Powerplay How is Powerplay not open only yet?

[Brrokk]

Not me. Don't gank (I mean I've fought back in CZs when attacked, is that ganking? People seem to have such wildly different definitions as to make the word useless). Don't want open split either. A lot of people don't have a huge problem with being attacked without a stated reason, even if they don't attack unprovoked themselves, because it's self-evidently a potential outcome of open mode. It would be tiresome if it was ubiquitous, but it isn't. It would be nice if it wasn't "automatic at CGs/Deciat and never happens anywhere else", but something more graded between, and with better placement in context. But that's a game design problem. You're making a specious connection between OOPP and ganking anyway. It's likely the opposite. A meaningful, "legitimate" organic PvP option is much more attractive than randomly attacking whoever crosses your reticle. Any player spending time engaged in the former is not spending that time doing the latter; thus the latter is reduced. I guess you'd rather they suffer maybe, but me, I just want a better game. Divorce the special modules from PP pledging and then the only reason to pledge is to take up the "fight" - opting in to potentially being attacked for your pledge, which seems to fall outwith the "unsolicited" definition of ganking.

Also, I have a lot of sympathy with people who do want OOBGS, because it's for a lot of the same reasons I'd prefer PP done exclusively in open, although I don't think it's worth arguing for. I'd prefer for people not to do active BGS manipulation in closed modes - it seems a weak move to so carefully hide your actions behind an artifice (this is not skilful stealth) when they're explicitly aimed at subverting someone else's interests, and I don't like the sneer that's implied with doing so. If something like OOBGS had to happen, I'd prefer if it was a harsher diminishing returns curve in closed modes, to keep its universality. In honesty, I think it's disingenuous that it gets brought up when it's such a different beast to OOPP, and I find myself wondering what your motivations are to link the two, when there is zero chance of OOBGS outside of a sea change in philosophy at FDev. This is no matter how many times the differences are explained.

Some good dance moves.

You've helped me decide that I think ED makes all modes equal by design, I think this is a good design and it shouldn't be modified by introducing any game effects in Open which can't be achieved in other modes.

When people ask for PvP content we can point them to CQC.

 

[Bashy81]

Some good dance moves above.

No. Theyre describing the game as it actually plays out (when it's playable). Theyre not the ones 'dancing', ie. playing rhetorical games; such as posing questions that embed the assumption that anyone opposed to open-pve is a ganker.

It was a beg/bribe/blackmail combo that was never going to bait any takers.

You've helped me decide that I think ED makes all modes equal by design, I think this is a good design and it shouldn't be modified by introducing any game effects in Open which can't be achieved in other modes.

When people ask for PvP content we can point them to CQC.

So ofc this was always going to be your reply. It was your well entrenched opinion long time before this thread appeared. Its just weak debating tactics, no knowledge or detail required.

Theres only one dancer in all this, and youre all left feet.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Well the answer is relatively simple. Instead of spreading two very weak roles over all three modes, you fit the feature to the mode itself.

That way, everyone gets a focussed chunk that appeals to them.

But you know all this already

 

[Brrokk]

...So ofc this was always going to be your reply. It was your well entrenched opinion long time before this thread appeared. Its just weak debating tactics, no knowledge or detail required.
...

I've previously been convinced by Rubbernuke's arguments to support OOPP, but in this thread I've finally gone off the idea because some (apparently most) people who want OOPP actually want the BGS as well.

@Rubbernuke : I think that if you were willing to rebuke some of the extremists who are using your ideas for their own purposes, you'd actually gain credibility.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I've previously been convinced by Rubbernuke's arguments to support OOPP, but in this thread I've finally gone off the idea because some people who want OOPP actually want the BGS as well.

@Rubbernuke : I think that if you were willing to rebuke some of the extremists who are using your ideas for their own purposes, you'd actually gain credibility.

Check my posting history. At no point have I wanted an open BGS because the BGS is not set up for open only play. If thats not enough for my credibility than I can;t say any more.

But to summarise my only Open Powerplay idea: the BGS is highly abstracted where causes cannot be mapped to effects- i.e. due to aggregation of activity you can't know who did what. In Powerplay you can, because everything is an explicit outward facing indicator of intent. Pledges, territory, phase of Powerplay (i.e. prep, expansion, UM etc) cargo all meld to allow easy identification and intent that can be mapped in real time almost 1:1 to a commander.

From this, at least half of Powerplay should be open only, because the bits we have are pretty much all set up for it. What I also argue is that solo and PG need activities that are equally vital but play to solo and PG strengths in ED- i.e. small missions. This would then allow a more lore centric half to dovetail.

Here it is:

Powerplay Proposal (strong anti 5C, mode specific, plus other tweaks)

This is a Powerplay overhaul proposal that uses all of Sandros ideas plus a few more based on the 3.x BGS rework to enhance the feature, and employ strong anti 5C measures. Sandro Sammarcos proposal changes are included as they were originally. Problem Powerplay does not function well across...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Brrokk]

Check my posting history. At no point have I wanted an open BGS because the BGS is not set up for open only play. If thats not enough for my credibility than I can;t say any more.

But to summarise my only Open Powerplay idea: the BGS is highly abstracted where causes cannot be mapped to effects- i.e. due to aggregation of activity you can't know who did what. In Powerplay you can, because everything is an explicit outward facing indicator of intent. Pledges, territory, phase of Powerplay (i.e. prep, expansion, UM etc) cargo all meld to allow easy identification and intent that can be mapped in real time almost 1:1 to a commander.

From this, at least half of Powerplay should be open only, because the bits we have are pretty much all set up for it. What I also argue is that solo and PG need activities that are equally vital but play to solo and PG strengths in ED- i.e. small missions. This would then allow a more lore centric half to dovetail.

Here it is:

Powerplay Proposal (strong anti 5C, mode specific, plus other tweaks)

This is a Powerplay overhaul proposal that uses all of Sandros ideas plus a few more based on the 3.x BGS rework to enhance the feature, and employ strong anti 5C measures. Sandro Sammarcos proposal changes are included as they were originally. Problem Powerplay does not function well across...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Yes I know. But your ideas get derailed by people who want OOgame and you're relaxed about it.

If FD called a vote tomorrow on "Shall we implement Rubbernuke's idea?" I'd vote "yes", but if they asked "Shall we implement OOPP?" I'd vote "no" because I'd fear the follow-on.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yes I know. But your ideas get derailed by people who want OOgame and you're relaxed about it.

If FD called a vote tomorrow on "Shall we implement Rubbernuke's idea?" I'd vote "yes", but if they asked "Shall we implement OOPP?" I'd vote "no" because I'd fear the follow-on.

Well, I can't really do much more All I can do is write out as well rounded and thought out ideas as possible and hope thats enough.

I've written so many I've lost count I mean, I've got the above idea plus a more PvE one thats multi mode:

Powerplay in Solo

That's in the case of the current incarnation of the feature. If OP's measure was enacted, which is the substance of this thread, the roles would be reversed, or partly so. And whether or not to reverse the roles comes down to which players you want to detriment, again. In which case it's a...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Older ones I never really refined-

Squadron megaships:

Powerplay - Powerplay V.2 using Squadron / megaship mechanics

Wall of text alert! Powerplay is all about people (us) who support a leader who appeals to our sense of moral (im)purity and values (or lack of them!). We support them outside of the law, in essence we are paramilitary groups fighting over who is 'right'. Powerplay is always seen as an...

forums.frontier.co.uk

BGS overlay:

[POWERPLAY] Proposal for redesign using BGS style mechanics that work with the new BGS

Here is an alternative concept for Powerplay, where Powerplay works like a modifier for the BGS to make each system more unique. Unlike the current system it simulates the political aspect and is 5C proof. Powerplay V2: Expansions / prep / CC / bubbles removed and each system has every power...

forums.frontier.co.uk

And a precursor to idea #1 on this post but more survival based:

'Inverted' NPC Driven Powerplay where teamplay means survival

A random thought I wanted to externalise before I forget it. Problem: in Powerplay you have two 'phases' of play- merit earning in PvE zones and merit dropping (hauling, sniping etc). In the latter you do not have effective opposition, or opposition that reacts to your efforts. This idea might...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

I concur. I've never advocated anything but Powerplay to be open only. Although I still would prefer an Open Only solution to powerplay (as per Sandro's Suggestion), I've realised that the path with the least amount of development time would be to weight the rewards in favour of people in Open in the powerplay background solution. However, I suspect that there aren't any developers left on the project that know the powerplay subsystem which is why it's never had any changes for ARX or even looked at for the last four years.

I always suspected that the major pushback against OOPP came not from people who actually played powerplay but from people who were scared that it would be the 'thin edge of the wedge' which would lead to everything being open only.

Meanwhile, my faction is having to deal with the same 5th column commanders (or even bots, we have no idea but the hide in pvt/solo) that have been trying to get us to expand into this system of death. This has been happening constantly for the last two years and it's getting tiresome. Heck, even an increase in NPC interdictions would help discourage the automated accounts but no luck there.

 

[Brrokk]

...
I always suspected that the major pushback against OOPP came not from people who actually played powerplay but from people who were scared that it would be the 'thin edge of the wedge' which would lead to everything being open only.
...

That's me. So when PP players advance OOPP ideas it would be really helpful if they'd visibly oppose OOBGS and OOgame ideas in the ensuing discussion.

I don't have a horse in the PP race and I think ED should offer some kind of PvP setting even though I wouldn't partake myself. But I oppose anything I think will be detrimental to the wider game, such as any kind of reward in Open leading to mass blocking.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

That's me. So when PP players advance OOPP ideas it would be really helpful if they'd visibly oppose OOBGS and OOgame ideas in the ensuing discussion.

I don't have a horse in the PP race and I think ED should offer some kind of PvP setting even though I wouldn't partake myself. But I oppose anything I think will be detrimental to the wider game, such as any kind of reward in Open leading to mass blocking.

We couldn't have been clearer. Even when the idea was proposed by Sandro, he went to great pains to explain the proposal was for powerplay only.

I don't think it was believed.

 

[00nutzy]

We couldn't have been clearer. Even when the idea was proposed by Sandro, he went to great pains to explain the proposal was for powerplay only.

I don't think it was believed.

While it was clearly stated (by Sandro himself) that powerplay was the only thing on the table (possibly) it was ignored very quickly by many posters in that topic so, no it wasn't believed especially when proponents of OOPP went along with (or at least ignored) the proponents asking for bgs and the whole game.
Regardless the OO part of the proposal (there have been lots of good ideas since then) doesnt solve any problems without other changes, such as some how making the block function not work while engaged in PP (other than coms),

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

While it was clearly stated (by Sandro himself) that powerplay was the only thing on the table (possibly) it was ignored very quickly by many posters in that topic so, no it wasn't believed especially when proponents of OOPP went along with (or at least ignored) the proponents asking for bgs and the whole game.
Regardless the OO part of the proposal (there have been lots of good ideas since then) doesnt solve any problems without other changes, such as some how making the block function not work while engaged in PP (other than coms),

which is why I prefer open players having more of an effect on the PPBS rather than solo or pvt ones. That way the pvt and solo players can still get their modules but if you want to fight or fly for your power, you have the most influence in open.

 

[00nutzy]

which is why I prefer open players having more of an effect on the PPBS rather than solo or pvt ones. That way the pvt and solo players can still get their modules but if you want to fight or fly for your power, you have the most influence in open.

I do not see how your reply responds to my reply.
I was responding to your statement that PPers could not have been more clear about OO only being for PowerPlay, and that they were not believed.
There are many good and bad ideas for PowerPlay (in my opinion) and in my opinion Open Only by itself (no other changes) is a bad one.
This is my opinion yours may differ, thats ok no offense is intended

 

[Eidolon]

If it goes Open only ima use router whitelist =D

 

[Bashy81]

But I oppose anything I think will be detrimental to the wider game, such as any kind of reward in Open leading to mass blocking.

Regardless the OO part of the proposal (there have been lots of good ideas since then) doesnt solve any problems without other changes, such as some how making the block function not work while engaged in PP (other than coms),

Any kind of reward in Open, or any kind of Open-Only element to any feature, would be fundamentally incompatible with instance blocking. There is no point to Open-anything if Block is allowed to take the place of Solo/PG mode opt-outs. I would be as opposed as you to any variant of Open-Only Powerplay, that gave players a legitimised choice over who can instance with them, because it would be farcically not fit for purpose.

Obviously, for some it wouldn't be so much an Open-mode as a forge-your-own Private Group.
For efficiency, when their Power is on the defensive they'd build up their block-list, and when on the attack they'd clear it. With Block enabled as-is, it wouldn't provide the level playing-field that is the only benefit of Open-Only anything.

That's blindingly obvious. It's not a hidden obstacle, its a fundamental prerequisite. It used to be comms-only Block, and even now it only acts as a modifier (albeit a strong one) to the instancing system. Its a matter of changing the weighting to zero if Powerplay check = yes. That is all, and there is nothing in any of the console service agreements that would prohibit that. Players don't get a free-bye to the next round in a competitive FIFA tournament if they've blocked their opponent in the current round. If they want to take part in a competition, they have to choose whether to keep the Block, or participate. Its an equivalent free opt-in choice, excepting that you are not attempting to instance or compete directly with one particular player, but an entire playergroup vs playergroup.


To have an appeal that is comprehensible from the outside, Powerplay needs to be positioned & marketed for what it is; A competitive endgame feature. It doesn't matter that players can choose to join at any time. The reality is Powerplay takes the place, and all the time(!) of personal progression, and is skewed heavily towards players with a full array of ships & a broad prior ED gameplay experience.

Short of a full rework, the most significant step in adding new & emergent gameplay via Powerplay is to make all or part of it Open-Only. This hones & grows the competitive nature of the feature, and organic player-led competition keeps players active & engaged for thousands of hours beyond their natural completion of the game, and only needs curating in as far as maintaining background mechanics that mostly work. If the meta stories created by playergroups ingame were incorporated into the Galnet weave, so much the better but it's only a cherry on the cake.

While it was clearly stated (by Sandro himself) that powerplay was the only thing on the table (possibly) it was ignored very quickly by many posters in that topic

The vast majority of responses were about the topic itself. Go back and have a look. If you discount the responses from the likes of Jockey (..tho hilarious..) and Robert Maynard (because they are the slippery-slopers worried about Open-Only-spread beyond Powerplay, not the ones calling for it) while you can cherry pick some replies to make Open-Doom, it isnt representative of what was actually discussed.

If it goes Open only ima use router whitelist =D

And youd soon get locked to Solo if they sent random masked dummy connection requests wouldnt you. Its a simple fix that would work for the vast majority, given the hybrid PnP networking.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It used to be comms-only Block, and even now it only acts as a modifier (albeit a strong one) to the instancing system.

Not sure that it was ever comms only - as Sandro said this a couple of days before the game launched:

Hello Commanders!

In this instance, blocking the Commander might prove quite useful.

When you block somebody, a couple of things should happen.

Firstly, you will receive no communications from them.

Secondly, during any transition where matchmaking is at work (so basically, hyperspace jumps, entering and exiting super cruise) you are much less likely to be matched with the blocked Commander.

Blocking becomes weaker when it comes up against friends (and next year, player wings), because if a blocked Commander is in the same session as a friend (say, because they haven't blocked the Commander, the blocking effect is overruled by the friendship matchmaking.

Outside of this case though, blocking should work fine.

It has, of course, only ever been strengthened and made easier to use since then.

 

[Brrokk]

Not sure that it was ever comms only - as Sandro said this a couple of days before the game launched:

It has, of course, only ever been strengthened and made easier to use since then.

This is true AFAIK. I've played about 5 years and block has controlled instancing all that time. When I started this advice was already current and a player group were already doing a study of how block acted and interacted with your friends list. I don't think it's ever significantly changed and I don't think FD could change it now on consoles; they'd need the cooperation of the console manufacturers. With P2P I think it has to stay.

Which is why nothing desirable to most players can ever be Open-only. The result would be to destroy Open by incentivised mass blocking. All that can be made Open-only is some kind of PvP competition. So yes, PP or part of it could be made into such a competition, or a player group could organise their own competition. FD dare not gate any too-shiny rewards into Open though.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Problem with PvP competition only is exploitation, it's the reason why the first undermining (by pirating) was botched very soon.

It would be easier to make block comms-only for other pledged CMDRs but I understand this would be a problem for consoles (which I cannot be sure about but I trust who told me so )

 

[00nutzy]

To have an appeal that is comprehensible from the outside, Powerplay needs to be positioned & marketed for what it is; A competitive endgame feature. It doesn't matter that players can choose to join at any time. The reality is Powerplay takes the place, and all the time(!) of personal progression, and is skewed heavily towards players with a full array of ships & a broad prior ED gameplay experience.

The problem is that PowerPlay is not end game content. It is available to a player from the first login so cant be considered end game anything period, and a beginner can deliver merits without needing to have all the big ships or even any engineering that the PvP PPers use the bigger/better/more engineered ships is irrelevant to the fact that even a beginner can have fun in PP I know I did. As far as competitive it currently is, just not direct PvP competitive.
It was (like the rest of the game) never designed to require PvP it has always been PvE filling of buckets (which I think was a bad decision considering the flavor text). Giving direct PvP an actual mechanic that directly affects the power would be a great start. Let the PvE bucket filling continue, but give PvP (as well as many other PP things) some love. Once you give PvP a direct way to contribute (rather than Indirect) the mode decision becomes meaningless (of course im sure someone will think of a way to exploit it). With the P2P network model you will simply cant be instanced with everyone so you simply cant see everyone working against you.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The problem is that PowerPlay is not end game content. It is available to a player from the first login so cant be considered end game anything period, and a beginner can deliver merits without needing to have all the big ships or even any engineering that the PvP PPers use the bigger/better/more engineered ships is irrelevant to the fact that even a beginner can have fun in PP I know I did. As far as competitive it currently is, just not direct PvP competitive.
It was (like the rest of the game) never designed to require PvP it has always been PvE filling of buckets (which I think was a bad decision considering the flavor text). Giving direct PvP an actual mechanic that directly affects the power would be a great start. Let the PvE bucket filling continue, but give PvP (as well as many other PP things) some love. Once you give PvP a direct way to contribute (rather than Indirect) the mode decision becomes meaningless (of course im sure someone will think of a way to exploit it). With the P2P network model you will simply cant be instanced with everyone so you simply cant see everyone working against you.

It is end game content if you want to do it well and not burn out. You need good ships (with at least some engineering), decent skills (against other players), know PP mechanics, know BGS mechanics. You can level your argument at anything- Thargoids can be shot at from day 1, but you'll never do anything meaningful until you get skilled.

The only real reason why PvP (i.e. Open) is required is because the NPCs in Powerplay are really, really bad. Couple that with NPCs who religiously stick to station drop zone rules, weak interdiction, and that you can take off and land never seeing someone after you. Change that (i.e. the PvE layer) and then modes become less of an issue.

My mode split idea is one way of achieving that- PvP Powerplay is essentially what we have now (but mixed with players), while PvE gets flavoured missions that generate cargo to be moved in Open (so both modes dovetail but never undermine each other).

Another is my PvE one here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-in-solo.565581/page-9#post-8961161 (too lazy to write it out)

The core change is that you remove cargo drops to stations and you have to scan NAVs- that way PP NPCs can be a direct threat again (especially if they are engineered as they would be). And since each drop point POI is random, you can't bet on clockwork timings.