Page 29 of 105 First 25272829303133 Last
Results 421 to 435 of 1571

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Powerplay Proposal

  1. #421
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    • Powerplay contacts are only available to players in open
    • Powerplay vouchers and commodities are destroyed if a player enters solo or private groups
    I'll throw my bit, even if I am not a regular poster here.

    I pretty much agree, but what about people doing PP only for getting PP related weapons (pack-hounds, prism shields, pacifiers, etc)?
    There is some people who really are not interested in this part of the game, or maybe are not interested in open PVP, or in PVP at all, for their reason. Or maybe they have just their reason for not playing in Open.

    This change would exclude those players from being able to get such weapons.

    Again, I totally agree with the proposal, but here is my counter-proposal: to these proposed changes, Frontier should also change the way people can access PP-related weapon. Let's allow those people who play only Solo to access these weapons.

    Maybe they could be accessible via Tech Broker, or something like that. But having these weapons accessible only via playing Open is a thing I strongly disagree with.
    It's just a matter of tech accessibility for the players, not really a direct PP issue. But it's still pretty important imo.

  2. #422
    First thing, thank you so much for giving power play some love

    Open Only

    In general I think this is a great idea. Maybe not destroy PP stuff in solo... sometimes I drop into solo to fix key mappings or tweak settings for VR. Would suck if lost merits. I know this is sort of an edge case but maybe if you don't leave the system you are in no merits destroyed?

    Mission give Power Play success

    I also love this. However one point that you might consider in addition to sharing superpower(some powers are independent). Team Antal spend a lot of time boosting minor faction that have the correct government type to reduce costs.

    Rewarding the sort of work represented by the above URL would be great

    An additional idea ,if I may, to improve Powerplay and Sqaudrons together

    Something along the lines of allowing squadrons(or a larger structure containing many squadrons) to have power play ranks.

    Squadrons work together in some way to earn Merits for group. At some rank you can get a fleet carrier that is specific to the power in some way. Possibly smaller carrier at rank 3 and a big one at rank 5 ?

    some fun game mechanics Power Play squadrons with fleet carries might get into

    1: You can turn in Merits at the carrier
    You could drop the carrier into a strategic system to support quicker undermining in that or surrounding systems. Similarly you support fortification/expansion in remote locations if you don't have to fly all the way back to capitol. Or maybe pilots can turn in fortification at carrier but you have to jump the carrier to home system to turn in the whole stash?

    2: Carriers can be disabled and "merit bay" destroyed or looted
    as you disable section of fleet carrier it should drop lots of mats
    taking down another PP faction fleet carrier should get you lots of merits for the pilots and squadron
    this seem like it would incentivize lots of PVP
    squadron would have to repair carrier with limpets to get pads working then bring in commodities like we do for stations after Thargoid attacks

    3: Given #2 carriers have multicrew turrets on them for defense.
    Maybe turrets can launch repair/refuel/ammo limpets or fire shield recharge beams
    Maybe you have separate turret types or you have to outfit limpet turrets on some spot and heal beam turrets on other spots.
    Crew should be able to jump between turrets quickly, especially if there is limit of 4 as in standard wing

    Thanks again for all the good work FDEV

  3. #423
    No amount of carrot would draw me in to OPEN mode. I mean, it's just the way it is.

    Having PP OPEN only is simply taking the game option away from me.

    Folks could move 98% of the 'game' to open and it wouldn't entice me. I simply have no interest in OPEN.

    My question is, what game play / content will SOLO and Group get in return (that OPEN won't have access to)? All things being equal and all that (which was always stated as the way).

    I'm shrugging. Disqualified from PP just like 'that'.

  4. #424
    This sounds like a brilliant idea. Powerplay has long been considered a dead system with little to no reason to partake outside of the modules it provides, I've always thought it was a huge waste of what could be an awesome system that could create dynamic player encounters and push player stories further, making PP open only would create several new avenues of gameplay, people could make it their play style to run power play items in known danger zones, people could become power play bounty hunters, chasing down players with opposing merits. I think this is definitely something worth trying, the number of gameplay avenues it would open alone make it worth a shot.

  5. #425
    I'm fine with open only, but completely NOT FINE with people switching powers after module farming.

    If you're going to participate in PP, it should be about supporting the ONE POWER you choose to support as a commander.

    If you leave a power you should be hunted forever by that power in its space.

    How do we remedy the fact that thousands of players have module farmed and have modules from each power?

    Put the modules on the markets in those regions and charge ridiculous prices for them. Demand local faction allied status to access them.

    Add faction skins and uniforms. Make it more evident you support a SINGLE POWER.

  6. #426
    First up this is a great move and really pleased to see so many non Powerplayers commenting on this thread - this is what we were calling for a couple of weeks ago, and it's great to see such a quick response Sandro. As a survivor of 154 cycles pledged to (or at least working for) Antal, my responses may be a bit defensive, but here goes:

    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Preparation Cycle Split

    • The first half of the cycle is available for preparation
    • The second half of the cycle locks the current preparation values and enables voting
    Maybe overly complicated? And unsure as to how effective this will be in combating 5c.

    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Vote to veto preparation

    • Each player can vote to veto or support each preparation
    • If a preparation ends the cycle with more veto votes than support votes it is removed from preparation
    • Voting requires minimum, rolling time spent pledged and active for a power, somewhere into rank 2
    As with the first, if 5c have the numbers to prep and block consolidation, they probably have the numbers to vote in a 5c prep. But 5c is a reality in all conflict - the problem for me has been the frustration of unidentifiable enemies. I'd hold off on these changes in favour of the open and system shedding measures, which could have a fundamental impact as they could make 5c expansions a complete waste of time.

    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Vote to withdraw from system

    • Each cycle players can vote on the 5 least profitable systems, to withdraw or support
    • At the end of a cycle if a system has more withdraw votes than support votes it is removed from the power’s control
    • Voting requires minimum, rolling time spent pledged and active for a power, somewhere into rank 2
    Excellent proposal - powers will try to consolidate around their best systems but this should concentrate the battles too.

    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Profitability modifier applied to votes and preparation successes

    • A system’s base profitability modifies preparation votes, withdraw votes and preparation successes
    • Votes and successes for profitable systems are increased by a factor of 10
    This would seem to be a very effective measure against 5c if it makes loss makers harder to prep.

    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Guaranteed undermine if 100% more than fortification

    • A control system that is undermined by 100% more than the fortification value will be undermined even if the fortification trigger has been successfully met

    Scary as hell.
    This one is really hard for me as our ability to fortify ourselves to safety is the reason for our survival. I can quite easily see us being wiped from the map. An objective person would place the interests of the whole community over that of the smallest Powerplay group. But after three years of shipping millions of dissidents, I'm not an objective person. Or even a particularity sane one ;-)

    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Overhead removal and slight increase to distance cost modifier

    • Overhead upkeep costs are removed making a system’s base profitability static
    • Distance modifier to upkeep is increased to maintain some sense of expansion “gravity”
    This seems reasonable. If the gravity of expansion were applied to the ability to undermine, I'd be happier. Eg. 100% at greater than 100ly out from HQ, but increasing as distance to HQ reduces.

    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)

    Ethos Override

    • Ethos is only checked for the control system and the power
    • If the power and controlling faction share the same superpower the power is always strong against the faction
    Again, a tough pill for an independent to swallow. Could there be an independent ethos?

    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Missions give Powerplay successes

    • Missions for factions in a system that share a power’s superpower award a number of Powerplay successes when completed
    • The mission type determines how many successes are given
    • Successes can be applied to expansion, opposition, fortification and undermining
    Definitely! I'm sure this will help those powers that don't engage with their BGS - not really our case.

    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Open only

    • Powerplay contacts are only available to players in open
    • Powerplay vouchers and commodities are destroyed if a player enters solo or private groups
    Great - no issue with that and it won't have any impact on the way I play.

  7. #427
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!
    Open only

    • Powerplay contacts are only available to players in open
    • Powerplay vouchers and commodities are destroyed if a player enters solo or private groups
    Stands, joining in the slow clap.

    God bless you all.

  8. #428
    It's a low effort (functional?) solution for a more complicated problem. It is still a mind numbing numbers grind with no QoL attached.

    But sure, enjoy your carrot while it lasts.

  9. #429
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Open only

    • Powerplay contacts are only available to players in open
    • Powerplay vouchers and commodities are destroyed if a player enters solo or private groups

    Reasoning: We’ve saved the biggest change for last, as making Powerplay Open only goes way beyond the remit of a tweak. We’ve seen this topic discussed many times and we think it’s time we addressed it directly to get as much quality feedback as possible.

    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.
    Rest is great, sounds like good stuff - this however is not right.

    That's all Solo/PG people denied any Powerplay weapons/bonuses/interaction.

    People should be free to powerplay in private groups - the rampant popularity of the PvE groups should tell you that you've not got this game balanced yet and those people don't deserve to be given another two fingers and have a whole chunk of game cut off for them.

    Yes of COURSE you see a lot of very loud very vocal feedback from a bunch of very dedicated powerplayers who are on the forums and online all the time - but they are not all the people engaging in powerplay and they should not be listened to more just because they're loud. Your feedback here is going to be strongly skewed towards the more dedicated players and that should be taken into account.

    Place a bigger grind and more suffering in the way of people ever picking up Powerplay and you may find it doesn't attract more people.

    Seriously stick to the all modes are equal, accept that there's a PvP hardcore who are VERY LOUD and constantly on forums/online/streaming/discord/etc so their views are disproportionately represented and stop letting them run the show. You've already been spending a phenomenal amount of resource on weapons/engineers/balance/moreengineers/moreweapons/more/more/more while we're still wandering around a galaxy full of battenburg cubes of stars and cut'n'paste nebulae - even the fact this suggestion has come up has me eyeing the squadrons announcements with distrust and thinking it's time to accept this isn't turning into a game about a galaxy and space so much as scrapping between each other.

  10. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #430
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous Frontier Employee
    Hello Commander Zaan!

    Again, a tough pill for an independent to swallow. Could there be an independent ethos?
    All independent powers would be strong against all independent factions.

  11. #431
    Open only is an amazing change! Good to see FDev finally have some guts and make a real change for the better.

  12. #432
    Open only, this is 100% absolutely necessary.

  13. #433
    You want players to have an option to fight other players over PP objectives, add pvp instances in contested powerplay systems.
    But taking away existing options for non-open players is just unnecessarily harsh.

  14. #434
    Open only

    • Powerplay contacts are only available to players in open
    • Powerplay vouchers and commodities are destroyed if a player enters solo or private groups
    I don't do power play but have done in the past. I can the reason behind this.

    As for moving the BGS to open only do this and many people will just leave the game. I will also ask for a full refund along with my kick starter money as well because this was never mentioned and I would deem it going back on a agreement made by Frontier and the backers. I like private groups and solo play because it means I can stay out of the way of those who think its fun just to blow people up for a laugh. ( In other words the wankers in the game).

  15. #435
    What I would really like to see is a switch away from the Farmville like wait timer mechanics.

    As for Open Only, on top of the problems mentioned by Fry and a few others there is the fact that not all connection are serviced evenly.

    I've just switched up to a much faster fiber connection hoping, but knowing that it probably would not help.

    From Thailand the lag is atrocious as soon as there are other player in the same system, it makes even docking a challenge again lol so PVP is out of the question.

    Unless Frontier is ready to install local servers in all the affected areas of the globe to solve the problem (like SC is planning to do)
    they should not add to the problem by further limiting our game play experience.