Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46

Thread: Powerplay proposals

  1. #31
    Originally Posted by Jane Turner View Post (Source)
    The open debate** is a big red herring, disguising the potential effect of the ethos and mission changes.

    They need incredibly close attention to detail to avoid a major mess. I'd quite like to go back to why the changes are suggested and see if there is an alternative way to get the outcome.


    ** the people who go on about it will find something new to complain about and it won't make any difference other than to put some people off power play
    I actually am not sure that it is a red-herring. Most of the powerplay changes are designed to focus activity into fewer systems; achieving this goal might make some unpalatable changes worthwhile, but if FD backs off the open-only aspect of the proposal, then that goal stops being achievable and these systems will offer even more risk, incentivizing CMDRs already inclined to play in private or solo to do so by default. If a major part of the justification for these ethos changes is to push more CMDRs into interacting in control systems, then giving them the option of opting-out of those interactions means that will make these changes unsuccessful.

    Anyway.

    I have been very engaged in powerplay-scale BGS for over two and a half years. I run a minor faction and have supported and consulted for a number of PMFs in Patreus-exploited space. I feel that powerplay BGS is very unique (but not superior), both in how what we do differs from what large PMFs do, and in that it provides an actual, tangible material benefit to our community. Having FD declare that all of our past work no longer matters is definitely a gut-punch.

    If this goes through the best option for most minor factions is probably going to be to drop any control systems they are in. Even if they get a negotiated agreement with the controlling power, which is a big if for PMFs that don't have a matching allegiance, they are still going to have to deal with uncontrolled actions in their system. I would also be very worried that we'll see the return of a link between undermining and the BGS, which will be an absolute disaster.

    There are a lot of unknowns, but I will add this: supporting this change with the expectation that powers will be more easily ousted from control systems is a serious risk. Powers are going to drop loss-makers and this will see standing balances go through the roof. Powers can see exactly how many undermining merits are being held in a system right now, so the only limit to defense is how many merits you can move. With missions offering fortification rewards, new players will be empowered, and should this proposal bring more commanders in, power logistics teams are going to be significantly strengthened. Small powers can already fortify everything in a matter of days.

    As far as I know, there are no plans to change power bonuses. Most powers already get a bonus to their operations in support of same-allegiance minor factions. Several powers get 100% influence bonuses which double the value of their transactions in their space, so god help you if you get into it with them.

  2. #32
    Originally Posted by Marra Morgan View Post (Source)
    ...stuff...
    Yes, right, agree and understand.

    But remember there were enough people whining about "some other way" of doing PP stuff, and whining for long enough, that Sandro is making the mission change. That should worry anyone that plays the BGS FOR the BGS. Essentially, there will a ton more 'static' to work through, by people who could give 2 farts less about the BGS. That's also messed up, IMO.

  3. #33
    Originally Posted by Misaniovent View Post (Source)
    <lots of really interesting and good stuff>
    While I truly appreciate you having fun with playing BGS-for-PP, the reasons you describe is exactly why I strongly lobbied in the FFF for removing all BGS links to PP altogether. For me, PP is an irritant, an annoyance. It's been a source of conflict within the Alliance. I don't understand why some optional gameplay that I despise should affect the BGS at all, let alone drive targeted BGS gameplay.

    Let the two be separate so they don't impact each other. The BGS is getting confrontational enough as it is. We don't also need PP BGS activity.

  4. #34
    Originally Posted by Mangal Oemie View Post (Source)
    For me, PP is an irritant, an annoyance. It's been a source of conflict within the Alliance. I don't understand why some optional gameplay that I despise should affect the BGS at all, let alone drive targeted BGS gameplay.

    Let the two be separate so they don't impact each other. The BGS is getting confrontational enough as it is. We don't also need PP BGS activity.
    100% with you there.

    My main personal dislike is that a couple of rare goods have become near permanently unavailable because their source systems have been claimed by powerplay. Aganippe Rush and Motrona Experience Jelly have been unavailable for over 18 months because of PP, except for a major effort last year that got the jelly on the market for all of two weeks. I suspect that the proposed changes will only make this worse.

    The other thing is what happens with blackmarkets. The PP effect that magically shuts blackmarkets seems a bit silly and totally OP.

  5. #35
    Originally Posted by Mangal Oemie View Post (Source)
    While I truly appreciate you having fun with playing BGS-for-PP, the reasons you describe is exactly why I strongly lobbied in the FFF for removing all BGS links to PP altogether. For me, PP is an irritant, an annoyance. It's been a source of conflict within the Alliance. I don't understand why some optional gameplay that I despise should affect the BGS at all, let alone drive targeted BGS gameplay.
    I would challenge you to consider that what you do and what I do are very similar. AEDC builds a greener galaxy to support the Alliance, and we sweep through our systems to build a domain that supports Patreus and the Empire. We are both working to promote a power (I mean power broadly) and the idea that power represents, but we do so under different frameworks. Yours you've created, ours we've adopted. For us, powerplay is a flawed framework but it guides our actions and offers us material results. Your work requires different tactics than mine, and the game is better because of it — we need more diversity in BGS. I would also recommend looking into what the Utopians have done and the lore they have built around their successes.

    Let the two be separate so they don't impact each other. The BGS is getting confrontational enough as it is. We don't also need PP BGS activity.
    I don't want separation. I want Elite's threads to be tied together better.

    There is no difference between "PP BGS activity" and "BGS activity" except for the justifications we use to drive it. The BGS that I do is just as valid and valuable as the BGS that you or anyone else does; there's no superiority. You mentioned conflict and confrontations: these are always optional. Choosing conflict is just as valid as choosing peace, but the choice remains. What I want is for powerplay's ethos system not to be changed in a way that pushes strongly for conflict in some situations and for an end to interactions in others.

  6. #36
    I completely understand that while you're playing the BGS, you're playing the BGS, and we understand each other. I also understand that there are comparisons more broadly.

    What I don't understand is that if you like the BGS, why you're involved with PowerPlay, when you know the former is so much richer in gameplay and ticks 7 times faster.

    I don't want Elite's threads tied together when these things make no sense, and create problems where they don't need to exist. I actually welcome the control system faction addition, as that will unify the Alliance, whereas in the past the government nonsense has pretty much been the source of the majority of conflict between more Mahon focused Alliance players and Alliance BGS players. Stupid, distracting and annoying drama that never needed to exists but for the fact that the threads were tied together. The mechanics caused these problems.

    We've seen Feds grind like crazy on an Alliance system for months because it flipped to the wrong government (not because it was Alliance), and in their obsession missed that another system in their bubble went the wrong way (without our interference), and could have easily flipped yet another system in that bubble to reset the balance with far less effort.

    These are conflicts that don't even make sense. They just exhaust each other for no reason. I know of one player group that pretty much stopped playing the BGS because of a PP Power. What you find interesting comes as primarily a cost to pure BGS players, with no added fun or role play. And if PP goes Open-only and becomes really the consensual PvP in the game, I truly think there should be no connection at all.

  7. #37
    Unsurprised about the open change or the mission change since, as I've always said, powerplay is the competitive multiplayer strategy game overlay for Elite. They'll never make the change to make the BGS open only because the BGS serves to provide a living, breathing universe.

    The change to make missions support the common faction between superpower and power just reinforces this definition further.

    On an aside... Powerplay should always have functioned through missions, though I'd argue it should be a separate board, themed to each power.

  8. #38
    Originally Posted by Jmanis View Post (Source)
    They'll never make the change to make the BGS open only because the BGS serves to provide a living, breathing universe.
    I'm glad someone else gets it

  9. #39
    Originally Posted by Jmanis View Post (Source)
    ...They'll never make the change to make the BGS open only because the BGS serves to provide a living, breathing universe...
    Originally Posted by Marra Morgan View Post (Source)
    I'm glad someone else gets it
    So we're assuming that there's not enough players in Open to maintain a living, breathing universe, as far as the BGS goes? Or are we assuming that because the BGS was originally designed to do only that, and not be "played" that it can't, should't, and won't be changed to support the reality that MANY people "play" the BGS instead of ignoring it?

    I wouldn't make those assumptions. But I still don't want the BGS to be Open Only.

  10. #40
    Originally Posted by Abil Midena View Post (Source)
    So we're assuming that there's not enough players in Open to maintain a living, breathing universe, as far as the BGS goes? Or are we assuming that because the BGS was originally designed to do only that, and not be "played" that it can't, should't, and won't be changed to support the reality that MANY people "play" the BGS instead of ignoring it?

    I wouldn't make those assumptions. But I still don't want the BGS to be Open Only.
    I never said it was originally designed to *only* do that, nor that it shouldn't be "played". FD have acknowledged, understand and appreciate the "strategic chessgame" the BGS overlays. But the *primary* purpose of the BGS is that living, breathing universe. If you keep that in mind, decisions like transactional effects, the separation from Powerplay (the *actual* strategic chessgame FD put into the game) and a whole bunch of other things just make sense.

    If they can make design choices which develop and enhance the strategic gameplay provided by the BGS without sacrificing that living, breathing universe aspect, they will, and FD have done that on several occasions now (e.g reducing the impact of transactional trading). But that living, breathing universe aspect is a massive and complex component of the game, which allows every player to feel like their actions have some small effect in the game. They're not about to strip that away from everyone, because that's at the core of Elite as a name.

    EDIT: Just for the record, FD could abandon the whole "Living universe" aspect of the BGS and make it entirely a competitive MMO gameplay element, and I wouldn't really care at all. But it'd be pure insanity for them to do that for a host of reasons without even having to go near any reactions from the playerbase.

  11. #41
    Originally Posted by Jmanis View Post (Source)
    ...But that living, breathing universe aspect is a massive and complex component of the game, which allows every player to feel like their actions have some small effect in the game. They're not about to strip that away from everyone, because that's at the core of Elite as a name.

    EDIT: Just for the record, FD could abandon the whole "Living universe" aspect of the BGS and make it entirely a competitive MMO gameplay element, and I wouldn't really care at all. But it'd be pure insanity for them to do that for a host of reasons without even having to go near any reactions from the playerbase.
    I would submit that that vast majority of the player base can't spell BGS, and have no clue that what they do impacts anything (states). But I hope you're right about FD not making the BGS Open Only. At this point, hoping is all we have.

  12. #42
    Originally Posted by Abil Midena View Post (Source)
    So we're assuming that there's not enough players in Open to maintain a living, breathing universe, as far as the BGS goes? Or are we assuming that because the BGS was originally designed to do only that, and not be "played" that it can't, should't, and won't be changed to support the reality that MANY people "play" the BGS instead of ignoring it?
    Neither.

    We're looking at things sensibly and calmly, which is what I like about the BgS sub.

  13. #43
    open only BGS wouldnt be too different from the current system anyway for the same reasons that its not going to have the expected impact on PP. Until there are huge instances were are all essentially stuck in private instances of 16 players max. - lucky to see 3/4 at any one time. Add into that many systems have little or no traffic....

    This whole issue is completely overblown.

  14. #44
    Originally Posted by Schlack View Post (Source)
    open only BGS wouldnt be too different from the current system anyway for the same reasons that its not going to have the expected impact on PP. Until there are huge instances were are all essentially stuck in private instances of 16 players max. - lucky to see 3/4 at any one time. Add into that many systems have little or no traffic....

    This whole issue is completely overblown.
    That is probably very true. I can't wait for the beta where PP is made open only and all the advocates find that out.

  15. #45
    Originally Posted by Abil Midena View Post (Source)
    That is probably very true. I can't wait for the beta where PP is made open only and all the advocates find that out.
    And even if you are being blockaded send in a few low cost anti ganker interdictors and then go do your business. You can have lots of fun doing that. oh no, you blew up my hauler, guess ill respawn and interdict you again. Aren't you having fun mr PvPer?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast