We managed 2 entire pages of PP discussion this time without getting into that can of worms. That must have been another record for cycle 300.
Just imagine if Powerplay was actually done well...
- Thread starter AbslomRob
- Start date
But thats how the game is framed- I mean for example, is there a way to peacefully undermine? Each Power does it via force. I'm not advocating for it to be totally like that- just the parts that logically suit it and create new gameplay for other non combat roles.
Capo above just happened organically and opportunistically, it was not arranged or gamed. I've had times where two independent wings came up against rival wings and it was great. Is it perfect? No- sometimes it does go wonky, but for me instancing falls over the most with things like missions rather than with people alone- not to mention Odyssey being about multiplayer. But also remember its not Red Baron dogfighting- combat is to slow or prevent other players in this context.
But thats what Powerplay needs at some level- taking PvP and expanding it out so abstractions are reduced. You can't get any more easy to understand than saying 'deliver this here, be careful of rivals'. Plus- uncapped UM does exactly what you ask: "players from both sides want to engage with the enemy"- if you want to keep your Power solvent, then you need to engage- and rather than being the daft sterotype cargo haulers in these places would become very important.
The trouble is its one important aspect which sets Powerplay apart from the BGS. You have to address it at some level if FD intend to keep what we have currently- there are ways around it but its more about what FD are willing to do which dictates things.
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
And yet we use PvP very effectively to blockade while protecting our underminers from interference. Last cycle was a massive example of success with this (many, many opposing hauler/PvP ships destroyed, no UMers lost). And no, the PvPers couldn't have been earning merits fast instead, because the nav beacon wing was full, with no res sites (when it wasn't full, PvPers did drop to UM, and conversely UMers sometimes came up to PvP, plus some PvPers were pledged elsewhere for the usual reasons). You have this weird insistance on 100% effectiveness for something to be viable. You're not aiming to catch everybody, because... instancing, platforms, time zones, stealth (what's this? PvP-induced emergent gameplay?? Shocking!), etc., just to catch enough to compromise the rate of merits - make them high wake or lose the merits they're carrying, and to reduce opposing PvP interference. The main issue remains use of closed modes and block - that's obvious, they actively inhibit instancing.
Meanwhile, peak times are peak times for both sides, so while nothing's watertight, the time when you can most likely earn merits, you can most likely be opposed.
Lastly, hauling under fire with CAP trying to protect you is one if the funnest activities available in PP. Obviously you feel exposed but your victory conditions are such (deliver cargo and preferably survive) that asymmetry in the encounter is a feature rather than a detriment, and a hauler can feel pretty good when they pull off some slick use of skill and tactics to outfox an enemy PvP wing. All I'm saying is be careful with the baby in that there bathwater.
Please don't deliberately misunderstand me. We both know I didn't mean pvpers from both sides. Something I think you like to forget is that this is ultimately a game. That means it needs to be enjoyable for the players. And the vast majority of players are not going to enjoy being what is essentially the target of an escort mission.
If you want PVP, fine, that's all well and good. But don't attempt to force the people who don't enjoy PVP into engaging with the aspects of the game that they dislike.
Come now, don't act as if your success in protecting your underminers had anything to do with your PVP activities. Killing underminers is exponentially more difficult than killing haulers, for a huge laundry list of reasons, including the fact that they are flying a combat optimized ship, they are much more difficult to locate, Etc.
Also, don't act as if what you enjoy is a universal constant. The fact that people who enjoy PVP have the most fun hauling when there is the potential for PVP is no great Revelation. It's just common sense. But that has absolutely no bearing on the enjoyment of the players who do not enjoy PVP.
Would there be any interest in reworking Powerplay into a mission based system?
Initially, instead of waiting or fast-tracking packages, you can only take one mission at a time (scaled to your cargo capacity). Combat related missions could be open-ended, to the taste of the player but expire with every cycle. Then the system handing out missions can only slightly over-fortity systems based on mutiple players with open missions - once as system is fortified, no more missions to fortify there.
This leads to the next development - the leadership of the Powers pay for the missions. You want to steer players to do certain things, pay into the system to fund those missions (Donation missions). If you think a particular system should be the expansion target, you offer up more credits than the system default and out-bid any competing targets. The only aspect missing to this is the need for players to be able to convey their funds to self-selected leaders to keep from bankrupting the leadership. Between fleet carriers and dumping valueable cargo, this can be done already but is painfully tedious. (edit) Any missions not taken, the credits are returned to the 'sponsor'.
These two aspects solve the information problem for casuals (where to fortify, prep and expand) and a mechanism for group leadership to convey that information. It also solves the issue of how to determine the leadership - who ponies up the most credits for the missions will determine who the casuals will follow. If you follow a particular leader, you funnel credits into their coffers in order to facilitate the Donations for missions. Finally, it can almost totally squelch the 5C activity - while the 5C'ers likely have credits, they are more likely to be out-numbered and eventually out-bid on the mission generation.
Initially, instead of waiting or fast-tracking packages, you can only take one mission at a time (scaled to your cargo capacity). Combat related missions could be open-ended, to the taste of the player but expire with every cycle. Then the system handing out missions can only slightly over-fortity systems based on mutiple players with open missions - once as system is fortified, no more missions to fortify there.
This leads to the next development - the leadership of the Powers pay for the missions. You want to steer players to do certain things, pay into the system to fund those missions (Donation missions). If you think a particular system should be the expansion target, you offer up more credits than the system default and out-bid any competing targets. The only aspect missing to this is the need for players to be able to convey their funds to self-selected leaders to keep from bankrupting the leadership. Between fleet carriers and dumping valueable cargo, this can be done already but is painfully tedious. (edit) Any missions not taken, the credits are returned to the 'sponsor'.
These two aspects solve the information problem for casuals (where to fortify, prep and expand) and a mechanism for group leadership to convey that information. It also solves the issue of how to determine the leadership - who ponies up the most credits for the missions will determine who the casuals will follow. If you follow a particular leader, you funnel credits into their coffers in order to facilitate the Donations for missions. Finally, it can almost totally squelch the 5C activity - while the 5C'ers likely have credits, they are more likely to be out-numbered and eventually out-bid on the mission generation.
I get what you mean, but everything has the possibility of violence hanging over it- Powerplay is no exception to that.
And if the rejig was done right (i.e. not 'pure' Open only) that would not happen as we have talked about before. The core issue is that the underlying PvE layer is lacking- its because of that problem players are being substituted for NPCs. Sort that out, and you invert PvP to become more mission based co-op.
Re mission based, I suggested something like that here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-in-solo.565581/page-9#post-8961161
Nice to know that the idea is not totally out of the mainstream
My PvP? No! That doesn't exist
. All I can say is that it's much easier to undermine and the merits flow faster when you're not being constantly interdicted or dropped on by PvPers or even chased out of system - again it's not about destruction (although destroying someone holding lots of merits is a big win). Actually also I take issue with you're idea of what's easier - killing a properly built prism cutter hauler is much harder that ending a squishy PvE medium. There's a big spectrum of toughness in both hauling and undermining ships, with a lot of overlap (probably more overlap than not-overlap). UMers have to pop to supercruise repeatedly to reset the instance (yes you can cheese it by relogging to reset the instance but we don't, and I bet that's less efficient in a wing anyway), being interdictable in SC and leaving a low wake behind. On balance I agree it's probably harder on average, but it's not universes apart. Besides, we were talking about blockades anyway, which you're implying that you now agree can be very effective. Unless you're counting running away I don't really do PvP. But really my point (the baby in the bathwater) is the large core of PPers that do enjoy open competition as opposed to solely abstracted indirect competition. I'd say they're the only people currently getting good value out of PP as it exists today. Redesign away all you like, and that might change to more people, but it'd be a shame if it was only either/or.
@LeptonFields
Missions are the way to go because you have the ability then to generate a pair of missions that work against each other.
Personally I would link players to factions and factions to powers. As a player you are either independent - no faction and not in power play or in a faction and in power play.
The mission board then gives you missions based on the faction you belong to plus independent missions. Independent pilots therefore do not influence power play/BGS.
I would actually then have the pp control running off the consolidated faction influence of each power in a system.
Missions are the way to go because you have the ability then to generate a pair of missions that work against each other.
Personally I would link players to factions and factions to powers. As a player you are either independent - no faction and not in power play or in a faction and in power play.
The mission board then gives you missions based on the faction you belong to plus independent missions. Independent pilots therefore do not influence power play/BGS.
I would actually then have the pp control running off the consolidated faction influence of each power in a system.
I don't disagree with you that additional powerplay pve would be nice, but I don't think that would really solve the pvp issue.
What you need is a system where players are encouraged to participate even if they're gonna lose. You need a system where just participating gives you more than not participating, even if you die in short order.
No idea what that system would be, but it's what it needs.
It depends on what you define as being a loss though- Galactic Standing placing, expansions, ship destruction or otherwise. Some of these are irrelevant to some but horrific for others, and I don't really think you can see everything as one unified group.
Correctly zoned PvP / teamplay rewards with dropping merits and personal 'level' bonuses would act as a good container for that, framed by removal or reduction of things like rebuy (i.e. your power subsidises your activity, like CQC in which rebuys are free). So, if merits dropped actually paid good money, even one or two drops would be a net gain.