A ED 1.3 question that perhaps was not answered ?

[Daemonshmike]

When the Powerplay AMA event was announced and you could send in questions I read through them all and saw that
I didn't need to post my question because several other Cmdrs did, it was about how PP would work in different modes.
Have I missed the answer ?


Cmdr Distance wrote:
---
This is going to be the biggest issue everyone will want to know :

How will powerplay affect the different "modes"?

If you have all the traders for one faction making a push in to a new system in solo how are the combat pilots from the opposing faction in open going
to combat them?
---

 

[Pinworm45]

By doing their relevent Fortify goals

 

[slashgoh]

By doing their relevent Fortify goals

so, opposite goals are disconnected between them, both factions can achieve their targets staying in separate instances?
This confirm that the PP is a no sense...

 

[Daemonshmike]

Please don't make this into a thread about speculations Cmdrs.

 

[Flappers]

Please check the AMA, it's already been addressed:

Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.

 

[Viajero]

SOLO players will contribute aswell to opposing missions, each in their own instances. But there will also be PVP players battling it out in OPEN aswell in opposing missions.

An example: When the Lugh system opposing CG appeared there were also players in both OPEN and SOLO. I personally played in OPEN with my group of friends and never experienced a lack of PVP with other players playing for the otehr side. In other words, if in the time I played in Lugh in OPEN I never ceased to encounter enemy players wherever I went, it is of no practical consequence and irrelevant to me that other players did it in SOLO too. To all effects all my gaming time in Lugh was busy enough and filled with enemy players for PVP.

I see in principle no conflict yet in having both modes playing opposing PowerPlay missions.

It wold be nice though that the information about contribution to missions was explicit about how much is being done in OPEN vs how much is done in SOLO, so we can actually measure the impact of both.

 

[Distance]

My main concerns were towards any trading/blockade style goals.

If all the traders are in solo trading and all the combat cmdrs are in open then it's a bit wrong. If they spawn "trade npcs" for the open players this doesn't really help matters either as everyone is just working against npcs on their own.

It's a pity it wasn't answered as it was asked a lot in the thread from the first day. I think it was a bit more important to the player base than the pronunciation of Paterus

 

[Viajero]

My main concerns were towards any trading/blockade style goals.

If all the traders are in solo trading and all the combat cmdrs are in open then it's a bit wrong. If they spawn "trade npcs" for the open players this doesn't really help matters either as everyone is just working against npcs on their own.

It's a pity it wasn't answered as it was asked a lot in the thread from the first day. I think it was a bit more important to the player base than the pronunciation of Paterus

That is a concern indeed, but there is as of yet no evidence that it is an actual problem. As I mentioned above in the time of the Lugh CG my group of friends and I went to Khaka several times to blockade the Federal trading mission there. We found plenty of commanders trading in OPEN and we killed or diverted quite a few of them... that is until other federal players in combat ships came to defend them etc. To all practical purposes all our OPEN time in Khaka was full of PVP players, traders or otherwise.

I think that an explicit progress bar that shows contribution to any mission done in OPEN and in SOLO could help check if there is an issue or not.

 

[Michael Brookes]

My main concerns were towards any trading/blockade style goals.

If all the traders are in solo trading and all the combat cmdrs are in open then it's a bit wrong. If they spawn "trade npcs" for the open players this doesn't really help matters either as everyone is just working against npcs on their own.

It's a pity it wasn't answered as it was asked a lot in the thread from the first day. I think it was a bit more important to the player base than the pronunciation of Paterus

This is why they are tracked as a balance rather than filling a bucket in the sense that the community goals do. All actions for and against are counted.

Michael

 

[Distance]

That is a concern indeed, but there is as of yet no evidence that it is an actual problem. As I mentioned above in the time of the Lugh CG my group of friends and I went to Khaka several times to blockade the Federal trading mission there. We found plenty of commanders trading in OPEN and we killed or diverted quite a few of them... that is until other federal players in combat ships came to defend them etc. To all practical purposes all our OPEN time in Khaka was full of PVP players, traders or otherwise.

Oh yes I was trading in Lugh for csg as well and did a few other trade goals. The difference is whilst there are some traders in open in cg the majority of the work is done in solo. Even if there's some good pvp in open between the few traders and pirates it doesn't have much influence on the outcome of the goal due to the amount of players in solo.

- - - Updated - - -

This is why they are tracked as a balance rather than filling a bucket in the sense that the community goals do. All actions for and against are counted.

Michael

Thanks for the feedback. I can only comment on my experiences from current community goals so I'll surely have feedback once pp comes out.

Are there any plans to ramp up the npc difficulty in solo to even it out to open when community goals are active?

 

[Viajero]

Oh yes I was trading in Lugh for csg as well and did a few other trade goals. The difference is whilst there are some traders in open in cg the majority of the work is done in solo. Even if there's some good pvp in open between the few traders and pirates it doesn't have much influence on the outcome of the goal due to the amount of players in solo.

I know what you mean but remember that all the time I spent in OPEN in Khaka was full of players coming to trade for the CG with their T6, T7 and T9 etc and we were busy with them most of the time. What difference does it make to me that tehre were other 30 players playing in SOLO at the same time as we were in there if that time I spent in OPEN was already full of traders willing to play also in OPEN. I had more than enough of them to fill my playing time. I cant stop them all.

I think that measuring explicitely both OPEN and SOLO missions progress can help determine if there is an issue. If blockading players all of a sudden stop encountering human traders to blockade there may actually be a problem. But so far, imhe, that has not been the case.

Personally I d rather have CG or PP missions counted more if you contributed in OPEN anyways, as that would foster more co-op and escorting missions etc... but that is not a popular choice I reckon

 

[Distance]

I know what you mean but remember that all the time I spent in OPEN in Khaka was full of players coming to trade for the CG with their T6, T9 etc and we were busy with them most of the time. What difference does it make to me that tehre were other 30 players playing in SOLO at the same time as we were in there if that time I spent in OPEN was already full of traders willing to play also in OPEN. I had more than enough of them to fill my playing time.

It matters because regardless of fun some people find it fun to have their actions count for something. It might be fun and feel like you're actively participating in stopping the traders in open but if there are 10 traders for every 1 trader in open your actions are going to be pointless

I have fun in open trading against blockades or blockading/pirating myself so don't get me wrong but it is a valid concern.

 

[Viajero]

It matters because regardless of fun some people find it fun to have their actions count for something. It might be fun and feel like you're actively participating in stopping the traders in open but if there are 10 traders for every 1 trader in open your actions are going to be pointless

My actions would be "pointless" (as you say) even if all of them were in OPEN.

For one, the game instancing limits would take care of that. You cant possibly see ALL players playing in your area. What difference does it make that they are in OPEN if you cant see them anyways. And second as I mentioned above, we are limited in our ability to interact and play with others by virtue of the moment to moment game design. You can only play with and handle so many enemies... in the case of my experience in Khaka our activity was non stop. It made no difference to my gaming there that others were in SOLO because I would not have been able to intercept them all anyways even if in OPEN.

If all of a sudden I stopped seeing players to intercept then maybe we would have an issue. That is why I think that separate visibility of mission progress for SOLO and OPEN can help identifying if we have issues or not.

 

[OillyRag]

It matters because regardless of fun some people find it fun to have their actions count for something. It might be fun and feel like you're actively participating in stopping the traders in open but if there are 10 traders for every 1 trader in open your actions are going to be pointless

I have fun in open trading against blockades or blockading/pirating myself so don't get me wrong but it is a valid concern.

I know this has been done to death in other threads but I have to agree, why strive to achieve a goal only to find all your efforts have been undermined by players you cannot see or have any way of opposing.

Micheal talk of a balance rathe than a bucket, im hoping he will be able to shed some more light on that for us over the next little while.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

Are there any plans to ramp up the npc difficulty in solo to even it out to open when community goals are active?

Pity you added the end on that sentence. We need this everywhere, not just when there are community goals around.

Solo should not be easy mode. NPC difficulty should be ratcheted up considerably. Can't those people whining about a lack of Elite anacondas to kill in their little ships see how laughable that is? The spawning of NPCs in solo should be informed by what is happening in the system in open: if there are a pile of homicidal maniacs in open, there should be homicidal maniacs in solo. If open is empty, so should solo be. And the level of difficulty should scale with the political structure. In a democracy, there should be lots of police swarming to make homicidal maniacs think more than twice before acting. In an anarchy, anything goes. And, of course, we need the transponder so that you cannot be ganked just for being a PC.

All that was really needed at the start of the game. Now we have what seems to be large numbers running off to hide in solo/mobius. If and when FD fix it, most of those will not come back. Solo should be a place for those who need solo for bandwidth reasons, or who want to avoid all interaction with other players. Open should be for everyone else. We are so far away from that, and I fear the game will never recover.

 

[SentineI]

This is why they are tracked as a balance rather than filling a bucket in the sense that the community goals do. All actions for and against are counted.

I also saw that reply in the AMA, but think it's a bit misleading: While it is clever to have Solo players balancing other Solo players (and same for Open), in the end you will still need to add the Solo result to the Open result to decide the actual outcome. It seems fairly certain that Solo players will be given less importance (i.e. a lower weighting) than Open players.

While some people might not like that, it would at least clear-up a lot of confusion that your answer seems to have generated (see posts above mine). And it would be in-line with how Community Goals works (albiet slightly more complex).

 

[Viajero]

It seems fairly certain that Solo players will be given less importance (i.e. a lower weighting) than Open players.

Not sure FDEV has stated anything of the sort... yet. I remember Sandro Sammarco started that discussion some time ago in this forum but Im not sure a public decision was made, no?

Would be nice to have a clarification about mission contribution "weights" that is for sure. Although whatever route FDEV goes in this issue there will probably be a large number of players who wont like it .

 

[Michael Brookes]

Not sure FDEV has stated anything of the sort... yet. I remember Sandro Sammarco started that discussion some time ago in this forum but Im not sure a public decision was made, no?

Would be nice to have a clarification about mission contribution "weights" that is for sure. Although whatever route FDEV goes in this issue there will probably be a large number of players who wont like it .

We're currently not planning any weighting of effects between the different play modes.

Michael

 

[Michael Brookes]

I also saw that reply in the AMA, but think it's a bit misleading: While it is clever to have Solo players balancing other Solo players (and same for Open), in the end you will still need to add the Solo result to the Open result to decide the actual outcome. It seems fairly certain that Solo players will be given less importance (i.e. a lower weighting) than Open players.

While some people might not like that, it would at least clear-up a lot of confusion that your answer seems to have generated (see posts above mine). And it would be in-line with how Community Goals works (albiet slightly more complex).

The AMA answer only mentions solo play, it's actually all actions and from all play modes that are measured against each other. So there are 12 solo fortify and 20 open play that counts as 32 actions. Unlike community goals there is an opposing action that can be performed and it is the greater tally that wins rather than first across the goal.

Michael

 

[Ydiss]

The only imbalance I see is the diminishing returns from playing in open and with friends.

To complete a pve task in the most efficient way (and efficiency is important for players who can't play 24/7), it must be performed in solo.

Doing kill missions in open will have diminishing returns when facing real players (longer time to kill, more chance of needing to repair, more chance of death). This is also the case for most other mission types, excluding time to kill.

Trying to complete any kill mission in a wing gives diminishing returns, amplified by the size of the wing. I had hoped this wasn't the case and that the reduced time to kill would have made it at least equal. However, this isn't the case, in practice.

I've seen a Dev suggest that he felt it would be fine to allow the community effect to be increased by being in open (whereas the personal reward remains fixed). This would be a decent compromise for considering open player contribution.

However, wing rewards haven't been addressed.

I suggest the following:

1. Rewards in a wing are given to the whole wing, regardless of attacking the target, providing the player is engaged in combat (determined by the player having performed an aggressive act, or had an aggressive act performed on them, within the last 15 seconds) and they are in proximity (within 10km).

This would allow wing players to split their fire without needing to panic and all "tag" every single target just to get a share. Combined fire will be faster for some ships. However, I'm certain the main reason wing rewards are slower is due to the time wasted where every member must target, acquire and "tag" even the smallest, most worthless, targets.

2. Most games with group play provide a bonus to rewards when grouping up. This is exactly to encourage group play over solo (because of the exact same reasons we discuss here, solo is usually, by definition, the fastest way to gain). I think wings should get a bonus. But it should be provided by content designed for different size wings.

3. Being in a wing has a hard coded bonus towards any community goal of power play. Not personal but global. This is to offset the diminishing returns but also to encourage working together. After all, that's what community goals are.