Incrementally Improving PowerPlay - Make PowerPlay Open-Only

See, I'm not sure about that because quite a few of them seem to specialise it more towards the tastes of the few already doing it. This being one of them. A suggestion that mode-restricts the activity to open is going to have the opposite effect, it's going to remove the players who want to do powerplay and feel like they're supporting a faction in the metagame but who don't want to play with other people or can't play in open.

If you want suggestions to bring more people into Powerplay, you want to look at reasons people aren't doing it right now and focus on changing those.

I very much suspect "too much hauling" is a massive one. It's certainly one of the big reasons I'm not bothered with it. Like people will do hauling occasionally for a community goal but there they get paid in personal progress for the hauling and have a clear understanding of their effects within the goal. But if there was always a hauling community goal on then people would drop out of doing them after a couple of weeks.

Powerplay for most factions is a hauling community goal that never ends and you have to either wait or pay to skip the wait do it, getting no personal benefit for your trouble only vague merits buried in a menu somewhere that lead to a "wage" which is literal peanuts.

One of the biggest things it needs, if it's not going to be completely redone as an exclusive PvP mode, is a wider range of activities to generate PP progress, so that every major gameplay interaction (with the possible exception of exploration which is inherently in unclaimed space) has some effect as long as you do them in the right place for your faction.
Powerplay consists of low quality gameplay for low rewards via a UI and systems that hate players. Open at least would make each haul run actually worth paying attention to, and that groups would have to add more tactical roles.
 
The outcomes may align with their desires to an extent - that does not imply control.
Honestly, if you really want to see how it works you should join the community of your preferred Power for a few weeks and see by yourself if they are in control or not. You might be surprised. I think discussing facts here as if they were mere opinions is pointless.

.... and the players that already engage in Powerplay in Solo and Private Groups? They have been disregarded entirely in the proposal - as the proposal is designed to stop them being able to engage in Powerplay in those modes.
This is a valid point and it's probably the only downside of this proposal. Those players should have to come to Open, or help their Powers in other ways, like doing BGS (yes, BGS is a very important part of Powerplay).
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Honestly, if you really want to see how it works you should join the community of your preferred Power for a few weeks and see by yourself if they are in control or not. You might be surprised. I think discussing facts here as if they were mere opinions is pointless.
Any group of players could set themselves up as another "controlling group" for a Power, therefore any contention that a group of players is "in control" is opinion rather than fact based.
This is a valid point and it's probably the only downside of this proposal. Those players should have to come to Open, or help their Powers in other ways, like doing BGS (yes, BGS is a very important part of Powerplay).
What players should, or should not, do is up to them - this game lets us play the way we want and does not force us to play as others want us to. That proponents of this change consider that they should be able to force others to play the way that they want to is telling - and inconsistent with the way the game was made.
 
Any group of players could set themselves up as another "controlling group" for a Power, therefore any contention that a group of players is "in control" is opinion rather than fact based.
Then go for it- try it and see for yourself. New players gravitate towards these established groups because they are the ones doing all the organizing and know what they are doing. Plus, if it was that easy, where are these other groups? Its been five years, and yet we have the same groups doing it all.

What players should, or should not, do is up to them - this game lets us play the way we want and does not force us to play as others want us to. That proponents of this change consider that they should be able to force others to play the way that they want to is telling - and inconsistent with the way the game was made.
Well, Powerplay works in a very rigid way, and that the current design via modes has allowed the game to stagnate. In layman's terms, hauling is too easy, leading to stability and lack of dynamism. Without being able to attack another power the feature grows static because nothing can be freed via turmoil. Its why I keep on saying NPCs need to be tougher or players do more.
 
Any group of players could set themselves up as another "controlling group" for a Power, therefore any contention that a group of players is "in control" is opinion rather than fact based.
Yes, this has happened in the past and the group with most people usually ends up controlling the power, but I don't get how this is related to what I've said. Fact is every single Power is controlled by an organized group of people.

What players should, or should not, do is up to them - this game lets us play the way we want and does not force us to play as others want us to. That proponents of this change consider that they should be able to force others to play the way that they want to is telling - and inconsistent with the way the game was made.
No one is forcing you to do Powerplay if you don't want to. It's an opt-in activity and it will keep being that way.
 
But as I said, at this stage I’m willing to give them the chance to there’s correct. But it’s not me they have to convince. After all, we all know what happened to the last lead developer who,thought this was a good idea...
Pretty much this.

People are still clinging on open only stuff and about what Sandro porposed.
But they somehow forget that Sandro simply disappeared from ED within months after his proposed changes to PP.

Which pretty much proves the stance FD have towards open only stuff...


The point is - PP as it is now, works for everyone that plays ED - no matter the mode or the skill they have
iF PP gets changed to whatever open only proposal - a certain number of the player base will be gated out.

And given the strong stance FD are showing towards diversity and inclusion - they seem to simply do not want to limit the diversity and/or exclude people out of various game features.
 
Pretty much this.

People are still clinging on open only stuff and about what Sandro porposed.
But they somehow forget that Sandro simply disappeared from ED within months after his proposed changes to PP.

Which pretty much proves the stance FD have towards open only stuff...


The point is - PP as it is now, works for everyone that plays ED - no matter the mode or the skill they have
iF PP gets changed to whatever open only proposal - a certain number of the player base will be gated out.

And given the strong stance FD are showing towards diversity and inclusion - they seem to simply do not want to limit the diversity and/or exclude people out of various game features.
But the proposal still stands- in the last statement from Will (I believe) FD stated they were satisfied with most of the proposal and were waiting for the time to do it. What that means is anyone's guess.

Which pretty much proves the stance FD have towards open only stuff...
But note that FD have never actually directly stated all modes for Powerplay. BGS they did, but its never once been mentioned for Powerplay.

The point is - PP as it is now, works for everyone that plays ED - no matter the mode or the skill they have
It does not work for everyone, thats the point. By having it across modes you negate most of its potential, while having superior examples of mode agnostic features already in the game.

iF PP gets changed to whatever open only proposal - a certain number of the player base will be gated out.
Stuff does change- but it is possible to please everyone if you have the dev time to do so (like my proposal).

And given the strong stance FD are showing towards diversity and inclusion - they seem to simply do not want to limit the diversity and/or exclude people out of various game features.
And again, Powerplay is never mentioned when FD talk about modes- ever. Why is that? Why the silence?
 
To really know all of Sandros suggestions need to be enacted for maximum impact: uncapped UM (to create crisis points), fort direction becoming universally inbound (making capitals busy) and limiting the BGS footprint going hand in hand with Open. Along with contested prep and expansion sites you create ad hoc arenas.
I’m quite familiar with them, and in fact agreed with all of them, except for Open Only. As I’ve said repeatedly, this game requires a client/server networking solution to get the effects you want. The problems with Powerplay aren’t that everyone’s playing in solo/PG. Its that the rules of Powerplay favor the current stalemate.
I believe that illusion that “everyone but us” is playing in Solo/PG is precisely that: an illusion. Between the separation of players in time and space, and the fact that peer-to-peer instancing is designed to give players a good experience, not maximizing players in an instance. That’s why you only get opportunistic PvP when the stars align: unless you actively work at it, you’ll only see a fraction of the players in a location.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Yes, this has happened in the past and the group with most people usually ends up controlling the power, but I don't get how this is related to what I've said. Fact is every single Power is controlled by an organized group of people.
Being an organised group engaged in an activity does not mean that the group is in control - in the same way that a group of players supporting a Faction are engaged in activity but do not control the Faction.
No one is forcing you to do Powerplay if you don't want to. It's an opt-in activity and it will keep being that way.
It is a pan-modal opt-in activity, part of the base game that every player bought - with no requirement whatsoever to engage in PvP. The proposal seeks to change that for the benefit of a relatively small subset of the player-base.

The Open only possibility of Sandro's first investigative Flash Topic (May'18) was the most contentious (so much so that the other changes, that may well have improved the feature for all players were all but ignored) - and the second Flash Topic re-introduced the possibility of an Open play bonus for Powerplay (first mused about in Mar'16) as an apparent fall-back position from Open only. Sandro was also quite clear in his assertion that the investigation was just that, an investigation - not a fait accompli. That no determination as to the outcome of the investigation has been forthcoming in a bit over two years may be quite telling - especially as Will's post on the topic of the investigation itself mentioned that some of the proposals in the Flash Topic were being considered for implementation.
 
Powerplay consists of low quality gameplay for low rewards via a UI and systems that hate players. Open at least would make each haul run actually worth paying attention to, and that groups would have to add more tactical roles.
But make even less people want to do it.

Like we know that most people don't want to do PvP, because only a very small number actually do.

So a suggestion that is laser focused on increasing the number of PvP interactions is going to reduce engagement with powerplay. It will do the exact opposite of what it purports to want, it will reduce the numbers doing powerplay by not fixing any of the problems with it and introducing a new obstacle that we already know most players don't want to deal with.

Like we often hear in these threads that the opinions of people who don't do powerplay aren't welcome or relevant, but if you want to increase the number of people doing powerplay those are the opinions you should be looking for because that will tell you the reasons they aren't doing it now. And that tells you what changes you should be pushing for to get people to start doing it.

Changes which would make it even less appealing for the people who aren't doing it, and reduce the appeal for some that are, are not the way to get players in, they're the way to get more players out.
 
I’m quite familiar with them, and in fact agreed with all of them, except for Open Only.
Sandros proposal revolved around open being the linchpin. Without it, things like uncapped UM will just make Powerplay worse with more faceless grind.

As I’ve said repeatedly, this game requires a client/server networking solution to get the effects you want.
What I want is for something new. From what FD themselves have shown us Open is the only new gameplay offered. Everything else that has ever been added to powerplay has been to combat 5C and minor tweaks to overhead curves. If FD sit down and redo the lot in a way that suits modes then I'm for it- but so far what they have shown Open is the only way out.

The problems with Powerplay aren’t that everyone’s playing in solo/PG. Its that the rules of Powerplay favor the current stalemate.
Powerplay is in a stalemate for the reasons I told you- its too easy to defend and too hard to attack. Consolidation makes atatcking much harder, leading to large powers staying large.

I believe that illusion that “everyone but us” is playing in Solo/PG is precisely that: an illusion. Between the separation of players in time and space,
Some, certainly. But from my own experiences late in cycles I've tripped over other powers being naughty and having to fight my way out.

and the fact that peer-to-peer instancing is designed to give players a good experience, not maximizing players in an instance. That’s why you only get opportunistic PvP when the stars align: unless you actively work at it, you’ll only see a fraction of the players in a location.
Which is the reason for uncapped UM, for lower BGS footprints and inbound fortifying. Its funneling people together opportunistically- but, as the cycle goes on this frequency gets more and more because powers work to the deadline.
 
But make even less people want to do it.
How do you know this?

Like we know that most people don't want to do PvP, because only a very small number actually do.
How do you know this?

So a suggestion that is laser focused on increasing the number of PvP interactions is going to reduce engagement with powerplay. It will do the exact opposite of what it purports to want, it will reduce the numbers doing powerplay by not fixing any of the problems with it and introducing a new obstacle that we already know most players don't want to deal with.

Like we often hear in these threads that the opinions of people who don't do powerplay aren't welcome or relevant, but if you want to increase the number of people doing powerplay those are the opinions you should be looking for because that will tell you the reasons they aren't doing it now. And that tells you what changes you should be pushing for to get people to start doing it.

Changes which would make it even less appealing for the people who aren't doing it, and reduce the appeal for some that are, are not the way to get players in, they're the way to get more players out.
How do you know this? All the indicators from polls and responses on the forum suggest the opposite.
 
Thank you for your perspective.
Just to note, I answered the question as regards the specific groups you identify in the question. This says nothing about players that might be attracted by a better functioning, better-experience powerplay - players who haven't done PP before, and returning powerplayers.

Portrait of a PPer - someone who enjoys most or all facets of the game and likes how PP draws them all together via larger tactical and strategic arcs, generated by multiplayer interaction. Some people (not you) in the thread seem to think it means "PvP griefer", which is bull.
 
Powerplay is in a stalemate for the reasons I told you- its too easy to defend and too hard to attack. Consolidation makes atatcking much harder, leading to large powers staying large.
And that’s because of the rules, as I said. Change the rules, and you change the current situation.

Some, certainly. But from my own experiences late in cycles I've tripped over other powers being naughty and having to fight my way out.
And you live in France, where it just so happens that local prime time coincides with global peak players. And IIRC, this mostly happens around combat expansions, correct?

Which is the reason for uncapped UM, for lower BGS footprints and inbound fortifying. Its funneling people together opportunistically- but, as the cycle goes on this frequency gets more and more because powers work to the deadline.
I very much understand that. But you’re talking about going from at best one location a week that gets hit heavily after the fortification and undermining targets are met, to a minimum of eleven (assuming incoming fortification merits), plus whatever undermining, preparation, and expansion targets various Powers have... all of which now have open ended goals, rather than just one.

I simply don’t see this scenario being interesting in the long term to the type of players who prefer to be on the killing side of asymmetrical PvP combat.
 
How do you know this? All the indicators from polls and responses on the forum suggest the opposite.
We know the developers have said that most people don't do PvP. And we can tell that few people do Powerplay because relatively small groups can have a large degree of influence on it.

Combining the two in their current states will mean that only people who like both will continue playing Powerplay, and mean that people who don't already will have more obstacles in front of them before they start, reducing incoming players.

Forums are inherently poor places to get an understanding of how the game is being played because they're a non-representative subset and very often dominated by a few prolific voices.
 
And that’s because of the rules, as I said. Change the rules, and you change the current situation.
And the options are without a complete overhaul are very limited without making the current feature even worse.

And you live in France, where it just so happens that local prime time coincides with global peak players. And IIRC, this mostly happens around combat expansions, correct?
When I was in Utopia fighting over Kenna I had people from the UK, America, Japan, Norway, Italy, Germany, Netherlands and Australia fighting in system wings.

I very much understand that. But you’re talking about going from at best one location a week that gets hit heavily after the fortification and undermining targets are met, to a minimum of eleven (assuming incoming fortification merits), plus whatever undermining, preparation, and expansion targets various Powers have... all of which now have open ended goals, rather than just one.
Not all powers expand, fortify or prep at the same time. Powers also have deep rooted enemies who are always fighting too - its not a case of everyone fighting everyone equally. In an open context (with Sandros changes) the busiest places would be capitals, with uncapped UM sites being next.

I simply don’t see this scenario being interesting in the long term to the type of players who prefer to be on the killing side of asymmetrical PvP combat.
Believe it or not people do like working against the odds- because hauling in such a situation makes you the most important person to protect, and draws on your own skills and ships.
 
We know the developers have said that most people don't do PvP. And we can tell that few people do Powerplay because relatively small groups can have a large degree of influence on it.
And in one poll (from 7.7K votes) 50% wanted Open, with 25% wanting weighted and 25% wanting no change. Take a look at the first proposal and see the unique reactions too- I agree not everyone wants PvP, but at the same time trading 300 players for anywhere from 2K to 5K is a worthy trade to get the population Powerplay needs.

Combining the two in their current states will mean that only people who like both will continue playing Powerplay, and mean that people who don't already will have more obstacles in front of them before they start, reducing incoming players.
And this is conjecture. You have to do it to find out how popular it is.

Forums are inherently poor places to get an understanding of how the game is being played because they're a non-representative subset and very often dominated by a few prolific voices.
And like I said, go read those responses. A lot of names who quit I recognise on there, but there are a massive amount of new faces too.
 
Yea, but the ones that want to do PP from solo would not be able to do it. And suddenly it's no longer the game they payed for.
And the moment the Modes are no longer used to filter players out, but to deny people certain game features, then the things will take a really ugly turn with more and more request of open only this and open only that...
Preaching to the choir.
 
And the options are without a complete overhaul are very limited without making the current feature even worse.

When I was in Utopia fighting over Kenna I had people from the UK, America, Japan, Norway, Italy, Germany, Netherlands and Australia fighting in system wings.

Not all powers expand, fortify or prep at the same time. Powers also have deep rooted enemies who are always fighting too - its not a case of everyone fighting everyone equally. In an open context (with Sandros changes) the busiest places would be capitals, with uncapped UM sites being next.

Believe it or not people do like working against the odds- because hauling in such a situation makes you the most important person to protect, and draws on your own skills and ships.
It's funny how the posts about this topic usually end up with people who are into PP and in most cases in favor of Open Only, explaining how PP works to people who's not involved in PP and in most cases against Open Only. Thanks Rubbernuke.
 
Top Bottom