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

[Agony_Aunt]

Its been almost 2 years since this topic was started and i'm not going back reading it again and frankly speaking i've forgotten what the actual proposal was. But it was a different time in ED for sure.

Was anything included in the proposal to stop 5th columning?

For example, let's say i'm working for Winters against Torval.

What stops me from joining Torval, loading up a shieldless Type 9 with merits, flying into Winters' space saying "oh, woe is me, a poor shieldless Type 9 full of merits, i do hope i don't meet any resistance!" and the getting blown up (or robbed of merits - apologies, i don't remember which way it works). Thereby rewarding Winters, giving me what I actually want. I really don't even need to wait around. I could collude with another player or have an alt account waiting and be highly efficient about it.

Sure, there would be a credit cost, but this relates to what was i saying about it being a different time. Credits are so easy these days losing 50 million is hardly an issue. Periodic visits to Robigo can keep me nicely stocked up on credits.

Maybe this particular scenario isn't the best or even that valid, but i'm sure a creative person could definitely think of ways of exploiting any mechanic that involves flying in open in relation to powerplay.

Unless Rubbernuke has things like this covered in his proposal.

 

[DemiserofD]

Its been almost 2 years since this topic was started and i'm not going back reading it again and frankly speaking i've forgotten what the actual proposal was. But it was a different time in ED for sure.

Was anything included in the proposal to stop 5th columning?

For example, let's say i'm working for Winters against Torval.

What stops me from joining Torval, loading up a shieldless Type 9 with merits, flying into Winters' space saying "oh, woe is me, a poor shieldless Type 9 full of merits, i do hope i don't meet any resistance!" and the getting blown up (or robbed of merits - apologies, i don't remember which way it works). Thereby rewarding Winters, giving me what I actually want. I really don't even need to wait around. I could collude with another player or have an alt account waiting and be highly efficient about it.

Sure, there would be a credit cost, but this relates to what was i saying about it being a different time. Credits are so easy these days losing 50 million is hardly an issue. Periodic visits to Robigo can keep me nicely stocked up on credits.

Maybe this particular scenario isn't the best or even that valid, but i'm sure a creative person could definitely think of ways of exploiting any mechanic that involves flying in open in relation to powerplay.

Unless Rubbernuke has things like this covered in his proposal.

He added those in the subsequent thread. They were...functional, if overly complicated.

I think that thread didn't get quite the same attention as this one because it dove too deep into the technical side of things, with too many specifics, so people got overwhelmed and probably didn't bother finishing reading it.

Past a certain amount of complexity, you kinda need to either just leave some things vague, or put them in an ignorable subsection, with the main post dedicated to the broad generalities, or readers will hit information overload and give up.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

He added those in the subsequent thread. They were...functional, if overly complicated.

I think that thread didn't get quite the same attention as this one because it dove too deep into the technical side of things, with too many specifics, so people got overwhelmed and probably didn't bother finishing reading it.

Past a certain amount of complexity, you kinda need to either just leave some things vague, or put them in an ignorable subsection, with the main post dedicated to the broad generalities, or readers will hit information overload and give up.

Also, perhaps if things need to get so complicated it might be better to take a step back and rethink the whole system.

 

[Bashy81]

Lmao, even Fdev have out-and-out stated that pvpers make up a very small portion of the overall playerbase, a very loud minority. Fortunately, being loud does not equate to actually being numerous or being right.

Rofl, youre thinking of the wrong demographic. Im a Powerplayer, I do all my Powerplay in Open & I dont do PvP.

Lmao, even Fdev have out-and-out stated that pvpers make up a very small portion of the overall playerbase, a very loud minority. Fortunately, being loud does not equate to actually being numerous or being right.

Ultimately, Fdev cares about one thing; investing their time in as cost-effective a manner as possible. If there's a choice between a development path that will serve the majority over the minority, that's the path they'll take. And pvpers will always be the minority.

So long as you insist on making pvp the soul of future powerplay content, Fdev will have no reason to develop it. It's just common sense.

If that wasnt profoundly misjudged fdev would have never made the Open-Only flash topic. PvP isnt the soul of Open-Only Powerplay, it is a non-earning tactical & strategic consideration. That might mean nothing to you but it makes all the difference in practice.

Others have, as you are now, realized their arguments utterly fall flat when you don't live inside the cycle of confirmation bias that the pvp community cultivates. At that point, having realized they have no actual arguments, they're forced to instead attack my character or my intelligence. It's sad, really.

Oh please, hahaha! you just shift the goalposts whenever your arguments fall apart, blissfully liberated from any in-game context and reality. People get fed up with that, and since you're treating the topic like a school debating practice, dont feed the troll is the appropriate response.
Ive been moving house, unpacking & feeding Utilities trolls, so this has been a welcome distraction until I get back to the game properly.

Utterly entrenched in basic logic, perhaps. But I don't think that's a bad place to be, and I don't think 'people who don't like pvp won't engage in pvp no matter how much you try to force them to do so' is exactly rocket science, either. No amount of 'it's good for the game!' or 'I deserve more people to kill!' will change that fact.

You love to dance around the fundamental fact that these ideas fail on every practical level, but I won't let you forget it.

You can invent all the arguments you like, but they consistently bear no relation to the topic under discussion, or the players involved. Youre still founding your basic logic on faulty assumptions, principal among which is the erroneous notion that youre debating with 'PvPers who want to gank noobs'. Im not a Greek bearing gifts, and OOPP isn't a Trojan Horse.

All it takes for tyranny to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Nice try, but as long as people are here whining for nonsensical ideas that will only hurt the game, I'll be here to point out how foolish and self-serving those ideas truly are.

Youre not Edmund Burke, JFK, or Batman, whatever you may think. With those principles you are on completely the wrong side of the debate.

So easy achieve stalemate in PP that it almost certainly was done by design. Fdev clearly, by design, do not want more than token movements back and forth in PP. Any proposal that is likely to change how fast or easily, a system can change hands is unlikely to go anywhere imo. Even if people are unwilling to accept the plain truth that they already have equality, that they have all the same choices available to them as anyone else in the game, perhaps they will understand that.

Rubbernuke's OP and his linked updated version, are both built onto the changes & principles laid out by Fdev in the Open Only Flash Topic. That includes enhanced means of attack, and a dynamic system for choosing expansions & systems to shed, every cycle. These measures were intended to break the stalemate, while others were to provide equality, such as inbound-only fortification, and Open-Only. Go have a read, it's informative.

Sometimes, when people disagree with you, it is because they know & understand less than you. Sometimes it is the other way around. Sometimes they are being disengenuous & sometimes they attach different significances to the same elements & come to a different conclusion instead.
I haven't noticed any of that last one in this thread.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

These measures were intended to break the stalemate

Question. How would that actually work? There is no win/lose state in PP. Powers can grow and shrink based on how much support they get and how good people are at coordinating their activities.

What in the proposals would actually change anything on the grand scale of things? What would happen to change it from being an never ending game of Risk? Today I have Australia, tomorrow you have Australia, and so on and on it goes, for eternity.

 

[Bashy81]

So... it does defend against it. It stops undermining taking effect.

If all systems had equal triggers, and there was an unlimited supply of them, then yes.
But they dont and there isnt. Its not as simple as 1 -1 = 0. Powerplayers are humans too. (even the ones in Open). We would have spotted it by now if things were that stupifyingly simple.

Also, perhaps if things need to get so complicated it might be better to take a step back and rethink the whole system.

Yes that would be nice. Id very much like continuous-bubble territory to matter for one thing. It would make strategy more accessible as it would be far more visible and assessable on galmap.

The OP proposal is intended to be within the scope and scale of the Fdev Flash Topic and incorporates most features of it, including 4 or 5 anti-5C measures which all squeeze that incentive out of the game (its far more effective to tackle it from multiple angles than attempt a hard-block from one.) Its kinda beautiful how the measures all interlock. One of the big flaws tho is votes. One (or more) vote per account is just silly in the age of console free-accounts & the Epic giveaway.

What stops me from joining Torval, loading up a shieldless Type 9 with merits, flying into Winters' space saying "oh, woe is me, a poor shieldless Type 9 full of merits, i do hope i don't meet any resistance!" and the getting blown up (or robbed of merits - apologies, i don't remember which way it works). Thereby rewarding Winters, giving me what I actually want. I really don't even need to wait around. I could collude with another player or have an alt account waiting and be highly efficient about it.

That wouldnt work now in Powerplay and wouldnt in any of the proposals here either.

Cargo or any other form of merit has no use or value to a hostile Power, beyond depriving the enemy from having it.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Powerplayers are humans too. (even the ones in Open).

So are those doing the undermining. What it sounds like is maybe the balancing is off, not that it can't be defended against.

Yes that would be nice. Id very much like continuous-bubble territory to matter for one thing. It would make strategy more accessible as it would be far more visible and assessable on galmap.

The OP proposal is intended to be within the scope and scale of the Fdev Flash Topic and incorporates most features of it, including 4 or 5 anti-5C measures which all squeeze that incentive out of the game (its far more effective to tackle it from multiple angles than attempt a hard-block from one.) Its kinda beautiful how the measures all interlock. One of the big flaws tho is votes. One (or more) vote per account is just silly in the age of console free-accounts & the Epic giveaway.

Right, but maybe being within FD's scope isn't enough to make it compelling for more people to play and a complicated system will remain a complicated system. Its also not within FD's scope to have powers rise and fail, which makes PP a massive waste of time and effort from my perspective.

That wouldnt work now in Powerplay and wouldnt in any of the proposals here either.

Cargo or any other form of merit has no use or value to a hostile Power, beyond depriving the enemy from having it.

Don't you get merits for kills against a PP enemy? Aren't there mechanics in PP for stealing PP cargo from enemies? I thought there was, at least for some powers.

Regardless, i know 5th C'ing is a thing, and I acknowledged that maybe what I suggest wouldn't work. But i'm asking if creative people could still find ways to work against a power by working for that power under the proposed system.

In the past we've seen people suggest that blowing up opposing PP ships would earn them rewards, which would be totally abusable. Get creative, think how you would abuse the system. Because even you would never do that, others will

 

[Taifu]

Fortification doesn't stop someone from undermining. The only way to do that is to chase them out or blow them up. But you can't do that if they're in solo or a PG.

And undermining doesn't stop someone from fortifying. If you fortify from solo or a PG they can't stop you either.

That seems to be very balanced, and from an un-invested outside perspective, completely fair.

 

[DemiserofD]

And undermining doesn't stop someone from fortifying. If you fortify from solo or a PG they can't stop you either.

That seems to be very balanced, and from an un-invested outside perspective, completely fair.

You're right, it is completely fair.

However, some people feel that they deserve the right to not just counter others in equivalent and fair terms, but to blow them up as well. In fact, they claim that it can't be a real competition unless they have the ability to blow their enemies up. Neglecting the fact that literally every other type of competition in the game functions in the same exact way!

Which is to say, their claims are, of course, ridiculous.

The real problem with powerplay is the extremely basic and uninspired mechanics it's based on, which has little to nothing to do with pvp or game mode.

 

[QBit4D]

And undermining doesn't stop someone from fortifying. If you fortify from solo or a PG they can't stop you either.

That seems to be very balanced, and from an un-invested outside perspective, completely fair.

For one it's unfair to ppl playing in open. As the mere chance of encountering another (hostile) human will make your build less effective for PvE.

Also if you can't stop UM or forts, a negative Power has no recourse to avoid turmoil, while there is no chance to turmoil a positive one.

Most importantly: where is the fun? Can ppl really be so bad at this game that they find PvE even remotely challenging?

 

[DemiserofD]

For one it's unfair to ppl playing in open. As the mere chance of encountering another (hostile) human will make your build less effective for PvE.

I'd counter that it's more unfair to people playing in solo. They don't get the enjoyment of playing with other players the open players get! Due to lacking that enjoyment, I think that solo players should get a boost to their rewards, to make up for it being less fun.

Also if you can't stop UM or forts, a negative Power has no recourse to avoid turmoil, while there is no chance to turmoil a positive one.

That's a CC design flaw, not a mode flaw. It would be much easier to fix via tweaks to CC mechanics rather than via dramatically changing the mode structure of the entire game.

Most importantly: where is the fun? Can ppl really be so bad at this game that they find PvE even remotely challenging?

Everyone enjoys different things. This game is generous enough to offer many different ways to enjoy yourself, no need to criticize people just because they like something different from you.

 

[QBit4D]

I'd counter that it's more unfair to people playing in solo. They don't get the enjoyment of playing with other players the open players get! Due to lacking that enjoyment, I think that solo players should get a boost to their rewards, to make up for it being less fun.

Oh, they can have all the solo rewards they want, since they obviously don't care to play with others. Just compete with the others without recourse.

That's a CC design flaw, not a mode flaw. It would be much easier to fix via tweaks to CC mechanics rather than via dramatically changing the mode structure of the entire game.

As in? What's your suggestion?

Nobody is suggesting to change the "mode structure", just PP rules. That's all.

Everyone enjoys different things. This game is generous enough to offer many different ways to enjoy yourself, no need to criticize people just because they like something different from you.

I didn't criticize anyone. Just saying that you're objectively at the game if PvE is a challenge.

 

[DemiserofD]

Oh, they can have all the solo rewards they want, since they obviously don't care to play with others. Just compete with the others without recourse.

What's wrong with that? The game's made to allow players to influence the galaxy either with or without playing with others; that's one of its most beautiful aspects, in fact. I'd argue that it's a main selling feature. Remove that ability and you don't just make the game better for some, you make the game worse for many others. And why make a change that's just shifting the good around?

Nobody is suggesting to change the "mode structure", just PP rules. That's all.

Potaytoe potato. Same thing, different pronunciation.

As in? What's your suggestion?

One idea I've proposed is the ability for Powers to deploy fleets into different systems to uncap the undermining or fortification thresholds. If two fleets meet, they trigger a war state, ending with one fleet being destroyed, and the fleets put npc defenders in the area, attacking passing enemy powers.

This has the bonus of making powerplay a more strategic experience rather than being a relatively mindless snowball fight like it currently is.

That's just one aspect, of course. But it can be done without fiddling with modality at all, which is nice.

I didn't criticize anyone. Just saying that you're objectively at the game if PvE is a challenge.

 

[QBit4D]

One idea I've proposed is the ability for Powers to deploy fleets into different systems to uncap the undermining or fortification thresholds. If two fleets meet, they trigger a war state, ending with one fleet being destroyed, and the fleets put npc defenders in the area, attacking passing enemy powers.

I like the idea in general, but without open only it'll make PP just another bucket filling race. You already have that in BGS, there's no point in having 2 BGS.

That's just one aspect, of course. But it can be done without fiddling with modality at all, which is nice.

Again, it isn't fiddling with modality.

It's not:

Potaytoe potato. Same thing, different pronunciation.

 

[DemiserofD]

I like the idea in general, but without open only it'll make PP just another bucket filling race. You already have that in BGS, there's no point in having 2 BGS.

Sorry to say, bucket filling races is pretty much the entirety of Elite Dangerous. Community Goals are bucket filling races, BGS is bucket filling races, Powerplay is bucket filling races. That's just how the game is played.

I've proposed elsewhere that pvp could get their own bucket filling race, however. You basically institute a weekly community-goal like competition between powers with the primary focus being pvp. Players fight, and are assigned an ELO-like rank based on killing other players of similar skill. For example, if you're top 10%, you'll get an increase to your rank for killing another top 10% player, while they lose rank. However, if you kill a top 100%(IE, lowest rank) player as a top 10% player, you gain nothing and they lose nothing.

At the end of the week, players and their corresponding powers are rewarded based on the players who have participated.

This encourages players to participate at least once per week, as even just dying at least gets them into the top 100%, which gives them and their power a weekly reward. It encourages pvp with players who might not otherwise participate, and because of the ELO structure, it by nature is resistant to 5c.

This provides a way of positive pvp reinforcement, rather than negative reinforcement, like mandating open play.

 

[Taifu]

For one it's unfair to ppl playing in open. As the mere chance of encountering another (hostile) human will make your build less effective for PvE.

How is it unfair? Do they not also have a choice as to which mode to play in? What or who is forcing people to play in Open?

Also if you can't stop UM or forts, a negative Power has no recourse to avoid turmoil, while there is no chance to turmoil a positive one.

I have no idea what you're saying here because I have never "Power Played".

Most importantly: where is the fun? Can ppl really be so bad at this game that they find PvE even remotely challenging?

Yes. Yes there are people out there that will find PvE a challenge. Do these people, (who also bought the game btw) not have a right to play the game the way they want to? To play in a way the game was designed to facilitate no less.

I have to assume that you think the various assist modules were added to the game by FDev to allow easier botting, and not to allow people of various abilities to experience their creation.

 

[DemiserofD]

I have no idea what you're saying here because I have never "Power Played".

He means this: if a power has a negative CC total(the currency used to claim or support systems), then if all their systems are both fortified AND undermined, they have no further way to reduce their CC upkeep costs, so they will enter turmoil, and potentially lose a system.

On the flip side, if they have a positive CC total, then the opposite occurs; enemies have no way to force them into turmoil, and no way to actually hurt them at all.

These would be bigger concerns if the only purpose of CC wasn't just taking more systems. Instead the final stage of powerplay ends up just being treading water forever, fortifying to hold onto a preset maximum number of systems with little benefit for doing so.

 

[Asharyn]

So... it does defend against it. It stops undermining taking effect.

No, if you fotify a system you don't pay the upkeep. It's all proffit. If a system is undermined you don't get the proffit, it's all upkeep. If a system if both fortified and undermined they cancel out and there is no upkeep or proffit. So an undermined system is always a negative effect, regardless of weither or not you fortified it. Defending against undermining would mean a way to stop the undermining from occuring, or stop any of its negative effects.

 

[Asharyn]

For example, let's say i'm working for Winters against Torval.

What stops me from joining Torval, loading up a shieldless Type 9 with merits, flying into Winters' space saying "oh, woe is me, a poor shieldless Type 9 full of merits, i do hope i don't meet any resistance!" and the getting blown up (or robbed of merits - apologies, i don't remember which way it works).

There's no benefit to blowing you up if that's the case. The only benefit would be to stop you from delivering the merits, but if you never intended to it wouldn't do anything to blow you up.

 

[Asharyn]

And undermining doesn't stop someone from fortifying. If you fortify from solo or a PG they can't stop you either.

That seems to be very balanced, and from an un-invested outside perspective, completely fair.

This is the problem, we should be able to actually oppose eachother.