Incrementally Improving PowerPlay - Make PowerPlay Open-Only

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Didn't back then the NPC were a serious threat for returning explorers?
so serious that Iridium was offering escort services for the said players against NPCs?
Guess it was too much and it got dropped.

Now, strictly from my point of view, i would not mind a increase of NPC aggressiveness in relation with PP pledged players.
But it really has to be sort of balanced - being interdicted 6 times while flying 400ls is not funny and does nothing to improve my game play as a PP merits hauler.

It may disrupt a botter.
Or not.
I guess the bot can be programmed to throttle to 0 when interdicted, then align to target, boost, boost, wake. A Cutter with size6 Prismatics (or even A-rated) will be unstoppable.

In which case the botter will be slowed down a bit, while a human player might get so frustrated with the repeated, mindless interdictions that he may refuse to do it anymore.

My idea in this vein was a separate class of more hardcore NPCs, perhaps in addition to what we have, who are not incompetent at interdiction and can pack a punch. They might also have FSD disabling weapons, and be in a wing. There needn't be many, not 6 per 400ls, because they are potent. It'd be reasonable if they focussed their efforts on higher rated/ranked (PP and combat rank) pilots, while letting the rank and file NPCs deal with less experienced/impactful players, or have a sliding scale between the extremes. There'd be a strong case in my view for making these tough NPCs more common in PG, where wing benefits are available, but player opponents are not.

EDIT: looks v similar to Rubbernuke's link now that I read it, hehe.

 

[Elliot Coleman]

So, I just want to propose a genuine thought exercise...

If "locking power play behind a paywall for console players" is a valid argument against open-only PP, then explain how, for the past however many years, two entire tech trees and gameplay were locked behind a paywall via Horizons.

 

[Northpin]

two entire tech trees and gameplay were locked behind a paywall via Horizons.

Because FDev's strategy of giving choices and not wanting to exclude anyone?

In the games i played, the DLC becomes mandatory to play especially in the cases where a DLC slips in vast balance issues (engineered ships vs non engineered ones)
Which would probably mean that everyone who didn't buy Horizons would had leff the game for good.

As it went, people could still play at a rather leisurely pace - but still play. They were not left outside nor forced to pay for the DLC

 

[Robert Maynard]

So, I just want to propose a genuine thought exercise...

If "locking power play behind a paywall for console players" is a valid argument against open-only PP, then explain how, for the past however many years, two entire tech trees and gameplay were locked behind a paywall via Horizons.

Just like access to the game itself, access to Horizons content requires a one off payment, i.e. the purchase itself, after which the player has continued access with no further payment required. Players can, of course, continue to play without Horizons, if they choose to - there's no requirement to buy Horizons.

Powerplay forms part of the base game that all console players bought - the base game has no requirement to have premium platform access, with its recurring fee structure, to access the feature as it does not require playing in the multi-player game modes - so console players have had access to Powerplay for as long as the game has been released on their respective platforms without any requirement to pay for premium platform access (unless they want to play in the multi-player game modes).

 

[Elliot Coleman]

Because FDev's strategy of giving choices and not wanting to exclude anyone?

I don't buy that. Without Horizons you can't really partake in the anti-xeno stuff with any real success. Sure, you can use AX weapons against scouts, but interceptors pretty much require Guardian grinding.

In the games i played, the DLC becomes mandatory to play especially in the cases where a DLC slips in vast balance issues (engineered ships vs non engineered ones)
Which would probably mean that everyone who didn't buy Horizons would had leff the game for good.

As it went, people could still play at a rather leisurely pace - but still play. They were not left outside nor forced to pay for the DLC

So, you're saying the non-Horizons owners left the game? Or are you saying non-Horizons owners were forced into solo/PG because of the significant disadvantage of flying open without engineering?

The first sounds like FDev made a decision to alienate what seems (by the forums) to have been a small subset of players. The second sounds like an existing paywall to me. Either way, both set a precedent.

Which brings me to my next question...

If the argument can be made, as has been here already, that the vast majority of PP players are already in open, and there are only a few who play solo/PG, then would it not make sense to adjust power play to fit what the majority already do? I mean, you either alienate the larger playerbase by letting it continue to stagnate in its current state, or you alienate the smaller group by making the necessary adjustments to keep the larger group playing (and, by relation, continuing to funnel money into the game via new DLCs/paints/etc.).

 

[DemiserofD]

I don't buy that. Without Horizons you can't really partake in the anti-xeno stuff with any real success. Sure, you can use AX weapons against scouts, but interceptors pretty much require Guardian grinding.



So, you're saying the non-Horizons owners left the game? Or are you saying non-Horizons owners were forced into solo/PG because of the significant disadvantage of flying open without engineering?

The first sounds like FDev made a decision to alienate what seems (by the forums) to have been a small subset of players. The second sounds like an existing paywall to me. Either way, both set a precedent.

Which brings me to my next question...

If the argument can be made, as has been here already, that the vast majority of PP players are already in open, and there are only a few who play solo/PG, then would it not make sense to adjust power play to fit what the majority already do? I mean, you either alienate the larger playerbase by letting it continue to stagnate in its current state, or you alienate the smaller group by making the necessary adjustments to keep the larger group playing (and, by relation, continuing to funnel money into the game via new DLCs/paints/etc.).

I don't think you can make any valid assumptions about who plays what, where. I do my powerplay/bgs participation 100% in solo, for example. If you're not interested in personal interaction ingame, it makes sense you also won't care for it on the forums, and so you won't get a representative sample here, but rather a bias towards open.

 

[Northpin]

I don't buy that. Without Horizons you can't really partake in the anti-xeno stuff with any real success. Sure, you can use AX weapons against scouts, but interceptors pretty much require Guardian grinding.

A base game player can still go explore or do some trading or even some low level combat.
Sure they cannot compete with engineered ships directly, but they can still enjoy the game.

So, you're saying the non-Horizons owners left the game?

No, i'm saying that if FD forced base players to buy Horizons, a good part of them would had left the game.
FDev didn't, and they could still play

iirc the stats were like 3 million copies of the base game sold and only 1.5 millions copies of Horizons sold.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't think you can make any valid assumptions about who plays what, where. I do my powerplay/bgs participation 100% in solo, for example. If you're not interested in personal interaction ingame, it makes sense you also won't care for it on the forums, and so you won't get a representative sample here, but rather a bias towards open.

So let me ask you- would you be happy with Open being weighted more along with changes like this?

Powerplay- mode agnostic version ideas

Just had some random ideas since I felt there was not enough Powerplay in the suggestions forum. Anyway- most of Powerplay stays the same (for reality sake) but: All PP NPCs free flying are G5 and use weapons and effects like phasing, FSD reboot etc. These NPCs are worth 150 per kill and count...

forums.frontier.co.uk

In short these changes allow Powerplay NPCs to have more room to attack all over, and not tread on other parts of the game. Since NPCs are more potent, each mode has a better balance.

 

[DemiserofD]

So let me ask you- would you be happy with Open being weighted more along with changes like this?

Powerplay- mode agnostic version ideas

Just had some random ideas since I felt there was not enough Powerplay in the suggestions forum. Anyway- most of Powerplay stays the same (for reality sake) but: All PP NPCs free flying are G5 and use weapons and effects like phasing, FSD reboot etc. These NPCs are worth 150 per kill and count...

forums.frontier.co.uk

In short these changes allow Powerplay NPCs to have more room to attack all over, and not tread on other parts of the game. Since NPCs are more potent, each mode has a better balance.

I don't think trying to emulate pvp in non-pvp areas is a good idea, either. It's essentially the same exact suggestion, just flipped. Trying to find a system that balances the npcs in such a way that it doesn't end up with the exact same negative side effects would be nigh impossible.

I think a much better idea would be to incentivize open in such a way that players are encouraged to engage in player interaction.

For example, if a player carrying merits gets interdicted by a hostile power but manages to escape, they get a 50% bonus to the value of any merits they're carrying.

50% is just an example. But that way players wouldn't feel pressured to maximize their efficiency by using trade-optimized ships as much.

The trouble with open is that only the aggressors benefit. Of course you want everyone to play on open, you can kill them. But what do they get out of the deal?

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't think trying to emulate pvp in non-pvp areas is a good idea, either. It's essentially the same exact suggestion, just flipped. Trying to find a system that balances the npcs in such a way that it doesn't end up with the exact same negative side effects would be nigh impossible.

So in essence you want a non demanding, non confrontational role in Powerplay, is that right?

I think a much better idea would be to incentivize open in such a way that players are encouraged to engage in player interaction.

Why? The core problem with Powerplay is that the NPCs don't do PvE things- the actual PvE content is hardly anything.

For example, if a player carrying merits gets interdicted by a hostile power but manages to escape, they get a 50% bonus to the value of any merits they're carrying.

Which is abusable, people will just game NPCs that way. The current design decouples effect from action.

50% is just an example. But that way players wouldn't feel pressured to maximize their efficiency by using trade-optimized ships as much.

Players will just game it- PP NPCs pose no danger to players at all. You could simply submit, let them shoot you and then jump out- how is that functional?

The trouble with open is that only the aggressors benefit. Of course you want everyone to play on open, you can kill them. But what do they get out of the deal?

I'm not talking about Open now, I'm focussing on bringing the solo experience up to something that approaches a game that you can lose, because thats what Powrplay needs- the chance you could lose.

 

[DemiserofD]

I'm not talking about Open now, I'm focussing on bringing the solo experience up to something that approaches a game that you can lose, because thats what Powrplay needs- the chance you could lose.

Of course you can lose; the other side can haul more than you. Easy.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Of course you can lose; the other side can haul more than you. Easy.

Which is not much of a game, as proven by the numbers playing it. By making NPCs so inept you are repeating the same action over and over without any surprises that could change the outcome at all.

 

[Elliot Coleman]

Just like access to the game itself, access to Horizons content requires a one off payment, i.e. the purchase itself, after which the player has continued access with no further payment required. Players can, of course, continue to play without Horizons, if they choose to - there's no requirement to buy Horizons.

Powerplay forms part of the base game that all console players bought - the base game has no requirement to have premium platform access, with its recurring fee structure, to access the feature as it does not require playing in the multi-player game modes - so console players have had access to Powerplay for as long as the game has been released on their respective platforms without any requirement to pay for premium platform access (unless they want to play in the multi-player game modes).

Again, this isn't FDev's issue, it's that of Microsoft and Sony.

So, having not played console in some 7 or 8 years, I had to look up how much the annual subscription is now. $120 a year. That's ridiculous. That said, console players know what they're getting into when they buy a console. They know there's going to be an added fee for online multiplayer. I mean, the Xbox One at launch was $500. That's what I paid for my PC, which I played ED (as well as a wealth of other MP games) on for years before making any upgrades. I mean, one could say that console players made poor decisions in gaming platforms, but that would come across as elitist, which tends to ruffle a great many feathers. One could also say that multi-platform releases are a cash grab by developers who don't care if half the community get locked behind a paywall and unable to participate in MP with other platforms (online subscription and lack of cross-play).

I don't think you can make any valid assumptions about who plays what, where. I do my powerplay/bgs participation 100% in solo, for example. If you're not interested in personal interaction ingame, it makes sense you also won't care for it on the forums, and so you won't get a representative sample here, but rather a bias towards open.

I'm not making the assumptions, just addressing the "most likely" statements of others. If you aren't interested in personal interaction, why play a competitive feature without the competition? I want to effect who owns this system, but I don't want any actual pushback from others. There's a word for that, but I can't quite place it. I mean, what is everyone so afraid of?

 

[DemiserofD]

Which is not much of a game, as proven by the numbers playing it. By making NPCs so inept you are repeating the same action over and over without any surprises that could change the outcome at all.

How do you know how many people are playing it? Honestly curious.

That said, I find it perfectly entertaining, and who are you to tell me what I do or don't enjoy?

And thirdly, if you're talking about the same action over and over without any surprises, doesn't that perfectly describe killing hauling ships with a pvp-specced ship, too? No real challenge, no real surprises, no real costs even if you die.

If you aren't interested in personal interaction, why play a competitive feature without the competition?

Just because I'm not interested in personal interaction doesn't mean I'm not interested in competition. Why should I be denied that option?

It's no different from the competitive CGs. I played the last one against the Marlinists entirely in solo, and winning made me quite happy. You can't tell me there wasn't any competition there, it was constantly within 5% of a flip.

 

[Danieros]

The main problem is that this argument goes back and forth but no-one has really got the opinion of people who play powerplay. From what I've seen, the vast majority of powerplay players seem to be in favour of some form of Open Only restriction. There needs to be a way to canvas the opinion of all powerplay players to see if their happy with any move to open only. I still prefer the idea of a hybrid model but there are other things which would need to be done.

The real issue is, no matter how many times we bring this up, or try to highlight these issues to frontier, they've fallen on deaf ears. Say what you will about Sandro, at least when he was about Powerplay appeared to be some kind of priority. Now it seems that fdev don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, even Dav when talking about Fleet Carriers, said they didn't put in the Power Contact into the Fleet Carrier modules because it's too complex.

I know the point of these threads is to highlight that people still want powerplay to work but its disheartening when there is nothing year after year. Mind you, knowing my luck, they'll be an announcement about Powerplay soon, just to make me look foolish.

No, one decaying power leadership mixing up proper PP directing with using its position to drive a propaganda point to enforce their own tunneling vision of the game against the one estabilished for half a decade does not make "the majority". Summing up all merits will still show movement in the range of a CG being done every week but less visibly so due to it not being one single objective. This thread has been mostly the push of a few very vocal users that make me doubt they are even busy playing the game anymore.

This is what I mean about the limitations of NPCs in comparison to disrupting people- the only place where the two intersect is supercruise at the minute. No hauler drops to a nav, and NPCs can't attack when you take off or land (because station drop zones are too small, defence areas too big).

NPCs have to be a danger otherwise there is no obstacle to overcome to make it a game really. The options in this case are change station drop zones (which affects all the game) or make stations turn a blind eye to NPCs loitering maybe. That way NPCs can lurk about, and if they are G5 with the correct weapons be much more surprising and dangerous.

You can achieve that by having the spawned NPCs take into account how many merits are being held, or moving away from nav beacons and having PP USS with varied threat levels to appeal for different pilot skill levels. For example, going for a 1000 merit run would be the a low-skill effort matching current NPC difficulty, but going all the way to 3000+ should offer a challenge, with 5000+ being like crazy thargoid interdictor soloing level of content, then you deliver the merits and have the difficulty reset, but the time for 0-1000 should take longer than 4000-5000 in the hands of a skilled pilot to make it reasonable. This would mean the universal 30 merits per ship would need to go, though, either towards a scaling value so a mere eagle isn't worth the same as an anaconda, or if the USS approach is taken, having a merit reward for beating the USS based on its threat level.

Hauling by comparison is a fixed difficulty challenge, but limited by your cargo hold size for every delivery. UM is so much more effective because of its infinite merit hold once you get used to it, but suffers from the lack of difficulty scaling that is expected from combat.

Anyway, the most notable issue is the lack of updates PP receives which inevitably leads to staleness. If the core game stopped receiving updates for as long as the PP has, I dare say its popularity would have fallen at a much faster rate. Even if it's a bad change that could be later fixed or improved, any change still shows that development time is being dedicated to it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Again, this isn't FDev's issue, it's that of Microsoft and Sony.

So, having not played console in some 7 or 8 years, I had to look up how much the annual subscription is now. $120 a year. That's ridiculous. That said, console players know what they're getting into when they buy a console. They know there's going to be an added fee for online multiplayer. I mean, the Xbox One at launch was $500. That's what I paid for my PC, which I played ED (as well as a wealth of other MP games) on for years before making any upgrades. I mean, one could say that console players made poor decisions in gaming platforms, but that would come across as elitist, which tends to ruffle a great many feathers. One could also say that multi-platform releases are a cash grab by developers who don't care if half the community get locked behind a paywall and unable to participate in MP with other platforms (online subscription and lack of cross-play).

While the requirement for console players to pay the console company to play in multi-player game modes exists, it does not affect most of the game's features as they are pan-modal in their implementation (with, from memory, only Wings, Multi-Crew & CQC being specifically unavailable to console players without premium platform access). Which is why PvP-gating Powerplay to Open would be to remove bought and paid for content from those players.

 

[cmdr Ramius007]

Just because I'm not interested in personal interaction doesn't mean I'm not interested in competition. Why should I be denied that option?

You just gave great example why block function should be removed in current form or rather changed, you are not alone.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Again, this isn't FDev's issue, it's that of Microsoft and Sony.

So, having not played console in some 7 or 8 years, I had to look up how much the annual subscription is now. $120 a year. That's ridiculous.

Its why I'll never buy a game for my PS4 that i need/want to play online. Instead of letting the subscription provide value added services they take away something you get for free on PC.

 

[Rubbernuke]

How do you know how many people are playing it? Honestly curious.

Current estimates are about 1000 high level (i.e. not module shopping) pledges. This is based on numbers of fortification, UM etc, intelligently dividing them with meta ship capacities own experience of capability, and numbers from various sources in game.

That said, I find it perfectly entertaining, and who are you to tell me what I do or don't enjoy?

Because partly its broken Powerplay, without NPC resistance at various stages you can deliver 100% all the time, making it a pure capacity x time game that has no variation at all. If all modes had actual NPC resistance that can make you change your habits and slow you, that time x capacity is compounded by ship design, skill and chance.

And thirdly, if you're talking about the same action over and over without any surprises, doesn't that perfectly describe killing hauling ships with a pvp-specced ship, too? No real challenge, no real surprises, no real costs even if you die.

I once counted the key presses hauling each run- its about 50 and is the same each way. Ironically I pressed the allocation button more than the amount of control keypresses....No changes, no NPCs making me touch the keys, nothing. Players or NPCs that challenge you actually make you think about your flying, your loadout- you know- actually fly a spaceship in what is an ongoing war between powers.

Just because I'm not interested in personal interaction doesn't mean I'm not interested in competition. Why should I be denied that option?

If you mean that you don't want NPC challenge I can't agree. Powerplay needs more actual gameplay to it beyond clicking 'allocation' over and over and delivering 100% because thats not condusive to a healthy feature.

I'd have to disagree about Open but thats your choice- but in the end you have to choose between harder NPCs or players.

It's no different from the competitive CGs. I played the last one against the Marlinists entirely in solo, and winning made me quite happy. You can't tell me there wasn't any competition there, it was constantly within 5% of a flip.

And yet this is not a CG- its Powerplay. Should it be something more? Why do we need the same thing in game? Next you'll be saying you want all interdictions removed from the game.

 

[Rubbernuke]

No, one decaying power leadership mixing up proper PP directing with using its position to drive a propaganda point to enforce their own tunneling vision of the game against the one estabilished for half a decade does not make "the majority". Summing up all merits will still show movement in the range of a CG being done every week but less visibly so due to it not being one single objective. This thread has been mostly the push of a few very vocal users that make me doubt they are even busy playing the game anymore.

Without leadership of some sort Powerplay dies- Powerplay just becomes random and no high level strategy ever forms. How do you think powers got to where they are today- randomly?

You can achieve that by having the spawned NPCs take into account how many merits are being held, or moving away from nav beacons and having PP USS with varied threat levels to appeal for different pilot skill levels. For example, going for a 1000 merit run would be the a low-skill effort matching current NPC difficulty, but going all the way to 3000+ should offer a challenge, with 5000+ being like crazy thargoid interdictor soloing level of content, then you deliver the merits and have the difficulty reset, but the time for 0-1000 should take longer than 4000-5000 in the hands of a skilled pilot to make it reasonable. This would mean the universal 30 merits per ship would need to go, though, either towards a scaling value so a mere eagle isn't worth the same as an anaconda, or if the USS approach is taken, having a merit reward for beating the USS based on its threat level.

NPCs already do this to an extent- held merits or bounties trigger attack. Plus you'd have to ensure everyone has the same POIs- and I'm not sure how many can exist (since the outside game shares NPCs and POIs).

Hauling by comparison is a fixed difficulty challenge, but limited by your cargo hold size for every delivery. UM is so much more effective because of its infinite merit hold once you get used to it, but suffers from the lack of difficulty scaling that is expected from combat.

So whats the difference here where you are facing NCPs and the idea I floated? Both have NPCs.

But with UM- if you are attacking someone surely you'll see NPCs wanting revenge? Again, I don't see the difference between what I suggested and this since both feature NPCs to drive you off- and thats the thing, they have to drive you off otherwise it turns into farming again.