Powerplay Frontier, it's time to fix Powerplay.

[Memau]

Sandro's proposals go a long way to fixing some of the major problems with powerplay that are apparent today. Removing overhead alone would remove most of the loss making systems for all powers. They are typically close to HQ and often attract forts so would often have 0 cost due to fortification. This would make the 5C actions forcing such systems into powers pointless.

The fortification/undermining % battles are another important change that address the problem of stagnation, and act as a way to limit the growth of a power. Consolidation was brought in as a means to reduce the impact of 5C but has lead to stagnation and powers no longer needing to control their CC each cycle. In addition to this, removing the ability to undermine enemies undetected has also rendered most conventional attacks pointless. I wonder how much of the stability of the powers since consolidation has in some way lead to the increase in 5C expansions as the only means to weaken powers as a way to make them vulnerable to turmoil. Weaponised expansions do a similar thing but unlike 5C expansions they carry a cost to the attacking power.

The package of proposals, even without open only and mission changes initially, work together and would go a long way to address the problems that are now apparent. Some of these are due to design inbalances e.g. BGS ethos, others have only come to light as the powers have grown and encountered new challenges over the past few years.

 

[Renegade Bovine]

I am left with the assumption that, going back to Sandro's statement, FD are in favor of 5th Column style activities.

So how did we end up with a bunch of PP leaders that all (at least in public) reject 5C activities?

Seems crazy to me how many people try to play the game they wish FDEV made, rather than the game FDEV actually made. That goes for a number of topics:

• Open vs PG vs Solo
• 5C strategies
• AFK turret boats
• etc

 

[Bashy81]

So how did we end up with a bunch of PP leaders that all (at least in public) reject 5C activities?

Seems crazy to me how many people try to play the game they wish FDEV made, rather than the game FDEV actually made. That goes for a number of topics:

• Open vs PG vs Solo
• 5C strategies
• AFK turret boats
• etc

It's because in each case you mention, the easy banal option is also the most effective. This devalues Powerplay for everyone, and the lack of game-balance with these things puts them firmly in the Bug-reporting category. Which is what this thread is all about.

 

[xondk]

Powerplay needs some urgent attention.


What’s wrong?


The problem is not that Powerplay is boring, ill-conceived or too simple. It’s a cleverly complex grand strategy game played out amongst the stars, ruined by perverse incentives. At present, and since inception, the most effective way to support your chosen Power is to pledge to that of your enemy, and work against their interests from within. The consolidation vote did not solve this problem.

They’re not huge changes and they’re well overdue.

Powerplay needs addressing that much is true, rewards, faction jumping for reward, 5th column and whatnot, there are issues.

However to say it is boring, ill-conceived or 'too simply' seems to be a stretch, that doesn't mean its great though, but given the nature of Elite, and the sheer amount of systems and ways things can work or be moved. I think it is important to be realistic as well.

There are many good tweaks as have been talked about in several threads, but there's always those that will not like the new things, or want it the old way, what have you.
So it is an incredibly difficult thing to say what might or might not work, personally I think exploits and 5th column, and especially botting needs to be looked into yesterday and as many minor good qol changes as possible to at least get it somewhere better then where it is now.

Then and only then, once this whole thing becomes more stable and not people working to find the best way to misuse the system to win, only then should they look into how to change it for the better, otherwise I feel it will give a lopsided view on what is wrong, and what might be actually be a long term fun and entertaining system.

 

[Banger_uk]

we I heard from users so far that they want it completely removed from Solo players, I would disagree with that entirely. has with most new players like me who have not been around for the start of FED and don't have the £300 billion Credits or a clipper, Anaconda, or any other bigger ships makes it rather unfair in open mode why your learning powerplay.

Suggestion I think might work.

1) leave the powerplay solo mode on has I use it for sole training purposes (has a sort of training aid) but making sure that it does not effected the open play mode by separating the two options on different servers.

2) Credits and merits other actions (forts and others) separated on different servers for solo players mode
3) Restricted the number big ships, by removing there Gimballed, turrets Accessories(has they are op atm) .If one of the above not possible on open play/solo mode has most big ships are now just standing around At other bases hq waiting for Forts transporters to arrive to collected forts & others .(embargo)

has it can be off putting people to play power mode if you getting murdered repeatly by big ships,Constantly

edited notes:
friends listed should also be Separated has factions, that will stop anyone doing the combat. killing each other for Cqc and open play, to get their factions up the leader boards.also he can not see you ingame if he in a different faction.(he knows your online, but not physically your location)

 

[Renegade Bovine]

It's because in each case you mention, the easy banal option is also the most effective.

Supposing I concede this is true of Solo/PG mode and AFK turret boats, how is this possibly true of 5C strategies? These are complex and not simple, and I would imagine rather fun (not banal).

This devalues Powerplay for everyone

How so? Why? (I want to poke at why you hold this opinion).

and the lack of game-balance with these things

How is Open vs PG a game-balance thing? Everyone can pick PG if they want. That seems balanced.
How are 5C Strategies unbalanced? Every power could 5C any other power equally well if they wanted to, yes? This seems balanced?
How are AFK turret boats unbalanced? I suppose you have a point here since not all powers expand with combat, and I guess this is an advantage over the hauling powers. So I will concede that point here.

puts them firmly in the Bug-reporting category. Which is what this thread is all about.

Which is why I asked if FDEV every publicly agreed that these are bugs rather than features. They have all been complained about for years. The only thing perhaps "new" here is the number of people using them.

 

[Bashy81]

Supposing I concede this is true of Solo/PG mode and AFK turret boats, how is this possibly true of 5C strategies? These are complex and not simple, and I would imagine rather fun (not banal).



How so? Why? (I want to poke at why you hold this opinion).



How is Open vs PG a game-balance thing? Everyone can pick PG if they want. That seems balanced.
How are 5C Strategies unbalanced? Every power could 5C any other power equally well if they wanted to, yes? This seems balanced?
How are AFK turret boats unbalanced? I suppose you have a point here since not all powers expand with combat, and I guess this is an advantage over the hauling powers. So I will concede that point here.



Which is why I asked if FDEV every publicly agreed that these are bugs rather than features. They have all been complained about for years. The only thing perhaps "new" here is the number of people using them.

Please excuse the formatting, but i'll try to address everything there.

5c strategies are simple, compared to normal attacking or defensive approaches. Picking high-loss making systems to expand to and fortifying all the garbage etc, is about grind by fair means or foul, it doesnt take a genius, or even rely on making good choices. Balancing CC & reward/effort assessments are far more of a theory challenge than 5c which is in comparison, pretty much like beating yourself on the head with a mallet.

When the easy option is most effective, it devalues the actions of everyone not doing it. Not only, but not least, because they know throughout that they could be having far more impact by simply being a um, 'male chicken'. Its just like the passage in Catch 22, where Milo subcontracts bombing runs from the Germans because it is much more efficient for him to bomb his own airfields with his own US planes than for the Germans to bother doing it. Catch 22 is supposed to be a sickening farce btw, not an aspiration..

Open vs PG/Solo is a game-balance thing because Open is negated by the risk-free efficiency of zero-defences hauling in Solo/PG. Open becomes a pointless indulgence when Solo/PG is a Powerplay option. & yes, anyone can click solo/PG, but why should you be able to remove at a click, all the players of the opposing team, in a Team Game?. Sure, I wouldve been a hellova football player if I couldve done the same thing there. I wouldve needed very little teamwork, except to restart the game after I never failed to score a goal, over and over again, relentlessly. How ridiculously boring that wouldve been. Even small kids can figure that out on the playground & it really does apply here.

Yes, both sides in a conflict can choose the most effective course of action. Which is to leave a skeleton crew behind to stifle 5c action as best they are able, while the vast majority of CMDRs on each side pledge to the opposing power in order to 5c & Milo the hell out of their own airfields. Its a race to the bottom, last one with any players left, wins. well, loses, actually since all their players were pledged to the opposing team. Sounds fantasticly dumb, doesnt it? That's why we're against it.

AFK turret boats are unbalanced, but not because some powers dont use combat expansions. It's irrelevant if everyone can use an exploit or not, its still an exploit. AFK turret boats allow the equivalent of offline merit farming. AFK is offline near as damnit. It has less in common with ED than it does with bitcoin mining. There was some mention of it iirc from a dev, when healy beams were adjusted down. Zero effort, zero interaction, maximum effectiveness = A Bug. You dont need a dev to tell you that.

As for the other bugs, 5c is a valid thing in proportion. It is currently massively out of proportion of effect, and that is what makes it a bug. Espionage, 5c, these are all things that allow more diverse & intriguing gameplay for people attracted to that kind of thing & ive got no problem with that. A large part of the reward of such actions should be intelligence gathering & misinformation. What needs addressing is that 5c are more effective than any amount of conventional defense or attack , and are immune from any kind of defence or attack. They just keep on trucking, 24/7. And the game treats them like valued comrades and even pays them a wage, when every human participant knows they are parasitic cancer set on rotting the Power they are pledged to.

 

[Jockey79]

Open vs PG/Solo is a game-balance thing because Open is negated by the risk-free efficiency of zero-defences hauling in Solo/PG. Open becomes a pointless indulgence when Solo/PG is a Powerplay option. & yes, anyone can click solo/PG, but why should you be able to remove at a click, all the players of the opposing team, in a Team Game?. Sure, I wouldve been a hellova football player if I couldve done the same thing there. I wouldve needed very little teamwork, except to restart the game after I never failed to score a goal, over and over again, relentlessly. How ridiculously boring that wouldve been. Even small kids can figure that out on the playground & it really does apply here.

Of course "small kids" can figure that out, because it lacks facts, contains a bad analogy and doesn't solve the issue - small kid logic at its best.

PvP in Elite: Dangerous is an "indulgence" regardless of what you are doing.
No area of the main game depends on or is impacted in a meaningful way via PvP.
So PvP is nothing more than an optional extra, something you do for fun.

Elite: Dangerous is a team game even if you are in Solo Mode, because if you do not coordinate with others via the forums, Discord or social media then you're left wandering the galaxy aimlessly. So even in Solo play, you need to keep an eye on what everyone else is doing if you want to be useful and not a hindrance to your faction/team/clan/power.

In football, a member of the opposite team cannot shoot you in the face and keep playing without any repercussions.
Unlike Elite where you can go around killing members of the opposite team. Of course, you don't get paid for it.
Leading us back to PvP being an "indulgence" as there is no bonus to PP doing it.

You also ignored things like time zones, networking, blatant cheating all have an impact and none of which are solved via Open Only.

So you're right, a small kid could have thought up that post.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Of course "small kids" can figure that out, because it lacks facts, contains a bad analogy and doesn't solve the issue - small kid logic at its best.

PvP in Elite: Dangerous is an "indulgence" regardless of what you are doing.
No area of the main game depends on or is impacted in a meaningful way via PvP.
So PvP is nothing more than an optional extra, something you do for fun.

Elite: Dangerous is a team game even if you are in Solo Mode, because if you do not coordinate with others via the forums, Discord or social media then you're left wandering the galaxy aimlessly. So even in Solo play, you need to keep an eye on what everyone else is doing if you want to be useful and not a hindrance to your faction/team/clan/power.

In football, a member of the opposite team cannot shoot you in the face and keep playing without any repercussions.
Unlike Elite where you can go around killing members of the opposite team. Of course, you don't get paid for it.
Leading us back to PvP being an "indulgence" as there is no bonus to PP doing it.

You also ignored things like time zones, networking, blatant cheating all have an impact and none of which are solved via Open Only.

So you're right, a small kid could have thought up that post.

PvP in Powerplay was once the most powerful weapon you had. Sadly it also became the most useful tool to undertake controlled turmoils with (so called Collusion Piracy) and was nerfed to uselessness.

Its not all lost though, with some thought it would be possible to bring back. It just takes the will of FD to do it.........

 

[Agony_Aunt]

For me, the biggest issue is not 5C, or the open only debate, the territorial game, or even the lack of ability of power to rise or fall. All of which are valid topics of course.

But the single biggest problem for me is i see absoloutely nothing in PP interesting for me as a player. Credit rewards are meaningless these days. Powerplay ranks? Meh. Powerplay modules? If i want them i can get them easy enough.

There is a lack of things to do in PP and in order to contribute you have to simply repeat those activities constantly.

Therefore, out of all Sandro's proposals, the one that really interests me is Powerplay missions. This could possibly add the variety needed to make it more interesting and reduce the grind as you might be able to swap activities to keep things fresh. Instead of just fortifying by making deliveries, you might have mining missions to fortify, or exploration missions, or combat missions.

But then the question comes, why would i do that when i can already do that for my BGS faction, and it all falls apart again.

 

[cmdr Ramius007]

But then the question comes, why would i do that when i can already do that for my BGS faction, and it all falls apart again.

A lot of people think alike, and it might be a reason why PP should be sort of PvP arena (in broader sense) for endgame players. If you have billions on your account 10+ fully engineered ships, high ranks in superpowers and unlocked all important engineers, then what is left to do? PP and PvP are only things that keep me in game after so many hours.

 

[Renegade Bovine]

5c strategies are simple, compared to normal attacking or defensive approaches. Picking high-loss making systems to expand to and fortifying all the garbage etc, is about grind by fair means or foul, it doesnt take a genius, or even rely on making good choices. Balancing CC & reward/effort assessments are far more of a theory challenge than 5c which is in comparison, pretty much like beating yourself on the head with a mallet.

"Balancing CC" is even less of a thing now that there is a Consolidation Vote.
Trying to expand to a profitable system is exactly the same sort of "grind fest" you claim 5C activities are.
Both 5C strategies to make a player lose profitables and non-5C strategies to make a player lose loss-makers need to calculate anticipated results (what if scenarios). Both require a combination of tactical UMing and Forting.
I'm still not seeing the difference. If 5C is a grind-fest, then all of PP is a grind-fest.

When the easy option is most effective, it devalues the actions of everyone not doing it.

Yeah, so what? How many games in the history of gaming allow players to earn more powerful weapons as they progress through the game? Like all of them? Did you complain about the rocket launcher in Quake because it devalued the pea-shooter you started with? Do you complain about the Vulture devaluing the Sidewinder?

Not only, but not least, because they know throughout that they could be having far more impact by simply being a um, 'male chicken'. Its just like the passage in Catch 22, where Milo subcontracts bombing runs from the Germans because it is much more efficient for him to bomb his own airfields with his own US planes than for the Germans to bother doing it. Catch 22 is supposed to be a sickening farce btw, not an aspiration..

Read that book long ago - but this is a flawed analogy. 5C is more like the US sending spies into Germany to sabotage german planes so that the US doesn't have to shoot them down (or be bombed with them) later. It just so happens that "fortifying non-profitable systems" is an act of sabotage. Would you like 5C more if you could fortify enemy systems without having to pledge to their power?

Open vs PG/Solo is a game-balance thing because Open is negated by the risk-free efficiency of zero-defences hauling in Solo/PG. Open becomes a pointless indulgence when Solo/PG is a Powerplay option. & yes, anyone can click solo/PG, but why should you be able to remove at a click, all the players of the opposing team, in a Team Game?. Sure, I wouldve been a hellova football player if I couldve done the same thing there. I wouldve needed very little teamwork, except to restart the game after I never failed to score a goal, over and over again, relentlessly. How ridiculously boring that wouldve been. Even small kids can figure that out on the playground & it really does apply here.

If "Open" is a "pointless indulgence" then maybe we should remove Open from the game?
Sounds again to me like you are simply trying to play a different game than the one FDEV actually built for the sole reason that you simply do not like the game as they have built it. Which is fine, but we should acknowledge that is what we are actually doing. So, while lobbying FDEV for desired changes, shouldn't we still optimize our current gameplay strategies based on the game we have to play today, rather than the game we hope we might be playing someday?

Yes, both sides in a conflict can choose the most effective course of action. Which is to leave a skeleton crew behind to stifle 5c action as best they are able, while the vast majority of CMDRs on each side pledge to the opposing power in order to 5c & Milo the hell out of their own airfields.

To me, that actually sounds way more fun than the current PP grind-fest within each power. (For context, I'm a veteran in my power with about 2.5 years pledged to that power and about 2 years active on their Reddit/Discord). At the very least it would be a different grind which would still be more entertaining at least for a few months of cycles I would think.

Its a race to the bottom, last one with any players left, wins. well, loses, actually since all their players were pledged to the opposing team. Sounds fantasticly dumb, doesnt it? That's why we're against it.

Do you really think that beating a power into submission will only cause players to leave if the winning team uses 5C vs not 5C?
I actually want my power to win PP and then either be "done" or have some sort of "Era Reset" that restarts the game, but I have a win chalked up now. Kind of like the squadrons stuff that just came out. I don't actually want to play Elite Power Play "forever" (that sounds insane to me). I'd love to "win PP" for my power once and for all!

AFK turret boats are unbalanced, but not because some powers dont use combat expansions. It's irrelevant if everyone can use an exploit or not, its still an exploit.

So which of these are exploits?
1. PP-only spawns 60-120km outside of Nav beacons.
2. Healing beams
3. Premium Ammo
4. AFK turreted ships
5. Scripted hauling bots

I've seen lots of different opinions on the above 5 in various forums and powers with little consistent rationale. #1 feels like more of a "game bug" than 5C stuff, yet everyone has always been fine with #1. I can see how #5 breaks the game's TOS and is a no-no. But what of 2-4?

AFK turret boats allow the equivalent of offline merit farming. AFK is offline near as damnit.

So what? Plenty of games allow for "offline progress" of all sorts. Why is it bad, particularly if "anyone can do it equally well"?

It has less in common with ED than it does with bitcoin mining. There was some mention of it iirc from a dev, when healy beams were adjusted down. Zero effort, zero interaction, maximum effectiveness = A Bug. You dont need a dev to tell you that.

So building a turret-boat is zero effort? How is it easier than building any other ship of similar cost?

Isn't the very definition of "effectiveness" finding a way to get a desired result with less time or credits?
And isn't pretty much every single PP activity always looking for "more effectiveness"? Or do you haul your forts in a Sidey instead of a Cutter because you hate "maximum effectiveness"?

Why are some "effectiveness optimizations" bad and others good?

As for the other bugs, 5c is a valid thing in proportion. It is currently massively out of proportion of effect, and that is what makes it a bug.

I agree with this, but again, until FDEV changes things, why wouldn't we all "play to win" the game we have been given? Exploits only get fixed if they are actually, um, exploited, not just talked about as mostly "hypotheticals" on forums.

Espionage, 5c, these are all things that allow more diverse & intriguing gameplay for people attracted to that kind of thing & ive got no problem with that. A large part of the reward of such actions should be intelligence gathering & misinformation.

Well said!

What needs addressing is that 5c are more effective than any amount of conventional defense or attack, and are immune from any kind of defence or attack.

If power A 5Cs power B, that doesn't make power A immune from the reverse (power B 5Cs power A). So I'm not persuaded by your immunity argument. This is sort of like saying "FDLs are overpowered, let's all agree to stop using them pretty please until FDEV nerfs them".

And the game treats them like valued comrades and even pays them a wage, when every human participant knows they are parasitic cancer set on rotting the Power they are pledged to.

Sounds like some gameplay improvement suggestions could come out of this. Maybe a way for people in a power to vote out players performing 5C activities, and provide some gameplay element that allows these activities to be "found out" (but not too easily). Or maybe not "vote out" but "vote to remove salary" or something like that. Let your imagination run wild!

Point being, don't just mention problems - contribute solution ideas as well.

 

[Bashy81]

Of course "small kids" can figure that out, because it lacks facts, contains a bad analogy and doesn't solve the issue - small kid logic at its best.

PvP in Elite: Dangerous is an "indulgence" regardless of what you are doing.
No area of the main game depends on or is impacted in a meaningful way via PvP.
So PvP is nothing more than an optional extra, something you do for fun.

Elite: Dangerous is a team game even if you are in Solo Mode, because if you do not coordinate with others via the forums, Discord or social media then you're left wandering the galaxy aimlessly. So even in Solo play, you need to keep an eye on what everyone else is doing if you want to be useful and not a hindrance to your faction/team/clan/power.

In football, a member of the opposite team cannot shoot you in the face and keep playing without any repercussions.
Unlike Elite where you can go around killing members of the opposite team. Of course, you don't get paid for it.
Leading us back to PvP being an "indulgence" as there is no bonus to PP doing it.

You also ignored things like time zones, networking, blatant cheating all have an impact and none of which are solved via Open Only.

So you're right, a small kid could have thought up that post.

Youve picked a small part of my post which is about an experience, which is subjective by definition. And complained about no facts. The analogy you missed is the benefit thats gained from opposing players being able to directly 'tackle' and obstruct the efforts of the opposition. In a team game, that helps no end. The other issues you added were elements I wasnt trying to address, theyve been addressed many times by myself and others, but some people just dont read posts that provide answers, and rubbish posts that provide explanations. Fanatics drive me nuts. And im a Utopian, go figure

 

[GreenFusion6545]

A look into how Combat Powers gain their merits in Expansion CZs should also be looked at. It's pointless to CZ merit farming because killing a single ship in a PP CZ gives you only 10 merits and the ships are super tanky so killing them takes time but instead of that you can go over to a Nav beacon and weaker PP ships and gain 30 Merits per kill. I think you make small ships in PP CZs drop 15, medium ships drop 30, Large drop maybe 50 merits. Basically, What I am saying is to scale the merits drops by ship size. I also think the ships in PP CZs should be debuffed a little. A well engineered ship still takes time to kill an enemy ship in PP CZ. Now just think about how tough it would be for a lower tiered player who doesn't have a well built combat ship to even remotely be able to kill a ship

 

[Justinian Octavius]

What you are doing at the nav beacon you are not meant to be able to do however. Really all Powers need to Expand the same way and if by combat everything rebalanced.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

 

[Captain Thea Kreutzer]

A look into how Combat Powers gain their merits in Expansion CZs should also be looked at. It's pointless to CZ merit farming because killing a single ship in a PP CZ gives you only 10 merits and the ships are super tanky so killing them takes time but instead of that you can go over to a Nav beacon and weaker PP ships and gain 30 Merits per kill. I think you make small ships in PP CZs drop 15, medium ships drop 30, Large drop maybe 50 merits. Basically, What I am saying is to scale the merits drops by ship size. I also think the ships in PP CZs should be debuffed a little. A well engineered ship still takes time to kill an enemy ship in PP CZ. Now just think about how tough it would be for a lower tiered player who doesn't have a well built combat ship to even remotely be able to kill a ship

What you are doing at the nav beacon you are not meant to be able to do however. Really all Powers need to Expand the same way and if by combat everything rebalanced.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

There is that Its much easier to hunt them with a Interdicter. The control item transport is much is easier to earn merits but it costs quite a bit of credits if you plan on going past rank 3.

 

[EXE Sasser]

Powerplay??

You mean pledge solely for the powers module?? I'm pretty sure most peeps out there pledge to Aisling Duval purely for the Prizzy shields.

Then to whoever for the slow firing multi Cannons.. (pacifiers or enforcers or something)

 

[Jockey79]

Youve picked a small part of my post which is about an experience, which is subjective by definition. And complained about no facts.

I picked the part you got factually wrong and pointed it out.

Elite: Dangerous may allow Open PvP, but it is not a PvP based game.
Trying to force people to partake in PvP, in a game where it was advertised that PvP is optional isn't going to work.
The game was not built for "Open Only" and trying to push that years later is not only misguided but a tad silly.

As for "elements I wasnt trying to address" - of course not because they prove why "Open Only" is a futile argument.

The analogy is still flawed, as the entire was built around the mode system, Football was made for two teams to go head to head.
There is nothing similar there in any way. Different systems, different rules.