Powerplay Is PowerPlay dead?

[fergal]

What's the trouble? I'm the trouble pointing out player factions and their leaders control the powers, and many solo pledgers have no voice where suggestions to prep,undermine, or flip are always shot down? It actually explains a major reason for the current stalemate no one was willing to discuss until I pointed it out. Sure, I was late to powerplay until late last year, but I'm not ignorant of the mechanics. Yeah I hear the "lecture" about who was here first yadda. No wonder powerplay isn't so readily accessible and most just go for the modules. I'll just have to individually rp for my pledge and also ignore ZYADA.

Exactly.

There are 2 main criticism I hear regarding PP, the first are its mechanics. These haven't changed in the nearly 2 years PP has been here for, so there is nothing the players can do to address this.

The second is the lack of anything going on.
The main fault of this are the groups of organised players who are actively working to do nothing. This is whats killing PP.

My point above about why Grom should attack Torval wasn't an appeal to Grom players to actually change their behaviour, I suspect they not only wont play PP in open, they won't venture into a public forum.

I'll lay the exact same criticisms to all PP Factions, such as Hudson.
Hudson tried to get systems from Mahon in the past, and Grom more recently, but this isn't working.
So what within 90ly of their capital and isn't Grom or Mahon?

What leaps out to me are 2 easy targets for Hudons to hit, to help the Hudson Power.
If you want to make PP stay boring and drive more players away, not attacking hostile powers is the way to go.

 

[CMDR Endincite]

The second is the lack of anything going on.
The main fault of this are the groups of organised players who are actively working to do nothing. This is whats killing PP.

I'd agree with that in a more limited sense. From my end it more often looks like "busy doing other things" than actively doing nothing. The various long-involved groups (Edit: and a few of the more organized general communities) in the larger Powers now, if not always, represent the only units large and (potentially) organized enough to actually carry out such a shakeup. In some cases those groups have been very active in Power leadership, coordination, whatever you want to call it. Most often now it seems they're not - certainly in our case - so it becomes a rather hard to sell prospect. You hand me (figuratively, I'm retired ) a whole midsize player group devoted to one task for a month, and I'll give you a shakeup. Rather a lot of people are experienced in that sort of organization by now. 6 that I'm aware of in this thread alone. I've watched two large combat groups now nearly evaporate under the strain of prolonged Powerplay combat ops - the leadership was there but the focus of their playerbase could not be maintained. Both have re-solidified but are now mainly focused on their own goals as a group, throwing their weight into supporting the Power most apparently when there's an emergency (or leave entirely, in one case).

We can talk about shaking things up until hell freezes over, but without the dedication and focus of a rather large number of people, it can't happen. If you've got the influence to ask a group or community to throw themselves in that way and some confidence that it'll get done, spectacular. Please do. I don't know anyone who currently does.

 

[withnail]

The sitting round on your backside trying to avoid confrontation tactic is really bad for powerplay. Combine this with no requirement to expand and the lack of an automatic collapse mechanism and you get stagnation.

It's boring without proper conflict. Powers should be forced to fight each other and the current faux alliances should not be allowed IMO.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Powerplay needs Collapse to make it dynamic, along with more specific ranking conditions such as spacial size, economy etc to make different approaches worthwhile rather than lumping it all together. It should reward strategy as well as brute force, and give several paths to being number 1 in rank.

 

[CMDR Endincite]

It's boring without proper conflict.

On that much we agree, certainly. It's the only thing that drives visible dynamism in Powerplay.

Powers should be forced to fight each other and the current faux alliances should not be allowed IMO.

How far do you want to take that though? No ability to cooperate? Obviously we know different people, but I think rather a ton would be alienated by a one dimensional forever-war. The current situation sucks, no doubt, but the total opposite doesn't seem to be a solid answer.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Of course, the other problem is that if everyone went hostile, you would still get alliances as powers would unoffically gang up on the weakest to gain the systems- inevitably the smallest powers. And since you need to invest time in Powerplay, would that put players off ever joining small powers in the first place?

Also, inhabited space has not expanded despite a skin of colony worlds- if there was more space then powers would expand more thus adding dynamism.

 

[Calrissian]

When Mahon is rated 1, we get 20% dividends on trades done in Mahon space. That's such a massive benefit, that we're better off trading outside of Mahon space, if we're actually trying to make money. The only thing that might be more profitable in Mahon space than elsewhere is mining, and even that is somewhat doubtful.

No, we reap no tangible benefits from being ranked 1st. We don't do it for selfish reasons - we do it to promote the Alliance.

I haven't forgotten about you Vectron. Somebody has got to collect that loot for Mahon and the ladies better not come up short! Lets let everybody get a good look at you.

20% additional profits gained from trade is a HUGE benefit. That provides plenty of surplus money for many things. Like buying fortification and expansion packages! Who we trying to kid here bro? The Imperial ladies also need lots of clothes, perfumes, shoes, and lavish rooms to put in that work at the upmost proficiency! [big grin]

 

[Arkadi]

[...] People can suggest that we take systems from other powers until the end of time, but it's not that simple. I wrote a lengthy post earlier in this thread explaining that the game mechanically favors defense. Said simply, the game induces powers to fortify more than they would have prior to the consolidation's defence bonus mechanic, which means that powers are constantly buttoned up, closing off avenues of attack. The static galaxy map we are seeing now is the result.

Provocateurs can argue for offensives that suit their allies by creating new conflict between their enemies, but these arguments are based on politics more than possibility.

I am not really sure about this, but maybe it might be a lever to do away with the "defense wall" of powerplay and make some changes to fortification?

Maybe it would be better if fortification fast track would be disabled?!

This could be enough to stop powers from easy-fort mode and make undermining and turmoil a bit more likely to succeed in resuliting losses for a power.
(edit: also it should finally be possible to store ships with powerplay assets in the cargo hold - this would shift foritifications away from view rich rank5 forters to a more medium "rank and file" power members acitivity again - if it was also less of a pain. Ship storing would be important imho and maybe a fixed allocation and not that upjers browser-game mechaic of wait 30 minutes for next click thing.)

Additionally there could and should be finally the long forgotten freedom-fighter mechanic for unpledged players to affect powerplay (maybe over mission-system?). This could create some new dynamic and would involve players outside of powerplay.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Additionally there could and should be finally the long forgotten freedom-fighter mechanic for unpledged players to affect powerplay (maybe over mission-system?). This could create some new dynamic and would involve players outside of powerplay.

Only if the reverse was true and player groups could be eliminated totally, otherwise it leads to stagnation again.

 

[fergal]

Only if the reverse was true and player groups could be eliminated totally, otherwise it leads to stagnation again.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Rubbernuke again.



I don't really se what the freedom fighters concept brings, if all you want to do is oppose an expansion into "your" space, you can pledge to a power for 1 week, then leave.
Thats not ideal, but if something new is going to be aded/changed to PP, hopefully there are more important things than this.

With nearly all populated systems already being exploited by a power, there mustn't be many PMF who need this mechanic, and also there is a much smaller number of expansions going on right now.

 

[Arkadi]

Don't you think more people would get involved to pick sides and fight for or against a power in a system that is important to them? Wouldn't change all to much in the game dynamic but would bring more players to the conflicts. Also maybe it could be possible to join a freedomfighter / mercenary group to help another power with it's expansion. For example this cycle a Winters pilot could chose the freedomfighter/mercenary group and help Hudson with his expansion. I think this would create some more opportunies of gameplay and with this more dynamics.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It would, but in ED nothing can ever be destroyed; PP has come closest with Collapse removing powers, but its unfair that a Power can be destroyed in this case but a player backed faction cannot. Without loss you can't really 'win', hence what we have now.

 

[withnail]

On that much we agree, certainly. It's the only thing that drives visible dynamism in Powerplay.


How far do you want to take that though? No ability to cooperate? Obviously we know different people, but I think rather a ton would be alienated by a one dimensional forever-war. The current situation sucks, no doubt, but the total opposite doesn't seem to be a solid answer.

I think the alliances should be more dynamic and less long term. Aisling should be in more of a cold war with the rest of you. More friction between the other 3 empire players too. The ZYADA thing is ridiculous in my mind, it has no place in lore and I can't see Grom jumping into bed with the Empire. I just can't see an ex-fed Admiral doing that - it is a flimsy concept.

The feds should not get on either.

Antal and Archon should be attacking each other. Sirius should at least have some conflict somewhere. I don't actually know what that power does or what their players get out of it.

So more intrigue, more fluid alliances and less safe play all round. I'm not used to feeling safe in PP and it isn't that bad.

Frontier could do a lot with mechanics to make powers fight each other more often. It is a shame that they have let it get to this place.

 

[Misaniovent]

I think the alliances should be more dynamic and less long term. Aisling should be in more of a cold war with the rest of you. More friction between the other 3 empire players too. The ZYADA thing is ridiculous in my mind, it has no place in lore and I can't see Grom jumping into bed with the Empire. I just can't see an ex-fed Admiral doing that - it is a flimsy concept.

The feds should not get on either.

Antal and Archon should be attacking each other. Sirius should at least have some conflict somewhere. I don't actually know what that power does or what their players get out of it.

So more intrigue, more fluid alliances and less safe play all round. I'm not used to feeling safe in PP and it isn't that bad.

Frontier could do a lot with mechanics to make powers fight each other more often. It is a shame that they have let it get to this place.

First: "The ZYADA thing is ridiculous in my mind, it has no place in lore and I can't see Grom jumping into bed with the Empire. I just can't see an ex-fed Admiral doing that - it is a flimsy concept." The people who created Yuri Grom and wrote his detailed lore don't feel this way. Do you know Grom better than they do? I see nothing in the lore that makes this a flimsy concept. Yuri Grom saw the rot in the Federation and struck his own path as an authoritarian. It seems ZYADA that we have a natural affinity.

You want a system that generates more conflict. Substantive changes to Powerplay could make this happen by creating a system that favors offense. There are dozens of good ideas floating around. But you cannot create a system that removes diplomacy that does not also remove player agency. Organized communities were always bound to form around the eleven powers. These communities were always bound to negotiate; actors are not static, and chaos always gives way to organization and systems.

Unless Frontier decides exactly what every power is going to do every weeek — who will attack, where they will attack, who will defend, and so on —powers are going to form alliances and agreements. Would powerplay be better if decisions became fully automated?

Also:

"I don't actually know what that power does or what their players get out of it."

It's a shame to see that people feel this way. There is nothing wrong with the way that neutral powers are playing the game. Fortunately, I think you have the minority opinion in the wider community.

 

[withnail]

Heh. What makes you be the font of knowledge?

I think what you have set up with ZYADA is really, really bad for powerplay. 5 powers in alliance refusing to attack one another? No expansions? All dug in?

To be frank, I don't even know what you are getting out of it either.

 

[Misaniovent]

Heh. What makes you be the font of knowledge?

I'm not sure what you are asking.

I think what you have set up with ZYADA is really, really bad for powerplay. 5 powers in alliance refusing to attack one another? No expansions? All dug in?

To be frank, I don't even know what you are getting out of it either.

Powerplay is not stagnant because of ZYADA; ZYADA is responsible for pushing Hudson down to the bottom half of the galactic rankings and keeping him there, and we have pushed many weaponized expansions and taken many systems in support of that objective.

We saw significant disruption while negotiating the ZYADA treaty, and we've seen significant disruption since. Patreus lost many systems, and the sabotage of ALD was capped with a massive offensive that forced them to lose many systems. We resolved the fate of all lost systems fairly and equitably through diplomacy. That was our choice. Frontier cannot force us to do otherwise.

I am not happy with the state of powerplay at all. I am not happy with consolidation's defence bonus. I am not happy with the deadlock we appear to be in. I'm not happy that Ngarra and Gitse are still in expansion, and I'm not happy that Frontier does not seem to have any interest in making real changes to powerplay. I am happy with the political situation in powerplay, because I recognize that it is not the problem.

Things have grown static for mechanical reasons. You can argue if you'd like that stagnation is my fault, but that won't make it true.

 

[withnail]

I'm saying people sitting in their comfort zone has contributed greatly to the stagnation.

 

[Arkadi]

hey folks, don't let this thread become a stage to begrudge each other. Better we talk together to see why some people come to think powerplay might be dead and what Frontier or us could do to make it more "alive".

I think it's good that player groups can form alliances. This is a sign fo life in the game. Finally it is also a mulitplayer game and especially powerplay caters more to mulitplayer then to solo players becouse it features pledges to factions and teritorriies. (edit: and let's face it there is no solo storyline or any notable NPC interaction)

On with alliances in powerwplay: if those alliances lead to a stalemate - well it's just what the players did. This is not Frontiers fault or game mechanics fault.

I still believe the core of the problem with powerplay lies in the fortification mechanic. It's to defensive, to boring and caters to much to the rich.

Next is that powerplay is tied to the BGS but in an unbalanced way. Some powers have the possibility to influence the BGS for a change to favorable government types and better fortification triggers others don't have that possiblity. This is a major unbalance. And here I blame Frontier for bad design.

Problem A) Fortifications : boring, expensive, 30 minute allocation is bu..sh.. mechanic
Problem B) BGS inclusion is not implemented for all powers

 

[Deleted member 115407]

I joined power play. When I did I was all like "Yeah, bruh, Powerplay, Baby!!!". I really worked at it for a few weeks. Then after four weeks of hauling PP commodities, stocking them 20 at a time, flying to HQs, flying all the way back. Paying buttloads of cash for them. Going to undermine systems to interdict NPCs for 30 merits a kill.... Honestly, PP got old that quickly.

There is nothing compelling about Powerplay, IMO. Its almost complete disconnection from the BGS, its grindy haulage mechanics, its lack of transparency for new players. It's lack of diverse gameplay options. I just didn't care about anything I was doing. All of the characters are flat and uninteresting (Sorry FD, if I'm going to feel sympathetic for a character, I need more than two paragraphs and one picture).

Anyway, I got my Pacifier Frags, then did nothing for a few weeks. I just pledged to Rui for my packhounds. Where I'll do nothing until week four, when I will quick-grind my rank and then quickly resign or defect.

 

[bookmite]

I joined power play. When I did I was all like "Yeah, bruh, Powerplay, Baby!!!". I really worked at it for a few weeks. Then after four weeks of hauling PP commodities, stocking them 20 at a time, flying to HQs, flying all the way back. Paying buttloads of cash for them. Going to undermine systems to interdict NPCs for 30 merits a kill.... Honestly, PP got old that quickly.

There is nothing compelling about Powerplay, IMO. Its almost complete disconnection from the BGS, its grindy haulage mechanics, its lack of transparency for new players. It's lack of diverse gameplay options. I just didn't care about anything I was doing. All of the characters are flat and uninteresting (Sorry FD, if I'm going to feel sympathetic for a character, I need more than two paragraphs and one picture).

Anyway, I got my Pacifier Frags, then did nothing for a few weeks. I just pledged to Rui for my packhounds. Where I'll do nothing until week four, when I will quick-grind my rank and then quickly resign or defect.

Some honesty at last...thank you. I'm actually quite saddened by my experience in pp..I found it lacks any real challenge.

Fortifying some system, and coughing up 7m credits for the privilege of doing so, is not my idea of fun...The only excitement I've found is stumbling upon enemy ships in supercruise and dragging them out and killing them ...I was interdicted by an enemy elite anaconda...what was the point in that...it was so easy to stay out of range of its weapons. Next it was an elite Asp scout, who took out my weapons in two passes ..so much for my engineered clipper

I fully expect once I have the prismatics next week, I'll be off chasing the packhounds too...or I might hang around for the imperial Hammer .