I want a PP warfront

[Aeorath]

View attachment 223016

"you guys obviously don't understand the video gaming industry and it's primary audience. ...neither does Fdev, seeing how they have neglected ED in favor of Zoo Planet and rollecoaster games... what can you expect from occult saturnists who may be owned by an alien..."

This is what made my day, from some of the OP's posts in this thread. Mental gymnastics are real.

 

[GloatingSwine]

This thread seems to have gotten away from itself, but the idea of a "Power Play warfront" sounds pretty neat.

Imagine a version of Frontline Solutions dropping you into PvP instances (filling open spaces with bots) either on foot or in space Conflict Zones (regardless of what game mode you start from), and those having significant impact on Power Play standings. Heck, lump CQC into it while we're at it and have Megaship Conflict Zones where you fly a SLF that launches from an allied megaship. Make Power Play bonuses and rewards more significant and then you'll have a dedicated system for PvP using mostly-existing assets / systems.

Well yeah. If they changed all system ownership changes to week long power vs power conflict zones which could provide both PvP and PvE combat on foot and in space then there would inherently be a place for the people who want a strong live PvP element to Powerplay to get what they wanted.

They could even include the current haulage vs. interdict gameplay by allowing players in cargo and troop transporters to deliver into the system to top up their side's forces.

It wouldn't need to be open only, but there could be a higher value on a player kill than an NPC kill, and a higher value on a delivery if it was successfully made within N minutes of a player interdict. (eg. if you get interdicted, escape, but then sneak back in and successfully make your drop within 30 minutes it's worth 50% extra to your side, where NPC interdicts don't produce that effect). So these aren't "gib moar for open", they're specific bonuses for player interactions.

And it would produce a concentrated PvP playerbase, so that the people who want to do PvP all have places to meet and a context behind their meeting.

 

[Bashy81]

(sigh) Here we go again...

Powerplay Proposal (strong anti 5C, mode specific, plus other tweaks)

This is a Powerplay overhaul proposal that uses all of Sandros ideas plus a few more based on the 3.x BGS rework to enhance the feature, and employ strong anti 5C measures. Sandro Sammarcos proposal changes are included as they were originally. Problem Powerplay does not function well across...

forums.frontier.co.uk

An argument in favor of Open Only that still fails to address the core issues:

• Time Zones - A person not logged in cannot be countered.
• Locality - You can only be in one place at a time. If "they" are in another system, you won't encounter them. The fact that you cannot see them on the Galaxy map means that you don't even know where they are.
• Instancing - If you don't instance, it doesn't matter whether they are in Open.
• Open for Consoles - Console gamers have to pay for Open, meaning that you are forcing them into a Pay to Play requirement.
• Cross Platform Interaction - You cannot fight someone that isn't in your environment.

Bluntly, Open Only will not solve the Power Play "problem".

Im going to address the console paywall comment below. Instancing abuses have never had to be addressed before when mode opt-outs are allowed. but they can be in a fairly simple & implementable way that doesnt need a server model network rebuild. more available on request.
As for all of the rest, these seem to be popular objections of the uninitiated. These are issues that seem compelling to the Solo player, but simply dont apply to the large organised playergroups that are the lifeblood of Powerplay.
Part of that organisation is in tackling these issues wherever they become significant. Where their coverage starts to wane, that signifies a decline in that playergroup as they start to lose control. it makes them vulnerable. This is entirely consistent with organisations & nations at war in RL.
All those issues you list are part of the game, not an obstacle to implementation.

How do you provide a soution to forcing one group of players to pay to engage in some content that other players get for free?

Its a payment choice. rent versus purchase. I couldve bought several console systems for the cost of my gaming PC. I could have spread that cost over years & just bought a console, and paid for multiplayer subscription. Id still be in profit if id done that instead, 5 years later.

It's not un-fair nor and advantage if everyone has access to it....

its taking away choice. if all modes are equal and valid choices as His Braben said, then why is your present solution to invalidate one of those choices, especially when that choice, 'open mode' is the one most suited to Powerplay (as stated specifically by the lead designer)

Console players have to pay to access Open, if PP is Open only how is it fair that they have to pay to use game features that you get for free?

Its a payment choice. rent versus purchase. I couldve bought several console systems for the cost of my gaming PC. I could have spread that cost over years & just bought a console, and paid for multiplayer subscription. Id still be in profit if id done that instead, 5 years later.

Given how popular the suggestion of blocking people who attack you in the game seems to be, any idea involving organic PvP as a gameplay mechanic where someone gains from evading a fight is going to be DOA.

The only way an open mode PP would work is to have scoring based solely on PvP kills.

one of the most obvious ways open mode PP couldnt work is with scoring based on PvP kills. Genuine PvP kills are the hardest fought kills in the game. Collusion kills are the easiest. Can you see where the exploit is there?
Blocking on PC can be reset back to the original 'messaging-only' effect that blocks used to have universally. they did it before, they can do it again. It was covered by the devs in the may 2018 Powerplay flash topic.

 

[Robert Maynard]

its taking away choice. if all modes are equal and valid choices as His Braben said, then why is your present solution to invalidate one of those choices, especially when that choice, 'open mode' is the one most suited to Powerplay (as stated specifically by the lead designer)

.... and Open only would take away the choice each player has with regard to whether or not to play among other players when engaging in an existing game feature (that does not require any player to engage in PvP to participate in it) that forms part of every player's game, a game where other players, and therefore PvP, are an optional extra (apart from CQC, of course). Noting that while Powerplay's "purpose" was later retconned, it was consciously implemented in all three game modes at its introduction.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It wouldn't need to be open only, but there could be a higher value on a player kill than an NPC kill, and a higher value on a delivery if it was successfully made within N minutes of a player interdict. (eg. if you get interdicted, escape, but then sneak back in and successfully make your drop within 30 minutes it's worth 50% extra to your side, where NPC interdicts don't produce that effect). So these aren't "gib moar for open", they're specific bonuses for player interactions.

And it would produce a concentrated PvP playerbase, so that the people who want to do PvP all have places to meet and a context behind their meeting.

Anything that specifically rewards player encounters is susceptible to players colluding to achieve the desired result uncontested - and if the only requirement was to encounter another player to receive a bonus then that encounter could happen in either of the multi-player game modes.

 

[Rubbernuke]

.... and Open only would take away the choice each player has with regard to whether or not to play among other players when engaging in an existing game feature (that does not require any player to engage in PvP to participate in it) that forms part of every player's game, a game where other players, and therefore PvP, are an optional extra (apart from CQC, of course). Noting that while Powerplay's "purpose" was later retconned, it was consciously implemented in all three game modes at its introduction.

It was, and it failed really because of this in retrospect (along with not keeping up with the rest of the game mechanics wise). Solo gets rid of capable enemies (i.e. players), PG allows uncontested AFK turretboats (due to outdated mechanics). Both of these break the competition aspect of the feature.

The only way is to either make NPCs scale in difficulty to the allotment of merits you move (which is mode agnostic), or PvP tasks and solo tasks are separated out but made co-dependent (rather than being in parallel).

 

[Robert Maynard]

It was, and it failed really because of this in retrospect (along with not keeping up with the rest of the game mechanics wise). Solo gets rid of capable enemies (i.e. players), PG allows uncontested AFK turretboats (due to outdated mechanics). Both of these break the competition aspect of the feature.

In which case the player-base as a whole would be best served by Powerplay receiving an update - not removing the effect of players in modes other than Open, in my opinion, of course.

The only way is to either make NPCs scale in difficulty to the allotment of merits you move (which is mode agnostic), or PvP tasks and solo tasks are separated out but made co-dependent (rather than being in parallel).

PvP tasks would likely suffer from the fact that collusion is much easier than opposition. I would have no issue with the challenge posed by NPCs being increased in line with merits held.

 

[Bashy81]

The only way is to either make NPCs scale in difficulty to the allotment of merits you move (which is mode agnostic

multi-accounts for the many, make this a moot modifier. Hit an NPC ceiling, move to another account. rinse & repeat. Result is a risk-minimised min-max solo mode, same as now.

PvP tasks and solo tasks are separated out but made co-dependent (rather than being in parallel).

Yes please. If by 'PvP tasks' you mean activities restricted to Open mode.
It is the way to embrace all players who want to participate regardless of modes, without allowing that inclusivity to neuter the game mode thats most suited to the activity in the first place, and which provides Powerplay with it's stand-out feature that gives it a gameplay reason to exist.

 

[Rubbernuke]

In which case the player-base as a whole would be best served by Powerplay receiving an update - not removing the effect of players in modes other than Open, in my opinion, of course.

It would- whats annoying is that for a great many of Powerplays ills the answers are already in game mechanics wise.

PvP tasks would likely suffer from the fact that collusion is much easier than opposition. I would have no issue with the challenge posed by NPCs being increased in line with merits held.

This is why attaching value to PvP kills can't be a thing- any Powerplay PvP is really down to denying your opponents having a smooth time of it and being allowed to work. You can't gain if collusion has no value.

 

[Rubbernuke]

multi-accounts for the many, make this a moot modifier. Hit an NPC ceiling, move to another account. rinse & repeat. Result is a risk-minimised min-max solo mode, same as now.

I worded that poorly (mainly as I've written it out so many times I'm getting lazy- I mean something like this:

Powerplay in Solo

That's in the case of the current incarnation of the feature. If OP's measure was enacted, which is the substance of this thread, the roles would be reversed, or partly so. And whether or not to reverse the roles comes down to which players you want to detriment, again. In which case it's a...

forums.frontier.co.uk

So each merit 'run' has NPC difficulty priced in at the start, so it then allows for you to plan and co-operate with a wing. And because the end point is not a station (but an NPC) its entirely possible to fail utterly for that run. In this sense, PG Powerplay becomes a fun group activity, Solo a challenge etc.

Yes please. If by 'PvP tasks' you mean activities restricted to Open mode.
It is the way to embrace all players who want to participate regardless of modes, without allowing that inclusivity to neuter the game mode thats most suited to the activity in the first place, and which provides Powerplay with it's stand-out feature that gives it a gameplay reason to exist.

Its certainly an idea that would allow the most fine grained improvements- especially the solo part, because here you can go to flavor town with missions / lore and really make Powerplay more than the hauling / shooting it is now. The Open portion would be the icing on the cake

 

[CMDR Rabbit]

This is what made my day, from some of the OP's posts in this thread. Mental gymnastics are real.

He got ok marks on the aerials, but failed to stick the landing.

 

[Justinian Octavius]

Having effectively a different version of Powerplay per game mode is a waste of development resources imho. They should just fix the mechanics to remove the problems of 5C then decide if they want the entire thing to be Open Only or not.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

 

[Dillon Fallon]

one of the most obvious ways open mode PP couldnt work is with scoring based on PvP kills. Genuine PvP kills are the hardest fought kills in the game. Collusion kills are the easiest. Can you see where the exploit is there?
Blocking on PC can be reset back to the original 'messaging-only' effect that blocks used to have universally. they did it before, they can do it again. It was covered by the devs in the may 2018 Powerplay flash topic.

The point I was going for was that the current architecture of the game would make open PP just lip service to those that wanted it, as players would just create their own solo modes with the block function. If the one sliver of a chance that something could be made out of it also doesn't work then thank you for underlining that point.

As for changing how blocking works, I really don't see that happening. This was discussed a while back and whilst thinking about it now, that change would be a good idea, the resulting argument the suggestion would make probably means that FDev won't touch it.

 

[Bashy81]

I worded that poorly (mainly as I've written it out so many times I'm getting lazy- I mean something like this:

Powerplay in Solo

That's in the case of the current incarnation of the feature. If OP's measure was enacted, which is the substance of this thread, the roles would be reversed, or partly so. And whether or not to reverse the roles comes down to which players you want to detriment, again. In which case it's a...

forums.frontier.co.uk

So each merit 'run' has NPC difficulty priced in at the start, so it then allows for you to plan and co-operate with a wing. And because the end point is not a station (but an NPC) its entirely possible to fail utterly for that run. In this sense, PG Powerplay becomes a fun group activity, Solo a challenge etc.


Its certainly an idea that would allow the most fine grained improvements- especially the solo part, because here you can go to flavor town with missions / lore and really make Powerplay more than the hauling / shooting it is now. The Open portion would be the icing on the cake

With the all-modes mission & NPC difficulty-scaling proposal you deal with some botting nicely & modes disparity to an extent, but it would still be a tasty prospect in Open to follow a fortifier CMDR into a delivery POI & give the attacking NPCs an extra edge.
The modes disparity is lessened, but it still remains, and in implementation, is likely to be a fig-leaf once later balancing & bugs come into play, as they usually do.
All-around I have niggles regards adding difficulty to other modes to mimic Open risks, it feels restrictive & unlikely to find a true balance.
However if fdev arent willing or able to take measures to counter the weaknesses in their network infrastructure, then it may be the only viable approach.

 

[GloatingSwine]

In which case the player-base as a whole would be best served by Powerplay receiving an update - not removing the effect of players in modes other than Open, in my opinion, of course.

PvP tasks would likely suffer from the fact that collusion is much easier than opposition. I would have no issue with the challenge posed by NPCs being increased in line with merits held.

I have a suspicion that the collusion effects are so strong currently because the dedicated powerplay community is small enough that they aren't lost in the noise.

Get enough people motivated to do powerplay by making it fun and rewarding, and this sort of manipulation of the systems becomes much much less relevant.

 

[Chrystoph]

As for all of the rest, these seem to be popular objections of the uninitiated. These are issues that seem compelling to the Solo player, but simply dont apply to the large organised playergroups that are the lifeblood of Powerplay.
Part of that organisation is in tackling these issues wherever they become significant. Where their coverage starts to wane, that signifies a decline in that playergroup as they start to lose control. it makes them vulnerable. This is entirely consistent with organisations & nations at war in RL.

The fact of the matter is, you are applying a one to many "solution", meaning that you are NOT applying a solution at all. Each player needing to be equal in any solution means that your "organiszation" application is an elitist approach.

Instead of an out of hand dismissal with an overly broad generalization, try actually addressing the issues. I'll even give you an example.

Platform - you claim that your organization approach will cover this by having players from a group on all platforms, but, in order for this to work you need to have players on all platforms around the clock in all systems, in case someone on the opposite side hits a specific system. You made a comparative with "Real Life". In the "Real World", watch standing is a paid activity.

The problem is, players get rewarded for doing things, and being on station "in case" currently has no incentive in game and is not engaging game play. As a result, play time devoted to patrolling is unlikely to be enjoyable for people looking for recreation.

As a final note regarding "the uninitiated", while I have not engaged in Power Play recently, I spent the better part of year engaging in all the bits and bobs, including joining Discord servers for specific Powers so that I would be coordinating with other players. So, as someone with experience, I call nonsense on your Appeal to Ridicule. While the meta of coordination existed AND I played in Open, I still ended up flying by myself the whole time and only had one encounter with another player. You can judge for yourself whether getting themself killed by the station to kill me was worth it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Platform - you claim that your organization approach will cover this by having players from a group on all platforms, but, in order for this to work you need to have players on all platforms around the clock in all systems, in case someone on the opposite side hits a specific system. You made a comparative with "Real Life". In the "Real World", watch standing is a paid activity.

A common misunderstanding- the same can be said for Powerplay now too- what it comes down to is knowing who you are fighting and when they / you need to fight. Sandros proposed changes further narrowed that down, and uncapped UM would mean people would have to fight off problems and not hide behind numbers (as they do now with 100% caps). That would mean people having to evade / fight to keep solvent, unlike now which is haul faster.

The problem is, players get rewarded for doing things, and being on station "in case" currently has no incentive in game and is not engaging game play. As a result, play time devoted to patrolling is unlikely to be enjoyable for people looking for recreation.

The goal is the objective set by the playergroup. Depends if you want to slow down an enemy- camping in its capital can be a nuisance for inbound fortifiers. The Kumo did this with Antal, and Bashy can illustrate how that can put the tighteners on a power trying to fortify at the same time.

As a final note regarding "the uninitiated", while I have not engaged in Power Play recently, I spent the better part of year engaging in all the bits and bobs, including joining Discord servers for specific Powers so that I would be coordinating with other players. So, as someone with experience, I call nonsense on your Appeal to Ridicule. While the meta of coordination existed AND I played in Open, I still ended up flying by myself the whole time and only had one encounter with another player. You can judge for yourself whether getting themself killed by the station to kill me was worth it.

And this is conflating the situation now with proposed changes. If the changes went through as is, uncapped UM hot spots would funnel people to them because you have to defend or press the attack, in addition to the expansion, prep and fortification sites.

 

[Bashy81]

Having effectively a different version of Powerplay per game mode is a waste of development resources imho. They should just fix the mechanics to remove the problems of 5C then decide if they want the entire thing to be Open Only or not.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

Rubbernuke's split-modes proposal is not really a different version of Powerplay per game mode, but a fix of the mechanics (including dealing with 5C) that includes a logistics element (in any mode) and direct action (in Open-Only). both parts are essential to the other. Its more a distribution of activities, than a different game for each mode.

The point I was going for was that the current architecture of the game would make open PP just lip service to those that wanted it, as players would just create their own solo modes with the block function. If the one sliver of a chance that something could be made out of it also doesn't work then thank you for underlining that point.

As for changing how blocking works, I really don't see that happening. This was discussed a while back and whilst thinking about it now, that change would be a good idea, the resulting argument the suggestion would make probably means that FDev won't touch it.

I grasped your meaning, thats why I replied that they could change blocking back to how it used to work, for Powerplay only. Being instanced with players youd rather not be in that moment, is a fundamental part of any Open-Only suggestion, and it was discussed back in may 2018 as I said.
Ive seen in the past how seemingly impenetrable forum edifices can collapse based on a single developer post.

Trends, slippery-slopes, these are all intuited & imaginary. Theres nothing to stop fdev doing one thing with one game feature and something else with another. It doesn't break immersion or eternal promises, its just ongoing development.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I came here looking for an open waterfront-only property. But while I'm here...

As regards the collusion vs. opposition issue, this was the root of why I suggested something recently which randomly paired/grouped CMDRs flying in the same mode for the same task.

This could be an oppositional or cooperative action. One strand of a PP redesign I had in mind was an espionage strand. This would have you getting a tip-off that a CMDR (who you may or may not be familiar with) was about to pick up an "intel data package" on a prescribed route which you could intercept and pull from them via scan/data scan/hack limpet (for varying degree of reward, penalty for destroying them). You'd then have to take this to your contact and they would be able to track you there and attack you or the contact, also for a reward.

The rewards for stealing data or successfully attacking the contact would be sufficently greater than the reward for just transporting the package, so as to encourage engagement as well as disincentivise abuse -- the player interaction offers much greater rewards than just using it to waste people's time. You could still do it in any mode but in solo it'd just be A to B data transport for lower reward (perhaps with NPC opposition). In PG you'd be unlikely to be paired with someone in the same PG, preventing collusion abuse.

I had other strands with similar constraints for diplomacy (inter-power co-op) and black ops (lawless PvP). Keep the current system as a "logistical" strand as is. The four strands in some combination offer up to four ways of earning merits for the same existing prep/expansion/fortification/undermining tasks.