Contested Systems

[IohannisTyrannis]

I´ve a general issue with "contested systems" in power play but as it´s about a BGS response i post it here:

I believe the BGS should generate conflict zones in contested systems and peg their security level to at least "low". So if a imperial power and a federal power f.ex. booth claim a system there aren´t any repercussions as of now. This encourages forwarding control systems (the "open only" debate fits into this quite neat i think) meaning you block ruling(command, control?) points gain by seting up a control system within another power`s sphere. To deal with this trolling (you can with some coordination ruin a power [like Winter right now]) there ought to be a mechanism lowering the impact of this.

Me suggestion is pegging security to at least low and create war zones where agents fight in battles similar to the usual war states of systems. The outcomes (wthout player interaction) should be related to the distance from home systmes allowing to win a fight in your own backyard quite easily while having an impact in game as well. This´d also create some "border pressure" as long stalemates will deteriorate systems into anarchy zones which is plausible for me at least. Also those battle outcomes should help undermine the control systems so a forewarded control system is lost pretty easy without massive player intervention. And here you realy gona meet other players as well?
For inter faction rivalry you might keep the current model of litterally no consequences but for alliance/imperium and federation constested systems there should be an in game aspect.

 

[Nightstorm]

Since most BGS players (I think?) have no interest in PP, I don't think it would be popular if the security level was depressed by a game mechanic we're not involved in. We never asked for our systems be on the frontier - PP arrived long after we set up shop in Lugh and the surrounding systems - and to get dragged into anarchy by it would just lead to us all giving up and leaving the game.

I can see what you're trying to achieve, and it makes sense from PP players' perspectives. It's a shame that FD overlaid PP on top of existing systems rather than having separate NulSec(?)-style zones a la EVE Online. Personally I wish I could turn off the whole part of the UI that tells me the PP state of systems I jump into.

Sorry, that was a bit incoherent!

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

Hmm...well, how about another choice then? Let's assume people don't want to be exploited at all by either Power, why not give them a fighting chance to kick both out of the System or avoid the Exploitation entirely?

 

[Nightstorm]

Hmm...well, how about another choice then? Let's assume people don't want to be exploited at all by either Power, why not give them a fighting chance to kick both out of the System or avoid the Exploitation entirely?

This! ...which IIRC was exactly what FDev promised would be added a few months after PP launched.

 

[Sapyx]

Hmm...well, how about another choice then? Let's assume people don't want to be exploited at all by either Power, why not give them a fighting chance to kick both out of the System or avoid the Exploitation entirely?

This! ...which IIRC was exactly what FDev promised would be added a few months after PP launched.

I'm guessing - guessing - that the reason FD decided not to implement the proposed Freedom Fighter anti-Powerplay mechanism is that they observed the overwhelmingly positive response to this news, and realised the vast majority of experienced BGS players wanted nothing to do with Powerplay and would join a Freedom Fighter cause. Every single one of the Powers, with the possible exception of Mahon, would have swiftly found their territories riddled full of holes like a 1930s mob victim - and would be just as dead, shortly afterwards.

In other words, they didn't implement it because they realised it would have been too popular.

 

[IohannisTyrannis]

Since most BGS players (I think?) have no interest in PP,

Uhh ...well... i thought it was the natural end game for ppl with all maxed out ships. And yes i do agree there are several shortfalls in joining a major faction in the first place but i surely don´t dig into the all anarchy systems pseudo freedom fighter narative. It´s naive and childish for me.
Ever tried to live with several different people in one flat? There is a requirement for rules simple and plain as day. For me some anarchy collective is implausible. Yeah Frontier´re selling a game and of course they have to listen to the demands of the player base and if it turns out the majority of the playerbase is fond of having some illogical fantasy universe full of naive pseudo politicians well...then that´s unresonable and a poor choice for me.

I belong to the "PP is genreally a good idea of adding a meta level to the peew-peew level" group. And no i don´t want some EVE clone. EVE has severe shortfalls (requirement of multiple accounts?) ... that´s why i play ED. Maybe it´s the same with the hillarious "leegs" debate. I don´t think running through endless coridors´d add gameplay to a space sim.

As for the PP shortfalls: i believe joining a super power should gain boons like having full vision in it´s sphere of influence, getting all market data, having acess to "protect the colonists" or "help building that outpost" mission types ect. I understand why the rather modest modules aren´t interesting and the defection penalty of one day wanted status is kind of laughable as well. It looks like you are engaged in some minor faction PP as that´s what PMG are so your argument against general PP seems a bit weak or incoherent indeed. Maybe you can pan out your objections a bit more?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

As for the PP shortfalls: i believe joining a super power should gain boons like having full vision in it´s sphere of influence, getting all market data, having acess to "protect the colonists" or "help building that outpost" mission types ect. I understand why the rather modest modules aren´t interesting and the defection penalty of one day wanted status is kind of laughable as well. It looks like you are engaged in some minor faction PP as that´s what PMG are so your argument against general PP seems a bit weak or incoherent indeed. Maybe you can pan out your objections a bit more?

Common objections to Powerplay:
- none of the eleven power figureheads are remotely appealing unless you're into creepy authoritarians. (I mean, sure, that fits the Elite Dangerous setting very well, anyone at that level probably should be a creepy authoritarian - but that doesn't imply any of us are required to support them)
- the mechanics of Powerplay are horrendously exploitable (see e.g. the extensive thread in Dangerous Discussion about "5C" in Powerplay for several examples) such that the easiest way to attack a power is to join it and waste its resources on bad decisions, rather than directly fighting it.
- major bugs in Powerplay can stick around for years unfixed (and we're talking about bugs on the level of "corporate factions have their influence consistently misreported" in a BGS sense, for example). It's not that BGS bugs on that level don't occur - but Frontier does generally do something about them pretty quickly as well.
- there's a much lower variation in the activities available for Powerplay compared with the BGS (you can haul stuff or you can shoot stuff)
- because of some of the above issues, any power that doesn't have a single coherent strategy across its workers is doomed (and may still be doomed even if it does, of course). There are rather more than 11 player groups, or sets of opinions, in the game.
- the interaction between Powerplay and the detail-level BGS is extremely poor

I'm sure lots of the larger BGS groups would be interested in a well-thought out, implemented and supported "regional power" mechanism that had impact on a larger scale than the system-by-system, asset-by-asset micromanagement of the BGS, but integrated properly with it. But Powerplay would have to be completely torn down and rebuilt for it to be anything resembling that.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Common objections to Powerplay:
- none of the eleven power figureheads are remotely appealing unless you're into creepy authoritarians. (I mean, sure, that fits the Elite Dangerous setting very well, anyone at that level probably should be a creepy authoritarian - but that doesn't imply any of us are required to support them)
- the mechanics of Powerplay are horrendously exploitable (see e.g. the extensive thread in Dangerous Discussion about "5C" in Powerplay for several examples) such that the easiest way to attack a power is to join it and waste its resources on bad decisions, rather than directly fighting it.
- major bugs in Powerplay can stick around for years unfixed (and we're talking about bugs on the level of "corporate factions have their influence consistently misreported" in a BGS sense, for example). It's not that BGS bugs on that level don't occur - but Frontier does generally do something about them pretty quickly as well.
- there's a much lower variation in the activities available for Powerplay compared with the BGS (you can haul stuff or you can shoot stuff)
- because of some of the above issues, any power that doesn't have a single coherent strategy across its workers is doomed (and may still be doomed even if it does, of course). There are rather more than 11 player groups, or sets of opinions, in the game.
- the interaction between Powerplay and the detail-level BGS is extremely poor

I'm sure lots of the larger BGS groups would be interested in a well-thought out, implemented and supported "regional power" mechanism that had impact on a larger scale than the system-by-system, asset-by-asset micromanagement of the BGS, but integrated properly with it. But Powerplay would have to be completely torn down and rebuilt for it to be anything resembling that.

One of the dreams I had:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-concept-using-the-BGS-and-player-groups-PMFs

 

[IohannisTyrannis]

I'm sure lots of the larger BGS groups would be interested in a well-thought out, implemented and supported "regional power" mechanism that had impact on a larger scale than the system-by-system, asset-by-asset micromanagement of the BGS, but integrated properly with it. But Powerplay would have to be completely torn down and rebuilt for it to be anything resembling that.

I totally agrre with the need to incorporate payer groups into a coherent power bloc structure. But unless you´re willing to grant the palyers ability to manufacure all components and bigger ships (which has the equally booring EVE flavour to it) you need some guidance and ressource allocation. Yeah all big powers are kind of "creepy authoritarians" when considering them to be evil overlords of some kind. But in the same instance they give Frontier an ability to steer the game and include the abstract of being able to "build megaships", "seed outposts" ect.
I´m entirely against the "give the players everything" as this is "horrendeously exploitable" as well.You know how every EVE player needs to run several feeder accounts to progress? I don´t want that otherwise i´d play EVE.
The figureheads need some detailing yes.
PMF may become kind of dukal level henchmen allright.
But as the "players do everything" apporach entails feeder accounts i´m against it. Yeah in the real world this is a natural consequence and it does in no way lower server maintanance or programming requirements- it´s just another buisness model. A buisness model i´m not very fond of as you can guess.
The BGS is an automatic system and yes it has it´s shortfalls as you´ve pointed out in the "granularity" argument. And yes i agree the hauling vouchers stuff is ... well "not appealing" to say the least. The defection penalty is laughable and invites hillarious exploitation strategies as you´ve mentionend. I tried to point some of these shortfalls too nothing more- and make some suggestions. Some of the points Rubbernuke made in the link are appealing.

I hope FD will read some of the posts as i´ve stated elsewhere the community does provide sensible input. I don´t know how much programming this might include though. Or how the server load might change with those changes implemented.

 

[Jane Turner]

This! ...which IIRC was exactly what FDev promised would be added a few months after PP launched.

And we got really excited about it!

and would about this

I'm sure lots of the larger BGS groups would be interested in a well-thought out, implemented and supported "regional power" mechanism that had impact on a larger scale than the system-by-system, asset-by-asset micromanagement of the BGS, but integrated properly with it. But Powerplay would have to be completely torn down and rebuilt for it to be anything resembling that.

 

[Alshain]

Uhh ...well... i thought it was the natural end game for ppl with all maxed out ships.

It should have been. Powerplay has an unfortunate Catch 22. People are abandoning it because it's broken and FDev doesn't want to fix it because not enough people play it. It's a problem that has been feeding on itself and so the longer it goes broken, the fewer players will play it and the less FDev wants to fix it.

 

[Starwolfe]

Just tear down Powerplay I say.

Its broken, ineffective, and a virtual non-influence on the game as a whole compared to just about anything else.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Just tear down Powerplay I say.

Its broken, ineffective, and a virtual non-influence on the game as a whole compared to just about anything else.

If they are not willing to fix, improve and support it then I agree with you.