Thats the point of testing- to find out if it works. I can ask the same question of you- why do I want a shallow BGS clone? If I want to do lots of missions I'll push a faction.

I can't see any good reason to skip over all of them, just for a system that has unclear benefit.

In game that already has a fully working and excellent multi mode system (the BGS) why replicate it again? People want variety of things to experience, not the same things repeated.

Again, players who vote in polls are heavily biased in a certain direction. There are millions of players who own Elite, a poll of 7700 is by no means representative.

Considering that estimates of dedicated Powerplay players were about 1000 people then its pretty significant. If you don't believe me, count the effort each week between powers and you'll see outside of three the playerbase is alarmingly low. Its why 5C is so proportionately strong.

Perhaps they'd care more if people paid more attention to the actual important parts, rather than continually asking for features they have little reason to believe would actually work?

Well, FD themselves suggested Open, not the players. And while you disagree I've outlined how it would play out.

Hence, this thread. I want to highlight the actual issues with powerplay, not the ones people just think exist. At least not until I see a LOT more proof.

Thats cool. I'm basing what I write on playing the feature since it was introduced, being a leader in one power, senior in another, being part of the powerplay dev group, and running a power reddit for 2 years. I've seen it all and know a fair amount from that. If you can't see the flaws of solo with its anemic NPC response contributing to an easy path to propping up a power then there is nothing I can do to convince you.

 

[DemiserofD]

If the routine missions were action packed, you'd forget the humble underpinnings. But you can't, because nothing happens. There is no rich and vibrant interactions, no need for skill or teamwork.

There still would be no 'rich and vibrant interaction'; you'd have haulers who for the most part continue unchanged, unless they occasionally get blown up, and you'd have combat players with a plentitude of targets. That's not rich and vibrant, it's just biasing things 100% in the direction of combat players.

If things aren't interesting for the haulers, they're going to be just as bored as before, and the mode will still be dead. You're not fixing the fundamental problems, you're just giving yourself more targets.

And they do in Open- against other likeminded teams. Its a feature about rivalry and gang warfare, being the top dog. Why not actually live up to that?

What makes you think it isn't already? There is rivalry, there is a top dog. Yes, it's not currently in favor of combat players, but again, why would shifting the balance of power 100% in favor of combat players 'fix' anything when these things already exist, just in a form you and other combat players don't like?

So you are suggesting rival powers not be rivals really?

I'm not sure how you drew this conclusion from that sentence. The point is making it a net benefit for players of the SAME power to get together in Open and play together. More than that, it's to make this process quick, easy, and fun. The ONLY way you're going to get people into Open is by making Open the best way for them to have fun, and you can't do that by trying to force them to play there, as they just WONT play. The only real way to solve the problem is to design systems that maximize the potential benefits of an open-only mode, and those benefits are teamwork and cooperation. Again, WITHIN the power.

If a player has to change how they fortify / haul / shoot, in that they are slowed, intimidated to stop etc then that power suffers and interferes with that powers weekly plan. It means you have to use more evasive ships that carry less, and that if you are under pressure you make more mistakes. It means you need to co-ordinate with others, to be a team actually flying ships rather than chasing UI bars.

Have you ever flown in Open in a hauling CG? Compare how that runs to one in solo and how many sucessful runs you do. Then multiply that to Powerplay levels, and that disruption in a set timeframe against what you are trying to achieve.

Again, this doesn't matter, because both sides are impacted equally, and the advantage still lies on the side of the defending power. OOPP will slow things down, but will bias things towards the defending power just as much as currently, or perhaps even moreso.

If your objective is to reduce stability, this will not achieve that goal.

Then you have a problem and a fundamental issue- if you can't provide a way to make solo dangerous to the point of making deliveries 100% efficient and safe you don't have a game, do you? It means fortification can never be stopped, and with consolidation means defence is easy, leading to all territorial gains being safe too, leading to a full bubble.

Exactly, this IS a fundamental issue. But it's not one that OOPP can fix. Personally, what I'd like to see is a system where expanding into new systems is heavily rewarded, moreso than losing systems is penalized. That way, players are driven to constantly expand, without caring so much about losing older systems, so Powerplay becomes a much more active shifting ebb and flow.

But OOPP won't fix this problem.

Well it would, because like I said not every power does the same things in parallel each week. Some weeks one power can camp anothers capital and severely disrupt fortification while another UMs? This is in stark contrast to solo where you can fortify totally and never have these pressures.

Again, how is that any different from now? Already, not every power does the same things in parallel each week. Some weeks one power can undermine another system while virtually unopposed, others they'll be shut down hard.

OOPP wouldn't change this, other than potentially leading to situations where a system has a lot of their players being murdered constantly in their home system, which I don't think anyone can argue is a realistic or good thing.

 

[DemiserofD]

Powerplay is about gang warfare in the shadows of the bubble. You pledge and assume you'll see retribution from either other players or NPCs. But it never happens in solo, meaning something is not working when you should at least see some pushback.

Why do you think this is an assumption people make?

For one, it's clearly not gang warfare. Archon Delaine is an outlier when it comes to powerplay; the vast majority are credible and legal political institutions. It's politics, and politics is far more leaflet campaigns and propaganda than murdering your enemies in open warfare on the streets.

Regardless, this is just lore-based justification. The important thing is for the game to be fun, and that's also where it's currently lacking.

Until you do it, you'll never know.

I'm sorry, but this is not a good model for game design. You don't just throw in massive gameplay changes and hope they turn out well, you carefully model them to attempt to achieve a specific goal. You don't have that, instead, you have:

And as I said, you'll see a chaotic mix where powers gang up on others. We also can't assume its going to be everyone at once either- it might become a complex system where scouting becomes important and people report gaps or quiet spots. Powers build profiles on each other, adding a real time element would build on this more.

This is just bluesky daydreaming, not realistic prediction. You're hoping these things will happen, but what evidence do you have that they'll actually come true? Precious little, from where I sit.

If you can't do something like fortify, or that uncapped UM saps your time defending one place over another then it would affect stability as you can apply pressure on profitable systems and keep your rival pinned leaving them vulnerable.

It doesn't matter. It ultimately just comes down to player time investment vs player time investment, and that means that if one side was winning BEFORE oopp, they would still win AFTER oopp, just biased so that pvp players have a massive advantage.

But as long as both sides have good pvp players, the results wouldn't change at all.

Yes, there would be times where power activity is unequal, but these times already exist, so again, this wouldn't change anything.

And like I've repeatedly said, FD have not shown a willingness to radically change Powerplay. The changes they offer are mathematical with not a lot else. If they change their mind then great, but so far they are only going to invest the minimum amount of time required, which means nothing radical.

They also didn't show a willingness to change Mining or Combat or Exploration, but with enough player conversation, it eventually hit their radar. That's not a good argument for choosing a sub-par solution that wouldn't work.

And I have, along with loads of other people. Just check out my posting history and you'll see I've approached Powerplay from every angle possible.

And yet you keep circling back to a 'solution' that is nothing of the sort.

Unless you try it, you'll never know. Thats the point of testing- to find out if it works. I can ask the same question of you- why do I want a shallow BGS clone? If I want to do lots of missions I'll push a faction.

I want it(the bgs mission system) because it works. The current model clearly does not work. So we have two choices; invent an entirely new model wholesale, or copy over something we already know is functional. Obviously I'd prefer an entirely new and interesting model, but I recognize that may not be realistic, so why not utilize what we've already got?

Considering that estimates of dedicated Powerplay players were about 1000 people then its pretty significant.

Honestly, that makes it even less significant in my mind. It means the poll is drawing in votes from people who want something else(probably pvp) but have no actual interest in powerplay itself.

That's just an even MORE biased poll.

And while you disagree I've outlined how it would play out.

Again, I don't think that's at all how things would work. Things would become MORE stable, not less, the results of conflicts wouldn't change, and players would be ejected from the system. There are no upsides for anyone but the combat players, and even among them, only the top 10% would really see anything approaching a net good.

If you can't see the flaws of solo with its anemic NPC response contributing to an easy path to propping up a power then there is nothing I can do to convince you.

All I need is proof. Not just of how you'd like for things to go(you basically want npcs to simulate players), but for how this system would actually work.

How, exactly, do you program npcs to act exactly like players? How do you make this feel fair to players who then have a 0% chance of winning against them? How do you sustain a system that requires hauling to function but then biases every aspect of itself against hauling, all while being boring as sin?

These are all basic questions that need to be answered before making huge, wholesale changes to the system, and I don't think you've answered any of them. Your only solution seems to be making things open only, and that doesn't fix anything; it only makes more and larger problems than ever before.

 

[Rubbernuke]

There still would be no 'rich and vibrant interaction'; you'd have haulers who for the most part continue unchanged, unless they occasionally get blown up, and you'd have combat players with a plentitude of targets. That's not rich and vibrant, it's just biasing things 100% in the direction of combat players.

If things aren't interesting for the haulers, they're going to be just as bored as before, and the mode will still be dead. You're not fixing the fundamental problems, you're just giving yourself more targets.

But you seem to forget that its in the best interest of the defender to protect its haulers, and that haulers use whatever they can skill and ship wise to evade. Right now fortifying is dull because you never get attacked, its the same 50 key press milk run in one direction. For a power to 'live' you can't run off and leave the lifeblood of a power hanging- leading to novel disruption tactics forming to occupy attackers while haulers slip through. But until you test, you'll never know and see these metas form.

What makes you think it isn't already? There is rivalry, there is a top dog. Yes, it's not currently in favor of combat players, but again, why would shifting the balance of power 100% in favor of combat players 'fix' anything when these things already exist, just in a form you and other combat players don't like?

Because being able to haul without being attacked leads to stagnation, what we have now. Each week everyone fortifies and consolidates, meaning UM is pointless, meaning combat (which is the only way to oppose) is pointless. Its just faceless grind v faceless grind, which has proven to be unpopular.

I'm not sure how you drew this conclusion from that sentence. The point is making it a net benefit for players of the SAME power to get together in Open and play together. More than that, it's to make this process quick, easy, and fun. The ONLY way you're going to get people into Open is by making Open the best way for them to have fun, and you can't do that by trying to force them to play there, as they just WONT play. The only real way to solve the problem is to design systems that maximize the potential benefits of an open-only mode, and those benefits are teamwork and cooperation. Again, WITHIN the power.

How do you know being in a hostile open feature is not fun? In the end you need set parameters to play by, if you don't like them then you don't engage. What you don;t want is mixing several ways that are all different and expecting a coherent outcome.

Again, this doesn't matter, because both sides are impacted equally, and the advantage still lies on the side of the defending power. OOPP will slow things down, but will bias things towards the defending power just as much as currently, or perhaps even moreso.

No they are not equal. If one power is trying to defend, while another is attacking that week its not equal unless the defender attacks back. And uncapped UM makes this more acute to the point where one power breaks.

If your objective is to reduce stability, this will not achieve that goal.

I'll make it simple for you. Powers rely on fortifying to remain safe and not lose territory. This requires efficient dependable fortification. Disrupt that, stop that, and that power is in trouble, especially if they use fortification to generate CC. Add to that uncapped UM which forces a power to fight or lose that battle, then a power becomes vulnerable.

Exactly, this IS a fundamental issue. But it's not one that OOPP can fix. Personally, what I'd like to see is a system where expanding into new systems is heavily rewarded, moreso than losing systems is penalized. That way, players are driven to constantly expand, without caring so much about losing older systems, so Powerplay becomes a much more active shifting ebb and flow.

But OOPP won't fix this problem.

Open Powerplay as suggested by Sandro is about getting players to fill in for NPCs, thats its role. Uncapped UM, unified fortification is set to bring players together. Why? Because FD were at the time of writing not willing to change Powerplay drastically- no new systems, nothing.

If they rewrite it then great, I'm all for it if each mode is equal. But until that happens this is all we have been offered.

Again, how is that any different from now? Already, not every power does the same things in parallel each week. Some weeks one power can undermine another system while virtually unopposed, others they'll be shut down hard.

OOPP wouldn't change this, other than potentially leading to situations where a system has a lot of their players being murdered constantly in their home system, which I don't think anyone can argue is a realistic or good thing.

Because it allows for direct opposition, rather than via abstractions which get dull real fast with something like Powerplay.

And how do you know people won't either adjust or think 'thats actually dangerous, I'll give it a go?' Precious little in ED is actually dangerous or pushes you. Don't you think its about time one small part of it did?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Why do you think this is an assumption people make?

For one, it's clearly not gang warfare. Archon Delaine is an outlier when it comes to powerplay; the vast majority are credible and legal political institutions. It's politics, and politics is far more leaflet campaigns and propaganda than murdering your enemies in open warfare on the streets.

Regardless, this is just lore-based justification. The important thing is for the game to be fun, and that's also where it's currently lacking.

None of them are legal, because 'we' are just groups who support them. How is it legal to murder rival ships via UMing? How is that 'politics'?

The important thing is for the game to be fun, and that's also where it's currently lacking.

This is the crux of this, what you find fun is not what I find fun. I find fun in pushing myself to evade and attack others in real time. In this regard the current design is great, its just that you can bypass any danger with a flick of a switch in a feature which is player driven.

I'm sorry, but this is not a good model for game design. You don't just throw in massive gameplay changes and hope they turn out well, you carefully model them to attempt to achieve a specific goal. You don't have that, instead, you have:

There is a point in complex systems where you simply have to try it and see. You can argue Powerplay was launched and we are simply beta testing it 'live', since it never had any real long term testing done.

This is just bluesky daydreaming, not realistic prediction. You're hoping these things will happen, but what evidence do you have that they'll actually come true? Precious little, from where I sit.

I can only apply to the arguement what I've learnt and observed over the years, just as you hope your ideas work.

It doesn't matter. It ultimately just comes down to player time investment vs player time investment, and that means that if one side was winning BEFORE oopp, they would still win AFTER oopp, just biased so that pvp players have a massive advantage.

But as long as both sides have good pvp players, the results wouldn't change at all.[/QUOTE]

Until you try over a month or so, you'll never know- and even then, you'll have had much more action than you had now. Coming face to face with a rival when you are flying a soggy T-9 is exhilarating.

Yes, there would be times where power activity is unequal, but these times already exist, so again, this wouldn't change anything.

Currently it does not matter, because solo allows breathing room where you can go about as if nothing has changed. Its when you apply actual direct attacks on ships that changes.

They also didn't show a willingness to change Mining or Combat or Exploration, but with enough player conversation, it eventually hit their radar. That's not a good argument for choosing a sub-par solution that wouldn't work.

If I'm being honest, I'm happy if FD change Powerplay regardless of what they do. I argue hard for Open because thats all we have been offered, and that without it a lot of the changes Sandro suggested would be awful- so for me its an all or different approach- either its all in Open Powerplay or they do something totally different. Whats not acceptable to me is keeping it as it is.

And yet you keep circling back to a 'solution' that is nothing of the sort.

And we both circle around each others opinions, to me your solution is not one I'd like to play.

I want it(the bgs mission system) because it works. The current model clearly does not work. So we have two choices; invent an entirely new model wholesale, or copy over something we already know is functional. Obviously I'd prefer an entirely new and interesting model, but I recognize that may not be realistic, so why not utilize what we've already got?

And see my answer above- if FD redesign the whole thing, fantastic. However I don't want yet another BGS system. I have enough of that with the real one. I play ED for new things, not playing the same things in different skins.

Honestly, that makes it even less significant in my mind. It means the poll is drawing in votes from people who want something else(probably pvp) but have no actual interest in powerplay itself.

That's just an even MORE biased poll.

Take it how you see it. I see it as people showing interest, along with people who never play Powerplay or ever will, but are aggrieved about 'gweefers' getting something.

Again, I don't think that's at all how things would work. Things would become MORE stable, not less, the results of conflicts wouldn't change, and players would be ejected from the system. There are no upsides for anyone but the combat players, and even among them, only the top 10% would really see anything approaching a net good.

Less fortification = less stability. Its easy. How can having less delivered make things more stable? What you'd see is powers becoming smaller, hauling much more difficult and a lot more space to fight over- meaning better moves each week rather than the pathetic ones we have now. Smaller powers also mean more CC sloshing about, changing the emphasis of Powerplay to making and holding territory more tricky.

All I need is proof. Not just of how you'd like for things to go(you basically want npcs to simulate players), but for how this system would actually work.

How, exactly, do you program npcs to act exactly like players? How do you make this feel fair to players who then have a 0% chance of winning against them? How do you sustain a system that requires hauling to function but then biases every aspect of itself against hauling, all while being boring as sin?

These are all basic questions that need to be answered before making huge, wholesale changes to the system, and I don't think you've answered any of them. Your only solution seems to be making things open only, and that doesn't fix anything; it only makes more and larger problems than ever before.

I've given examples in this very thread of how I'd change Powerplay NPCs to make them more challenging to even out the modes.

You are also not understanding that Powerplay is a team game. People will not be left to die, and that its down to how you play to avoid death. No hauler in open waddles about in a shield less cargo ship. Many players also run double duty and haul / fight, why do you assume everyone is a helpless cargo monkey?

In the end its your opinion against mine. I'm never going to be able to convince you because you want something different to what I do, and find different things fun.

 

[DemiserofD]

Okay, these quote chains are getting ridiculous. I can't even understand what I'm saying, let alone what you're saying. Can we try to argue about one thing at a time?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Okay, these quote chains are getting ridiculous. I can't even understand what I'm saying, let alone what you're saying. Can we try to argue about one thing at a time?

I'm off to make tea, but go for it. I think in the end though we just agree to disagree because we are diametrically opposed on this one.

 

[DemiserofD]

And we both circle around each others opinions, to me your solution is not one I'd like to play.

I guess I'll focus on this in particular.

Why, exactly, isn't my solution one you'd like to play?

At its fundamental level, all I want are systems that encourage players to play in Open without forcing them to do so. If those don't work, I'd be open to other alternatives.

For example:

A Power-based Bulletin Board, where players can communicate and coordinate ingame.

If Powers could give, say Wing missions to go to X system and undermine by killing ships, and players could select and join wing missions other players are already part of, automatically putting them in a Wing together, no friend requests required.

The ability to see the destination of allied players, so you know if you're going to the same place.

Assassination/Wing Assassination missions targeting players who have killed many players in Open.

---

Aren't these the sorts of things that should happen REGARDLESS of OOPP?

And if they should happen one way or another, and if they on their own encourage open powerplay activity, then why not do them FIRST, see how things pan out, and THEN reconsider whether or not OOPP is the way to go?

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

1. Yes, the game is about rivalry, but that doesn't necessarily imply pvp.

This sounds like my experience of doing PP in open vOv

OOPP would make PvP more likely for some groups but not automatic. As it is, PvP (me delivering cargo, or successfully UMing, or... exploding) is excitement that punctuates periods where PvP hunting is not my opponents' answer to my actions. Your bogeyman portrayal just doesn't stand up for anyone actually taking part.

You could be a PPer (doing preps, BGS work) and avoid PvP situations entirely, if you wanted, or tune to your liking by picking quieter expansions/fort/UM targets, or less quiet ones. Noone would mind. But someone on your team would have to do the things where PvP did matter. Quiet haulers and bloodthirsty brawlers can (and in my open-only power group, do) already have a role in PP, even after an OOPP change.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I guess I'll focus on this in particular.

Why, exactly, isn't my solution one you'd like to play?

At its fundamental level, all I want are systems that encourage players to play in Open without forcing them to do so. If those don't work, I'd be open to other alternatives.

For example:

A Power-based Bulletin Board, where players can communicate and coordinate ingame.

If Powers could give, say Wing missions to go to X system and undermine by killing ships, and players could select and join wing missions other players are already part of, automatically putting them in a Wing together, no friend requests required.

The ability to see the destination of allied players, so you know if you're going to the same place.

Assassination/Wing Assassination missions targeting players who have killed many players in Open.

---

Aren't these the sorts of things that should happen REGARDLESS of OOPP?

And if they should happen one way or another, and if they on their own encourage open powerplay activity, then why not do them FIRST, see how things pan out, and THEN reconsider whether or not OOPP is the way to go?

I think by doing that you break down what can and is what Powerplay 'is' to me.

For too long to its detriment FD have compartmentalised ED. Too much is POI slices that don't fit together, or that don't allow free form play. By that I mean:

Powerplay is totally player driven- through groups they have set completely free form goals, choosing how and when to attack. You don't need missions set because you can do it yourself. Groups spend time discussing plans, how they think others will react. This is where things diverge, because a lot of this is negated by solo where no plan can reach other than to oppose via abstractions.

Your approach is what I loathe, its what I term positive opposition- its where you can't be directly aggressive but have to 'outgood' your foe. You'll never meet, and you'll never be allowed to directly attack someone else. The BGS suffers from this, and I find it exasperating.

What I've seen over the years happen occasionally is what really brings Powerplay alive. Its when groups of players meet spontaneously, and the plans laid in private clash directly.

As an example, the Kumo UMed Antal top to bottom, and after looking at UM patterns two wings went out and guessed correctly where they'd be. We drove them off, and because of that messed the plans up. Other times I've been chased by attackers and pushed my flying to the limit to escape. Or the times I've UMed and had to keep one eye over my shoulder because I know they are after me. Or playing in a combat expansion and have a wing of rivals drop in.

I bet you ask: if that happens now, whats the point of OO? The issue is that being in open makes you think, act and equip differently. You think in team terms, you know stuff can go wrong and its down to your skills to make it work. But for that to happen all of it needs to be that way. Everyone needs to be in that mindset.

To me Powerplay is one giant flowing mission. Its free form, the only restriction is the cycle limit- beyond that its what you can do that matters, Cutting that up to me just abstracts matters when it all should just 'blend'. Why should you need to have UM allocation missions when you can fly out and just do it, and run the risk of unknowingly meeting another commander?

I get what you are saying, but its not what I'd seek out. I love Powerplay and the times Open has given me because for once in ED it imposes no limits on your or your enemy- I know NPCs backwards, I know that I'm safe because I can go 10 on 1 with them and just potter on through. Players don't play by the rules, they will surprise and scare you but thats what I want to play.

Its why my main idea splits solo PG missions and Open segments- everyone gets a slice and each style is catered for but both work together properly, not like now where it just does not work, at least IMO.

 

[DemiserofD]

I think by doing that you break down what can and is what Powerplay 'is' to me.

For too long to its detriment FD have compartmentalised ED. Too much is POI slices that don't fit together, or that don't allow free form play. By that I mean:

Powerplay is totally player driven- through groups they have set completely free form goals, choosing how and when to attack. You don't need missions set because you can do it yourself. Groups spend time discussing plans, how they think others will react. This is where things diverge, because a lot of this is negated by solo where no plan can reach other than to oppose via abstractions.

Your approach is what I loathe, its what I term positive opposition- its where you can't be directly aggressive but have to 'outgood' your foe. You'll never meet, and you'll never be allowed to directly attack someone else. The BGS suffers from this, and I find it exasperating.

What I've seen over the years happen occasionally is what really brings Powerplay alive. Its when groups of players meet spontaneously, and the plans laid in private clash directly.

As an example, the Kumo UMed Antal top to bottom, and after looking at UM patterns two wings went out and guessed correctly where they'd be. We drove them off, and because of that messed the plans up. Other times I've been chased by attackers and pushed my flying to the limit to escape. Or the times I've UMed and had to keep one eye over my shoulder because I know they are after me. Or playing in a combat expansion and have a wing of rivals drop in.

I bet you ask: if that happens now, whats the point of OO? The issue is that being in open makes you think, act and equip differently. You think in team terms, you know stuff can go wrong and its down to your skills to make it work. But for that to happen all of it needs to be that way. Everyone needs to be in that mindset.

To me Powerplay is one giant flowing mission. Its free form, the only restriction is the cycle limit- beyond that its what you can do that matters, Cutting that up to me just abstracts matters when it all should just 'blend'. Why should you need to have UM allocation missions when you can fly out and just do it, and run the risk of unknowingly meeting another commander?

I get what you are saying, but its not what I'd seek out. I love Powerplay and the times Open has given me because for once in ED it imposes no limits on your or your enemy- I know NPCs backwards, I know that I'm safe because I can go 10 on 1 with them and just potter on through. Players don't play by the rules, they will surprise and scare you but thats what I want to play.

Its why my main idea splits solo PG missions and Open segments- everyone gets a slice and each style is catered for but both work together properly, not like now where it just does not work, at least IMO.

The problem is, the things you loathe are the exact things that are going to get new players into powerplay.

This falls to a more fundamental question; why do some players choose to play in Open already, while others choose to play in Solo? This ultimately comes down to differences in what players value. Some players(such as yourself) appreciate what Open offers, and need no further justification to play there. Other players look at Open and see a mode that offers only downsides with no upsides, since everything that exists, seemingly exists only to make their ship explode.

And it's THESE players that you need to tempt into your desired world, NOT the players who are already there. If you change nothing other than to make Powerplay Open Only, you still haven't made Open into a game these players want to play.

Now let me ask you; if you had a choice between playing a game you actively disliked, or not playing at all, which would YOU choose?

---

You want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to keep powerplay exactly the same, and yet force many players into it who wouldn't otherwise participate.

But that will never work. You MUST make a sacrifice, somewhere. Either you sacrifice a HUGE portion of the players who don't like open and will quit rather than participate(and who knows, maybe that's acceptable to you, but I do think it would inevitably lead to the doom of powerplay), or you sacrifice some part of the game itself, to make it more welcoming and give those players a REASON to participate.

But the one thing you CAN'T do is FORCE players to play a game they don't, and never will, like.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The problem is, the things you loathe are the exact things that are going to get new players into powerplay.

You don't know that, just as I can say for certain either.

This falls to a more fundamental question; why do some players choose to play in Open already, while others choose to play in Solo? This ultimately comes down to differences in what players value. Some players(such as yourself) appreciate what Open offers, and need no further justification to play there. Other players look at Open and see a mode that offers only downsides with no upsides, since everything that exists, seemingly exists only to make their ship explode.

The thing is, thats the point- something has to be the enemy. Its just that nothing is currently in solo, so its both dull and counterproductive. Its so monotonous there was a run of bots for a while with the Alliance documenting it. I'd have no problem if I was pushed in solo based on my cargo, my merits held, my PP bounty and my rank- but the gloves have to come off at some point for people who do the most- for those rank 5 guys who push 40K merits each week the game needs to push back hard otherwise its just creating problems.

And it's THESE players that you need to tempt into your desired world, NOT the players who are already there. If you change nothing other than to make Powerplay Open Only, you still haven't made Open into a game these players want to play.

Now let me ask you; if you had a choice between playing a game you actively disliked, or not playing at all, which would YOU choose?

Again, who are 'these' players? You are seeing players like sheep when they are not. People want consistent rules that apply to everyone, not just 1/3.

You want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to keep powerplay exactly the same, and yet force many players into it who wouldn't otherwise participate.

What I want is a consistent, free form experience with rules that apply to everyone. Without that you don't build the experiences and structures because there will always be other ways.

But that will never work. You MUST make a sacrifice, somewhere. Either you sacrifice a HUGE portion of the players who don't like open and will quit rather than participate(and who knows, maybe that's acceptable to you, but I do think it would inevitably lead to the doom of powerplay), or you sacrifice some part of the game itself, to make it more welcoming and give those players a REASON to participate.

How do you know its HUGE? You are making a lot of assumptions based on nothing.

But the one thing you CAN'T do is FORCE players to play a game they don't, and never will, like.

It seems you are confusing the game with Powerplay. Powerplay is not the entirety of ED, if it went Open you are still left with huge amounts multi mode.

Powerplay is one small feature of a bigger game. Why have all the game offer the same experiences over and over, with slight differences? Why not say, if you want 1:1 PvP try CQC, if you want to have a chess like confrontation push a faction in the BGS. If you want to just fly, fly. If you want group PvP try Powerplay. Its giving more than having two features be the same thing.

And in the end, sometimes its better to be Marmite than vanilla, to actually stand out and know what you are and what you offer. The BGS is the apex of what it is, what you want makes Powerplay second fiddle to that, which to me is silly.

 

[DemiserofD]

Come on, I though we were going to try to avoid the huge quote chains.