Page 1 of 49 1236 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 730

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Powerplay Proposal Part 2

  1. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #1
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous Frontier Employee

    Powerplay Proposal Part 2

    Hello Commanders!

    There’s been lots of feedback about the Open only aspect of the Powerplay proposal flash topic. Thank you!

    Most of the suggested rules changes in the proposal have now received a reasonable amount of feedback to the point where we’re happy we could tweak and move forward with them if the opportunity presents itself, which leaves us with the interesting mode question.

    Continuing in the same investigative vein regarding modes, we have another option that we’d like to get your opinion on. It’s a very simple mechanically and we’re interested in how well it stacks up against the current two options: keeping things as they are or making Powerplay Open mode only.

    Powerplay Weighted Success

    “Powerplay vouchers and commodities have their values permanently reduced if a Commander enters Private Group or Solo mode with them, or acquires them in these modes.”

    As a caveat, it’s worth noting that availability of Powerplay modules, which seems to represent a significant portion of concerns, could be made available in some fashion outside of Powerplay. The reason I’m mentioning this is to keep the feedback as focused as possible. What we want here are your opinions on the concept itself rather than secondary effects.

    So, have a chew and tell us what you think.

    Do you like the idea? What kind of value drop would be suitable between Open and the other modes? How do you think it stacks up against the other options? What issues do you think it addresses and how well? Conversely, what issues do you think it fails to fix or introduces?

    As usual, please answer this post only, debate freely in non-sticky posts. And remember, this is still just an ongoing investigation, which is why your feedback is so important!

  2. #2
    I thought you would come up with this.

    I don't like it. But if you want to create bottle necks and open up interesting game play options you would need to weight it so heavily in favour of open to make legitimate Powerplay activity only take place in open.

    This is particularly necessary to defeat 5c and bots, irregardless of exploitative workarounds.

    Edit: I really do wish you take the courageous step and commit to open only.

  3. #3
    ok with me people can gank each other in open as they like as far i can get modules solo. Open should be beneficial but not about 30 percent.

    No drawback for modules in solo rest i dont mind and i think most of solo powerplayers who only do it for modules don´t too

    Edit 2: I eaven think it would totaly be ok just to earn the merits to rank up and have no evect on actuall expension etc.

  4. #4
    I won't say it's a >bad< compromise, but only from the perspective of not wanting to address the fact that it should never have been allowed in solo in the first place. You're playing a game mode where you're explicitly competing against other players in a myriad of ways, and it simply does not make sense that you should be able to do that with absolute immunity to any legitimate risks.

    But, since that expectation has already been set, it does at least make sense to at least lower the reward in recognition of the removed risk.

  5. #5
    Open Only, in my opinion.

  6. #6
    The earned merits should lose 100% of their influence on powerplay upon entering a mode that isn't open. They still should count towards ranks though, to allow unlocking modules and getting the side bonuses. But they should absolutely not contribute to powerplay triggers. That makes no sense. People who don't want to interact with others, have no place in powerplay. Open only or all of this was pointless.

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

    There’s been lots of feedback about the Open only aspect of the Powerplay proposal flash topic. Thank you!

    Most of the suggested rules changes in the proposal have now received a reasonable amount of feedback to the point where we’re happy we could tweak and move forward with them if the opportunity presents itself, which leaves us with the interesting mode question.

    Continuing in the same investigative vein regarding modes, we have another option that we’d like to get your opinion on. It’s a very simple mechanically and we’re interested in how well it stacks up against the current two options: keeping things as they are or making Powerplay Open mode only.

    Powerplay Weighted Success

    “Powerplay vouchers and commodities have their values permanently reduced if a Commander enters Private Group or Solo mode with them, or acquires them in these modes.”

    As a caveat, it’s worth noting that availability of Powerplay modules, which seems to represent a significant portion of concerns, could be made available in some fashion outside of Powerplay. The reason I’m mentioning this is to keep the feedback as focused as possible. What we want here are your opinions on the concept itself rather than secondary effects.

    So, have a chew and tell us what you think.

    Do you like the idea? What kind of value drop would be suitable between Open and the other modes? How do you think it stacks up against the other options? What issues do you think it addresses and how well? Conversely, what issues do you think it fails to fix or introduces?

    As usual, please answer this post only, debate freely in non-sticky posts. And remember, this is still just an ongoing investigation, which is why your feedback is so important!
    I dont like it either. Please separate the adversarial part of the game completely. We would still be in the same spot because people will always take the shortcut out. See credit fountains, see engineers exploit. Balance risk and reward between players. Do not allow them to play against one another only allowing the game itself to interfere. Nothing about this is PVE.

    People should have to work just as hard as everyone else. Everyone should risk their rebuy. And the other guys shouldnt get the reward if they arent participating. Then no one would participate. They would get the reward and still wont play powerplay at all.

    The reason being is you are still punished in time by interacting with other commanders. Those commanders in solo and private will still be able to move more per hour compared to someone being defended against in open.

    There is still a disadvantage here. People will end up grinding for the lesser amount because of time efficiency and consistency, no threat for rebuys. Ect.

    Please get this one right.

  8. #8

  9. #9
    Powerplay should be 100% Open only. It is an inherently PvP mode and allowing progress in a PvE-only mode with a PvP mechanic is bad. Solo/PG should have no impact whatsoever on Powerplay.

  10. #10
    No I don't like the idea. I think you're vastly underestimating the number of grinders who are willing enough to haul 20x more crap because they hate the idea of someone being able to come stop them.

  11. #11
    I'm strictly against watering down open only. The weights needed to offset the PG advantage (bear in mind, you are shoehorning us all into just a couple of systems) to PP would just keep casual people away.

    As you said, PP is about direct conflict. And the proposed changes are a big step in that direction, by focusing attention to a few systems. That makes only sense in open. To NOT see your adversary in such a system would only be even more infuriating.

    Once the PP module issue is resolved (as indicated) the only argument left is so called precedent. That argument isn't valid at all. It's trying to apply a legal concept to something that legally is beyond an question. The precedent is that games have ALWAYS been subject to change.

    Please also note that most opposition to open only comes from ppl who do little to no PP. While that should not be the only deciding factor when weighing opinions, it should matter. If I were to suggest to make exploration more challenging by introducing a interdiction mini-game upon entering a black hole system, that if lost, leads to perma-death (without rebuy), it should matter that I have never been to a black hole and never plan to. Same goes here.

    But most of all, consider why Apple was so successful with the iPhone. Not by listening to what ppl want and implementing it, but by showing them what's feasible and what they want.

  12. #12
    Nope. Effective merits should be open o ly.

    Perfectly happy to see power modules and benefits available some other way (even let people earn merits for rank in solo/pg providing they dont count on the actually total)

    If people dont want to play with other people thats fine and their choice but they shouldn't get to impact on others game experiences either.

  13. #13
    This is a disappointing step back from the courageous and encouraging open only proposal. Open only is the best, maybe only, solution to the problems of botting, fifth column activities and AFK turret boats farming merits 24/7. The caveat to this is if open were to have such a large merit advantage over PG and solo that it made the aforementioned exploits un-competitive with honest, open play hauling / undermining etc - in which case you might as well be open only anyway.

    I like the idea of PP modules being available outside of PP though, that sounds good.

  14. #14
    my opinion on the value drop for entering solo and PG? 100% like it was said initially, otherwise 5th column and solo PP will not stop allowing undermining without the ability to defend themselves

  15. #15
    Open-Only would be the ideal-world solution in my opinion. Either you're showing up in Open and taking on the risks to play in Powerplay, or you're sitting out.

    That said, we're playing a game on the internet in a world where fiddly instancing and deliberate router-messing could become a serious factor. I think the 'tax' on private/solo would have to be set such that it's a significant penalty to this kind of private lurking, while not being so totally crushing as to render "fiddling with your router settings" more worthwhile than just accepting the tax. Similarly the 'tax' needs to be heavy enough to outweigh any advantages from privacy. For example, my powerplay cargo-hauling Cutter build carries 650T and has enough defenses to escape most threats, and some firepower to put moderate threats out of business. If I went with a nearly-helpless shieldless cargo balloon I could do about 750 (792 total, but in 50-ton increments that's not quite enough). I can crank up my cargo capacity by about 15% ... so I think the tax would have to be ABOVE 15%.

    I have some other figures at my disposal. An AFK turret-ship working a conflict zone all week earns roughly sixty thousand expansion or opposition merits. A really dedicated CMDR can do between twenty and thirty thousand merits. While I think there's other fixes needed to punish idle turrets (combat should not be so safe as to the point of walking away and trusting your shields/turrets!) I'd argue for the 50% tax to allow one busy player to outperform one idle turreter.

    My estimate would be that it'd have to be around 30% minimum, up to 50% maximum. This makes private/solo play disadvantageous but not to the point of complete and utter pointlessness that'd simply drive people to router-blocking or other mass exploitation. My preference is still for Open-only, but if you go down the road of a "private tax", then it needs to be fairly steep. A piddly 10% would be largely irrelevant.

Page 1 of 49 1236 ... LastLast