Powerplay in Solo

[Rubbernuke]

That the current level of danger is not enough to satisfy a subset of players is obvious - just as it seems obvious that Frontier won't raise it to a level that disenfranchises the majority of players.

The danger has to be a moderating force on activity. Currently thats zero in solo.

There is no player territorial control in this game - as no player is in control of any entity that "owns" systems. Players do, of course, influence those entities through PvE actions - but can't control who enters territory or pledges / becomes allied with the entities.

I define territory as the bubbles of influence Powerplay generates. In these bubbles you can be marked as hostile (i.e. a comparison between your power and that power). If that is meaningless (i.e. the tag has no gameplay attached to it) in solo whats the point to it? Its in places like these you should be in danger.

 

[Rubbernuke]

PP already asks us to dedicate an entire whole month of our lives in service of the reward goodies at the end... And you want there to be more chances of failure?

Why??? Who in Earth seriously thinks a month isn't long enough?

I don't get your obsession with this.

Because, like, Powrplay is not a shock horror unlocking method. Its an actual game feature believe it or not that is more than getting Prismatics.

Plus there have been ideas from the devs of moving modules to brokers. I suggested something like this quite recently:

FD, if you can add modules to the tech brokers (like the recent CG), why not move Powerplay modules now too?

The recent CG for the missile rack demonstrates you (FD) can add modules to tech brokers 'on the fly' so to speak. So why not remove the albatross from Powerplay which is its modules and do the same (move them all to tech brokers)? You could keep access for powers as it is, but duplicate the...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Robert Maynard]

Currently thats zero in solo.

In the opinion of some. I expect Frontier's data will show that the risk to players in Solo is non-zero.

I define territory as the bubbles of influence Powerplay generates. In these bubbles you can be marked as hostile (i.e. a comparison between your power and that power). If that is meaningless (i.e. the tag has no gameplay attached to it) in solo whats the point to it? Its in places like these you should be in danger.

Remembering that Sandro floated the idea of being able to stop displaying Powerplay pledge status, it seems that Frontier understand that players won't always want to be painted as targets, even if they do choose to engage in Powerplay.

 

[Rubbernuke]

In the opinion of some. I expect Frontier's data will show that the risk to players in Solo is non-zero.

I'd love to see the data that exists of how many fortification haulers are destroyed in solo, or if FD even thought about it.

Remembering that Sandro floated the idea of being able to stop displaying Powerplay pledge status, it seems that Frontier understand that players won't always want to be painted as targets, even if they do choose to engage in Powerplay.

He did, but he also was of the opinion that weighting was rewarding you going against NPCs, rival pledges and anyone else. The point also is that you are threatened when you deserve it- i.e. moving merits and explicitly being in that space with others. From memory that toggle had consequences with its use.

 

[znôrt]

If a Lead Developer for ED thinks its a discussion worth having, then its really your "everybody except him" who's playing the wrong game. Just because you lot on this forum have managed to drive many who think the same way off the forum with forum ganking (lol) doesnt mean youre right, just that persistent harassment works as a way to silence people.

first, hold your horses: there hasn't been any kind forum harassment or downshouting here. forum mobs are despicable and i've been the first to call them out when it happened, and it simply hasn't in this occasion, you're just making it up.

second, sandro was pretty much alone at frontier with his idea, and while it was a good idea in principle, it would have never worked on its own, without major and structural changes to the game. to be more precise, making power play an actual competitive mode where game assets were at stake without addressing first the completely asinine network stack (instancing/combat log/blocking/cheating) would have been a recipe for disaster. i said as much back then and it still holds true today. you'd have to rewrite most of the game from scratch because it is the wrong game for that, try to get that into your skull

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

The trouble is, what would be a fair bonus for such a thing?

As many others have pointed out, your actual chances of running into another player in open are very small unless you are in a very specific set of locations. I've seen numbers like one in a hundred thrown around.

Using those odds, a fair bonus for open Play would be about 1%.

That doesn't explain the mass mode-exodus from open that frequently occurs when certain powers are challenged in their activities. If they are responding in this way to a 1% increase in risk, then my opinion of them droops ever lower... it does stand to reason that some basic risk modelling would be in order though (e.g. profitable expansion vs. blocker prep at the opposite ends of the spectrum). That could as easily be applied to a system for scaling NPC threat in a proposal that didn't focus on modes.

 

[Bashy81]

first, hold your horses: there hasn't been any kind forum harassment or downshouting here. forum mobs are despicable and i've been the first to call them out when it happened, and it simply hasn't in this occasion, you're just making it up.

second, sandro was pretty much alone at frontier with his idea, and while it was a good idea in principle, it would have never worked on its own, without major and structural changes to the game. to be more precise, making power play an actual competitive mode where game assets were at stake without addressing first the completely asinine network stack (instancing/combat log/blocking/cheating) would have been a recipe for disaster. i said as much back then and it still holds true today. you'd have to rewrite most of the game from scratch because it is the wrong game for that, try to get that into your skull

Regarding the thickness of my skull, how is insulting someones intelligence anything but trying to downshout? really? & you havent spotted any mob behaviour in this thread? I guess its all fun & games if youre part of the mob, huh.

If Sandro was so isolated in his view, how come our latest community manager was perfectly happy to state he'd prefer Powerplay and BGS inf to be Open-Only, on a stream? Presumably with your insider knowledge of the personal details at Fdev HQ you can confirm he's been reprimanded since, for being so terribly off-message? lol.

it doesnt have to be a perfect system that allows pro-competition for professional teams, to work for our needs. Blatant easy cheating needs tackling, but that is practical with the fundamentals we have. From P2P to server-based networking isnt necessary, or without its own major drawbacks (id be waving goodbye to my antipodean wingmates if it were switched) since we already have a hybrid model that with a few tweaks could be fit for the purpose required. For example, network port blocking can be checked at server-end with dummy network connection requests that arent difficult to be made indistinguishable for the user from a genuine instancing attempt.

There are promising solutions, if your intent is to find them, instead of intending to find reasons its all hopeless & impossible, to suit your agenda. The fact is there are a wide range of playstyles included in ED, and we all have a place and have to consider each other, no matter over whomsoever's dead body.

At present, those who wish to compete in the persistent galaxy with other groups in Open mode (a significant number, as shown by the recurring threads on this topic that you lot rush to mock & ridicule so quickly, sort of like, you know, what do you call that, hmm, 'a forum-mob' perhaps?) .. do not have a place where theyre not undercut by the other modes that make the whole experience in Open, pretty much just for giggles instead of a genuine evolving tactical & strategic battle that it so nearly is much of the time already. IMO that place is not the entire BGS, as that disregards the solo/pg-only cohort. But it does deserve a place and the natural fit is Powerplay, not least because it has, as often criticised, so little to offer solo players when they dont get the elements Open has to offer.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

PP already asks us to dedicate an entire whole month of our lives in service of the reward goodies at the end... And you want there to be more chances of failure?

Why??? Who in Earth seriously thinks a month isn't long enough?

I don't get your obsession with this.

I know you're just trolling but....

750 merits to get the module is a single type 9 haul, not a month of life

Easy caveat that you've seen in other threads is to separate the modules from PP, or allow merits in solo/PG to count towards modules in the same way as before

Yes you don't get it - a substantial player base exists that does powerplay not for the modules but for the competitive feature itself.

Easy to understand why from solo you can't see why anyone would bother - I wouldn't either. The lack of some content that would make it interesting in solo is another matter, and one worth attention. The point is that the only way PP can realistically be appealing to enough people currently is to play it in open with the gameplay and risk that emerges from other players. Being able to opt out of that risk when success is threatened, is what gets players who are more commited to eating up the risk and stay in open, in order to keep it fun for everyone else and keep the feature alive, in a huff.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

I don't respond well to people who accuse me of trolling.

Here's the deal: you and others wanting a special merit badge for the "risk" of Open when you yourselves willingly choose that extra risk are who don't seem to 'get it'.

Whatever you think you stand to gain by forcing this wedge, sowing division in the community, is your business I guess. But obviously most of us are sick of this topic.

Nobody made you play Open. Make peace with your own choices and be quiet. Please.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Being able to opt out of that risk when success is threatened, is what gets players who are more commited to eating up the risk and stay in open, in order to keep it fun for everyone else and keep the feature alive, in a huff.

Except it would not be "fun for everyone else" - as not everyone is interested in PvP in the first place. That players don't like it when others don't play the way they want them to (even while playing within the game's rules) is obvious - which applies to those who don't like being shot at in Open as much as it does to those who complain about players engaging in pan-modal game features in modes other than Open.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't respond well to people who accuse me of trolling.

Here's the deal: you and others wanting a special merit badge for the "risk" of Open when you yourselves willingly choose that extra risk are who don't seem to 'get it'.

Whatever you think you stand to gain by forcing this wedge, sowing division in the community, is your business I guess. But obviously most of us are sick of this topic.

Nobody made you play Open. Make peace with your own choices and be quiet. Please.

When I willingly pick a mission with a certain difficulty, I expect it to reward as such. If I pick a mode for a feature that has considerable risks attached to it why not the same? Despite what you want Open exists and in Powerplay is significantly more demanding as its placing the most capable ships together. The 'gain' is rewarding that complex play in comparison to facing underpowered NPCs. If facing NPCs is your thing, great, just don't think its the same because its not.

Whatever you think you stand to gain by forcing this wedge

Ironic considering solo is a way to bypass any form of disruption during play.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Except it would not be "fun for everyone else" - as not everyone is interested in PvP in the first place. That players don't like it when others don't play the way they want them to (even while playing within the game's rules) is obvious - which applies to those who don't like being shot at in Open as much as it does to those who complain about players engaging in pan-modal game features in modes other than Open.

And this is not the issue- its consistent threat thats important in PP. Solo provides none of that, so any play in that mode is reduced down to time x volume, allowing more to be done and allowing powers to be larger and less vulnerable.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And this is not the issue- its consistent threat thats important in PP. Solo provides none of that, so any play in that mode is reduced down to time x volume, allowing more to be done and allowing powers to be larger and less vulnerable.

The fundamental issue is that the feature was added to the game for all players in a game where other players, and the challenge they may provide, are optional - and some players want others to be either actively excluded from it (Open only, by reducing the effect of players in Solo and PGs on the feature to zero, akin to the punishment reserved for those who break game rules) or for a penalty to be applied to the effect on the feature of players in Solo and PGs (a bonus weighting for Open) simply because those players don't need to play with them to affect the feature.

There is no consistent threat in Open.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The fundamental issue is that the feature was added to the game for all players in a game where other players, and the challenge they may provide, are optional - and some players want others to be either actively excluded from it (Open only, by reducing the effect of players in Solo and PGs on the feature to zero, akin to the punishment reserved for those who break game rules) or for a penalty to be applied to the effect on the feature of players in Solo and PGs (a bonus weighting for Open) simply because those players don't need to play with them to affect the feature.

You seem willfully avoiding the fact that its solo disproportionately affecting Powerplay, when its an easy way to keep a power solvent. Have a cloud of enemies in your capital slowing you down? Pop into solo and avoid them. In the end it should not matter if its NPCs or players, but right now it does since its the latter being capable as well as being avoidable. Solo makes hiding behind maths easy and predictable since it removes random nature- this won't change until NPCs get significantly better.

There is no consistent threat in Open.

Well there is, depending on your POV since all modes have NPCs ironically . Its just in Open you have NPCs + other pledges and other players in specific places. Of course its not all the time, but you always roll the dice since you can never know for sure.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You seem willfully avoiding the fact that its solo disproportionately affecting Powerplay, when its an easy way to keep a power solvent. Have a cloud of enemies in your capital slowing you down? Pop into solo and avoid them. In the end it should not matter if its NPCs or players, but right now it does since its the latter being capable as well as being avoidable. Solo makes hiding behind maths easy and predictable since it removes random nature- this won't change until NPCs get significantly better.

When we all bought a game where PvP is an optional extra in all game features (except CQC, of course), it is unsurprising that there are those who have bought the game with no interest in PvP - and features have been implemented across the modes to accommodate those players.

That the risk posed by NPCs is not the same as skilled players in engineered ships is obvious, just as it seems to be obvious that Frontier are unlikely to set it that high.

Well there is, depending on your POV since all modes have NPCs ironically . Its just in Open you have NPCs + other pledges and other players in specific places. Of course its not all the time, but you always roll the dice since you can never know for sure.

The vast, vast, majority of Open offers identical risk to the other two modes, certainly. It's the encounters with other players who may or may not be hostile, who may or may not be in a more capable ship, who may or may not be more skilled that makes the risk in Open inconsistent.

 

[Rubbernuke]

When we all bought a game where PvP is an optional extra in all game features (except CQC, of course), it is unsurprising that there are those who have bought the game with no interest in PvP - and features have been implemented across the modes to accommodate those players.

PvP is optional, but at the same time its there just like any other risk except in Powerplay that risk is not rewarded at all, despite it being the most likely PvP like set up.

That the risk posed by NPCs is not the same as skilled players in engineered ships is obvious, just as it seems to be obvious that Frontier are unlikely to set it that high.

So what is it then? Risk is optional but should go unrewarded when you take it? Its why weighting is the ideal middle ground- NPCs can stay as they are, Open gets a boost since it has viable threats at random.

The vast, vast, majority of Open offers identical risk to the other two modes, certainly. It's the encounters with other players who may or may not be hostile, who may or may not be in a more capable ship, who may or may not be more skilled that makes the risk in Open inconsistent.

And yes, Open is quite often like solo or PG, but you never know that and have to prepare for that eventuality. Since Powerplay has defined areas (that will only get fewer depending on what FD do) that chance is only ever going to go up in Open.

 

[znôrt]

Regarding the thickness of my skull, how is insulting someones intelligence anything but trying to downshout? really? & you havent spotted any mob behaviour in this thread? I guess its all fun & games if youre part of the mob, huh.

i'm just discussing your point. oversensitive much? by trying to put up such a case you are just ridiculing yourself, but let's not digress ...

If Sandro was so isolated in his view, how come our latest community manager was perfectly happy to state he'd prefer Powerplay and BGS inf to be Open-Only, on a stream? Presumably with your insider knowledge of the personal details at Fdev HQ you can confirm he's been reprimanded since, for being so terribly off-message? lol.

community managers are no more "devs" than you and me, they have no say except as messengers. they come and go and the current iteration wasn't even around back then and there have been a few promotions in between. i grant you that the current team at least makes visible efforts to keep relevant, yet their ability and attributions are rather limited, in particular their agency is zero when it comes to game design and implementation.

it doesnt have to be a perfect system that allows pro-competition for professional teams, to work for our needs. Blatant easy cheating needs tackling, but that is practical with the fundamentals we have. From P2P to server-based networking isnt necessary, or without its own major drawbacks (id be waving goodbye to my antipodean wingmates if it were switched) since we already have a hybrid model that with a few tweaks could be fit for the purpose required. For example, network port blocking can be checked at server-end with dummy network connection requests that arent difficult to be made indistinguishable for the user from a genuine instancing attempt.

that's a lot of wishful thinking. "blatant cheating needs tackling". yeah, guess what, it isn't, not by far, and they don't even have the means. you make it look like a walk in the park. it isn't, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. the moment competition gets serious cheating and network shenanignans would become rampant, like they are in any game allowing such conflict. if clans full of players are going to claim territory you better get these multiplayer issues sorted out in prime fashion, else your support team will be completely collapsed in a week or the whole thing will explode like a giant joke.

i'm not demeaning your intellectual capacity in any way, i just believe you don't have thought this through well enough.

also, note that i am actually partial to this idea. i would love things to be that way, but there would be a very long way to go. it's simply unrealistic.

 

[Robert Maynard]

PvP is optional, but at the same time its there just like any other risk except in Powerplay that risk is not rewarded at all, despite it being the most likely PvP like set up.

Risk from other players is not specifically rewarded - players have shown that they can't be trusted to earn PvP rewards when they can gain them uncontested - collusion piracy and the illegal goods scan / fine / bounty / claim exploit being two examples.

So what is it then? Risk is optional but should go unrewarded when you take it? Its why weighting is the ideal middle ground- NPCs can stay as they are, Open gets a boost since it has viable threats at random.

Simplistic mode based weighting is ill targeted for the simple reason that it rewards the possibility rather than the occurrence of encountering an opposing player. Plus the fact that it treats all players in Solo and PG in a manner akin to those who break game rules, i.e. it reduces their effect on a game feature.

And yes, Open is quite often like solo or PG, but you never know that and have to prepare for that eventuality. Since Powerplay has defined areas (that will only get fewer depending on what FD do) that chance is only ever going to go up in Open.

Possibly - it depends on who one encounters.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Risk from other players is not specifically rewarded - players have shown that they can't be trusted to earn PvP rewards when they can gain them uncontested - collusion piracy and the illegal goods scan / fine / bounty / claim exploit being two examples.

And unless risk can be quantified then it never will, hence why weighting is the safest option given what we know FD might do. Plus Solo rewards players for the absence of danger (esp. with engineering) so how is it thats not in the same bracket?

Simplistic mode based weighting is ill targeted for the simple reason that it rewards the possibility rather than the occurrence of encountering an opposing player. Plus the fact that it treats all players in Solo and PG in a manner akin to those who break game rules, i.e. it reduces their effect on a game feature.

If you don't have the possibility of meeting a rival who has the capability to destroy you and rely on RNG to spawn innefectual NPCs, what difference is there, and why should willfully avoiding danger the same?

In the end you have the possibility via RNG of an NPC encounter- why is that different to the possibility of other players? For most people the chances would be the same for either, and in Open that is cumulative regards all you come across.

Possibly - it depends on who one encounters.

In Powerplay you know ahead of time what sort of opponent you'll see- combat power expansions and UM, hauling for prep, fortification etc as well as knowing when they are going on (so to oppose or help). Not to mention PMF bases and FCs.

 

[Ethaidan]

...

Before the fold down of Horizons, half of copies of the game sold did not have Horizons, therefore less than half of potential players had access to engineering.

Epic gave away c.8M copies of the game in a week, about double what had been sold in the previous five years. I suspect that a large subset of those players have little or no engineering in the last two months.

Frontier have the data though, if they choose to analyse it.

Oh, cmon Robert, that's a massive red herring fallacy, and you know it.

# of games sold =/ number of active/regular players. Not even close.

FDev have previously published the average # of hours pople play Elite before moving on. This number was so low (in ED terms, pretty good vs other games, but barely into Engineering timescales) that the majority of people who bought the game before horizons were not even around when Horizons/Engineering dropped. So no, many people who stopped playing before Horizons didn't have engineering.

Of those holdouts who now have free access to Engineering or the Epic generation, how many will completely ignore an easily accessible feature? That some of the Epic generation might not have gone all in for Engineering in the first 60days is irrelevant. How many of those who continually completely ignore Engineering it will commit to Powerplay - which is currently more of a tedious grind than Engineering!