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

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Anyway, the split universe following today's Odyssey bombshell seems to offer the perfect opportunity to test open-only (in the Horizons half). Even if only for a month before retirement of the old code base, it could be very useful and revealing, and potentially silence these discussions (which alone might be worth it).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Anyway, the split universe following today's Odyssey bombshell seems to offer the perfect opportunity to test open-only (in the Horizons half). Even if only for a month before retirement of the old code base, it could be very useful and revealing, and potentially silence these discussions (which alone might be worth it).

While Odyssey players won't instance with Horizons (or base game) players until the console launch, we will, from what I have read, all continue to affect the same galaxy state regardless of which one we play.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Yeah, any shared state stuff will be the same. Position of fleet carriers, BGS states, power states, etc. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to merge them later, which they're doing when Odyssey releases on consoles.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I wasn't disputing any of that - the point is that it's a way of confining a test to a short and well defined period, and only a part (but enough to make differences measurable) of the PC player base. If people don't want to take part, they are free not to in various ways (including buying Odyssey and doing powerplay in whatever mode there). The code won't have to be changed back at the end of the test since the old code base will be retired. You'll say the test is futile I suppose, but if it is so ineffectual and requires very little dev time to implement then there's no harm in doing it. It'd be a test of engagement if nothing else.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Frontier already know which players engage in Powerplay in Open - they doesn't seem to be a compelling need to test that.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Frontier already know which players engage in Powerplay in Open - they doesn't seem to be a compelling need to test that.

They don't know how many would engage in a system where people on all sides staying in open is more likely though. A spike in Odyssey sales among active PPers between the announcement and the start of the test would indicate a strong feeling against OOPP, statistics around people logging into Odyssey or Horizons to perform PP, in addition to the overall change in engagement, would be informative too. It becomes a proxy poll of how people want PP to function with modes, without the biases that are supposed to apply to the polls already discussed. Actual polls getting people's opinion on the feature through the course of the test could supplement the information gathered too.

And as I say, experimenting with a legacy code base is low cost, low risk, and everyone knows it's temporary.

 

[Robert Maynard]

They don't know how many would engage in a system where people on all sides staying in open is more likely though.

True.

A spike in Odyssey sales among active PPers between the announcement and the start of the test would indicate a strong feeling against OOPP, statistics around people logging into Odyssey or Horizons to perform PP, in addition to the overall change in engagement, would be informative too.

Which presumes that the game would discern between Powerplay actions performed in the base game, Horizons and Odyssey and also presumes that buying the DLC is in any way related to which version the player would choose to play in after purchase.

It becomes a proxy poll of how people want PP to function with modes, without the biases that are supposed to apply to the polls already discussed. Actual polls getting people's opinion on the feature through the course of the test could supplement the information gathered too.

Which sounds like some expect Frontier to put up the future access to an existing pan-modal game feature as a reward for what would in effect be a CG. PvP gating content, effectively removing it from other players permanently even though it formed part of the game they bought (i.e. those who don't enjoy PvP and / or cannot play in the multi-player modes), would be an odd reward for a CG.

 

[Asharyn]

.... and presumably the Open Powerplay would not affect the Solo / Private Group Powerplay which raises the question: which Powerplay would be canon? I expect that those in Open would want their one to be canon whereas those in Solo and Private Groups would want there one to be canon....

While one may wish not to engage in PvP when engaging in Powerplay, a requirement to play in Open to affect the feature would mean that one would be playing among those in Open who may engage the player in PvP - that requirement constitutes a PvP-gate (or whatever other term might be given to being forced to play among other players to affect a game feature).

What is being said is easily understood - some players want to take a game feature shared by all players in all game modes and restrict it to Open only, or, as a fall-back position, penalise those who engage in the feature in Solo and Private Groups by significantly reducing their effect on the feature.

Simply put, I don't support any proposals that would reduce or remove the effects of players in modes other than Open on existing pan-modal game features.

Haulers don't need to haul powerplay merits. But if they do, it's already a PvP activity because they're against all the other powers. The ability to go into solo to do it just defeats the purpose of having powerplay at all. Even if someone hauls in open and another player comes to fight them because of it, they don't have to engage. But to do something that you have to declare enemies and sides and not expect opposition is dumb. You choose to play powerplay, you choose a side, then you expect not to be engaged by the opposing side.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Haulers don't need to haul powerplay merits. But if they do, it's already a PvP activity because they're against all the other powers.

If it is considered to be PvP then, at best, it's asynchronous indirect PvP as there's no requirement to play among other players to do so.

The ability to go into solo to do it just defeats the purpose of having powerplay at all.

Maybe for those who expect there to be a PvP dominated feature in a game sold to all with no requirement to play among other players, much less engage in itsi-PvP (apart from CQC, of course).

Even if someone hauls in open and another player comes to fight them because of it, they don't have to engage. But to do something that you have to declare enemies and sides and not expect opposition is dumb. You choose to play powerplay, you choose a side, then you expect not to be engaged by the opposing side.

The pan-modal implementation of Powerplay means that any direct player opposition is optional - which means that those seeking to engage all opponents can't force them to play in Open.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Which presumes that the game would discern between Powerplay actions performed in the base game, Horizons and Odyssey

I expect this would be easy to tag in the Horizons code if it isn't already, or could be put together from logged data.

and also presumes that buying the DLC is in any way related to which version the player would choose to play in after purchase.

I did say "indicate", not categorically prove. These are examples, part of a body of evidence. But comparing statistics for the choices made by powerplayers compared to the player base as a whole would seem likely to make this particular indicator more meaningful.

Which sounds like some expect Frontier to put up the future access to an existing pan-modal game feature as a reward for what would in effect be a CG. PvP gating content, effectively removing it from other players permanently even though it formed part of the game they bought (i.e. those who don't enjoy PvP and / or cannot play in the multi-player modes), would be an odd reward for a CG.

CG?? It sounds as though you expect a massive groundswell of support for powerplay in open by players not previously interested, not merely by voting with a single click, but actually engaging in prolonged activity in a game feature which is widely considered to be pointless and boring.

Which would make one wonder why you argue against it so much (surely not a pedantic adherence to something Frontier said once long ago, but which already doesn't apply to CQC, regardless of the good of the game and its players, or some slippery slope fallacy about BGS being next - we all know it isn't).

 

[Robert Maynard]

I expect this would be easy to tag in the Horizons code if it isn't already, or could be put together from logged data.

Expectations of "easy" code changes often underestimate the difficulty. Whose logs, given that player journals could be falsified?

I did say "indicate", not categorically prove. These are examples, part of a body of evidence. But comparing statistics for the choices made by powerplayers compared to the player base as a whole would seem likely to make this particular indicator more meaningful.

Gathering evidence to what end?

CG?? It sounds as though you expect a massive groundswell of support for powerplay in open by players not previously interested, not merely by voting with a single click, but actually engaging in prolonged activity in a game feature which is widely considered to be pointless and boring.

Given that in the Powerplay Flash Topic thread it was clear that some expected the BGS to be next, regardless of what Sandro said to the contrary, I expect that some would participate in any Powerplay trial in the hope that a win for Open would encourage Frontier do go further than just Powerplay. It is not inconceivable that some would participate in the hope that they would "put one over" against those who they seem to consider should not share the privilege to affect game features just because they play in Solo and Private Groups. It'd only be a month, after all....

Which would make one wonder why you argue against it so much (surely not a pedantic adherence to something Frontier said once long ago, but which already doesn't apply to CQC, regardless of the good of the game and its players, or some slippery slope fallacy about BGS being next - we all know it isn't).

Frontier have reiterated their stance on the shared galaxy several times over the years so not "once long ago". CQC is an out-of-game feature which doesn't directly affect the main game and has next to no consequence for "death", sold for a year as a stand alone game after being added to the game in 1.4 - it has been described in a stream by DBOBE as a "straight PvP" feature in contrast to his statement that he doesn't see ED as a PvP game, when agreeing with a chat participant that the game wasn't sold as a PvP game.

When "the good of the game and its players" is mentioned the next question is "which players?" - those who bought the game for what it is or those who bought it for what it's not and expect it to be changed to suit them?

The slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy if it doesn't happen - after it happens it's too late. While some claim that it could not happen, that doesn't seem to stop those seeking it from doing so.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Expectations of "easy" code changes often underestimate the difficulty. Whose logs, given that player journals could be falsified?

I'm no expert on FDev code and logs, but you are right about simple code changes - except that the overhead of making changes to a retiring code base would be I'd guess, less onerous.

Gathering evidence to what end?

To understand the motivations of people using the feature, given FDev jave said they do intend to give attention to PP following the Odyssey drive.

Given that in the Powerplay Flash Topic thread it was clear that some expected the BGS to be next, regardless of what Sandro said to the contrary, I expect that some would participate in any Powerplay trial in the hope that a win for Open would encourage Frontier do go further than just Powerplay. It is not inconceivable that some would participate in the hope that they would "put one over" against those who they seem to consider should not share the privilege to affect game features just because they play in Solo and Private Groups. It'd only be a month, after all....

I don't see people as being so cynical en masse - they'd be fools anyway, although I'm sure some would. There was an accompanying tracker issue alongside the amusing one on solo powerplay quoted earlier in this thread, duplicating it for BGS. Votes rose much slower and less far for that one, and I expect the effect you mention would be even weaker given that BGS isn't even a part of the experiment. FDev could also explicitly state that "the slope has no slip" - BGS will remain untouched. In any case I think you're reaching.

Frontier have reiterated their stance on the shared galaxy several times over the years so not "once long ago". CQC is an out-of-game feature which doesn't directly affect the main game and has next to no consequence for "death".

When "the good of the game and its players" is mentioned the next question is "which players?" - those who bought the game for what it is or those who bought it for what it's not and expect it to be changed to suit them?

I think most bought the game with the expectation (commonplace nowadays for multiplayer games) that it would evolve.

The slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy if it doesn't happen - after it happens it's too late. While some claim that it could not happen, that doesn't seem to stop those seeking it from doing so.

The statistics speak for themselves, open-only BGS support is vanishingly small compared to OOPP (e.g. show me the two threads per week here on the matter - there are hardly any, and they always read "PP and BGS"; PP is the common theme, BGS secondary). Given far larger numbers participate in BGS manipulation than PP, the relative numbers are even more vanishing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm no expert on FDev code and logs, but you are right about simple code changes - except that the overhead of making changes to a retiring code base would be I'd guess, less onerous.

Possibly.

To understand the motivations of people using the feature, given FDev jave said they do intend to give attention to PP following the Odyssey drive.

They have indeed - previously Will indicated that some of the proposals in the Flash Topic were being considered for implementation.

I don't see people as being so cynical en masse - they'd be fools anyway, although I'm sure some would. There was an accompanying tracker issue alongside the amusing one on solo powerplay quoted earlier in this thread, duplicating it for BGS. Votes rose much slower and less far for that one, and I expect the effect you mention would be even weaker given that BGS isn't even a part of the experiment.

I''m rarely surprised at the lengths that some will go to get what they want. I expect that the link to the BGS issue wasn't shared as widely among particular parts of the community as the Powerplay one seems to have been.

FDev could also explicitly state that "the slope has no slip" - BGS will remain untouched.

In those words? I'd appreciate a link.

I think most bought the game with the expectation (commonplace nowadays for multiplayer games) that it would evolve.

Indeed - however, having sold the game to all players with no requirement to engage in PvP to affect any main game feature, I would expect that some changes are likely than others.

The statistics speak for themselves, open-only BGS support is vanishingly small compared to OOPP (e.g. show me the two threads per week here on the matter - there are hardly any, and they always read "PP and BGS"; PP is the common theme, BGS secondary). Given far larger numbers participate in BGS manipulation than PP, the relative numbers are even more vanishing.

Not always "PP and BGS", no. The "BGS should be Open only" posts and threads tend to come from players who are frustrated that they can't attack their Faction's opponents directly - and those threads rarely mention Powerplay.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

In those words? I'd appreciate a link.

I said "could" - do you suspect FDev would consider it? I don't. Although, not unlike Star Citizen, I'm beginning to think FDev sell a dream of the game's potential more than the game, and wouldn't want to burst any bubbles, no matter their view internally.

Not always "PP and BGS", no. The "BGS should be Open only" posts and threads tend to come from players who are frustrated that they can't attack their Faction's opponents directly - and those threads rarely mention Powerplay.

Perhaps I'm not looking hard enough, but I see new OOPP (or here, necroed and only partly OO) threads it feels like twice a week. I don't notice the OOBGS ones, and find it hard to believe they're anywhere near as frequent.

 

[Asharyn]

If it is considered to be PvP then, at best, it's asynchronous indirect PvP as there's no requirement to play among other players to do so.

Yes, this is the problem.

Maybe for those who expect there to be a PvP dominated feature in a game sold to all with no requirement to play among other players, much less engage in itsi-PvP (apart from CQC, of course).

Powerplay and CQC aren't "PvP dominated features" they are PvP features.

The pan-modal implementation of Powerplay means that any direct player opposition is optional

Again, you're doing a good job out outlining the problem.

 

[DemiserofD]

Again, you're doing a good job out outlining the problem.

That's only a problem in the eyes of some players. And functionally, it's not a problem of game design, simply one of preference.

Pragmatically speaking, however, I don't think people have really considered the true problem. What people want is complex organic pvp. What they would most likely get instead is traders in shield-tanked cutters being escorted by interdictors in speed-built vipers. The enemy interdicts the cutter, the viper interdicts the enemy, canceling their own interdiction and trapping them. The cutter lands uninterrupted while the viper dances around the pvp build. The cutter high wakes away from the station, unharmed.

With engineering, pvp simply takes too long to play a part in any sort of efficient hauling process. In fact, in any part of the game.

Even with ideas like having npcs to drop off at, pvp still wouldn't practically happen. Since the sole focus is on the trader, and player death is irrelevant, it would either reach a state where hauling is impossible due to the instant death caused by the defending players, or hauling is unstoppable because the cutters have so many shields they're unkillable before finishing their mission.

Pvp in this game simply isn't built well to organically integrate with any other aspect of the game. You only have to look at literally every other part of the game to see this is true. Pvp doesn't make sense in conflict zones, it doesn't make sense in trade, it doesn't make sense anywhere.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Pragmatically speaking, however, I don't think people have really considered the true problem. What people want is complex organic pvp. What they would most likely get instead is traders in shield-tanked cutters being escorted by interdictors in speed-built vipers. The enemy interdicts the cutter, the viper interdicts the enemy, canceling their own interdiction and trapping them. The cutter lands uninterrupted while the viper dances around the pvp build. The cutter high wakes away from the station, unharmed.

With engineering, pvp simply takes too long to play a part in any sort of efficient hauling process. In fact, in any part of the game.

Even with ideas like having npcs to drop off at, pvp still wouldn't practically happen. Since the sole focus is on the trader, and player death is irrelevant, it would either reach a state where hauling is impossible due to the instant death caused by the defending players, or hauling is unstoppable because the cutters have so many shields they're unkillable before finishing their mission.

Pvp in this game simply isn't built well to organically integrate with any other aspect of the game. You only have to look at literally every other part of the game to see this is true. Pvp doesn't make sense in conflict zones, it doesn't make sense in trade, it doesn't make sense anywhere.

Not staying long but just to politely point out, this is a mixture of theoretical supposition and opinion. People already playing the haul/blockade game in open are able to correct it with observation. Yes sometimes people use small interdictors on both sides, but actually much more often not. In fact, much organic PvP is already possible (and indeed what you're already describing is organic PvP anyway).

In practice it turns into a game of establishing battlespace supremacy, and this decides how risky it is for a given side to carry on with activities. If everyone played in open, the organic interaction would just get better and less patchy, and risk would be balanced between sides. OOPP suggestions involve extrapolation from existing gameplay partly working or present some of the time, to something more fully fledged, not a pipe dream of imaginary gameplay.

 

[DemiserofD]

Not staying long but just to politely point out, this is a mixture of theoretical supposition and opinion. People already playing the haul/blockade game in open are able to correct it with observation. Yes sometimes people use small interdictors on both sides, but actually much more often not. In fact, much organic PvP is already possible (and indeed what you're already describing is organic PvP anyway).

In practice it turns into a game of establishing battlespace supremacy, and this decides how risky it is for a given side to carry on with activities. If everyone played in open, the organic interaction would just get better and less patchy, and risk would be balanced between sides. OOPP suggestions involve extrapolation from existing gameplay partly working or present some of the time, to something more fully fledged, not a pipe dream of imaginary gameplay.

Except you're biased by the fact that everyone who is currently in open wants to engage in that gameplay loop.

If you force players who don't want to pvp into a theoretically pvp gamespace, they're going to do everything in their power to avoid pvp.

And elite offers massive opportunity to do so. As I laid out above.

Essentially, by forcing these players into open, you're going to end up ruining the exact things you enjoy.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Except you're biased by the fact that everyone who is currently in open wants to engage in that gameplay loop.

If you force players who don't want to pvp into a theoretically pvp gamespace, they're going to do everything in their power to avoid pvp.

And elite offers massive opportunity to do so. As I laid out above.

Essentially, by forcing these players into open, you're going to end up ruining the exact things you enjoy.

It sounds less like that, and more like you're describing a challenge. You might be surprised at the variety of engagement type the average combat PvPer can actually enjoy, and how when you throw everyone together and watch it play out stuff doesn't happen like you think it might on paper. The best picture is still the one we already have, which already does have a wide array of examples of different ways of handling blockading and blockade running. Who knows, some people who thought they didn't like OO might even start enjoying it.

This is made more true since, as I often say, the bigger problem is the people who do enjoy playing in open half the time, but switch to closed modes for a competitive advantage when it suits them. That's where a lot of the unbalanced merits really come from. Of course PvPers for their side stay in open to attack the other side, without the burden of defence.

 

[DemiserofD]

It sounds less like that, and more like you're describing a challenge.

That's...technically true. If you really tilt your head and squint. In the sense that what Sisyphus experienced was a 'challenge'.

But no matter how you look at it, actual pvp would be pretty much nonexistent. Actually staying to fight someone will never be time efficient, so they'll always run away and try again. There will be no reason to kill the defenders because they'll be back in 2 minutes anyway, so the only functional way to disable them is to just constantly interdict them in a faster ship over and over until they feel their time is being wasted and they log off.

Congratulations, you've just invented griefing.

If you actually want pvp, as you claim, then this is complete opposite of how to achieve it. All you're really creating is game-mandated ganking and trolling on a massive scale.