Powerplay proposal: split tasks to suit each mode, elaborates on Sandros last ideas

[Rubbernuke]

Not really/at all; even in the best of cases as proposed, it would still be difficult or impossible to locate an undermining player, and harder still to kill them, as they'll be fully kitted out for combat. If even haulers can high wake away with ease, as is often claimed, then it should be functionally impossible to kill an undermining player.

The biggest impact wouldn't be on systems under attack, but on systems being fortified, as haulers are much easier prey than even PVE combat ships.

But either way, you're forcing players to pvp. Or, at least, trying to do so. In practice, nobody would ever engage in it, because they don't want to, and there are so many ways to avoid it.

If a fortifier can't be attacked by either a capable NPC or a player, then Powerplay can't really be termed 'meaningful' at all because strategic roles can't be stopped.

Being able to mess up a powers fortification makes for more strategic play, rather than having maths do it for you because there is much more to think about and overcome.

Sure they are. They're exactly equal. All the mechanics are completely alike.

And lets be honest, the difference having other players makes is virtually insignificant. You can go to 99.99999% of systems in the galaxy, and 99.9% of systems in the bubble, and face no hostile player interaction whatsoever.

But Powerplay, especially an Open based one in whole or part this would not be the case. The largest power has about 100 systems, with the smallest 30 odd- all have a capital, and explicit activity zones. That cuts down the 99.999% down considerably- add to that the potential for a smaller BGS footprint, uncapped UM and unified fort direction a lot of players will be tripping over each other.

 

[DemiserofD]

If a fortifier can't be attacked by either a capable NPC or a player, then Powerplay can't really be termed 'meaningful' at all because strategic roles can't be stopped.

Only under a criteria defined around pvp.

As I've said before, there's zero reason competition has any requirement for pvp, in order to qualify as meaningful. Take the latest CG, for example; absolutely no combative conflict, and yet it still fully qualified as a competition.

I do think pvp should have a role, but I think that role should be largely independent of other roles. If you enjoy pvp, you should pvp. If you enjoy hauling, you should haul. You shouldn't be forced to pvp as a hauler, any more than a pvper should feel forced to haul as a pvper.

If Powers were more combative, and as the suggestions imply, PP would become very dangerous- uncapped UM forcing people together, smaller PP BGS footprints etc and is why open and solo players are separated, so those who don't want to fight don't have to, but for the situations that make most sense for PvP to be meaningful, they are.

The trouble is that one side is still encouraged not to participate, and in fact is encouraged to avoid participation. You will never have a functional pvp system where one side has no reason to engage with the other.

Give pvp its own niche where players are encouraged to fight, and things might work. But you'll never have a functional system where one side's entire goal is to avoid contact entirely.

 

[DemiserofD]

Honestly, now that I think about it, why not just change merits to be more like rare Goods? You only get a single load at a time, and you need to take it and sell it somewhere else before you can buy more. That fixes the problem pretty much instantly, because the ships that are doing the hauling could still be fully optimized for combat, just with a single optional slot swapped out for a cargo rack. You would have to dramatically reduce the haulage totals, of course.

But at least then it would be fun for both sides, not just the side doing all the shooting. More like capture the flag.
Plus, it solves all those annoying problems with having to click buttons a hundred times in a row just to get a single load.

AND it actually makes piracy viable, because they would be small enough amounts of goods to be worth stealing. Honestly, why the heck haven't they done this already?

 

[Asharyn]

Not really/at all; even in the best of cases as proposed, it would still be difficult or impossible to locate an undermining player, and harder still to kill them, as they'll be fully kitted out for combat. If even haulers can high wake away with ease, as is often claimed, then it should be functionally impossible to kill an undermining player.

This doesn't make sense. Someone undermining a system is outfitted for combat, sure. But someone going to defend that system is also outfitted for combat. It's also not hard to find them. They have to go into supercruise if they're doing the navbeacon jump technique, then they can be interdicted, or they leave a wake.

But either way, you're forcing players to pvp. Or, at least, trying to do so. In practice, nobody would ever engage in it, because they don't want to, and there are so many ways to avoid it.

Powerplay is a PvP gamemode, people attacking your systems should be ready to engage someone trying to defend that system. It's only fair.
Your right that it's avoidable in so many ways. You can easily jump out and evade a player if they engage you. You don' thave to get blown up but you've stil defended the system. Or you can keep chasing them to ensure they don't come back.

There's a big dynamic here that powerplay was clearly designed to facilitate.

Sure they are. They're exactly equal. All the mechanics are completely alike.

And lets be honest, the difference having other players makes is virtually insignificant. You can go to 99.99999% of systems in the galaxy, and 99.9% of systems in the bubble, and face no hostile player interaction whatsoever.

No, they are not equal. A player in open is not equal to a player in solo doing powerplay, or BGS, or CGs. Because the player in open is playing with the other players in open. The player in solo is playing alone. That's not equal or even in any way. The player in solo expects to engage in galactic war but not encounter opposition. That's not even fair.

Sure, you can go to most places and not face opposition as it is. That's the problem. You should absolutely be able to see a sytem under attack (which you can) and then go defend it (which you can't). So why do you think you can even see if it's under attack if you can't defend it? It's a pointless readout right now because that underminer is in solo.

It seems you're willfully ignoreing the whole point. Powerplay is galactic war and polotics. That's not a solo game mode.

 

[Asharyn]

If you enjoy pvp, you should pvp. If you enjoy hauling, you should haul. You shouldn't be forced to pvp as a hauler, any more than a pvper should feel forced to haul as a pvper.

No one is trying to make it more dangerous to haul, or even make it harder to haul in solo. We just don't want people hauling powerplay things unopposed.

Honestly, now that I think about it, why not just change merits to be more like rare Goods? You only get a single load at a time, and you need to take it and sell it somewhere else before you can buy more. That fixes the problem pretty much instantly, because the ships that are doing the hauling could still be fully optimized for combat, just with a single optional slot swapped out for a cargo rack. You would have to dramatically reduce the haulage totals, of course.

You can already only haul one load at a time until you offload it and get another one...

 

[DemiserofD]

This doesn't make sense. Someone undermining a system is outfitted for combat, sure. But someone going to defend that system is also outfitted for combat. It's also not hard to find them. They have to go into supercruise if they're doing the navbeacon jump technique, then they can be interdicted, or they leave a wake.


Powerplay is a PvP gamemode, people attacking your systems should be ready to engage someone trying to defend that system. It's only fair.
Your right that it's avoidable in so many ways. You can easily jump out and evade a player if they engage you. You don' thave to get blown up but you've stil defended the system. Or you can keep chasing them to ensure they don't come back.

There's a big dynamic here that powerplay was clearly designed to facilitate.


No, they are not equal. A player in open is not equal to a player in solo doing powerplay, or BGS, or CGs. Because the player in open is playing with the other players in open. The player in solo is playing alone. That's not equal or even in any way. The player in solo expects to engage in galactic war but not encounter opposition. That's not even fair.

Sure, you can go to most places and not face opposition as it is. That's the problem. You should absolutely be able to see a sytem under attack (which you can) and then go defend it (which you can't). So why do you think you can even see if it's under attack if you can't defend it? It's a pointless readout right now because that underminer is in solo.

It seems you're willfully ignoreing the whole point. Powerplay is galactic war and polotics. That's not a solo game mode.

Who says powerplay is a PVP mode?

If anything, bgs is where you would most realistically expect to encounter direct player conflict; it has actual War zones.

The fundamental problem is this; every argument that could be made for power-play being open only could also equally apply to any other competitive aspect of the game. Bgs, Community goals, even trading, all of these things have impacts on players in every game mode, so you could make logically consistent arguments that they should only happen in open.

But the fact of the matter is, this game was designed to have multiple game modes all with equal influence on the universe as a whole. The fact you cannot directly kill another player is irrelevant, because there are other mechanics through which you can stop them; namely, fortification. You don't play in open because you want some sort of gameplay Advantage; go ahead and take a look at my signature. That is the reason why players play in open.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

But at least then it would be fun for both sides, not just the side doing all the shooting.

Just to point out that the assertion that asymmetric PvP (hunter-prey) is only fun for one side is specious. The victory conditions are entirely different to the perfectly symmetric Queensbury Rules PvP that so many seem to oddly assert as the only way PvP can be valid. Keeping 5 FDL/Mambas busy at an expansion the other week in my T9 and still delivering my cargo after our outnumbered overwatch cover finally caught up with them was plenty fun. Pretty sure they were more salty than I would have been had they caught me . Which at some point they will I guess. No biggie.

To me what's needed is a culture change, for people in certain powers to learn to accept that direct player opposition is okay, losing in a game is okay. Once they accept that, they open doors to more fun gameplay that simply can't be attained in closed modes. How you achieve that is another matter - carrots? Sticks? Complete feature redesign? Outreach?! Maybe the answer isn't simple but rules, rewards, mechanical design and culture generally work well when they walk in step.

 

[DemiserofD]

Just to point out that the assertion that asymmetric PvP (hunter-prey) is only fun for one side is specious. The victory conditions are entirely different to the perfectly symmetric Queensbury Rules PvP that so many seem to oddly assert as the only way PvP can be valid. Keeping 5 FDL/Mambas busy at an expansion the other week in my T9 and still delivering my cargo after our outnumbered overwatch cover finally caught up with them was plenty fun. Pretty sure they were more salty than I would have been had they caught me . Which at some point they will I guess. No biggie.

While it's true that some games have executed this concept in an enjoyable way, this isn't one of them. Generally speaking the 'prey' in games like that is given some major advantages, such that their chance of escape is essentially even, even against multiple players at the same time. Furthermore, escape typically means they win.

Elite, by contrast, typically pits wings of fully-optimized combat ships against defenseless haulers. And if they do manage to escape, it's typically to another system, not to their destination. Even the win condition is essentially just a different type of loss. The trouble is, in Elite, it kinda needs to be that way, because most hauling happens with no opposition at all, meaning opposed hauling needs to disproportionately favor the offensive players. But that just ends up driving players even further away from pvp engagement and essentially killing it entirely.

This is part of why I really like the idea of dramatically reducing the raw amount of merits that can be hauled per trip. If they capped out at, say, 50, then the haulers could still be very nearly fully optimized for combat, dramatically expanding their options. Even better if, rather than outright killing, piracy were required to undermine. Then both sides would need to make relatively even sacrifices to carry out their respective tasks.

To me what's needed is a culture change, for people in certain powers to learn to accept that direct player opposition is okay, losing in a game is okay.

The trouble is, this isn't a matter of 'culture'. Some players simply don't enjoy getting blown up. This is akin to saying that 'there needs to be a culture change and people need to learn that eating black licorice is okay, bad tasting things are okay'.

The pragmatic fact is, some people just don't enjoy that activity, and never will. Removing red licorice won't make them switch to black licorice, it will make them stop eating licorice entirely.

 

[Asharyn]

The fundamental problem is this; every argument that could be made for power-play being open only could also equally apply to any other competitive aspect of the game. Bgs, Community goals, even trading, all of these things have impacts on players in every game mode, so you could make logically consistent arguments that they should only happen in open.

Yes, I agree. BGS and the advarsarial CGs should be in open. I don't see why you think trading should be in open. But we're talking about powerplay here because it's a PvP game mode.

I say it's a PvP game mode because it literally has us pick sides and fight against eachother for it. That's the definition of PvP. Ship on ship combat is not the only version of PvP. But the threat of ship on ship combat is required for powerplay to work correctly.

It's soo soo damn simple it's amazing to me that some people don't see it. If you can attack someones system, they should be able to attack you while you're there.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

While it's true that some games have executed this concept in an enjoyable way, this isn't one of them. Generally speaking the 'prey' in games like that is given some major advantages, such that their chance of escape is essentially even, even against multiple players at the same time. Furthermore, escape typically means they win.

It's not a given that a caught hauler is dead (I escaped two low space encounters same week in the same T9). Experience and ship/loadout are things to work toward to improve that equation - I'm not sure I want a cutter to seal the deal in my favour, I worry that too much certainty might evaporate the fun. Progression like this is a valuable thing for a game to offer. Also it's a team effort so my vulnerability is not only my problem, but signals a failure of those on guard/success of those attacking against those guards.

Elite, by contrast, typically pits wings of fully-optimized combat ships against defenseless haulers. And if they do manage to escape, it's typically to another system, not to their destination. Even the win condition is essentially just a different type of loss.

This is kind of what I mean, a psychological adjustment - realise that losing sometimes is part of the game and actually a prerequisite for winning to be fun. I see PP as a team game, so my personal outcome is not "the outcome".

haulers could still be very nearly fully optimized for combat, dramatically expanding their options.

I think this is the Queensbury syndrome I'm talking about. You want to win on your own maybe?

Even better if, rather than outright killing, piracy were required to undermine. Then both sides would need to make relatively even sacrifices to carry out their respective tasks.

I think interesting things could be done in an overhaul - espionage ops where open attack loses merits, and data theft is what's needed, diplomacy ops where (shock!) opposing PPers need to co-op to defend diplomats against NPCs. But there should be a place for emergent, organic PvP in the mix, otherwise you lose a lot of the current and potential base.

The trouble is, this isn't a matter of 'culture'. Some players simply don't enjoy getting blown up. This is akin to saying that 'there needs to be a culture change and people need to learn that eating black licorice is okay, bad tasting things are okay'.

The pragmatic fact is, some people just don't enjoy that activity, and never will. Removing red licorice won't make them switch to black licorice, it will make them stop eating licorice entirely.

It sounds as though you need a contextually sensible risk-free way to participate for those players. I.e. something not front-line, or something pleasant and chill that isn't Powerplay. Otherwise their participation in the shooting war that Powerplay currently is (participate in or destroy logistical supply) makes no sense - they are in-game pacifists, by your description, or want some fantasy fiction of invulnerability while engaging in slaughter. In a "grown-up" competitive team-game feature, that seems out of place.

At the same time, I'm not just talking about those players. I'm talking as much about people who are happy to be blown up in one context but a "win at all costs" mentality short-circuits that for them in Powerplay, or at least they too easily give up and switch modes to the detriment of the feature's attractiveness to players looking for something they can't get elsewhere (boring hauling in solo). That some organised power groups are open-only and random newcomers accept that when they arrive indicates that it's a cultural thing. Actually no-one enjoys being blown up, but strangely, without knowing that it can happen we wouldn't have much of a combat game in whatever mode.

 

[DemiserofD]

Yes, I agree. BGS and the advarsarial CGs should be in open. I don't see why you think trading should be in open. But we're talking about powerplay here because it's a PvP game mode.

I say it's a PvP game mode because it literally has us pick sides and fight against eachother for it. That's the definition of PvP. Ship on ship combat is not the only version of PvP. But the threat of ship on ship combat is required for powerplay to work correctly.

It's soo soo damn simple it's amazing to me that some people don't see it. If you can attack someones system, they should be able to attack you while you're there.

And you don't pick a side for BGS? Heck, you do so far more! You can actively take missions from one faction specifically targeting another!

Functionally speaking, powerplay is probably one of the least pvp-based modes in the game. BGS has dedicated wars where killing enemy players moves the progress bar. Trade has commodities you can pirate, or you can at least keep demand up so you can use it yourself.

Powerplay has no such direct options, and in fact the vast majority of actual progress is done best by avoiding player contact entirely. Powerplay is, in its current state, the least 'pvp' of pretty much any activity in the game.

 

[DemiserofD]

actually a prerequisite for winning to be fun.

Says who? I don't think the many powerplayers hauling in solo would do so if it weren't an enjoyable activity. That's a very broad statement to make based only on your personal experience.

You want to win on your own maybe?

Don't you? After all, you're talking about one side having defenders and haulers, while the other side functionally just has defenders.

If both sides were equal, and one side needed to haul, while the other side needed to pirate, and both needed to be defended by the dedicated combat players, then that might qualify as fair. But it's silly to look down on someone just because they want a fair gameplay experience. And in fact, creating an unfair gameplay experience is a great way to end up with nobody to play against.

But there should be a place for emergent, organic PvP in the mix, otherwise you lose a lot of the current and potential base.

Why? There's not really any of that now. Almost the entirety of current 'organic' pvp is consensual and artificially sustained purely by the playerbase, so I really don't see how anything could change it.

In a "grown-up" competitive team-game feature, that seems out of place.

It's foolish to be so derisive of players who simply have different preferred playstyles from you. Heck, in reality, the 'shoot-em-up' style of games is generally seen as much more childish, while older, more mature players tend towards a more thoughtful and strategic style of gameplay.

The fact is this; everyone has their own desired style of play, and for many players that does not include direct pvp interaction. In fact, I'd wager that the vast majority feels that way, because only a small percentage of the playerbase can be among the best at pvp, and the current system heavily biases towards the top 5% of players.

But to claim that the system can only work when pvp is the central lynchpin is complete nonsense. Competition can be done in many ways, and actively killing the other player is just one of them.

At the same time, I'm not just talking about those players. I'm talking as much about people who are happy to be blown up in one context but a "win at all costs" mentality short-circuits that for them in Powerplay, or at least they too easily give up and switch modes to the detriment of the feature's attractiveness to players looking for something they can't get elsewhere (boring hauling in solo). That some organised power groups are open-only and random newcomers accept that when they arrive indicates that it's a cultural thing. Actually no-one enjoys being blown up, but strangely, without knowing that it can happen we wouldn't have much of a combat game in whatever mode.

This, at least, I can somewhat agree with. And I think the fundamental problem here is that, once again, there's no reason for players to participate on the losing side of any pvp engagement.

As I've tried to say many times, any system that wants broad-spectrum participation from more than just the top 5% of players needs to create an environment where those less-skilled players can participate without actively feeling harmful to both themselves and their own side.

On the personal level, it's exactly like other games like Age of Empires or Overwatch; if you find yourself matched up against another player who is dramatically more skilled than you, the entire game feels pointless and not worth doing, because you never had a chance of success from the start. This is why games have such a huge problem of players quitting immediately if, to use Overwatch as an example, you lose the first point to their first push. And that's in a game that does a very good job of ensuring players go up against relatively even opponents!

Elite does none of that, so a player can feel like they're constantly being effortlessly murdered by someone who may as well be infinitely better at the game than them. At that point, there's no point in participating, because you're not gaining anything, you're not learning anything, you're just dying repeatedly for the enemy team's enjoyment.

And the fact there's a team level beyond that only serves to make it even worse; not only are you losing, you're also helping your team lose.

At that point there's absolutely zero reason to continue to participate.

That is why I think any sort of move towards open-only would be doomed to inevitable failure. In a game with absolutely no ELO or skill-based matchmaking, the natural result of unrestricted pvp on a massive scale is that only the most skilled and dedicated players will keep playing, and powerplay stays dead.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's soo soo damn simple it's amazing to me that some people don't see it. If you can attack someones system, they should be able to attack you while you're there.

While it may seem that way to some, the Devs don't require any player to play among other players when participating in game features (except CQC). All players enjoy the privilege to affect the game and playing among other players is an optional extra, meaning that itsi-PvP is entirely optional.

Regarding Factions, while players may become attached to them they don't own them and Factions inserted into the game at the request of a player group are treated just like NPC factions, i.e. players are not in control of them. Squadrons don't control Factions either. Simply put, players / Squadrons don't own systems - even if they are allied / affiliated with the controlling Faction.

Specifically regarding players in Solo and Private Groups affecting factions through the BGS, Michael Brookes had this to say, around the time that the ability for players to request addition of a Faction was introduced:

Is there planned to be any defense against the possibility that player created minor factions could be destroyed with no possible recourse through Private Groups or Solo play?

From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.

Michael

Much later, some time after Sandro's Powerplay Flash Topics, what the BGS is and who it is for was reiterated in a stream:

Source: https://youtu.be/VCy1ZYjLvdQ?t=858

BGS (Background Simulation) Changes

The Background Simulation (BGS) is a representation of how the actions of all players, no matter on which platform or mode, impact the galaxy. The factions that inhabit these system battle for influence over the population and control of the starports, installations and outposts. Player actions can push these factions into various states; such as economy, security, health and influence. With concerted effort players can help grow a faction's economy, destroy its security status, or help win a war.

 

[Bashy81]

And yet, when it comes to Powerplay, the topic of this thread, the devs had this to say..

Powerplay is fundamentally about consensual player versus player conflict. We think that pretty much all of the systems and rules would benefit from being played out in Open only, as it would dramatically increase the chance of meeting other pledged players and being able to directly affect the outcomes of power struggles.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal.426940/

The obstacles to Open-Only Powerplay are primarily waiting for time to be prioritised in the dev cycle. There are some loud objectors on this forum, full of elaborately constructed objections. They create the impression of a wall of impossible obstacles, but they dont stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

There is no legal or marketing justification for Powerplay to be locked into the current modes structure. It stands apart from the BGS, as an opt-in feature. Besides any of that, games under ongoing development can shift these goalposts as they see fit, its part of what we signed up to with our purchase.

None of the mechanics, either ingame now or as proposed in the OP are an obstacle either.

Whilst they are not part of the target audience for the feature, theorycrafting from a non-Powerplaying Solo-mode perspective is as valuable an insight as any other in pre-release, but Powerplay has been around for years & actual experience of it makes a mockery of these arguments.

They are ignorant of how teamwork & playergoups operate, & ignorant of how conflicts already play out in PP. (in those times when most of the contributors dont abuse modes.) You can tackle some technical arguments, but you cant meaningfully explain the experience to anyone who hasnt been there. Its like trying to explain the benefits of gaming to people who think games are for kiddies. They have to try to get into it for themselves to really know.

However, all of that is relating to posts & opinions that belong in another thread.

The OP's proposal in this thread finds a way for people to participate in a vital way & earn merits without being in Open. It does this without undercutting the benefits of Powerplay being played out in Open. It provides a best-of-both-worlds solution that deserves more than a Hotel Californire Best Hits compliation of responses.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And yet, when it comes to Powerplay, the topic of this thread, the devs had this to say..

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal.426940/

Sandro did indeed say that - as well as the fact that it was an investigation and not a fait-accompli. As it stands, Powerplay is a feature that offers consensual PvP - it does not, however, force any player who pledges to engage in PvP to participate in the feature.

Previously Zac said this:

According to some members of the community, Solo players should have a limited or no effect on Powerplay - or, alternatively, playing in Open should offer Powerplay bonuses. Is this something you are considering?

No. For us Solo, Groups and Open are all valid and equal ways to play the game.

The obstacles to Open-Only Powerplay are primarily waiting for time to be prioritised in the dev cycle.

Time may not be the only obstacle, from Frontier's perspective, in the way of removing base-game content from players who bought it as part of their purchase.

There are some loud objectors on this forum, full of elaborately constructed objections. They create the impression of a wall of impossible obstacles, but they dont stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

There are some vocal proponents of Open only on this forum, which might seem a bit odd given that the only game feature where players are not optional is CQC.

Whilst they are not part of the target audience for the feature, theorycrafting from a non-Powerplaying Solo-mode perspective is as valuable an insight as any other in pre-release, but Powerplay has been around for years & actual experience of it makes a mockery of these arguments.

Citation required, as the feature was consciously implemented in all three game modes and DBOBE commented on players in Solo affecting Powerplay in an AMA around the time of its release.

They are ignorant of how teamwork & playergoups operate, & ignorant of how conflicts already play out in PP. (in those times when most of the contributors dont abuse modes.) You can tackle some technical arguments, but you cant meaningfully explain the experience to anyone who hasnt been there. Its like trying to explain the benefits of gaming to people who think games are for kiddies. They have to try to get into it for themselves to really know.

Playing in a PvP-enabled game mode is an optional extra that no player needs to partake of when engaging in game features in this game. How players who prefer PvP, or the possibility of PvP, choose to engage in game features is up to them - they are not in a position to dictate to others how to play the game, nor have chunks of it retrospectively PvP-gated to suit their preference.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Only under a criteria defined around pvp.

No, at all. If fortification is inevitable and just a matter of time, then what is the point? Its not strategic, its just a minor grind each week that powers shrug off as routine.

Someone or an NPC have to be able to mess with it, otherwise it requires no strategy to deal with. For example in this suggestion I made:

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

the end point drop is changed to a destructible ship, and rival NPCs could indeed destroy your drop (meaning you have to scan for a new one). With engineered NPCs chasing this would become much more of a game with much more to think about.

As I've said before, there's zero reason competition has any requirement for pvp, in order to qualify as meaningful. Take the latest CG, for example; absolutely no combative conflict, and yet it still fully qualified as a competition.

I do think pvp should have a role, but I think that role should be largely independent of other roles. If you enjoy pvp, you should pvp. If you enjoy hauling, you should haul. You shouldn't be forced to pvp as a hauler, any more than a pvper should feel forced to haul as a pvper.

And just look at the quality of CGs- the 8 bellleon dolla one was just a relog fest, and CGs went through a period where they were overused to the point people stopped doing them. Now, Powerplay takes that drab period and asks you to do it every week up to a hundred times. Couple that with very little being able to harm you its just one dimensional trucking.

I'm just as happy if NPCs actually become threats, but something has to be able to wreck runs for Powerplay otherwise the premise can't be fully realised. Wars are fought over supply lines, why should Powerplay be different? Why deny that real time (as well as cycle long) dimension? Splitting modes would not force people to PvP, since solo Powerplay has hauling as you describe that is equally important but separate.

The trouble is that one side is still encouraged not to participate, and in fact is encouraged to avoid participation. You will never have a functional pvp system where one side has no reason to engage with the other.

Give pvp its own niche where players are encouraged to fight, and things might work. But you'll never have a functional system where one side's entire goal is to avoid contact entirely.

Having such a setup would not be wall to wall fighting mind. Not every week will be a bloodbath either. Some weeks will be quiet, some powers will try to get around others- it will be far from forced, and even then you still have the solo Powerplay option to help.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Says who? I don't think the many powerplayers hauling in solo would do so if it weren't an enjoyable activity. That's a very broad statement to make based only on your personal experience.




Don't you? After all, you're talking about one side having defenders and haulers, while the other side functionally just has defenders.

If both sides were equal, and one side needed to haul, while the other side needed to pirate, and both needed to be defended by the dedicated combat players, then that might qualify as fair. But it's silly to look down on someone just because they want a fair gameplay experience. And in fact, creating an unfair gameplay experience is a great way to end up with nobody to play against.




Why? There's not really any of that now. Almost the entirety of current 'organic' pvp is consensual and artificially sustained purely by the playerbase, so I really don't see how anything could change it.




It's foolish to be so derisive of players who simply have different preferred playstyles from you. Heck, in reality, the 'shoot-em-up' style of games is generally seen as much more childish, while older, more mature players tend towards a more thoughtful and strategic style of gameplay.

The fact is this; everyone has their own desired style of play, and for many players that does not include direct pvp interaction. In fact, I'd wager that the vast majority feels that way, because only a small percentage of the playerbase can be among the best at pvp, and the current system heavily biases towards the top 5% of players.

But to claim that the system can only work when pvp is the central lynchpin is complete nonsense. Competition can be done in many ways, and actively killing the other player is just one of them.



This, at least, I can somewhat agree with. And I think the fundamental problem here is that, once again, there's no reason for players to participate on the losing side of any pvp engagement.

As I've tried to say many times, any system that wants broad-spectrum participation from more than just the top 5% of players needs to create an environment where those less-skilled players can participate without actively feeling harmful to both themselves and their own side.

On the personal level, it's exactly like other games like Age of Empires or Overwatch; if you find yourself matched up against another player who is dramatically more skilled than you, the entire game feels pointless and not worth doing, because you never had a chance of success from the start. This is why games have such a huge problem of players quitting immediately if, to use Overwatch as an example, you lose the first point to their first push. And that's in a game that does a very good job of ensuring players go up against relatively even opponents!

Elite does none of that, so a player can feel like they're constantly being effortlessly murdered by someone who may as well be infinitely better at the game than them. At that point, there's no point in participating, because you're not gaining anything, you're not learning anything, you're just dying repeatedly for the enemy team's enjoyment.

And the fact there's a team level beyond that only serves to make it even worse; not only are you losing, you're also helping your team lose.

At that point there's absolutely zero reason to continue to participate.

That is why I think any sort of move towards open-only would be doomed to inevitable failure. In a game with absolutely no ELO or skill-based matchmaking, the natural result of unrestricted pvp on a massive scale is that only the most skilled and dedicated players will keep playing, and powerplay stays dead.

Interesting opinions . The one about winning and losing not being sides of the same coin is my fave, but anyway.

Winning on my own? Personal successes are great but team play is defined by team success. Anyway that seems one thing dividing us.

Both sides are equal because both sides need to do the same activities more or less, with the same exposure - it's fair (sorry if again that's my team-centric bias coming into play). Asymmetry (at a given time) may the word you're really looking for.

Organic PvP-wise the main obstacle is instancing, that can create some artificiality (friends-listing, winging with opponents), but I'm consistently impressed by how effectively PP can turn high tier PvPers from dangerous lurkers into focused team players - the draw is the organic PvP centred on larger shared objectives, of a kind they cannot get anywhere else in the game, perhaps in any game currently.

Re: tolerance of different playstyles, I have no issue there. I just think it's nonsensical for people with no interest in conflict to enlist in a conflict, and object to it being a conflict. I don't get where that misunderstanding comes from - pledge-gated modules? Would the same people go Thargoid hunting and be shocked when the Thargoids fight back?

PvP isn't necessarily the lynchpin but it is a prerequisite (opinion) for the feature to have lasting appeal. I won't sell it to you clearly, but you represent only a subset of pilots that, to me, the feature is not primarily aimed at. Regardless, organic PvP combat should have a place - it does currently with the players who are disproportionately responsible for keeping the feature alive. Currently it has a place in some expansions and UMing ops, and capitals. Preps and BGS not so much. PP is "dying" (stagnant engagement levels is a better description) more because people switch out of open thanks to oversensitivity to risk than anything else - add risk free but fun activities equitably and preserve the risky ones as risky and essential and maybe you can please everybody.

A new PvP component added to PP which had a low entry bar isn't objectionable in principle, but I see cheeky alt account exploits everywhere in that approach if not designed with the big-brain switched on. Good luck and more power to FDev if they try to tackle it seriously. My idea there would be around alternative PvP which focused on non-destructive encounters (your piracy idea is also along those lines). But make it interesting and meaningful in-universe, not some CQC-style "play your silly playstyle in your silly corner" or "friendly, safe competition" nonsense.

The personal/team loss dismay factor you mention when overpowered is nigh completely negated by joining a team - for all that's wrong with some of them, I don't think that any power's main team would be unsupportive over any failure that wasn't repeated wilful self-sabotage, and teamwork, team support and shared knowledge overcome those setbacks. But your ideas around ELO are at least interesting (to me), if you can get past my fears of losing the asymmetric and organic play that I and so many others like.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Putting any part of the suggestion into open only is always going to be a sticking point, but I think quite a lot of the rest of the suggestions obviate the need for that anyway.

Like if the powerplay delivery endpoints were sizable realspace locations that could spawn capable NPCs, that would immediately make them hazardous to a fat, slow, cargo maxed delivery truck.

Even if the drop point couldn't be destroyed, if you drop out 30-50km from eg. a Megaship and have to sneak, run, or bully your way in through durability or armament past a blockade it would be inherently a very different process. It would also, now we're a few weeks from Odyssey, allow for a more coherent experience between ground and space if ground based powerplay activities come to pass.

Powerplay, like every other feature of Elite, needs to work asynchronously. Everything needs to be able to happen even if no two players ever meet each other. And whilst that is true there's no actual argument other than feelings for restricting any part of it to Open.


That said, the design can still be changed in ways which promote synchronous player interaction for those that do want them. Concentrating the playerbase is, I think, one of the most significant steps to be taken.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Putting any part of the suggestion into open only is always going to be a sticking point, but I think quite a lot of the rest of the suggestions obviate the need for that anyway.

Like if the powerplay delivery endpoints were sizable realspace locations that could spawn capable NPCs, that would immediately make them hazardous to a fat, slow, cargo maxed delivery truck.

Even if the drop point couldn't be destroyed, if you drop out 30-50km from eg. a Megaship and have to sneak, run, or bully your way in through durability or armament past a blockade it would be inherently a very different process. It would also, now we're a few weeks from Odyssey, allow for a more coherent experience between ground and space if ground based powerplay activities come to pass.

Powerplay, like every other feature of Elite, needs to work asynchronously. Everything needs to be able to happen even if no two players ever meet each other. And whilst that is true there's no actual argument other than feelings for restricting any part of it to Open.


That said, the design can still be changed in ways which promote synchronous player interaction for those that do want them. Concentrating the playerbase is, I think, one of the most significant steps to be taken.

I basically agree with all this, except for the dependence of open only suggestions on synchronicity. There is always enough synchronicity to make mode matter in the most important expansions and cycles. You could try to pinpoint those and make them alone open-only, perhaps only between 6pm and 6am UTC, but why would you do that when it'd be harder technically? You need to have activities (such as the current ones) that don't require other players to be there in order to function, sure, but one doesn't imply the other. Doing something in open doesn't require other players to be there. It just means that if they were, you might instance together.

 

[DemiserofD]

No, at all. If fortification is inevitable and just a matter of time, then what is the point? Its not strategic, its just a minor grind each week that powers shrug off as routine.

I'm just as happy if NPCs actually become threats, but something has to be able to wreck runs for Powerplay otherwise the premise can't be fully realised.

Again, you're fixating on pvp as a solution. I'm not saying the current implementation is flawless, or even good, but there's a great example in the current game of a way competition takes place with no pvp at all:

BGS.

If two factions are fighting with one another for top spot, players can endlessly engage with one another in a completely fair competitive arena for weeks on end, with meaningful results for victory/loss, all without ever needing to see the enemy player at all. Indeed, some forms of conflict(election) actively prohibit combative interaction.

If this works flawlessly with BGS, then why does it suddenly become mandatory for players to be inhibited in powerplay?