Make Solo Powerplay PvE dangerous (targeted interdcitions using existing mechanics)

[Northpin]

Not really. Player response when the AI is inhumanly good in a direct contest of skill is relatively universal and negative.

Basically this.

And it is really obvious in ED where people flying g5 muder boats complain about how rubish the npc (instead of flying similarly rubish ships)
but the moement ATR appear everyone is saying the ATR are cheating... the same goes for station guns and the likes.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Basically this.

And it is really obvious in ED where people flying g5 muder boats complain about how rubish the npc (instead of flying similarly rubish ships)
but the moement ATR appear everyone is saying the ATR are cheating... the same goes for station guns and the likes.

And yet without it PvE is dull, and that engineering is just making farming easier. I don't know, maybe I'm just odd in wanting NPCs that are effective?

 

[Northpin]

And yet without it PvE is dull, and that engineering is just making farming easier. I don't know, maybe I'm just odd in wanting NPCs that are effective?

Certainly not... but the range of skill plus outfitting capabilities are so vastly stretched that i think it's an impossible desiderate
What is also certainly is that people hate to lose in a game... Nobody is playing to lose - so it is really hard to balance difficulty in a game with no difficulty settings at startup.

I wonder how popular would had been Doom if its only level of difficulty had been Nightmare!

 

[Rubbernuke]

Certainly not... but the range of skill plus outfitting capabilities are so vastly stretched that i think it's an impossible desiderate
What is also certainly is that people hate to lose in a game... Nobody is playing to lose - so it is really hard to balance difficulty in a game with no difficulty settings at startup.

I wonder how popular would had been Doom if its only level of difficulty had been Nightmare!

The trouble is, you have to have some failure rate otherwise it goes back to being a time x capacity exercise.

 

[GloatingSwine]

If you have to run the gauntlet of interdiction and have a chance of failure, thats all it has to do for that aspect. Chain interdictions, anything that makes the flight less routine- in the current design thats all that can be done for SC.

Again though, chain interdictions mostly just make things more annoying. Because you can't lose unless you're asleep, and you can't meaningfully change that without having a massive negative effect on player perception of the whole interdiction process (and making it purely deterministic for some ships irrespective of any player input)

I'm not talking about making interdiction rock hard- its making it so that if you lose you'll have a fight on your hands. But you will also face opposition elsewhere too.

But again, you can't lose so it doesn't matter what's interdicting you. You could make it so your ship instantly explodes if you lose interdiction to an NPC and it doesn't matter because you can't lose interdiction to an NPC unless you're AFK or asleep, they're super easy to beat consistently.

Undermining will be affected- i.e. while you are attacking you'll face a counter attack from aggressive and capable NPCs.

Which is fine, but doesn't address the original intent which was to spice up powerplay haulage to make it not automatically successful. Which can't be done. Even in trading the risk has never been "might be pirated" it's always been in picking your goods and route and hoping you have up to date economic data so you can actually end up in the black at the end of the run.

If you want powerplay to not be a haulage race, you have to nerf the actual haulage bit. (Like having a weekly delivery cap instead of the current rather idiotic fast-tracking system, like you can deliver 250 tons a week and the rest of your merits have to come from other things.)

Hauling will be affected- you have much more incentive to not lose, and cannot assume a bare trading layout could survive if you fail.

The consequences of failure don't matter if you never encounter them without specifically trying to or by accident.

Its like a global challenge- just as ATR is.

Yeah, but if you make it that persistent what it'll do is drive even more players away from powerplay, making it even more of a howling wasteland than it is now. Because all it does is say "engage in Powerplay and we'll spawn extra annoying nonsense for you all of the time". (And ATR isn't a global challenge anyway, you can hide from it in anarchy systems)

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Its a bit late for that, and making ever convoluted ways to try and get round the problem don't help.

It's never late to balance the gameplay.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

Although I agree that making the NPC's more aggressive for Powerplay would be a step in the right direction, I don't think it needs to be as harsh as the OP suggested. We're probably talking a couple of NPC interdictions at the most to really stop the Bots. Although the bot networks have died off lately (They've mostly moved to the BGS), it's still an issue that needs tackling.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Again though, chain interdictions mostly just make things more annoying. Because you can't lose unless you're asleep, and you can't meaningfully change that without having a massive negative effect on player perception of the whole interdiction process (and making it purely deterministic for some ships irrespective of any player input)

But again, you can't lose so it doesn't matter what's interdicting you. You could make it so your ship instantly explodes if you lose interdiction to an NPC and it doesn't matter because you can't lose interdiction to an NPC unless you're AFK or asleep, they're super easy to beat consistently.[/QUOTE]

Then perhaps the interdiction skill needs to scale too, because if it did then avoidance in SC would be like with players (i.e. watching for tails becomes important).

Which is fine, but doesn't address the original intent which was to spice up powerplay haulage to make it not automatically successful. Which can't be done. Even in trading the risk has never been "might be pirated" it's always been in picking your goods and route and hoping you have up to date economic data so you can actually end up in the black at the end of the run.

It seems then that interdiction itself needs to be harder- at least to the point where you have to pay attention.

If you want powerplay to not be a haulage race, you have to nerf the actual haulage bit. (Like having a weekly delivery cap instead of the current rather idiotic fast-tracking system, like you can deliver 250 tons a week and the rest of your merits have to come from other things.)

I don't agree with the cap (since it should be about effort, just like CGs are) at the same time hauling for fortifications and prep is a problem- mainly because its the only part of ED where its an actual us v them situation- but the 'them' part isn't allowed to be nasty enough.

The consequences of failure don't matter if you never encounter them without specifically trying to or by accident.

Which would indicate interdictions need to be harder themselves, otherwise the whole mechanic is pointless.

Yeah, but if you make it that persistent what it'll do is drive even more players away from powerplay, making it even more of a howling wasteland than it is now. Because all it does is say "engage in Powerplay and we'll spawn extra annoying nonsense for you all of the time". (And ATR isn't a global challenge anyway, you can hide from it in anarchy systems)

The problem is: if you frame Powerplay as a no challenge hauling race you drive people away too. Powerplay has to be something otherwise its just that feature no-one plays- it should be the place you go to challenge yourself, where either via skill, engineering and / or teamwork win out over odds that you don't normally face. If its not that, its just a second rate BGS copy.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Although I agree that making the NPC's more aggressive for Powerplay would be a step in the right direction, I don't think it needs to be as harsh as the OP suggested. We're probably talking a couple of NPC interdictions at the most to really stop the Bots. Although the bot networks have died off lately (They've mostly moved to the BGS), it's still an issue that needs tackling.

Being honest, the PvE game has devolved into being far too easy. Now, I get it has to cater for everyone- but at the same time it also has to have a structured PvE challenge that really does not exist. We get to fly god like ships, but nothing is allowed to really challenge them back in a structured way (such as Powerplay). ATR and the Thargoids do, but they are too isolated for my taste- and you have to go to outrageous lengths to get situations that make you sweat (like mission stacking).

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

All the suggestions seen on this matter revolve either around open-only stuff or around the idea of make solo harder... basically the same variations of Mode Only.
Like this very thread "Make Solo Powerplay PvE dangerous"

So I guess you'd rather see powerplay rot then. You're so adamant that every single bit of content be childishly easy and playable in solo that you'll just let content rot. I'm sorry bud but this has to be the most selfish thing I've ever heard.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I think what this highlights is that a lot of critical systems in ED have been nerfed into irrelevance- station drop zones, interdictions, SC based NPCs. If only features were tuned to offer more (or less) rather than having them crippled globally.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Then perhaps the interdiction skill needs to scale too, because if it did then avoidance in SC would be like with players (i.e. watching for tails becomes important).

It seems then that interdiction itself needs to be harder- at least to the point where you have to pay attention.

Right, but interdiction is predominantly driven by a hardcoded non-alterable function of your ship. There's basically no wiggle room to change the NPC's skill at doing it without making it such that certain ships automatically fail. Which is bad gameplay because it means that no amount of player interaction will ever change the outcome. NPC spawns in or close to interdiction position, you didn't get to do anything about it. NPCs aren't using the same rules as players and they aren't a contest of skill in the interdiction minigame, they're a fixed bar. If the bar is set such that a type 9 can clear it, no other ship ever fails because they're all easier to do it with. If it's set such that a type 9 can never clear it there's no room for player input other than "bring a different ship".

I don't agree with the cap (since it should be about effort, just like CGs are) at the same time hauling for fortifications and prep is a problem- mainly because its the only part of ED where its an actual us v them situation- but the 'them' part isn't allowed to be nasty enough.

The cap would only be for that one specific activity. There would need to be non-haulage activities which would pick up the slack so that the overall process could progress at roughly the same rate but there's a fixed upper limit to the amount of the easy bit you can do. Those activities should predominantly involve combat.

Which would indicate interdictions need to be harder themselves, otherwise the whole mechanic is pointless.

See above. There's basically no scope to do that with NPCs without alienating players.

The problem is: if you frame Powerplay as a no challenge hauling race you drive people away too. Powerplay has to be something otherwise its just that feature no-one plays- it should be the place you go to challenge yourself, where either via skill, engineering and / or teamwork win out over odds that you don't normally face. If its not that, its just a second rate BGS copy.

Yep. We agree on what the problem is, Powerplay is ditchwater, it's the worst activity in Elite, fedexing stuff, made worse because you have to pay to do it. That's why most people who pledge at all do it to module shop.

But I don't think this is the solution, and I don't think there is a solution whilst fedexing is a major, and in most cases the major determinant of success.

 

[Northpin]

So I guess you'd rather see powerplay rot then. You're so adamant that every single bit of content be childishly easy and playable in solo that you'll just let content rot. I'm sorry bud but this has to be the most selfish thing I've ever heard.

Mmm, not really.

Why are you so adamant to see solo as the easy mode? it's actually the hardest mode.
In solo you dont get wing bonuses and generally speaking no coop bonuses like one can get in Open or in PG
I solo you dont clear a CZ 3-4 times faster than one can do in open or in PG.
In solo you cant stop a group to steamroll your home system

At the same time Open is not more dangerously.
Someone dead set to get the Solo experience in Open can easily do so (block and/or firewall manipulation)
so? what's your point? why giving advantages for open? why making solo harder?

And not at last - by design all modes are equal and the only thing they do is to filter players out. Not to add/remove game features.
That's the game you bought and the one you accepted to play...
It's not hard to wrap your mind around this simple concept.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Right, but interdiction is predominantly driven by a hardcoded non-alterable function of your ship. There's basically no wiggle room to change the NPC's skill at doing it without making it such that certain ships automatically fail. Which is bad gameplay because it means that no amount of player interaction will ever change the outcome. NPC spawns in or close to interdiction position, you didn't get to do anything about it. NPCs aren't using the same rules as players and they aren't a contest of skill in the interdiction minigame, they're a fixed bar. If the bar is set such that a type 9 can clear it, no other ship ever fails because they're all easier to do it with. If it's set such that a type 9 can never clear it there's no room for player input other than "bring a different ship".

If this is the case, then that is sad- although I seem to remember it being far more potent in earlier versions, but that may be just me.

But, it should be that some ships fail- you can't have everything 100% yes or no- it also means that larger ships who fail have to build defences to survive, so that when they are pulled over they can live long enough to HW / LW. This would make trade builds need more compromises or you use a different ship.

BTW NPCs do not spawn at positions for interdiction- if you become hostile to a patrolled system the security will home in on you- this is what I'm modelling this on. Sec forces on alert will actively hunt you in SC and multiple wings / NPCs will close in.

The cap would only be for that one specific activity. There would need to be non-haulage activities which would pick up the slack so that the overall process could progress at roughly the same rate but there's a fixed upper limit to the amount of the easy bit you can do. Those activities should predominantly involve combat.

Even so, that would kill the smaller powers, since player numbers vary across powers.

Yep. We agree on what the problem is, Powerplay is ditchwater, it's the worst activity in Elite, fedexing stuff, made worse because you have to pay to do it. That's why most people who pledge at all do it to module shop.

But I don't think this is the solution, and I don't think there is a solution whilst fedexing is a major, and in most cases the major determinant of success.

The problem is what FD intend to do- the scope of change has always been small, so ideas have to fit that scope. Its why I try to frame what I suggest inside those parameters.

 

[GloatingSwine]

But, it should be that some ships fail- you can't have everything 100% yes or no- it also means that larger ships who fail have to build defences to survive, so that when they are pulled over they can live long enough to HW / LW. This would make trade builds need more compromises or you use a different ship.

No, it shouldn't be that there's a minigame that you lose before it starts. That's terrible design. If there's a ship that can't possibly succeed at a significant gameplay element but has to do it anyway, that makes that ship a trap choice for everything not just powerplay.

BTW NPCs do not spawn at positions for interdiction- if you become hostile to a patrolled system the security will home in on you- this is what I'm modelling this on. Sec forces on alert will actively hunt you in SC and multiple wings / NPCs will close in.

In most cases you're entering a fresh instance of a system because the playerbase is sufficiently spread out for there not to be an existing one, and everything's position relative to you doesn't exist until you enter it. So yes, it will be quite common for NPCs to spawn in a convenient place to interdict because when the instance was generated they happened to be closeish and in your rear arc.

Even so, that would kill the smaller powers, since player numbers vary across powers.

Why? Why does haulage let them survive but a cap on haulage with other uncapped activities wouldn't? Remember that this wouldn't limit the power's overall progress, only that which can be achieved by fedexing.

The problem is what FD intend to do- the scope of change has always been small, so ideas have to fit that scope. Its why I try to frame what I suggest inside those parameters.

I suspect FD intends to do this when powerplay is mentioned:

So ideas might as well be pie in the sky...

 

[Mohrgan]

It's ridiculous to believe that making PP harder, is going to make it more popular....

The OP is just another attempt at forcing some kind of imagined parity of risk between the modes. "If you can be dunked on by an NPC, you might as well let me dunk on you."

As always, just let peeps play as they like, and I'm sure they'll do the same for you.

 

[Rubbernuke]

No, it shouldn't be that there's a minigame that you lose before it starts. That's terrible design. If there's a ship that can't possibly succeed at a significant gameplay element but has to do it anyway, that makes that ship a trap choice for everything not just powerplay.

But the other way of looking at it: should every ship be viable to begin with? Should every ship be survivable? I kind of wish that interdictor class meshed with more variables on your ship so that it was more nuanced. And even if you get dropped, it does not automatically mean death- it just means you have to build to either fight or survive long enough.

In most cases you're entering a fresh instance of a system because the playerbase is sufficiently spread out for there not to be an existing one, and everything's position relative to you doesn't exist until you enter it. So yes, it will be quite common for NPCs to spawn in a convenient place to interdict because when the instance was generated they happened to be closeish and in your rear arc.

The times I've come into a system with security, they appear around stations and fly between strategic points (stations, planets etc), and that once you are 'seen' they home in on you. I envisage the same with my idea, PP NPCs spawn like sec does, patrol like they do and not 'pop up' like BH or pirates who are normally the first NPCs to spawn.

Why? Why does haulage let them survive but a cap on haulage with other uncapped activities wouldn't? Remember that this wouldn't limit the power's overall progress, only that which can be achieved by fedexing.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the idea, limiting what an individual can do means that you have to have more players to offset that cap.

I suspect FD intends to do this when powerplay is mentioned:

So ideas might as well be pie in the sky...

Well they seem to forget about Powerplay rather quickly (and have to be shamed into responding) so I half expect something dissapointing. But we will see, I'm kind of waiting just to find out how FD deal with it after all this time, sadist that I am.

 

[DragonIV]

It's funny, back in the somewhat early days of PP, I pledged somewhere and attempted to do a few things (all playing in open). Got interdicted by a player once, and that worked out pretty well and I enjoyed that encounter. However, I made my life mostly as a trader back then, and while doing non-PP stuff in my power's controlled systems I got constantly interdicted by one of the rival power's NPCs, and it was a Elite level wing with the same npc name on the lead ship. This grew extremely tiresome (getting interdicted every time I went anywhere in my power's systems by the same party), and within about two weeks of this constant attention from Prival's goons, I tossed PP out the window and went on my merry way.

Not sure if that's the kind of AI opposition @Rubbernuke is looking for, but it was pretty effective on a commander who hadn't put much time in combat by that point. Today, I think this crew was at the level of the wing assassination missions, which are fun for me today but was way over my skill and ship lineup back then.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's ridiculous to believe that making PP harder, is going to make it more popular....

As if making uneventful CGs x 60 is doing it any good?

The OP is just another attempt at forcing some kind of imagined parity of risk between the modes. "If you can be dunked on by an NPC, you might as well let me dunk on you."

No, its an attempt to make skill, engineering etc count for something in a properly combative PvE context. But hey, carry on.

As always, just let peeps play as they like, and I'm sure they'll do the same for you.

Thats the problem, the peeps don't like it, because the day to day is like shopping at Tesco.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's funny, back in the somewhat early days of PP, I pledged somewhere and attempted to do a few things (all playing in open). Got interdicted by a player once, and that worked out pretty well and I enjoyed that encounter. However, I made my life mostly as a trader back then, and while doing non-PP stuff in my power's controlled systems I got constantly interdicted by one of the rival power's NPCs, and it was a Elite level wing with the same npc name on the lead ship. This grew extremely tiresome (getting interdicted every time I went anywhere in my power's systems by the same party), and within about two weeks of this constant attention from Prival's goons, I tossed PP out the window and went on my merry way.

Not sure if that's the kind of AI opposition @Rubbernuke is looking for, but it was pretty effective on a commander who hadn't put much time in combat by that point. Today, I think this crew was at the level of the wing assassination missions, which are fun for me today but was way over my skill and ship lineup back then.

But then, what do you do? What is Powerplay about? How does it fit into the wider game? If its just a cargo running and mild shooting feature, its going to fail when the rest of the game does the same but better. And remember this is scaled to your effort- so people new to the feature at lower ranks wont see the ferocity someone at R4 or R5 will see.