Powerplay List of desired powerplay features.

[DemiserofD]

There's been some mention of powerplay revamps lately. I've been putting together a list of features I'd like to see changed or added.

1. Merit Hauling

Merit Hauling is a massive pain. It takes up all your time, it prohibits doing anything else, it requires weekly effort, it encourages new players to haul to terrible locations, it encourages ganking, it's pretty much universally awful.

Dramatically scale back the number of merits you can haul at a time. Also scale back the number of merits you NEED to haul.

Having to click the same button 250 times in a row to load your ship is a massive waste of time. Change merits so you get ONE shipment, and you need to either lose them or deliver them before you can get another. So a rank 1 player can get 10 at once, while a rank 5 player can get 50(maybe more or less; just examples) . Then scale back the total haulage amounts dramatically as well, so it takes the same number of loads to do. Then, players avoid the mass-clicking, they can haul other things, or can haul in a combat-lite ship for a fairer fight against enemy players. This would make players more willing to engage with others, as they wouldn't need to sacrifice efficiency to haul in a reasonable amount of time.

Also, increase the sell value of these merits, so stealing them and selling them becomes profitable in terms of credits as well as in terms of merits. The smaller totals will make powerplay piracy viable, even if only in terms of credits.

2. Remove Powerplay Modules from Ranks

Permanent rewards from a temporary pledge is a really bad move, as it encourages players to switch from one to another, rather than sticking with one from the beginning.

Instead, players should have a reputation with powers. Doing BGS actions with in-territory factions with governments that synergize with that power should increase it, and when the player is at max reputation with the power, they should give missions with the modules as the reward. After adding this, you could even leave the ability to purchase the modules for a pledged member, because most people wouldn't need to do so to get all the modules they might need. Of course, becoming an enemy of the power via undermining would prevent acquiring further modules.

An easy way to do this might be by giving tokens that can be used at specialized tech brokers. One token buys one module, allowing players to, for example, use an Aisling Duval token(plus the credit cost) to buy a specific size of Prismatic.


3. Create Powerplay Social Hubs

Powers aren't just roleplay, they should also be social hubs.

Give each power a Jameson-lite station in their home system. This station would offer all modules at a slight discount, and some modules at a significant discount. The modules in question would be based on what their focus is; bounty hunting powers would offer weapons at a greater discount, for example. It should be balanced such that most modules are slightly more expensive than at Jameson, while the specialized selection is slightly less expensive than at Jameson.

To access this station would require either a high rank and a short amount of time pledged, or a much longer amount of time pledged at a lower rank. Something like, 12 weeks minus 2x your pledge rank. So a rank 5 could use it in 2 weeks, which is more than enough time to get Elite in something if you can haul enough to get rank 5.

This would have the effect of gathering players from the Power in the home system for more than just Merit hauling.


4. Integrate Squadron Features into Powers.

Currently new pledges need to find the power's discord to figure out what is going on. Members of a Power should be able to check a bulletin board like in a Squadron to immediately see current power goals and objectives, or to find other players to play with. Similarly, add a Power-based chat channel. Simply being able to talk to your power easily would make a world of difference in feeling part of the group.

It would also be neat if there were a 'Power' nav beacon option, to allow any member of your power to quickly see you and drop in at your location, even without being a friend.

5. Integrate PVP into Powerplay.

Currently PVP is largely irrelevant in powerplay, only able to effect those who choose to be effected by playing in Open and in places where they can be found. There is no way to make Open Only work.

Instead, add an integrated pvp league, with an elo system. As players kill other players, they gain rank, and killing lower-ranked players reduces the amount of rank they gain, while killing higher-ranked players increases rank gain. At the end of each week, all players who have killed or been killed by another Pilot's Federation pilot will be sorted into categories from top 100% to top 10 players, and rewarded with merits accordingly. This will create a thriving pvp landscape, and since it will only pay about as well as merit hauling, still rewards those who are able to put in the time and effort needed to win.

This is the best method I've been able to come up with for pvp integration.

6. Shift the playing field.

The Powerplay game has stagnated for years, in large part because the board doesn't change. There is no win condition for powerplay, as powers cannot die and absolute domination is the only real objective presented. With total victory impossible, we need smaller victories.

Randomly spawn bonuses in random systems for Powers to fight over, offering bonuses like increased payouts on mined goods, or 25% faster moving limpets, or +100% ammo capacity to all power ships. These bonuses would last a medium amount of time, long enough to be worth fighting over, but not forever.

7. Add a way to shed bad systems.

Shedding bad systems is critical both for the previous suggestion and for powerplay as a whole. Hard to get excited about taking a bonus if it will turn into garbage you can never remove in three weeks. And the ability to sneakily take a bad system and be unable to lose it is crippling.

Give us a way of voting to remove certain systems, simply surrendering it without a fight.

8. Reserved

I'm sure I'll come up with more, but this would be a good start, at least.

 

[Rubbernuke]

There's been some mention of powerplay revamps lately. I've been putting together a list of features I'd like to see changed or added.

1. Merit Hauling

Merit Hauling is a massive pain. It takes up all your time, it prohibits doing anything else, it requires weekly effort, it encourages new players to haul to terrible locations, it encourages ganking, it's pretty much universally awful.

Dramatically scale back the number of merits you can haul at a time. Also scale back the number of merits you NEED to haul.

Having to click the same button 250 times in a row to load your ship is a massive waste of time. Change merits so you get ONE shipment, and you need to either lose them or deliver them before you can get another. So a rank 1 player can get 10 at once, while a rank 5 player can get 50(maybe more or less; just examples) . Then scale back the total haulage amounts dramatically as well, so it takes the same number of loads to do. Then, players avoid the mass-clicking, they can haul other things, or can haul in a combat-lite ship for a fairer fight against enemy players. This would make players more willing to engage with others, as they wouldn't need to sacrifice efficiency to haul in a reasonable amount of time.

Also, increase the sell value of these merits, so stealing them and selling them becomes profitable in terms of credits as well as in terms of merits. The smaller totals will make powerplay piracy viable, even if only in terms of credits.

2. Remove Powerplay Modules from Ranks

Permanent rewards from a temporary pledge is a really bad move, as it encourages players to switch from one to another, rather than sticking with one from the beginning.

Instead, players should have a reputation with powers. Doing BGS actions with in-territory factions with governments that synergize with that power should increase it, and when the player is at max reputation with the power, they should give missions with the modules as the reward. After adding this, you could even leave the ability to purchase the modules for a pledged member, because most people wouldn't need to do so to get all the modules they might need. Of course, becoming an enemy of the power via undermining would prevent acquiring further modules.

An easy way to do this might be by giving tokens that can be used at specialized tech brokers. One token buys one module, allowing players to, for example, use an Aisling Duval token(plus the credit cost) to buy a specific size of Prismatic.


3. Create Powerplay Social Hubs

Powers aren't just roleplay, they should also be social hubs.

Give each power a Jameson-lite station in their home system. This station would offer all modules at a slight discount, and some modules at a significant discount. The modules in question would be based on what their focus is; bounty hunting powers would offer weapons at a greater discount, for example. It should be balanced such that most modules are slightly more expensive than at Jameson, while the specialized selection is slightly less expensive than at Jameson.

To access this station would require either a high rank and a short amount of time pledged, or a much longer amount of time pledged at a lower rank. Something like, 12 weeks minus 2x your pledge rank. So a rank 5 could use it in 2 weeks, which is more than enough time to get Elite in something if you can haul enough to get rank 5.

This would have the effect of gathering players from the Power in the home system for more than just Merit hauling.


4. Integrate Squadron Features into Powers.

Currently new pledges need to find the power's discord to figure out what is going on. Members of a Power should be able to check a bulletin board like in a Squadron to immediately see current power goals and objectives, or to find other players to play with. Similarly, add a Power-based chat channel. Simply being able to talk to your power easily would make a world of difference in feeling part of the group.

It would also be neat if there were a 'Power' nav beacon option, to allow any member of your power to quickly see you and drop in at your location, even without being a friend.

5. Integrate PVP into Powerplay.

Currently PVP is largely irrelevant in powerplay, only able to effect those who choose to be effected by playing in Open and in places where they can be found. There is no way to make Open Only work.

Instead, add an integrated pvp league, with an elo system. As players kill other players, they gain rank, and killing lower-ranked players reduces the amount of rank they gain, while killing higher-ranked players increases rank gain. At the end of each week, all players who have killed or been killed by another Pilot's Federation pilot will be sorted into categories from top 100% to top 10 players, and rewarded with merits accordingly. This will create a thriving pvp landscape, and since it will only pay about as well as merit hauling, still rewards those who are able to put in the time and effort needed to win.

This is the best method I've been able to come up with for pvp integration.

6. Shift the playing field.

The Powerplay game has stagnated for years, in large part because the board doesn't change. There is no win condition for powerplay, as powers cannot die and absolute domination is the only real objective presented. With total victory impossible, we need smaller victories.

Randomly spawn bonuses in random systems for Powers to fight over, offering bonuses like increased payouts on mined goods, or 25% faster moving limpets, or +100% ammo capacity to all power ships. These bonuses would last a medium amount of time, long enough to be worth fighting over, but not forever.

7. Add a way to shed bad systems.

Shedding bad systems is critical both for the previous suggestion and for powerplay as a whole. Hard to get excited about taking a bonus if it will turn into garbage you can never remove in three weeks. And the ability to sneakily take a bad system and be unable to lose it is crippling.

Give us a way of voting to remove certain systems, simply surrendering it without a fight.

8. Reserved

I'm sure I'll come up with more, but this would be a good start, at least.

1: Making merit hauling less in volume breaks Powerplay in a way.

Smaller fortifying amounts means its easier to fortify, meaning the status quo is easier to hold. It also breaks ship requirements, because it should be bulk haulers with lots of merits more vulnerable and smaller ships less merits but faster.

The whole point of Powerplay PvE (and PvP) is that a rival can stop / harass you going to those places- the 'ganking' is the actual game with you either blowing people up or having to evade them.

Also without new systems you could wind up with collusion piracy again (which was removed).

2: I like the ideas.

3: Would be nice to have.

4: Again, nice idea.

5: Don't like it, it seems tacked on, when other players are the only capable ships in Powerplay. Without a substantial PvE overhaul this just shunts PvP to one side really.

6: Nice ideas, but Powerplay needs a totally new gameloop and rewards system to drive people to want to fight, expand etc.

7. FD already proposed such a mechanic- quote:

Vote to withdraw from system

• Each cycle players can vote on the 5 least profitable systems, to withdraw or support
• At the end of a cycle if a system has more withdraw votes than support votes it is removed from the power’s control
• Voting requires minimum, rolling time spent pledged and active for a power, somewhere into rank 2

Reasoning: currently there is no way to lose a bad control system other than hoping or colluding with opposing powers that it will end up being forced into turmoil. We think this vote is a legible and relatively safe way of allowing powers to shed chaff, as only systems that at a base level would be unprofitable would be eligible for withdrawal.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal.426940/

 

[DemiserofD]

1: Making merit hauling less in volume breaks Powerplay in a way.

Smaller fortifying amounts means its easier to fortify, meaning the status quo is easier to hold. It also breaks ship requirements, because it should be bulk haulers with lots of merits more vulnerable and smaller ships less merits but faster.

The whole point of Powerplay PvE (and PvP) is that a rival can stop / harass you going to those places- the 'ganking' is the actual game with you either blowing people up or having to evade them.

Also without new systems you could wind up with collusion piracy again (which was removed).

The total number of trips(and thereby total exposure) would remain the same. You can haul ~800 per trip now, you'd be able to haul 50 then, but either way you're still looking at ~14 trips to get to rank 5.

Plus, players that only need to carry ~50 might feel more encouraged to stand and fight rather than just high wake immediately. This likewise makes players more likely to actually expose themselves to risk rather than just doing point-to-point fleet carrier drop-ins.

Also, substantially smaller totals means an attacking player could actually hatchbreak a meaningful amount. Disabling them wouldn't be necessary, because even a single hatchbreaker getting through could cause them to eject 10-20% of their cargo. This does not result in their destruction, but still slows their progress substantially.

And collusion piracy could totally be a thing with this, but since the merits stolen would only be worth credits, not merits, it really wouldn't matter. They'd just be worth a meaningful amount of credits, making them worth stealing and collecting and selling.

If this alone doesn't fix things, you could consider adding more, for example, a bgs state, called something like a 'blockade'. It would drop in a Power capital ship 10km from one side of all the stations in the area, and increase the drop-out point from 10km to ~25km, thereby giving more room to intercept approaching players, especially since they'd need to avoid the capital ship.

5: Don't like it, it seems tacked on, when other players are the only capable ships in Powerplay. Without a substantial PvE overhaul this just shunts PvP to one side really.

Sure, but at least it makes pvp relevant. Right now, pvp is utterly irrelevant unless players choose to make it relevant for roleplay purposes. By adding a pvp league, players who enjoy pvp can do so meaningfully without feeling like they're wasting their time.

Lacking a wholesale rework of the connection architecture, I feel like this is the best option.

6: Nice ideas, but Powerplay needs a totally new gameloop and rewards system to drive people to want to fight, expand etc.

Wouldn't this fill that niche? If you could fight over some bonus, say, 50% more frag cannon ammo capacity for 8 weeks, wouldn't you fight for that, even if it were outside your normal bubble of controlled systems?

Functionally speaking, any board game that doesn't rely on one player winning utterly in a short period of time must instead rely on the game board itself changing periodically. Even games that don't do this still have similar effects; risk, where you get huge inputs of armies as the game goes on, for example, or Monopoly, where you can get bonus cards.

In practical terms, Powerplay is more of a competitive league than a winner-takes-all board game. And leagues operate on a tournament to tournament system. You win one tournament, but lose the next because its conditions are slightly different or your competitor is better suited.

But people always have something new to fight over, to keep them invested and entertained.

It could definitely use a bit more than just this, but I think it's a decent start, at least.

2: I like the ideas.

3: Would be nice to have.

4: Again, nice idea.

Thanks for the agreement on the other ideas!

 

[Rubbernuke]

The total number of trips(and thereby total exposure) would remain the same. You can haul ~800 per trip now, you'd be able to haul 50 then, but either way you're still looking at ~14 trips to get to rank 5.

Plus, players that only need to carry ~50 might feel more encouraged to stand and fight rather than just high wake immediately. This likewise makes players more likely to actually expose themselves to risk rather than just doing point-to-point fleet carrier drop-ins.

Also, substantially smaller totals means an attacking player could actually hatchbreak a meaningful amount. Disabling them wouldn't be necessary, because even a single hatchbreaker getting through could cause them to eject 10-20% of their cargo. This does not result in their destruction, but still slows their progress substantially.

And collusion piracy could totally be a thing with this, but since the merits stolen would only be worth credits, not merits, it really wouldn't matter. They'd just be worth a meaningful amount of credits, making them worth stealing and collecting and selling.

If this alone doesn't fix things, you could consider adding more, for example, a bgs state, called something like a 'blockade'. It would drop in a Power capital ship 10km from one side of all the stations in the area, and increase the drop-out point from 10km to ~25km, thereby giving more room to intercept approaching players, especially since they'd need to avoid the capital ship.

Anything that bypasses ship sizes does not sit well with me. It should always be large vulnerable ships but greater efficiency, or smaller ships that are safer. This should be one of the cornerstones of PvE or PvP.

With collusion you'd have to ensure there was no link between buying prep though. If you can't do that, it fuels the possibility of funding 5C.

I do like the blockade BGS idea though- although in my head every system should be like this.

Sure, but at least it makes pvp relevant. Right now, pvp is utterly irrelevant unless players choose to make it relevant for roleplay purposes. By adding a pvp league, players who enjoy pvp can do so meaningfully without feeling like they're wasting their time.

Lacking a wholesale rework of the connection architecture, I feel like this is the best option.

PvP would be relevant if fortifiers had to run against people attacking- hence the need for ship sizes. In this way PvP becomes intrinsic, and a need to either fly smaller, faster ships or have protection for larger ones. Add to that a more potent NPC net and then its coming close to what I'd like it to be. It won't be perfect, but it is then all logical and self consistent.

Wouldn't this fill that niche? If you could fight over some bonus, say, 50% more frag cannon ammo capacity for 8 weeks, wouldn't you fight for that, even if it were outside your normal bubble of controlled systems?

Functionally speaking, any board game that doesn't rely on one player winning utterly in a short period of time must instead rely on the game board itself changing periodically. Even games that don't do this still have similar effects; risk, where you get huge inputs of armies as the game goes on, for example, or Monopoly, where you can get bonus cards.

In practical terms, Powerplay is more of a competitive league than a winner-takes-all board game. And leagues operate on a tournament to tournament system. You win one tournament, but lose the next because its conditions are slightly different or your competitor is better suited.

But people always have something new to fight over, to keep them invested and entertained.

It could definitely use a bit more than just this, but I think it's a decent start, at least.

I'm not sure if fighting for a bonus is good, because it slews who fights for who- Hudson and ALD for example with the bounty bonuses, or LYR with money off.

The problem for me is making a system that is worthwhile, makes sense and is equal across powers.

I agree with your assessment though (as in competitive league game, periodic change), I just can't at the minute reconcile it with what we have and preventing grindy stuff.

 

[DemiserofD]

Anything that bypasses ship sizes does not sit well with me. It should always be large vulnerable ships but greater efficiency, or smaller ships that are safer. This should be one of the cornerstones of PvE or PvP.

It would be more akin to rares trading. You can't fill your whole ship with rares, but you could still use a big cargo ship if you chose to do so, and fill the rest of the ship with other commodities. The income efficiency(at least, in theory - admittedly not currently in practice) would go down with non-rare commodities, however.

But lets be completely pragmatic here; If your goal is to make players more likely to run the risk of encountering your defenders, giving them the ability to defend themselves and still be efficient is a pragmatic way of accomplishing it. If you've got a big, undefended cutter, you're not gonna put yourself in a position to be attacked in the first place. With a smaller blockade runner you're much more likely to tolerate the risk. This runs into your next point;

PvP would be relevant if fortifiers had to run against people attacking

Sure, absolutely. But we don't have that. Functionally peaking, you can't guarantee instancing is ever going to happen; I, for example, have a far harder time getting into instances with others than I do avoiding them. Sometimes it takes dropping into the same zone a dozen times before I get one with other players. This happens just because I live in the middle of nowhere and have a mediocre internet connection, and I'm not even trying to make it worse. In fact, I tripled my internet speeds this year; before that it was even worse.

If someone actively attempted to create these conditions, they could easily do so and it would be impossible to tell the difference. As long as the current connection architecture is preserved, there's no way to guarantee or even make terribly likely players instancing together. The best you can do is avoid discouraging players from instancing together.

Hence this idea, which comes with side benefits of partially stopping them via hatchbreakers without needing to kill them, as well as removing the very silly burden of clicking 800 times to fill your ship up. The credit gain from hatchbreaking is just a nice side-perk to encourage the blockade gameplay.

Let me phrase it this way; if we ASSUME that guaranteed connections aren't possible - that it will always be possible to avoid other players via connection rather than skill - is there any better way?

I'm not sure if fighting for a bonus is good, because it slews who fights for who- Hudson and ALD for example with the bounty bonuses, or LYR with money off.

The problem for me is making a system that is worthwhile, makes sense and is equal across powers.

I agree with your assessment though (as in competitive league game, periodic change), I just can't at the minute reconcile it with what we have and preventing grindy stuff.

You could be right, the bonuses part of the idea is one I'm somewhat tentative about. I'm just trying to think of something that players would reasonably want to fight over that would encourage participation for more than just RP purposes. Right now, many players will haul anywhere, not helping their Power, just to get +100% bounties or the trade voucher bonus. This is, imo, nearly as bad as the module bonuses; it forces players to join the powers to play the game efficiently, but doesn't encourage them to actually participate.

An ideal bonus would encourage actual, active participation with the power, and possibly even teamwork, or at least cheering when your team has a success, sports-style.

 

[DemiserofD]

Some good ideas here, but this looks very abuseable to me. For the same reason why player bounties are limited. Without further countermeasures you create a money machine here. That is, as long as there are no disadvantages for the players killed.

The nice thing about ELO systems is they're time-tested, invented for Chess almost a hundred years ago. The basic idea is that points are only exchanged, never created. Then you just reward players based on their relative skill at the end of the week.

So everyone starts at 1000 ELO, and as the week progresses, you gain or lose ELO depending on how often you win or lose. As your ELO gets higher, you gain less ELO from killing players with significantly less ELO than you, while lower ELO players gain more from killing higher-ELO players. By the end of the week, the best players might have 2500 ELO, while the lowest might be down to 250...but all players get the same reward based on their reward tier, similar to CGs. So the top 10 players get one reward, the top 10% get slightly less, and so on.

Because of this, it's inherently not farmable. Kill the same player a few times in a row and their ELO quickly drops so much you stop gaining anything from them. In theory, you could use multiple alts to stack up your main character's ELO higher, but at that point you've given the enemy team 4-8+ low-ranking players via the dummy accounts, each of which get their own merits to counteract your own.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It would be more akin to rares trading. You can't fill your whole ship with rares, but you could still use a big cargo ship if you chose to do so, and fill the rest of the ship with other commodities. The income efficiency(at least, in theory - admittedly not currently in practice) would go down with non-rare commodities, however.

But lets be completely pragmatic here; If your goal is to make players more likely to run the risk of encountering your defenders, giving them the ability to defend themselves and still be efficient is a pragmatic way of accomplishing it. If you've got a big, undefended cutter, you're not gonna put yourself in a position to be attacked in the first place. With a smaller blockade runner you're much more likely to tolerate the risk. This runs into your next point;

Being pragmatic you;d use a smaller, faster ship (or sacrifice space for defences), which balances out that extra survivability against cargo size. That then makes runs safer but means you are not 100% efficent in hauling.

Sure, absolutely. But we don't have that. Functionally peaking, you can't guarantee instancing is ever going to happen; I, for example, have a far harder time getting into instances with others than I do avoiding them. Sometimes it takes dropping into the same zone a dozen times before I get one with other players. This happens just because I live in the middle of nowhere and have a mediocre internet connection, and I'm not even trying to make it worse. In fact, I tripled my internet speeds this year; before that it was even worse.

If someone actively attempted to create these conditions, they could easily do so and it would be impossible to tell the difference. As long as the current connection architecture is preserved, there's no way to guarantee or even make terribly likely players instancing together. The best you can do is avoid discouraging players from instancing together.

Hence this idea, which comes with side benefits of partially stopping them via hatchbreakers without needing to kill them, as well as removing the very silly burden of clicking 800 times to fill your ship up. The credit gain from hatchbreaking is just a nice side-perk to encourage the blockade gameplay.

Let me phrase it this way; if we ASSUME that guaranteed connections aren't possible - that it will always be possible to avoid other players via connection rather than skill - is there any better way?

Either players except things won't be 100% all the time or they don't- that, along with FD making the PvE layer much harder. What puts people off is abstract rules where its convoluted to the point of absurdity. If it works for the majority then thats as good as it will get.

The only way out is really rebuilding Powerplay from the ground up, but thats a long shot.

You could be right, the bonuses part of the idea is one I'm somewhat tentative about. I'm just trying to think of something that players would reasonably want to fight over that would encourage participation for more than just RP purposes. Right now, many players will haul anywhere, not helping their Power, just to get +100% bounties or the trade voucher bonus. This is, imo, nearly as bad as the module bonuses; it forces players to join the powers to play the game efficiently, but doesn't encourage them to actually participate.

An ideal bonus would encourage actual, active participation with the power, and possibly even teamwork, or at least cheering when your team has a success, sports-style.

This is the hard part- and to my mind some bonuses (and bonus types) are not well thought through enough. The ones I mentioned led to a very lop sided early game.

I'd rather have bonuses based on position- so rather than the 123 its based on your powers position- so someone at 11 will still get something, just not the full amount at position 1.

The other is making the feature have a point to it- without collapse why do we still expand? If expansion is not required why do people fight?

 

[DemiserofD]

Being pragmatic you;d use a smaller, faster ship (or sacrifice space for defences), which balances out that extra survivability against cargo size. That then makes runs safer but means you are not 100% efficent in hauling.

Trouble is, people don't need to do that, because even in open, it's perfectly possible to make sure you never actually encounter another player, via connection, via fleet carrier usage, etc. So the current pragmatic choice is using said methods to bypass conflict entirely, as most people do.

You want players to voluntarily sacrifice efficiency for safety, but they won't do that without reason, and said reason does not and cannot exist, due to the existing connection architecture and game design.

See the problem?

Lacking that, I'd settle for creating circumstances that make players more willing to accept the risks, even if it means reducing the potency of defenders. In reality, you can't reduce the potency of defenders in any case, because they're already 0% effective against anyone who cares about bypassing them. So you throw them a bone by making powerplay piracy at least be profitable in terms of credits, if not in terms of merits.

I'd rather have bonuses based on position- so rather than the 123 its based on your powers position- so someone at 11 will still get something, just not the full amount at position 1.

The trouble with this is inertia. Players aren't likely to put in huge effort just to increase their bonus by ~2.5% or whatever, but if you're dividing bonuses up among all the powers, that's what you'd get, since larger powers have weeks or months of advantage to overcome.

Hence, larger flat bonuses based on single tournaments. This lets even the smallest power meaningfully compete and be relevant. If it makes the permanent bonuses irrelevant, so be it. I'd happily sacrifice that for the sake of fun and participation.

 

[Half-Lock]

There's been some mention of powerplay revamps lately. I've been putting together a list of features I'd like to see changed or added.

1. Merit Hauling

Merit Hauling is a massive pain. It takes up all your time, it prohibits doing anything else, it requires weekly effort, it encourages new players to haul to terrible locations, it encourages ganking, it's pretty much universally awful.

Dramatically scale back the number of merits you can haul at a time. Also scale back the number of merits you NEED to haul.

Having to click the same button 250 times in a row to load your ship is a massive waste of time. Change merits so you get ONE shipment, and you need to either lose them or deliver them before you can get another. So a rank 1 player can get 10 at once, while a rank 5 player can get 50(maybe more or less; just examples) . Then scale back the total haulage amounts dramatically as well, so it takes the same number of loads to do. Then, players avoid the mass-clicking, they can haul other things, or can haul in a combat-lite ship for a fairer fight against enemy players. This would make players more willing to engage with others, as they wouldn't need to sacrifice efficiency to haul in a reasonable amount of time.

Also, increase the sell value of these merits, so stealing them and selling them becomes profitable in terms of credits as well as in terms of merits. The smaller totals will make powerplay piracy viable, even if only in terms of credits.

2. Remove Powerplay Modules from Ranks

Permanent rewards from a temporary pledge is a really bad move, as it encourages players to switch from one to another, rather than sticking with one from the beginning.

Instead, players should have a reputation with powers. Doing BGS actions with in-territory factions with governments that synergize with that power should increase it, and when the player is at max reputation with the power, they should give missions with the modules as the reward. After adding this, you could even leave the ability to purchase the modules for a pledged member, because most people wouldn't need to do so to get all the modules they might need. Of course, becoming an enemy of the power via undermining would prevent acquiring further modules.

An easy way to do this might be by giving tokens that can be used at specialized tech brokers. One token buys one module, allowing players to, for example, use an Aisling Duval token(plus the credit cost) to buy a specific size of Prismatic.


3. Create Powerplay Social Hubs

Powers aren't just roleplay, they should also be social hubs.

Give each power a Jameson-lite station in their home system. This station would offer all modules at a slight discount, and some modules at a significant discount. The modules in question would be based on what their focus is; bounty hunting powers would offer weapons at a greater discount, for example. It should be balanced such that most modules are slightly more expensive than at Jameson, while the specialized selection is slightly less expensive than at Jameson.

To access this station would require either a high rank and a short amount of time pledged, or a much longer amount of time pledged at a lower rank. Something like, 12 weeks minus 2x your pledge rank. So a rank 5 could use it in 2 weeks, which is more than enough time to get Elite in something if you can haul enough to get rank 5.

This would have the effect of gathering players from the Power in the home system for more than just Merit hauling.


4. Integrate Squadron Features into Powers.

Currently new pledges need to find the power's discord to figure out what is going on. Members of a Power should be able to check a bulletin board like in a Squadron to immediately see current power goals and objectives, or to find other players to play with. Similarly, add a Power-based chat channel. Simply being able to talk to your power easily would make a world of difference in feeling part of the group.

It would also be neat if there were a 'Power' nav beacon option, to allow any member of your power to quickly see you and drop in at your location, even without being a friend.

5. Integrate PVP into Powerplay.

Currently PVP is largely irrelevant in powerplay, only able to effect those who choose to be effected by playing in Open and in places where they can be found. There is no way to make Open Only work.

Instead, add an integrated pvp league, with an elo system. As players kill other players, they gain rank, and killing lower-ranked players reduces the amount of rank they gain, while killing higher-ranked players increases rank gain. At the end of each week, all players who have killed or been killed by another Pilot's Federation pilot will be sorted into categories from top 100% to top 10 players, and rewarded with merits accordingly. This will create a thriving pvp landscape, and since it will only pay about as well as merit hauling, still rewards those who are able to put in the time and effort needed to win.

This is the best method I've been able to come up with for pvp integration.

6. Shift the playing field.

The Powerplay game has stagnated for years, in large part because the board doesn't change. There is no win condition for powerplay, as powers cannot die and absolute domination is the only real objective presented. With total victory impossible, we need smaller victories.

Randomly spawn bonuses in random systems for Powers to fight over, offering bonuses like increased payouts on mined goods, or 25% faster moving limpets, or +100% ammo capacity to all power ships. These bonuses would last a medium amount of time, long enough to be worth fighting over, but not forever.

7. Add a way to shed bad systems.

Shedding bad systems is critical both for the previous suggestion and for powerplay as a whole. Hard to get excited about taking a bonus if it will turn into garbage you can never remove in three weeks. And the ability to sneakily take a bad system and be unable to lose it is crippling.

Give us a way of voting to remove certain systems, simply surrendering it without a fight.

8. Reserved

I'm sure I'll come up with more, but this would be a good start, at least.

1. I don't think that would be a good change. I've just now let my merits drop with Aisling, in my PS4 account, and revoked my pledge, in my PC account, and the ramifications of my having done so seem to be well within the realities that the PP and lore make clear to players. It is, in fact, an inconvenience to haul those merits and to determine the best usage for those merits- even with me using a full-scale trading T-9 with 720 tons- It's only one or two trips to get myself up to rank 3 but, at least in terms of the way the PP competitive mechanics works I don't see a real reason to alter the mechanic. Its difficult, its intricate, and it requires a massive degree of communication and coordination to really make an impact in the ratings, which is sort of how its supposed to work for an MMO mechanic as the PP and BGS is/are.

2. I don't think this would be a particularly good change, either. I've suggested the possibility of opening up the in-game black market function to make it possible to trade on modules, but the linking of PP modules to rank- while it doesn't necessarily incentivize the PP to such a great degree that people will really get into it beyond the dragging of merits for a month or a week- and the specificities of those modules to the overall character of the powers is sort of what makes those modules what they are, in terms of their relation to the game itself. De-linking them from the powers, beyond the possibility of some form of in-game black market or new outfitting service function (even to the extent that it would be exclusive to certain lawless or anarchy stations that could provide another incentive for BGS play), would sort of disincentivize the PP for a vast swath of players.

3. Yeah, that's probably a thing they should look into. I always thought that the Powers home systems (Cubeo, Nanomam, Kamadenhu, etc) would be these thriving PvP training hubs and PvE exchange hubs but they're actually just sorta dead-zones. Cubeo, specifically Chelomey, is easily the choppiest frame-rate I encounter pretty much at all times and I've only run into another CMDR maybe 2-3 times over the course.

4. Also a good idea, but at the same time there is a way to look into it: What I've seen about it though is that it's a completely open view that makes strategic planning and intervention impossible, because literally everyone can see it on the Powers page. I definitely think there are certain features FDEV could add to make the in-game planning and strategizing more amenable to the people that are really into the PP and BGS side of the game without the gaping transparency that almost makes out of game discords and forums a necessity.

5. I've noticed that there seems to be this divide that separates the PvP from PP/BGS players and I've always thought that was something that we as a gaming community sort of decided upon without any real reason from within the game that FDEV presented to us. I hate getting ganked and griefed while I'm doing things like trading as much as anyone else, but I also enjoy combat when I'm in that mood, and- as an Open player, for the most part- I've just sort of come to accept that sometimes I'm gonna get interdicted and blown up. FDEV can't really do anything to improve that functionality. That's sort of on us, as E players.

6. I am 100% in agreement that there seems to be some stability in the PP that can be a disincentive to continuing with participation and can make it a little boring to some people. That's, again, sort of on us, though. Both my accounts are linked in a squadron specifically catered to a specific gaming experience that I'm making in my own way, but there are some huge squadrons and gaming groups that, under the right circumstances, can really make some massive changes to the BGS and PP rankings if they decided to grok it, but that's, again, not really something that FDEV has any need to further develop: The game's sort of balanced in a way that's specific to the lore in which the game's embedded. It's not supposed to be easy for Aisling or Torval or Patreus to be in a position to sit atop the PP rankings because they're not the Emperor of the Empire, and the way the BGS and PP mechanic interacts reflects that. In my view, that's sort of the beauty of that aspect of the game. Those huge groups can easily mobilize it on their end; as an relatively independent pilot (within the game) that would be an exciting thing to see and have to interact with, and its not as though FDEV couldn't just take a look at it and start pumping out CG after CG to reflect what's going on if they saw something like that occurring.

7. That doesn't seem like a bad idea, but I'm pretty sure the BGS and PP mechanics already sort of make that possible, through the very same mechanics and requirements of coordination that make the seizures of systems possible.

8. Right? 100% with you on this point

 

[DemiserofD]

2. I don't think this would be a particularly good change, either. I've suggested the possibility of opening up the in-game black market function to make it possible to trade on modules, but the linking of PP modules to rank- while it doesn't necessarily incentivize the PP to such a great degree that people will really get into it beyond the dragging of merits for a month or a week- and the specificities of those modules to the overall character of the powers is sort of what makes those modules what they are, in terms of their relation to the game itself. De-linking them from the powers, beyond the possibility of some form of in-game black market or new outfitting service function (even to the extent that it would be exclusive to certain lawless or anarchy stations that could provide another incentive for BGS play), would sort of disincentivize the PP for a vast swath of players.

Sure, it would disincentivize it for a lot of players. But if those players are only playing for the modules, are they really playing powerplay in the first place? TBH they're probably doing more harm than good, preparing bad systems and the like.

I'd much rather they reinforce BGS factions that are positive for the Power; that's ALWAYS a good thing for the Power, after all, and it doesn't require a pledge they probably don't want to make in the first place.

FDEV can't really do anything to improve that functionality.

I agree that they can't really improve the current hauling mechanics, at least in terms of pvp. But that doesn't mean they can't add additional mechanics around it! Pvp is sort of a black sheep atm, it's only involved with anything in a tertiary way. Giving it its own niche wouldn't hurt anything else as far as I can see, so I don't see any reason their playstyle shouldn't be rewarded to some extent.

That's, again, sort of on us, though.

I don't think that's a very good argument. Yes, players can impose stability for a time, but ultimately, on average, the game will move towards the direction its design directs. The current Powerplay moves towards stagnation. You can't really allow for actual victory (in the terms of wiping out all but one power), but you CAN throw the board into disarray from time to time, and make powers run to re-arrange themselves in the best way they can manage.

And again, why not? It's hardly like people like the current stagnated way of life. It's a source of constant complaint. And the nice thing about this is, it could be fully automated if you wanted to. Simply randomly generate an objective system, roll a random reward from a preset list of potential rewards, and let the Powers get to fighting, very little dev insight required after setting it up. They could occasionally set a manual one, but it wouldn't be necessary unless they wanted to do so.

 

[Half-Lock]

Sure, it would disincentivize it for a lot of players. But if those players are only playing for the modules, are they really playing powerplay in the first place? TBH they're probably doing more harm than good, preparing bad systems and the like.

I'd much rather they reinforce BGS factions that are positive for the Power; that's ALWAYS a good thing for the Power, after all, and it doesn't require a pledge they probably don't want to make in the first place.

It's a fair point that playing for the modules creates a bit of an unbalancing of the BGS/PP, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it wouldn't be equally representative of relative degree of anarchic movement within a mechanism that's meant to be the in-game equivalent of governments.

As for the BGS factions that favor or disfavor the various powers, though, its right out in the open (in the "Powers" section of every ship's readouts) which powers benefit from which governments and how the relationship between these governments and the superpowers operates. It wouldn't exactly make sense for an faction government to be the kind that holds elections and then works itself into the good graces of a Monarchy like the Empire, which is something I noted in my latest inara log, but it would make a little more sense for the faction government to be beneficial to a power that is adversarial, but not in direct conflict to, the Emperor. Like I said, it's an intricate and difficult relationship of mechanics to have to grok, which I think a good thing. I'm still constantly referring back to the various guides I've already looked into.

Elite: Dangerous isn't an iOS game and that's one of its merits. I feel like, historically (and especially as a guy that's extremely new to the franchise, while not being new to space combat genre), its important to remind myself that there were people playing the original Elite back when I was 2 years old. There are kids that are 12 right now that are probably going to be playing it when they're in their 20's that are going to be rocking the lore, PP, and BGS with a degree of abandon that even I'd be looking at like Matthew McConaughey in that Lincoln Car Commercial meme.

I agree that they can't really improve the current hauling mechanics, at least in terms of pvp. But that doesn't mean they can't add additional mechanics around it! Pvp is sort of a black sheep atm, it's only involved with anything in a tertiary way. Giving it its own niche wouldn't hurt anything else as far as I can see, so I don't see any reason their playstyle shouldn't be rewarded to some extent.

You might know better than I, but am I wrong that it seems like the PvP folks are sort of cast out of the bubble, to a certain extent? I think the PvP aspect of the game is one that FDEV is, to a certain extent, nailing- if maybe favoring it with the unbalancing I previously mentioned. At the end of the day, the game is a space-flight sim and, in my opinion, its the most attractive flight-physics model of the four that I've played (itself, Eve: Valkyrie, Star Wars Squadrons, No Man's Sky) and doesn't have the Zero-G/Zero-Momentum/Zero-Inertia physics of Valkyrie and Squadrons that I was not thrilled about when I put on my PSVR goggles. I wouldn't disagree that there might be certain things that could further incentivize active PvP participation in the BGS/PvE/PP realm, but I do also don't see it as being something that's not already in the mechanics of the game (Remember the X-box slave scheme that attracted media attention and the ire of the PvP guys from a few months ago?). I dunno, I mentioned in a previous situation that whenever the PvP guys invite me to tag along we've ended up in relatively non-conflict areas, in terms of the borders and boundaries of the PP superpowers and most of the PvP guys I'd run into are running their own BGS-associated squadrons.

I don't think that's a very good argument. Yes, players can impose stability for a time, but ultimately, on average, the game will move towards the direction its design directs. The current Powerplay moves towards stagnation

I don't disagree with the structuralist argument you're making. I suppose it's also a technological determinist argument, too, though and I don't agree with technological determinism as a philosophy. I mean, what's going looks to me like the community is picking VHS over Betamax and failing to really utilize and grok the system that's been provided to us for play within. I read a paper on VHS and Betamax wars by Anne Friedberg for undergrad which informs my opinion (sources cited).

You can't really allow for actual victory (in the terms of wiping out all but one power), but you CAN throw the board into disarray from time to time, and make powers run to re-arrange themselves in the best way they can manage.

It's hardly like people like the current stagnated way of life. It's a source of constant complaint. And the nice thing about this is, it could be fully automated if you wanted to. Simply randomly generate an objective system, roll a random reward from a preset list of potential rewards, and let the Powers get to fighting, very little dev insight required after setting it up. They could occasionally set a manual one, but it wouldn't be necessary unless they wanted to do so.

Yeah, I see that often enough. Again, trade for loss, bounty hunting missions, black market trading, whatever that thing is where you kill NPCs delivering pledges is called, etc.; All of those things are in-game mechanics that are sort of the point of the BGS and PP- The United States has been around for 275 some-odd years? England's been around since like 700 or something, without mentioning its place in Roman, Celtic, and Norse history. These things have been around since like... what.... 2275 or something? The Empire's been around since 2296 and the Federation is just Earth + 1300 some odd years.


An Intergalactic superpower is bound to have a certain degree of stability that would require a massive degree of effort into producing changes- I'm not saying the community isn't up to the task (in fact, I think it is and it wouldn't surprise me if someone from the Prismatic Imperium or Earth Defense League or one of those other gigantic player groups- or even Arthur, Bruce, or Zack, or one of the invisible community managers- took it upon themself to organize a massive intergalactic war when Odyssey drops on console)- but it is sort of is a matter of taking a step back and conceiving of the breadth and depth of the scale of the game and its inner-workings to figure out and strategize how it might do so more than anything FDEV would need to do to alter the current mechanics.

You know what would be awesome, though, is a giant reference manual that we could look into that gives us a top-to-bottom-and-back look at the BGS/PP mechanics

 

[DemiserofD]

As for the BGS factions that favor or disfavor the various powers, though, its right out in the open (in the "Powers" section of every ship's readouts) which powers benefit from which governments and how the relationship between these governments and the superpowers operates. It wouldn't exactly make sense for an faction government to be the kind that holds elections and then works itself into the good graces of a Monarchy like the Empire, which is something I noted in my latest inara log, but it would make a little more sense for the faction government to be beneficial to a power that is adversarial, but not in direct conflict to, the Emperor. Like I said, it's an intricate and difficult relationship of mechanics to have to grok, which I think a good thing. I'm still constantly referring back to the various guides I've already looked into.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, but my objective is simple; players wanting to get a Power's modules should, in doing so, directly help the power.

There are certain governments that give greater benefit to Powers; The main impact of the BGS to a Power is on fortification triggers - looking at all the systems in a given Control system's 'bubble' (15ly radius), the Power gets a bonus if more than 50% of those systems are controlled by a favourable faction type, and a penalty if more than 50% of those systems are controlled by an unfavourable type. What those types are varies from Power to Power.

So the Module would only be awarded by favorable government types, thereby directly helping sustain the power.

All of those things are in-game mechanics that are sort of the point of the BGS and PP

Not quite. Yes, they're the way the game is played, but they alone aren't what makes the game fun. They're roughly equivalent to rolling the dice and the physical act of moving your pieces on the board; a critical part, yes, but without a reason for doing them, they're meaningless. You need to have an objective to work towards to make them matter. That's what the broader whole of Powerplay should provide, but it currently doesn't. The current Powerplay is set up like Risk, but unlike Risk, it's impossible to actually eliminate your enemies.

Hence, the need for temporary objectives, to give people something real to fight over. Otherwise, Powerplay might as well not exist at all.

 

[Half-Lock]

So the Module would only be awarded by favorable government types, thereby directly helping sustain the power.

If I take your meaning, you're suggesting that Powerplay modules will only be offered at Station outfitters of factions whose government provides favorable circumstances to the Power. That's actually not a bad idea, even though it would make more difficult my penchant for storing and outfitting at Jameson Memorial.

That, or your suggestion is that the pledges can only be delivered to stations and systems in which the governing faction is of a form of government that inherently favors the power- and this is one that, seems to me, would increase the difficulties of the PP and BGS system beyond what is already a relatively complex and difficult system. I wouldn't necessarily rail against the idea, but imagine the degree of effort subsequently required to have to: 1. pick up the pledges in the home system (for Aisling, for instance), 2. check with the Preparation, Expansion, and Control tabs to determine the government for each and then the individual stations for which faction and, thus, government-type would be available to receive the pledges- for example with Aisling, if I wanted to drop off expansion pledges, I'd have to determine which station, within the system, is run by a faction with a corporation government-type, which produces favorable expansion conditions for Aisling. Then, I'd immediately have to begin conducting BGS operations to damage that faction's influence until a faction with a Communist, Confederation, or Cooperative government-type, which are the government-types more amenable to fortification, before being able to drop off the pledges that would count for Powerplay rank and, thus, access to the powerplay module.

It's hard enough as it is. You tryna kill us over here?

my objective is simple; players wanting to get a Power's modules should, in doing so, directly help the power.

I've read through your posts and I'm still unclear on what it is that you believe the mechanics don't account for in terms of the pledge system. As I mentioned, I do recognize that the current system favors PvP'ers and PvE'ers, in that you don't have to be of any real use to the Powers beyond just trucking pledges to the next system over.

A system that would immediately render hot-status on powerplay modules if a CMDR's pledge is revoked or the CMDR defects would be an overly heavy-handed approach, but equally meritorious.

Hence, the need for temporary objectives, to give people something real to fight over. Otherwise, Powerplay might as well not exist at all.

I'm not against this idea at all. As I mentioned, I provided what amounts to an intelligence briefing in my last log, on the relationships of various BGS squadrons and the powerplay relations of those squadrons. Any of those squadrons could have taken a look at the information and began strategically mobilizing for takeovers or secessions from various systems to help their powerplay and BGS goals. What you've been suggesting isn't out of the realm of possibility when it comes to the various BGS/PP groups coordinating amongst themselves- Further, the missions made available at the stations by the various factions contesting control for the station are, themselves, specifically catered toward tipping certain thresholds to produce certain outcomes.

At the same time, as I suggested, CGs would be a great way to make things like that occur and, while I've only participated in a few- in light of my own mode of play (Galactic Summit Food Delivery being the big one I participated in)- I don't see that as being a new mechanic that needs to be implemented- though, in truth, I don't actually know who coordinates the Community Goals, whether it be Arf and the team or the Development and Production programmers and coders- All of whom, by the way, I think should consider the possibility of providing us with a comprehensive single-source BGS/PP reference manual

 

[DemiserofD]

If I take your meaning, you're suggesting that Powerplay modules will only be offered at Station outfitters of factions whose government provides favorable circumstances to the Power. That's actually not a bad idea, even though it would make more difficult my penchant for storing and outfitting at Jameson Memorial.

I'm sorry if the suggestion wasn't clear. What I meant was, players should have a reputation with powers. Doing BGS actions(IE, missions) with in-territory factions with governments that synergize with that power should increase this reputation, and when the player is at max reputation with the power, these BGS factions should give missions with the modules as the reward.

I've read through your posts and I'm still unclear on what it is that you believe the mechanics don't account for in terms of the pledge system.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. The current problem is that many players pledge specifically to acquire the modules. They then haul without caring about actually helping the power, but simply to get to the needed rank as quickly as possible. This can hurt the power, for example by preparing a system that the Power doesn't actually want.

It would be better for all involved if, instead, players could acquire the modules without needing to pledge to the power at all, and instead simply build a friendly reputation with them, and then take missions which reward them with the modules. Since this would require helping a BGS faction that is beneficial to the Power, it is a guaranteed method to help the Power, and at the same time allows the player to remain pledged to their 'true' Power.

I'm not against this idea at all. As I mentioned, I provided what amounts to an intelligence briefing in my last log, on the relationships of various BGS squadrons and the powerplay relations of those squadrons. Any of those squadrons could have taken a look at the information and began strategically mobilizing for takeovers or secessions from various systems to help their powerplay and BGS goals. What you've been suggesting isn't out of the realm of possibility when it comes to the various BGS/PP groups coordinating amongst themselves- Further, the missions made available at the stations by the various factions contesting control for the station are, themselves, specifically catered toward tipping certain thresholds to produce certain outcomes.

At the same time, as I suggested, CGs would be a great way to make things like that occur and, while I've only participated in a few- in light of my own mode of play (Galactic Summit Food Delivery being the big one I participated in)- I don't see that as being a new mechanic that needs to be implemented- though, in truth, I don't actually know who coordinates the Community Goals, whether it be Arf and the team or the Development and Production programmers and coders- All of whom, by the way, I think should consider the possibility of providing us with a comprehensive single-source BGS/PP reference manual

Unfortunately, most players don't care about roleplay posts on supplementary websites. At most, you'll only attract a very small portion of the population, the portion most interested in roleplay to begin with.

But Powerplay is far larger than just roleplay; it's perhaps the broadest aspect of Elite Dangerous as a game, and the aspect that could - and should - encompass as many aspects of the game as possible. In order to draw in this potential audience, you must appeal to them on multiple levels, including statistical bonuses.

Community Goals are almost by nature excluded, because it would be absurd to have a CG with over a dozen sides, and in any case, taking a system in Powerplay always requires at least two weeks, not to mention other powers trying to take it back in ensuing weeks. It would unfair to non-affiliated players to waste so much of their time with something they don't care about whatsoever. Far better to have CGs over much broader things that are more interesting to the general public, and constrain powerplay to powerplay, as it were.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Trouble is, people don't need to do that, because even in open, it's perfectly possible to make sure you never actually encounter another player, via connection, via fleet carrier usage, etc. So the current pragmatic choice is using said methods to bypass conflict entirely, as most people do.

You want players to voluntarily sacrifice efficiency for safety, but they won't do that without reason, and said reason does not and cannot exist, due to the existing connection architecture and game design.

See the problem?

Fleet carriers make it easier to attack if you know they are there (setting up scouting nicely). Once they turn up, you have large vessels that need to fly outside the influence of an FC, then spool up, then jump. Having to do that is ideal for Groms, Ion Mines etc.

Connection granted, but its if the majority get this. If it works for enough people then job done, because part of the fun is having to anticipate trouble (and thus the need / gamble in ship loadout). Couple that with uncapped UM , for the majority (unless everything is really borked) it should be enough to foster those situations.

So while I do see network drawbacks, I don't agree with the rest.

Lacking that, I'd settle for creating circumstances that make players more willing to accept the risks, even if it means reducing the potency of defenders. In reality, you can't reduce the potency of defenders in any case, because they're already 0% effective against anyone who cares about bypassing them. So you throw them a bone by making powerplay piracy at least be profitable in terms of credits, if not in terms of merits.

The only way to provide risk is to put people in harms way.

The PvE in this proposal https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-in-solo.565581/page-9#post-8961161 is as close to doing that as possible in the game and in keeping with Powerplay as we know it. Beyond that, only other players can provide a structured resistance since Powerplay is at a basic level a CZ that is the size of the inhabited bubble. No NPC has the persistence to do the things groups of coordinated players can do.

The trouble with this is inertia. Players aren't likely to put in huge effort just to increase their bonus by ~2.5% or whatever, but if you're dividing bonuses up among all the powers, that's what you'd get, since larger powers have weeks or months of advantage to overcome.

Hence, larger flat bonuses based on single tournaments. This lets even the smallest power meaningfully compete and be relevant. If it makes the permanent bonuses irrelevant, so be it. I'd happily sacrifice that for the sake of fun and participation.

The issue is you have powers who have the best passive bonuses pushed all over, and those powers also have money making bonuses that are exploited for the wrong reasons. ALD, Hudson, LYR. Those need to stop really. And since most powers will never see use of the 123 bonuses, why have them? Why not make 123 bonuses depend on position? At least then they'll see use.

Useful bonuses would be powers paying for rebuys (maybe at rank 1 or 2), a % off material requirements, more favourable material trader rates at rank 4? As long as you can't game the system (which is possible via design) these are desirable, and if the PvE element is good enough (and strong enough to make people think twice) it will balance out.

People don't want abstract or game design that shoe horns something like a tournament (when you already have CQC) into proxy shadow wars like Powerplay.

 

[r3per]

//
Change whatever you want, but don't take modules away from players who earned them years ago.

 

[Rubbernuke]

5. I've noticed that there seems to be this divide that separates the PvP from PP/BGS players and I've always thought that was something that we as a gaming community sort of decided upon without any real reason from within the game that FDEV presented to us. I hate getting ganked and griefed while I'm doing things like trading as much as anyone else, but I also enjoy combat when I'm in that mood, and- as an Open player, for the most part- I've just sort of come to accept that sometimes I'm gonna get interdicted and blown up. FDEV can't really do anything to improve that functionality. That's sort of on us, as E players.

The question will always be- why are you playing Powerplay, an opt in feature thats about direct action against other powers? Either NPCs come for you, or players do. The problem will always be the NPCs never actually pushing back, because they are constrained by the limitations from ED itself- small drop areas, NAVs being largely vestigial, PP NPCs lacking punch, persistence, defection assassins being the weakest ships in game.

FD listened to module shoppers moaning about difficulty, and forgot you need difficulty in features like Powerplay to make it work- otherwise it just falls apart like its done.

 

[Half-Lock]

What I meant was, players should have a reputation with powers. Doing BGS actions(IE, missions) with in-territory factions with governments that synergize with that power should increase this reputation, and when the player is at max reputation with the power, these BGS factions should give missions with the modules as the reward

That is totally different than I envisioned when you described it. That would be a massive change to the mechanics, but I can see the logic behind it. It would completely alter the nature of power exclusivity, though.

The current problem is that many players pledge specifically to acquire the modules. They then haul without caring about actually helping the power, but simply to get to the needed rank as quickly as possible

Yeah, Aisling's folks have a system set aside for module pledgers. I assume everyone else does, too

It would be better for all involved if, instead, players could acquire the modules without needing to pledge to the power at all, and instead simply build a friendly reputation with them, and then take missions which reward them with the modules. Since this would require helping a BGS faction that is beneficial to the Power, it is a guaranteed method to help the Power, and at the same time allows the player to remain pledged to their 'true' Power.

Again, that would be a huge shift in the mechanics, but I can see your angle. It would sorta be like an expansion of the Sirius-system permit and Zacariah Nemo access mechanic. There's no way they'd be able to implement that without it being part of a whole new upgrade after Odyssey, though. It would be a huge shift in the overall workings of Powerplay and its relationship to the BGS; Elite: Dangerous The Powers Expansion or something.

But Powerplay is far larger than just roleplay; it's perhaps the broadest aspect of Elite Dangerous as a game, and the aspect that could - and should - encompass as many aspects of the game as possible. In order to draw in this potential audience, you must appeal to them on multiple levels, including statistical bonuses.

Troof

Community Goals are almost by nature excluded, because it would be absurd to have a CG with over a dozen sides

I dunno if I agree with that. They've had multiple CGs running simultaneously on a couple of different occasions. It wouldn't be that difficult to set up multiple two-sided CG goals.

Far better to have CGs over much broader things that are more interesting to the general public, and constrain powerplay to powerplay, as it were.

I dunno if I agree with this, either. CGs are sort of, in their very nature, specific goal sets and play-styles. On PS4, which is where I'm doing most of my play, the community goals I've run into have been gank-fests, and an increase in the PP/BGS relevance might make them more interesting to people that wouldn't otherwise participate too heavily in them. For instance, the one right now isn't particularly interesting to me because I don't have much interest in rare-commodities trading nor the Kumo Crew from a PP perspective, beyond the Archon Delaine's occasional in-lore wteffery. He seems like a fun character to track

 

[Half-Lock]

The issue is you have powers who have the best passive bonuses pushed all over, and those powers also have money making bonuses that are exploited for the wrong reasons. ALD, Hudson, LYR. Those need to stop really. And since most powers will never see use of the 123 bonuses, why have them? Why not make 123 bonuses depend on position? At least then they'll see use

I was actually just looking into this again, just now, after running pledges this whole last gaming session, and the top level ratings really are sort of meh- especially for the costs required to maintain the ratings. It's about 7m credits to fill up my T-9, which is negligible to a very real extent, but is also 10 rebuys for my Courier build.

FD listened to module shoppers moaning about difficulty, and forgot you need difficulty in features like Powerplay to make it work- otherwise it just falls apart like its done.

I didn't watch too many of the Developer's Diaries as they were enunciating the ins and outs of Powerplay, but I've been looking at the NPCs and NPC factions as gray-forces, really, and always viewed the PP and BGS as an expansion of PvP, in the sense that its sort of player-groups contesting the space with other player-groups, rather than with NPC factions. I sorta see any stagnation in the BGS and PP to be the result of a lack of desire to stage contest. That's not to say its not there, because I've read about and tracked some major conflicts between squadrons but, as I mentioned, I don't see anything FDEV has failed to deliver with regard to this part of the game as being directly responsible for anything that's going on in terms of a loss of interest as much as a people not grokking it with the intensity it could. I'm still doing my thing, though, and I'm around if anyone needs me

 

[Rubbernuke]

I was actually just looking into this again, just now, after running pledges this whole last gaming session, and the top level ratings really are sort of meh- especially for the costs required to maintain the ratings. It's about 7m credits to fill up my T-9, which is negligible to a very real extent, but is also 10 rebuys for my Courier build.

All the bonuses need work (most are useless these days, like ammo costs), but the idea of 123 bonuses is poor if most powers will never use them. To make Powerplay really tempting, they have to be near universal and offer something nice.

I didn't watch too many of the Developer's Diaries as they were enunciating the ins and outs of Powerplay, but I've been looking at the NPCs and NPC factions as gray-forces, really, and always viewed the PP and BGS as an expansion of PvP, in the sense that its sort of player-groups contesting the space with other player-groups, rather than with NPC factions. I sorta see any stagnation in the BGS and PP to be the result of a lack of desire to stage contest. That's not to say its there, because I've read about and tracked some major conflicts between squadrons but, as I mentioned, I don't see anything FDEV has failed to deliver with regard to this part of the game as being directly responsible for anything that's going on in terms of a loss of interest as much as a people not grokking it with the intensity it could. I'm still doing my thing, though, and I'm around if anyone needs me

Without a robust PvE layer in Powerplay it has.....nothing. The BGS player factions work because that is driven by the whole game (missions and activities). Powerplay is driven by whatever happens between you picking up PP cargo or getting a merit. Its this empty time that is one of Powerplays major problems- you can take off, SC and land in total safety because the game is erroneously set that way, and NPCs can do nothing to stop you. Its this repetitive boredom where nothing changes that makes Powerplay a job you do then play the game, rather than you playing Powerplay itself.

A long time ago shoppers got fed up with PP NPCs being aggressive and numerous, and FD dialed it back. Now we are left with anemic weaklings that you can tank silly, like 10 on 1.