Powerplay Collusion Piracy and More

[Robert Maynard]

As we've discussed many times before (and as Sandro, it seems to have become aware), the fact of the matter is that this idea of "parity" is a falsehood because it completely leaves out the possibility of destruction and disruption at the hands of other commanders.

The benefit (and potential penalty) of playing in Open, should a play choose to do so, is interacting with other players in the only game mode with an unlimited population.

You state that a "penalisation" of Solo and PG would make players "have" to go to Open to get the benefit of that: but seem to be perfectly content at the current situation where players "have" to play in Solo or Private Group in order to avoid the very real risk of other players with no counterbalance.

.... "have to go to Open" - to achieve the same contribution to their Power as they currently achieve in either of the other two modes. The current situation is the status quo - what is being proposed is a change that breaks the principle that player impact on the single shared galaxy state is equal in all three game modes.

The solution of course, is to balance it so that the bonus would make the choice a close one, where the relative risk of Open has an added bonus to your power, in a way that encourages the type of multiplayer gameplay that Open is supposed to facilitate.

A delicate balance - it rather depends on the make-up of the player-base. I wonder what the Open Powerplay Bonus would need to be to encourage all players who engage in Powerplay into Open....

In our previous discussions this is where you dismiss the risk of Open as negligible: but we both know that that is simply untrue for Powerplay.

I, and many others on this forum have extensive and intensive experience of playing Open in contested expansions. You do not.

We have discussed the risks in Open in general - which are predominantly exactly the same as in Solo (in the very nearly 100% of systems where there are no other players) - except for areas where players choose to congregate.

A slippery slope argument is fallacious and no reason to not implement changes, the devs are aware of what they're doing.

Whether Frontier choose to implement this proposed change (or not) and whether any subsequent Open Bonuses are considered / implemented (as have been requested / demanded by some players) is as yet unknown.

 

[CommodoreSim]

First thank you for your reply and transparency, you cannot know that that mean to us commanders struggling in the Powerplay enviromnet.

1) Creating a voting system to allow Commanders, by the act of majority will, to withdraw from poor control systems, ensuring mechanisms are in place to prevent profitable systems from being voted out.

Yes please

2) Utilising an UP / DOWN vote feature, which would exist primarily to be a channel of communication within the game for pledged Commanders) to also provide veto functionality at the preparation stage, allowing, by the act of majority will, poor control system candidates from being purchased as expansion targets.

Yes please again

3) Introducing a combo mechanism for fortification allotments, limiting the purchase of rushed allotments based on successful deliveries - the more you deliver the more you can pay to rush - whilst adding temporary fortification disbarring for losing fortification commodities.

This essentially is another example of "Majority Will" which I and those I'm discussing with are very much in favor with. We currently have a host of Rookie CMDRs who wish to participate in PP but we are essentially forced to recommend against their participation as their hauling ability is too low. Rather we recommend they instead focus their time resources into acquiring a larger hauler. This has the added cause of forcing more PP responsibility on senior players who do have large haulers as well as the capital to fast track. Everybody looses in the current system. This feature could go a long way to free those senior players to do other tasks, and rookie players can feel their contributions have meaning in PP.

My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo. So the playing field is basically uneven as it stands and in this case, maybe change could make things better.

Again this is receiving favorable response from my community. I will say that we still hold that restricting PP to exclusively OPEN play is the best option, but we seem to agree that what you are proposing is an excellent compromise. Please remember that this is our opinion when deciding what the scale should be, for example a 30-50% improvement for OPEN play would be preferred vs a 5-15%.

However and I am speaking for myself here: This multiplier should only apply to affect of PP contributions. By this I mean that if it is a 50% reduction(just for easy numbers sake) then a player delivering 100 tonnes in solo would only have the effect as if they delivered 50 tonnes(always rounding up for odd numbers division). Yet I would still grant these players the full 100 merits gained. There is a reason for this, while it does make it easier for players to maintain higher allotments through having a higher PP rank. It essentially is a shield against PP ignorance, so the grinders who simply haul to the nearest systems and massively over fortify still gain their merits at the same rate and quit. This would mitigate the harm their ignorance causes somewhat.

Thank you for your time. I hope you are able to institute many of the ideas you have here. I understand that there are limits to the resources your team has but I would encourage you to remember that New features may gain new players but broken features shed existing players who are the majority and necessary to train new players in an MMO world. If a new player is well served by a happy existing community that new player will be far more likely to stay and buy other game essentials.

Best Wishes
CMDR Commodore Sim
Aislings Angels

 

[Asp Explorer]

Whether Frontier choose to implement this proposed change (or not) and whether any subsequent Open Bonuses are considered / implemented (as have been requested / demanded by some players) is as yet unknown.

If FD do implement such a thing - you can fully expect a considerable percentage of a certain player demographic to make manufacturers of potato-routers have a sales spike

 

[CMDR ShodFir]

This should mean that fortifiers will get cooperative escort wings to help assist their Power

We do this in Hudson's TACO CORP on xbox from time to time... we don't have the irksome burden of people being able to go to a private group to work cooperatively so if your guys know were we're working they'll try and jump us (which we welcome).

We also have to sometimes have CMDRs loaded for PvP flying CAP/Overwatch when prep wings are working (which we also welcome)

It makes for a much more complete experience, anybody that says powerplay is a mindless grind should try it in open all the time like we do.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

The benefit (and potential penalty) of playing in Open, should a play choose to do so, is interacting with other players in the only game mode with an unlimited population.

Playing in a game mode with "unlimited population" grants no benefit to your power. The impossibility of being blown up by an enemy CMDR on the other hand, is a tangible benefit (and I know for a fact that expansions have been won and lost on the basis of player destruction in Open).

.... "have to go to Open" - to achieve the same contribution to their Power as they currently achieve in either of the other two modes. The current situation is the status quo - what is being proposed is a change that breaks the principle that player impact on the single shared galaxy state is equal in all three game modes.

Again, the current system is NOT equal because of the added risk of enemy CMDRs in Open.

A delicate balance - it rather depends on the make-up of the player-base. I wonder what the Open Powerplay Bonus would need to be to encourage all players who engage in Powerplay into Open...

An impossibility, and not a realistic or a desired goal.

We have discussed the risks in Open in general - which are predominantly exactly the same as in Solo (in the very nearly 100% of systems where there are no other players) - except for areas where players choose to congregate.

Except where players choose to congregate... such as Powerplay expansion and control systems? Why not have bonuses in these specific instances when we know for a fact players WILL congregate?

 

[Enef]

They are not talking about making Powerplay Open-only. It's about REWARDING those of us who take the risk to do everything in Open. I for one readily agree with this.

 

[SHEPR0N]

.... "have to go to Open" - to achieve the same contribution to their Power as they currently achieve in either of the other two modes. The current situation is the status quo - what is being proposed is a change that breaks the principle that player impact on the single shared galaxy state is equal in all three game modes.

Following your definition that principle is already broken in the current state when it comes to undermining/combat expansions in wings. Combat merits are not splitted when earned in wings (like winged bounty hunting) but fully awarded for each player. A solo player has less firepower and needs longer for interdictions/populating Supercruise so less impact. Private group wings don't have to deal with potential interference from other faction players so their potential impact when investing the same time is as least as big as a wing in open. The interference argument can also be applied to fortification or preparation of course.

We have discussed the risks in Open in general - which are predominantly exactly the same as in Solo (in the very nearly 100% of systems where there are no other players) - except for areas where players choose to congregate.

I must have imagined all the times I was attacked by players in my fortification ship while returning to HQ to restock then. The galaxy is huge and encountering players in random systems is not very likely indeed but one of the merits of PowerPlay is the fact that it focuses player activity on a relatively small subset of systems. Expansion and preparation systems can be very populated places if the instancing gods are willing, especially those where several Powers have clashing interests. There is literally no real danger at all for players in private/solo who at least somewhat know what they are doing to be in those systems, one can end up quite dead very quickly in open while in those places though.

 

[Rudolphus]

I have been thinking about the multiplier in open and while I can agree to it,

I share the concerns of other cmdrs that when you haul goods to HQ you have a disadvantage because the opposition can gank your HQ,
we will be attacked by a wing that would have a total rebuy cost of 2 million when destroyed, while I would have rebuy costs of 34 million

I also have concerns with the voting system will be the new 5c column they voting to shed good systems from a power

also about limiting the fast tracking I see as unfair, and i would like to have a button like in trading that I can fasttrack my hold full with one click instead how it is now with clicking back and fort

 

[Roybe]

I'm not sure if you participate in Powerplay Robert, but players who do so in open are subject to significantly greater risks than those in private or solo. Powerplay is about player group competition and there is a lot of PvP involved.

I have no problem about people playing in groups or solo, but those people who do so must also recognise they are taking an easier option.

Sandro,

If we begin to play in open more often than not, you should reconsider how fortification packages are delivered, as those taking them back to their home capital will be at a considerable disadvantage. It needs to be a level playing field on this and I would love to know why you decided to have one power take widgets to a home capital and others take them away from their home capital.

there should be very little Open competition for Powerplay...it's a PvE grind contest...bascially, if you are playing in Open you are putting yourself at a disadvantage.

 

[persephonius]

Hello Commanders!

As has been noted, the concept of punitive measures against (what I now suspect is "handshake undermining" ) is:

We remove the ability to automatically fast track infinite allottments.

The more Powerplay commodities you deliver successfully, the more allotmentsyou can fast track.

If you lose Powerplay commodities, unintentionally or on purpose, you temporarily lose the ability to collect allotments, and this measure ends you have to build up your fast track combo from scratch.

I love the suggested open play changes.
.

I like the idea of limiting the ability to 'handshake undermine', but the suggested change hurts other aspects too.
.
For example, I can play only a few hours in the evenings, and I fast track fortify and get 3 or 4 runs in. If you limit the ability of commanders with available game time such as myself, you hurt us unfairly I believe. It would be easier to just remove the 5 times multiplier. Commanders may be using handshake undermining as it can acquire merits extremely quickly in little time. Removing the 5 times multiplier means there is no longer a gain. Also, commanders will have to then deliver 5 times as many packages making it 5 times more expensive for whoever is fast tracking them, and making the process take 5 times longer. This change will only impede the hand shake process without affecting those that need to fortify in short bursts.
.
The suggested changes also limit a powers ability to reactively fortify in the dying hours of the cycle. If commanders are limited in what they can fast track, burst fortifications will be impeded. Is this really a fair change?

 

[Elethiomel Zakalwe]

Most of this sounds good, particularly the part about magnifying the effectiveness of actions performed in open, but I don't like #3 at all. It sounds like yet another thing to make the game more grindy for no good reason at all. However it does give me an idea, which is to decrease the cost to purchase rushed allotments based on successful deliveries – the more you deliver and gain the trust of your employer, the less they make you pay up front for them to entrust you with their cargo.

 

[Jockey79]

<SNIP>

And since I'm in the mood for pulling hand grenades , here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.

My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo. So the playing field is basically uneven as it stands and in this case, maybe change could make things better. <SNIP>

Couple of things;

• What happened to FD treating the modes equally?
• The people who play open, play it for the reward of interacting with others - why does it need more rewards than other modes?
• What about people who play open, but never see others due to poor internet connections? (psudeo Solo)
• ^^ Also to add, what about people who know how P2P works and can play open but be sure to only see friends or remain Solo ? (does that not defeat your idea?)

And to comment on 1 small part, "Open play have a tougher time"... really, since when?? (I play open from time to time, never found it "tougher")
What about people with disabilities who struggle in Solo? Should they get extra to compensate for how tough they have it?
And XBox players, that pad is harder to use than my X52.... Shouldn't they get compensation for having it harder?

This can spiral very quickly - which is why the modes should reward the same no matter what the players do / say. That is keeping them equal.
People play open, to take the risks of open - that is their extra rewards.

 

[Quantrix]

Hello Commanders!
And since I'm in the mood for pulling hand grenades , here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.

My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo. So the playing field is basically uneven as it stands and in this case, maybe change could make things better.

Totally against it. Players in open can switch to solo, if they think solo has an advantage.

Players in a wing have a much easier time to undermine and oppose than solo players (The system instance is reset after interdiction, so there is a long wait for the next spawn). Let's compensate for that as well, shall we?

Players in the some time regions have a much easier time than those in other time regions, dus to population differences. Let's compensate for that as well, shall we?

And so on.

If you do it once, you open a can of worms. Don't go there!

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Couple of things;

• What happened to FD treating the modes equally?
• The people who play open, play it for the reward of interacting with others - why does it need more rewards than other modes?
• What about people who play open, but never see others due to poor internet connections? (psudeo Solo)
• ^^ Also to add, what about people who know how P2P works and can play open but be sure to only see friends or remain Solo ? (does that not defeat your idea?)

And to comment on 1 small part, "Open play have a tougher time"... really, since when?? (I play open from time to time, never found it "tougher")
What about people with disabilities who struggle in Solo? Should they get extra to compensate for how tough they have it?
And XBox players, that pad is harder to use than my X52.... Shouldn't they get compensation for having it harder?

This can spiral very quickly - which is why the modes should reward the same no matter what the players do / say. That is keeping them equal.
People play open, to take the risks of open - that is their extra rewards.

Do you participate in powerplay?

 

[r4pt012]

Hello Sandro,

I am CMDR RAPTOR-i7. I am part of leadership at /r/elitelavigny for ALD and part of the team that organizes and completes 'Collusion Piracy' actions in order to better ALDs economy.

The simple fact that we have to undermine our own systems to improve our position should be making things blatantly clear that the mechanics involved in Powerplay are utterly broken and are not working the way they are intended. We would very much prefer that we did NOT have to do this for the betterment of our power, but that's the way things work.

Realistically, it is impossible for Allies to actually undermine a system via NPC piracy. Further, anyone who understands powerplay strategy knows that undermining other powers deficit causing control systems is only helping them - so it doesn't happen.

The way the game stands currently, it is extremely easy to lose 'good' systems and virtually impossible to lose 'bad' systems. Picking up bad systems automatically becomes a constant drain on any power with virtually no way in which those systems can be shed.

On to your suggestions:

Honestly, I don't think any of these solve the problem at large.

A massive problem with Powerplay is the fact that you have 'good' and 'bad' systems to start with. Removing 'bad' systems would simply make an active 5th column impossible. It would make trying to lose bad systems irrelevant. It would make the only way to harm another power be attacking it from an opposing one.

The fact that fortification of your systems can be harmful or that having systems undermined is useful is a complete reversal of what those mechanics are supposed to do. This is why powerplay needs a massive overhaul.

Also, the idea that a power can fortify every single system as still be put into turmoil also shows how ridiculous some of the mechanics are.

But beyond that, the biggest problem with powerplay is that it's a constant feeling of being stuck in a first person game of twitch plays pokemon

If I was you, I would move to change powerplay to a dynamic game of territory control instead of a game of convoluted economic management.

I would highly recommend looking into implementing the following overhauls.

1. Incentivising play in 'Open'.

2. Making every system a power controls positive for that economy - Thus making preparation, fortification and capture of systems an always positive thing.

3. Making the undermining and loss of systems detrimental to the power under all circumstances.

4. Remove any relationship between 'credits' and 'merits'. Money should not make you merits. Merits should not make you credits. Powerplay should not be a way for people to grind out their anacondas then quit.

5. Remove restrictions on moving fortification supplies and 'rushing' supplies. You should not be paying money or limited by a dispatcher knows damn well that those supplies need to reach your systems. Balance this with increased triggers if need be.

6. Consider additional triggers and make triggers dynamic. For example: For fortification, have a second, much higher 'HQ' trigger that converts the control system to an 'HQ' - where you can pick up supplies from. For Undermining, consider a trigger much higher 'Decimation' trigger that automatically removes a system that hasn't received its fortification allotments. For expansions, consider a tennis-style 'advantage' system where an expansion is contested -both the expansion and opposition triggers are met- and expansion wins, they should have to win it again in the next cycle to actually secure it.

7. Make more actions immediately visible on the systems they are completed in - Get rid of the likes of the 'merit bomb' for example.

8. Figure out how to make the capture and loss of systems more fluid. Things shouldn't be so static - they should be much more dynamic - especially in and around border-systems.

9. Do away with cycles. Have things run real-time.

If you need inspiration about how this should look, check out the game Planetside 2 .

 

[Perseus]

Really happy to hear changes to PP are being considered - especially about rewarding open play. As far as PP actions are concerned, Open is more difficult and risky than the other modes and this should be reflected.

 

[Zilfallion]

As a major fortifier and prep runner for ALD[Some cycles I end up down tens of millions or more], I'd be perfectly fine seeing #1 and #2 go through. I'd have to see more precise mechanics on #3 before I'd agree to it.

On the matter of Collusion Piracy, SCRAP, Handshaking, whatever you want to call it. Currently it is the only way to shed horrible systems pulling -67 CC a week or so, if you introduced a method that would let powers shed some of these HORRIBLE systems, go ahead and reduce the effectiveness of it.

What I think is most important though is Overheads. SHOW OVERHEAD FOR SYSTEMS! Show everyone the -62 CC per system that powers with 55 or more control systems have. Without an indepth analysis of the available information or visiting forums or reddit. People don't know how bad systems ACTUALLY are. If you introduce this vote mechanic, a lot of the uninformed are gonna see shedding a "Profitable" 30cc system or something as a bad thing when it actually is a -32 system. Fix that first.

 

[DaveB]

Disclaimer: I rarely PP and have spent less than a month in total pledged to any power since PP was introduced.

Having said that, there's an interesting point here. In every case where ships come into conflict with each other there is currently no difference between the benefit gained towards any goal from offing a NPC as compared to a Cmdr. In general gameplay (piracy, bounty hunting) or in CGs where the "sides" are just independent pilots without necessarily any association with the factions "sponsiring" the CG, this is a good thing and all the "equality of modes" arguments apply. FD cannot and should not allow the slightest difference between "what you get for an NPC" and "what you get for a Cmdr". However, there are two, possibly three, clearly different situations where the participating player are doing so in some organized manner while "officially" representing a non-player "influence" on the galaxy. These are of course primarily PvP actions against players pledged to an opposing power preventing them from fortifying their systems or undermining yours, joining a CZ on one side or another where you have effectively "signed up" with a faction and potentially (this third one will take a little more analysis to make sure it doesn't cross the line) when engaged in a combat mission on behalf of a minor faction.

Leaving aside any question of the relative risk posed by NPCs - and it's important we do that or we really are letting the camels nose into the tent - is it not reasonable for the "sponsor" of a pilots activity in those three situations to reward higher value targets a little more generously than they currently do? Now who are the most valuable pilots to take out of an opposing force? Members of the pilots federation, that's who. Us. All the NPCs haven't "qualified" for the title of "Commander" yet, we've all been invited into that august body, presumably (at least lore-wise) on merit. I see no problem with any reward a player gets directly for destroying another ship in some at least semi-organized conflict carrying a little more reward if the "enemy pilot" or "mission target" they took out was a Cmdr rather than an NPC. By no means should the rewards currently available for popping NPCs be reduced anywhere, but under these strictly defined circumstances a moderate bonus, say 5%, in combat bonds, mission credits or pp merits for taking out an enemy member of the pilots federation rather than some joe blow NPC wouldn't seem inappropriate. If that's too much of a hit to "mode equality", make it work the other way around too - under these circumstances, given a choice between another NPC (even one they are already engaged with) and you, because you're a member of the pilots federation they are 5% more likely to immediately switch to targeting you.

If you look at my posting history you'll see I'm one of the staunchest advocates of mode equality on the forums. This is probably because the reasons I play all three has nothing to do with risk, only with social/personal considerations. Something strictly limited like this, though, rewarding players for taking on potentially more dangerous targets and lore around it that justifies it, is fine by me. IT just has to be done very carefully so that its a reward for taking on teh harder task, not a detriment for not doing. The balance calculations for the baseline benefits still have to be "all modes equal" but if you are acting "officially" for somebody - they hired you (mission or mercenary in a CZ) or you signed up to their cause (PP) I see no problem with there being that little bonus available for you if you want to risk reaching for it.

 

[Abil Midena]

Hello Commanders!

...
And since I'm in the mood for pulling hand grenades , here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.
...

This is going to be High-Larry-Us when it gets implemented. PP will die. Why? All the people running "take stuff from here to there" type PP support will quit because they will have two choices: 1) Be half as effective (derived fro "significant") if not in Open. 2) Go to Open and be constantly slaughtered by the PKP griefer crowd, camping control/expansion systems, that loves killing non combat ships for the lols...they probably won't even be involved in PP, but just love the added easy targets. No one will be left to fortify. I foresee a lot of turmoil. Haha, get it...a lot of turmoil?

Oh, and once the bonuses start spreading to other areas for Open players, and they will, the only people left playing the game will be the PKP griefer types, wondering where everyone is (kinda like they do now, only worse). EVE II ftw.

 

[Ben Ryder]

Hi Sandro,

Here's some feedback



1) Creating a voting system to allow Commanders, by the act of majority will, to withdraw from poor control systems, ensuring mechanisms are in place to prevent profitable systems from being voted out.

The majority have no ideaabout the mechanics of power play and they also vary from what is in the manual. Further power descriptions do not reflect the acutality of the game. The majority will make bad judgements.




2) Utilising an UP / DOWN vote feature, which would exist primarily to be a channel of communication within the game for pledged Commanders) to also provide veto functionality at the preparation stage, allowing, by the act of majority will, poor control system candidates from being purchased as expansion targets.


As above.


3) Introducing a combo mechanism for fortification allotments, limiting the purchase of rushed allotments based on successful deliveries - the more you deliver the more you can pay to rush - whilst adding temporary fortification disbarring for losing fortification commodities.


Fix the fundamental stuff like merit sniping. Systems are only conquered if a chit is handed in by the end of the week? This makes no sense.

Fortification going to 'wrong systems' and over fortification. Commanders paying for fortification? Shouldnt the power be providing the materials for free?


Most importantly fix the powers system effects and rewards first starting with the descriptions.


Best fix would be to turn all powers in to minor factions with 80% influence in control systems and 65% in exploited systems. This would merge power play smoothly with the background simulation and player groups.

Thanks