Incrementally Improving PowerPlay - Make PowerPlay Open-Only

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.
Wait one...

Microsoft Store said:
Take control of your own starship in a cutthroat galaxy. Join the endless open world adventure featuring a connected galaxy, evolving narrative and the entirety of the Milky Way re-created at its full galactic proportions. Explore, trade, fight and survive in Elite Dangerous' massively multiplayer galaxy and challenge the world in CQC. Become Elite in the interstellar PVP arenas of the ultimate 34th century gladiatorial contest. 400 Billion Star Systems. Infinite Freedom. Blaze Your Own Trail.
Nowhere in that description do I see anything about features being pan-modal. That description makes it come across as a PvP game.

Playstation Store said:
To play this game on PS5, your system may need to be updated to the latest system software. Although this game is playable on PS5, some features available on PS4 may be absent. See PlayStation.com/bc for more details.
Elite Dangerous is the definitive massively multiplayer space epic, bringing gaming’s original open world adventure to the modern generation with a connected galaxy, evolving narrative and the entirety of the Milky Way re-created at its full galactic proportions.

Starting with only a small starship and a few credits, players do whatever it takes to earn the skill, knowledge, wealth and power to survive in a futuristic cutthroat galaxy and to stand among the ranks of the iconic Elite. In an age of galactic superpowers and interstellar war, every player’s story influences the unique connected gaming experience and handcrafted evolving narrative. Governments fall, battles are lost and won, and humanity’s frontier is reshaped, all by players’ actions.

400 Billion Star Systems. Infinite Freedom. Blaze Your Own Trail.

Remote Play requires PS Vita system and sufficiently robust Wi-Fi connection.

Online features require an account and are subject to terms of service and applicable privacy policy (playstationnetwork.com/terms-of-service & playstationnetwork.com/privacy-policy).


1 player
Network Players 2-99 - Full game requires PlayStation®Plus membership to access online multiplayer
15GB minimum save size
DUALSHOCK®4
Remote Play
Online Play (Required)
I'll be...look at that. Requires online play.


So tell me again what content console players are paying for? Seems to be online play and PvP if either of these store descriptions are to be believed.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Wait one...

Nowhere in that description do I see anything about features being pan-modal. That description makes it come across as a PvP game.

I'll be...look at that. Requires online play.

So tell me again what content console players are paying for? Seems to be online play and PvP if either of these store descriptions are to be believed.
Interesting - the versions I found, links provided, weren't quite the same.

Here's the PS4 one (my emphasis on "Internet connection required"): https://store.playstation.com/en-gb/product/EP2377-CUSA05308_00-EDBASEGAME000000
Description
To play this game on PS5, your system may need to be updated to the latest system software. Although this game is playable on PS5, some features available on PS4 may be absent. See PlayStation.com/bc for more details.

Elite Dangerous is the definitive massively multiplayer space epic, bringing gaming’s original open world adventure to the modern generation with a connected galaxy, evolving narrative and the entirety of the Milky Way re-created at its full galactic proportions.

Internet connection required.

Starting with only a small starship and a few credits, players do whatever it takes to earn the skill, knowledge, wealth and power to survive in a futuristic cutthroat galaxy and to stand among the ranks of the iconic Elite. In an age of galactic superpowers and interstellar war, every player’s story influences the unique connected gaming experience and handcrafted evolving narrative. Governments fall, battles are lost and won, and humanity’s frontier is reshaped, all by players’ actions.

400 Billion Star Systems. Infinite Freedom. Blaze Your Own Trail.

In-game purchases optional

1 player
Network Players 2-99 - Full game requires PlayStation®Plus membership to access online multiplayer
15GB minimum save size
DUALSHOCK®4 Vibration Function
Remote Play Supported
HD Video Output 720p,1080i,1080p

Download of this product is subject to the PlayStation Network Terms of Service and our Software Usage Terms plus any specific additional conditions applying to this product. If you do not wish to accept these terms, do not download this product. See Terms of Service for more important information.
One-time licence fee to download to multiple PS4 systems. Sign in to PlayStation Network is not required to use this on your primary PS4, but is required for use on other PS4 systems.
Interestingly, the player does not need to sign in to PSN to play on their primary PS4 and only requires an internet connection - Platstation®Plus membership is required to to access online multiplayer, which in and of itself infers that it's not needed for single player play - as if it required it just to play the game it would say so. Also, as it advertises the fact that "every player's story influences the unique connected gaming experience", it refers to the fact that players in Solo affect the game as a whole - otherwise it would qualify that statement in some way.

Here's the XBox One version advert that makes a similar reference to multi-player: https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/p/elite-dangerous-standard-edition/c3lw50bqj878?activetab=pivot:overviewtab
Online multiplayer on Xbox requires Xbox Live Gold (subscription sold separately).
Same inference - single player does not require XBox Live Gold, multi-player does.

If the game required XBox Live Gold to play at all then it would say so.

It seems clear then that as there is no requirement for the player to have premium platform access on either console to play the game then what is being bought is the ability to play the game - just not in the online multi-player modes - and that all players affect the "unique connected gaming experience", even if they play in Solo.

As playing in the multi-player game modes is not a requirement, neither is PvP.
 
Last edited:
I dont really see why Rubbernuke's hybrid alternative to OOPP isnt a better solution than full-blown OOPP. Because the hybrid solution doesnt disenfranchise or judge any mode as inappropriate overall, but it does acknowledge and respect the real differences between them.
The obvious problem with it is more dev effort. As we know that's in very short supply! But yes it could be suggested as a separate proposal (which Rubbernuke has already done I believe?)
 
The obvious problem with it is more dev effort. As we know that's in very short supply! But yes it could be suggested as a separate proposal (which Rubbernuke has already done I believe?)
Yes, its been submitted so its ' in the wild'.

Its sad that people have to feel they have to beg for scraps and keep on cutting already small ideas to the bone after all these years though. A bigger irony is that if it were not for the upheaval two years ago Powerplay would most likely be updated by now :/
 
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 can't speak for all PP of course, but at Winters during the Big Sandro Discussion we did a survey of our members on their thoughts. We phrased it as two questions:

1. If a Commander flies in Solo/PG and does PP work, how much should their merits count towards the POWER:
28% said 0 - the merits/cargo vanish
30% said 25% of normal effect
31% said 50% of normal effect
5% said 75% of normal effect
6% said full effect (i.e. as now).

1. If a Commander flies in Solo/PG and does PP work, how much should their merits count towards the COMMANDER:
8% said 0 - the merits/cargo vanish
17% said 25% of normal effect
41% said 50% of normal effect
5% said 75% of normal effect
30% said full effect (i.e. as now).

So we have a large majority (89%) saying that playing PP in Solo/PG should have significant (half or more) penalties to how effective you are for your Power in the meta-game. We also have a clear majority (76%) saying that playing PP in Solo/PG is what some people like to do to accrue personal merits, and that should still be rewarded to some extent. Bear in mind this is Winters, and we expect and encourage people to play in Open, so yes it's a somewhat biased sample. On the other hand, we are the people actually playing PowerPlay, so it's a very relevant bias.
 
.

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.
I take it you mean interdictions by players in open? If so I made a more fleshed out suggestion around this (much) further up the thread, with some checks to mitigate abuse.
 
Current system is actully tyranny of solo/pg players over rest, 5c preperations and expansions can do much more harm than any other actions combined and cant be stopped in any mode if well executed, a lot of powers are victims of this mechanic ruining game, also nobody mention that those who haul in solo/pg with 0 denger actully are MORE important than those who play in open, why? becouse they are simply more efficient, even if they simply dont have skill or dedication to be that important, forced open mode is to restore fairness, they are also those who are cry the most, not realizing they are ruining game for majority of players, for whole player base changes that will give POWERS merits only made in open will have no importance as long as currrent individual benefits stay avaible for them (assuming PP not get reworked completely)
Those who want increased difficulty of power play, i cant agree more, problem is that this would require increasing difficulty by HOUNDREADS of % to be on par with denger provided by wings of players in engineered ships, and truth is that those who "dont want to be forced into pvp" are same players who are against any increase in overall game difficulty.
 
Current system is actully tyranny of solo/pg players over rest, 5c preperations and expansions can do much more harm than any other actions combined and cant be stopped in any mode if well executed, a lot of powers are victims of this mechanic ruining game, also nobody mention that those who haul in solo/pg with 0 denger actully are MORE important than those who play in open, why? becouse they are simply more efficient, even if they simply dont have skill or dedication to be that important, forced open mode is to restore fairness, they are also those who are cry the most, not realizing they are ruining game for majority of players, for whole player base changes that will give POWERS merits only made in open will have no importance as long as currrent individual benefits stay avaible for them (assuming PP not get reworked completely)
Those who want increased difficulty of power play, i cant agree more, problem is that this would require increasing difficulty by HOUNDREADS of % to be on par with denger provided by wings of players in engineered ships, and truth is that those who "dont want to be forced into pvp" are same players who are against any increase in overall game difficulty.
How exactly is open only going to fix 5c problems? Fixing that's going to require a more fundamental change to the power play system.
 
Next you'll be saying you want all interdictions removed from the game.
I certainly wouldn't disagree with that. At least, not with the current iteration.
The current version is basically a guaranteed win against NPCs, and a guaranteed loss against players. Neither outcome is interesting, not when it's never in question.
 
How exactly is open only going to fix 5c problems? Fixing that's going to require a more fundamental change to the power play system.
It may not fix it completely, but would make those perpetrating it encounterable. Say it's a disgruntled BGS player group or former PP ally, it opens the door to diplomacy, or if it's an opposing power then the optics are extremely bad for that PP team. The fact it's done purely in invisible modes suggests it's a clandestine, knowingly unethical activity and might disappear when exposed to the light.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but you can't really tell what someone's doing, at least not immediately. And even then, you'll only know if you're paying very close attention to everything everywhere. And if you're doing that, you can already beat them anyway, just by outhauling them.

A better solution would be to remove the ability for rank and file members to choose where to expand to in the first place.
 
And even then, you'll only know if you're paying very close attention to everything everywhere. And if you're doing that, you can already beat them anyway, just by outhauling them.
5C basically do three bad things - voting, prepping bad systems, and then expanding those bad systems. If we have OOPP, the last two can be countered by blockading the systems. We're pretty sure 5C is only a few actual humans, and maybe with bot assistance, so blockading a system should be pretty effective. This is especially true of bad expansions - there's we have plenty of warning of those, and we know where they're going to be - just as if we're opposing an enemy expansion.

There are also other proposals to combat 5C - Open Only is not the only tool, though it is a powerful one.

A better solution would be to remove the ability for rank and file members to choose where to expand to in the first place.
Sure, but it implies the game has to understand who is a "leader" and who is a "member" and FDev have consistently (and for fairly reasonable reasons) always tried to avoid having that sort of thing. There are some Powers (notably Aisling, Grom and Torval) where it's not always been crystal clear who is actually in command since they are either changing, absent, or sometimes actively fighting each other. Again, see some of the other proposals in this series for anti-5C suggestions.
 
so blockading a system should be pretty effective.
Not really. I have personal experience with people dumping tens of thousands of commodities at the last moment, and nobody can watch constantly forever.

Not to mention, it leaves you in the ridiculous position of having pledged players constantly murdering other pledges in their own system, which makes absolutely no sense at all.


Sure, but it implies the game has to understand who is a "leader" and who is a "member" and FDev have consistently (and for fairly reasonable reasons) always tried to avoid having that sort of thing.
If you'll check my suggestion from a bit ago, you just take total contributions over the past four weeks or so, and whoever is in the top 10 gets to make the decisions. Plus the Power gets 30% of the votes, always voting for a 'safe' option, either a profitable system or fortification. Functionally those people already make the decisions, so outright putting it exclusively in their hands would have no downsides.

Right now, someone could get to the top 10 by delivering to harmful locations, but since the top 10 would be choosing desirable locations in the first place, it would mean that in order for someone to put themselves in a position to do damage, they'd have to actively help the power they're trying to hurt for a full four weeks.

And even if they DID manage to put themselves in a position of power, they'd have to vote against the other 9 players AND the power itself.

In other words, 5C would be impossible, with simple, straightforward, and easily understandable rules. Which is where most 5c proposals fail; they become incredibly complicated to the point of being incomprehensible.

There are some Powers (notably Aisling, Grom and Torval) where it's not always been crystal clear who is actually in command since they are either changing, absent, or sometimes actively fighting each other.
This, on the other hand, I have no issue with, and actually think are a good thing. Having different factions inside a Power could be a pretty cool thing; you could even have a power split in two and make a new Power, maybe.
 
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.
...😆🤣😂🤧...
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"
Theres several decaying Powerplay groups represented here thank you very much. Perhaps you wouldve been happier if this thread had been a double-bingo signed OpenLetter for Open Powerplay so a clearer majority can be represented in the OP. Because thats gonna be a massive hit with all the other forum users and a great start to a productive discussion..
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.
Yes. people should all just shut up, since they discredit themselves and the issues they raise, simply by talking about them. Im a longstanding Utopian. We love stifling dissidents, its our thing its what we do. And im very impressed by this prodigal thinking right here..
 
Last edited:
Not to mention, it leaves you in the ridiculous position of having pledged players constantly murdering other pledges in their own system, which makes absolutely no sense at all.
Not always. In Utopia once we had a new player prepping an area that would be horrible, I flew out and talked him down and to join the group.

If you'll check my suggestion from a bit ago, you just take total contributions over the past four weeks or so, and whoever is in the top 10 gets to make the decisions.
Sadly quite often its 5C who do the most, so you'd be putting power into their hands.

Right now, someone could get to the top 10 by delivering to harmful locations, but since the top 10 would be choosing desirable locations in the first place, it would mean that in order for someone to put themselves in a position to do damage, they'd have to actively help the power they're trying to hurt for a full four weeks.

And even if they DID manage to put themselves in a position of power, they'd have to vote against the other 9 players AND the power itself.
The best option is what FD themselves suggested, which is weighting systems based on CC profitability. That way it takes much more to prep and expand a negative CC system as it does one which is mildly profitable.

In other words, 5C would be impossible, with simple, straightforward, and easily understandable rules. Which is where most 5c proposals fail; they become incredibly complicated to the point of being incomprehensible.
The problem with your idea is that everyone in Powerplay has an equal vote, and that they'd never have 'leaders' decide in game.

This, on the other hand, I have no issue with, and actually think are a good thing. Having different factions inside a Power could be a pretty cool thing; you could even have a power split in two and make a new Power, maybe.
Its fine up to a point (Aisling is a better illustration because all of her groupies want her to do well). Quite often what happens is 'sock puppeting' where a power is used as a batetring ram by others- so that power is used as a weapon while the real attackers power is unharmed CC wise.
 
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.
I missed this- but the people talking here are people heavily involved in Powerplay. For example I used to be part of Utopian leadership, had played since day 1, ran the Utopian Reddit for 2 years, was part of the Powerplay discord that talked to devs, and answered dev questions when they DMed them from community managers. Up until I injured my arm a few months ago I was with the Kumo.

So they know what they are talking about. How long have you played, and to what level?
 
The problem with your idea is that everyone in Powerplay has an equal vote, and that they'd never have 'leaders' decide in game.
Which is exactly why I say that needs to go.


Sadly quite often its 5C who do the most, so you'd be putting power into their hands.
As I literally posted immediately afterwards, this wouldn't work, because they'd have to act in such a way as to ACTUALLY support their Power, not just ship merits to a useless location. They MUST go to the systems the top 10 select, or they get nothing but an embassy in their target location.

Bizarre systems of weighting are only going to make everyone confused via massive overcomplication. The ideal system is as simple as possible.

And this is exactly that. Simple. Effective. Flawless.

The top 10(plus the Power itself) decide via vote what systems to expand into. Everyone else supports this action if they want to gain rank.

If someone wants to get into the top 10, they need to outhaul(and therefore outSUPPORT) everyone else for four weeks. And even IF they went to those lengths, supporting their enemy against themselves, they'd still be only 1/13th the total voting power!

You would need to get SEVEN players in the top 10 to turn the power against itself, and at that point, you've basically BECOME the power. They've already lost, utterly.
 
Which is exactly why I say that needs to go.
Which your idea specifically creates.

take total contributions over the past four weeks or so, and whoever is in the top 10 gets to make the decisions.
There needs to be a distinction between leading outside and inside the game. Powerplay was designed to work by individuals all acting in the best interest of that power, and that bad de scions were evened out via player numbers. That never happened, so you have low numbers of people wanting to do the best moves held hostage by a few who 5C.

As I literally posted immediately afterwards, this wouldn't work, because they'd have to act in such a way as to ACTUALLY support their Power, not just ship merits to a useless location. They MUST go to the systems the top 10 select, or they get nothing but an embassy in their target location.
Which is the most complicated way imaginable- people want simplicity.

Bizarre systems of weighting are only going to make everyone confused via massive overcomplication. The ideal system is as simple as possible.
Its not. Depending on the weighting, a -100 CC 5C system could be fifty times harder to prep than a +5 CC system which is 105% easier to prep. That is simple. Its one number and not embassies and top 10 leaders. It also guides players unconsciously to 'good' moves.
 
Which your idea specifically creates.
No, right now, EVERYONE can vote. 90% of people have no idea what to vote for. The vote is useless. It needs to go.

With the new system, only the ones who are willing to put in the time and effort necessary get to vote. They are already the ones who know what to do. They were already the ones deciding the movement of the power. Only now, it will be explicit.

Even better, it will be simple. There will be a list of the top 10 players. You get into that list, you can vote on which system(s) to prepare. Simple, easy.

FAR easier than a bizarre system of weighting. Most players ALREADY don't understand how the heck system value works. Just look at the systems that get prepared and you'll have an excellent idea of how true that is. Adding weighting will only make that even harder for the average player to figure out, and when you've got a system that's already at risk of collapse because barely anyone participates, that's a huge problem. One you can't afford to exacerbate. Reject new players and you die of heat death in short order.

Because of this exact problem, having the top 10 choose the selected systems, and issuing missions to that system(As outlined in my suggestion) would be infinitely simpler and more comprehensible to the average player than anything else.

Right now, a player wants to join a power. They join, and go to the central system. They grab 50 merits, and go to the map, and stare in utmost confusion at all the green and red and orange dots that make no sense. They pick one at random, haul to it, and...nothing happens. Yaaaay. A week later, their effort is swept away, because they didn't support the right system, because they didn't want to read a 25 page excel sheet on optimum preparation guidelines. They quit, because this is boring.

With the new system, they join the power and go to the central system. There, they take a mission, and complete it. Done. Finished. Simple.

But under the hood, that mission took them straight to a system that was targeted by one of the top 10. They go there and attack a base, or haul in some needed commodities, or haul a spy. They're rewarded with credits and merits, and a shortly later, they watch as the system THEY helped prepare, now goes into the next stage. Again, they're back to that same system, helping with missions, and this time, their power TAKES the system!

THEY did that. Simply. Easily. Straightforwardly. They stay in the power, and start working towards taking the next system.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom