Fixing PP would be extremely simple.

60mm

60mm
Replace Power restricted access to PP weapons/modules with unlocking that Power's reward first. Every month after lets you choose another to unlock.
In one fell swoop, PP can now be properly RP'd without everyone being traitors incessantly. This alone would make a night and day difference in all things PP. The current method of having to branch jump monthly to unlock items absolutely destroys PP. I wish I could choose a Power and fight for it, but at the cost of losing access to lots of nice modules? . . . no thanks.

Merits degrade every 4 weeks, synchronized with your PP unlock window, instead of weekly.
No more Wednesday night cram that I'm sure a huge chunk of plays (raises hand) engage in once a month. If players had 4 weeks to build up merits, they could simply go about their business whilst keeping an eye out for enemy factions to destroy or picking up PP duties peppered in with their normal play. PP would be far more organic, and not the monthly-squeeze-in-a-grind that it is. I'm sure the servers would appreciate the reduction of traffic spikes as well.
 

Darty

Darty
Issues with powerplay in order of severity:
-Solo/pg/other platforms/blocking being used to make it a pve fight instead of a pvp fight
-5c
-Ethos being silly and unbalanced. Some powers are strong against very common gov types in both expansion and control, while others have mismatching expansion/control strength and one or both of those ethos is of a rare faction. Also the whole hudson and AD not being strong against any federation/imperial faction types.
-Module shoppers.
-Merits decaying too quickly and not giving out good enough rewards.

*also lots of sillyness with the way CC is calculated, managed and displayed, but I'm not informed on that issue

I would love to see the last 2 addressed but they would by no means fix powerplay.
 

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
Darty said:
Issues with powerplay in order of severity:
-Solo/pg/other platforms/blocking being used to make it a pve fight instead of a pvp fight
-5c
-Ethos being silly and unbalanced. Some powers are strong against very common gov types in both expansion and control, while others have mismatching expansion/control strength and one or both of those ethos is of a rare faction. Also the whole hudson and AD not being strong against any federation/imperial faction types.
-Module shoppers.
-Merits decaying too quickly and not giving out good enough rewards.

*also lots of sillyness with the way CC is calculated, managed and displayed, but I'm not informed on that issue

I would love to see the last 2 addressed but they would by no means fix powerplay.
Click to expand...

If FD grew some balls and enacted Sandros proposal, it would address 4 out of 5 of these- with merit decay being the outlier. And these days collecting merits is stupidly easy so its not as big a problem as it used to be.
 

badibeat

badibeat
Using a bunch of internal jargon does not help to make a topic popular, I also want a repairable PP (power plant), just my 5c (five cents).
 
Last edited:

Factabulous

Factabulous
I fear the rot may make repair uneconomic

139927
 

Starman 1966

S
PP is not the only construction site within ED and I severely doubt that PP is on top of FD's work list. It's really sad that a game with the potential of ED is crippled by its own developers in that manner.
 

Darty

Darty
Rubbernuke said:
If FD grew some balls and enacted Sandros proposal, it would address 4 out of 5 of these- with merit decay being the outlier. And these days collecting merits is stupidly easy so its not as big a problem as it used to be.
Click to expand...
Going open only without addressing pad and beacon blocking would create other issues too though. Right now both are pretty ineffective due to the fact everyone just makes an exception to their open only rules and switches to solo/pg when you start doing them.
 

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
Darty said:
Going open only without addressing pad and beacon blocking would create other issues too though. Right now both are pretty ineffective due to the fact everyone just makes an exception to their open only rules and switches to solo/pg when you start doing them.
Click to expand...

Although Open would change Powerplay (IMO for the better) its not needed to sort most of your highlighted issues in the context of the first proposal- the main one being 5C. Although it would never happen, I'd love FD to spin up a beta PP server to see how Open only shakes out.
 

badibeat

badibeat
Rubbernuke said:
Not going off topic, but its really, really hard to talk about deep rooted Powerplay issues without jargon because it is probably the most complex system in the game.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your reply. Complicated topics can get easier to grasp with disambiguated language, even if it uses a few characters more. I got a bit put off as I wanted to understand the arguments, but can't be bothered to look this terminology up (and where?).
 
Last edited:

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
badibeat said:
I appreciate your reply. Complicated topics can get easier to grasp with disambiguated language, even if it uses a few characters more.
Click to expand...

If you post a list of Powerplay jargon thats confusing or unknown, myself or some other soul can explain it better.
 

Ithrian

I
Rubbernuke said:

OP: Module shoppers were a problem in PP at the beginning, whereas now its more of a 5C exploit issue. Your ideas are neat and I'd love to see them, but PP requires a more root and branch redesign. Sandros proposal was the absolute minimum to bandaid Powerplay really.
Click to expand...

What is 5C exploit issue? Sorry but I am new to the forum and I don't know the jargon yet.
 

Lateralus

Lateralus
Rubbernuke said:
Although Open would change Powerplay (IMO for the better) its not needed to sort most of your highlighted issues in the context of the first proposal- the main one being 5C. Although it would never happen, I'd love FD to spin up a beta PP server to see how Open only shakes out.
Click to expand...

I don't think a beta server would give a true reflection of the desired end-result as a lot of players (including myself) never bother with betas - limited game time means I don't like to lose progress. IMO a better approach would be a temporary trial of open only powerplay on the live server, as this would generate a lot more interest and participation knowing the impact and effects of it would not be lost as they would be with a beta.

It would be the most accurate way of seeing how OOPP would pan out.

Ithrian said:
What is 5C exploit issue? Sorry but I am new to the forum and I don't know the jargon yet.
Click to expand...

5th Column - means to deliberately work against a faction from within.
 

znôrt

znôrt
not an exploit. at this point i would like to stress that 5c is not the problem, but the symptom.

5c (spying, infiltration, sabotage and treason) is to be expected in any game based on organized conflict, just as in real life. that's why groups need to keep sensible comms tight and police their ranks and territories, and that's actually part of the game. of course if instead of a proper multiplayer environment you have everyone grinding away solo in private universes then there's little the group can do about it ... except stepping up their own grind or 5c'ing the opposition.

playing powerplay and complaining about 5c is like jumping into a fire complaining it burns.

yes, open only would be a mandatory change for powerplay to be even taken seriously, and it would immediately expose a host of other flaws showing why a proper implementation of powerplay is not possible in elite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom