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

[Sir Ganksalot]

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.

I didn't say solo is easy mode, although it is my opinion that it is easier than open due to the difficulty of enemy players, especially if you're playing solo in open. But you make some good points.

However, I have a serious issue with players that would rather see parts of the game rot and go unused than see it get open only or more challenging AI. 99% of players that argue against changes to powerplay don't even play it and it's just pure selfishness.

Powerplay is in dire need of major changes and it's absolutely ridiculous for solo players to complain about any changes to it when they don't even do powerplay beyond the bare minimum to get modules, and they have the rest of the entire game to play in solo if they wish.

You know I have nothing against solo players and I am on their side on almost every issue, but this is the one thing that find to be unacceptable behavior.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

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.

I dunno, AX seems to be pretty popular because it's hard.

Rubbernukes idea is not for content to be "forced" on anyone. Just like AX isn't forced on you.

 

[GloatingSwine]

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.

If they're not, why put them in the game? Trap choices are bad game design. With the interdiction minigame as it is, the ability to turn the ship to point at the blue is always going to be the determining factor in success. That needs to be possible for every ship against NPCs where it isn't a contest of player vs player skill but an arbitrary bar against an entity that isn't playing by the same rules, isn't limited by input devices, manual dexterity, reflexes, and so on.

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.

That would be possible, but still doesn't make a difference if you can always avoid the interdiction, and you always can, which is a fixed point that can't be changed without doing more damage than it solves.

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

It's not limiting what an individual can do, just limiting what they can do by delivering cargo. There would need to be uncapped activities that allowed any individual to earn any amount of merits, it's just that beyond a bit of haulage they have to fight for them.

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.

There's no greater way to cathartically howl into the void than posting in the suggestions forum for a videogame, I guess...

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

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.

You do realise that thsi is open-only discussion with a powerplay cloak?

 

[GloatingSwine]

You do realise that thsi is open-only discussion with a powerplay cloak?

I don't see how, because this would also be present in Open (because most Open is PvE anyway)

 

[Rubbernuke]

If they're not, why put them in the game? Trap choices are bad game design. With the interdiction minigame as it is, the ability to turn the ship to point at the blue is always going to be the determining factor in success. That needs to be possible for every ship against NPCs where it isn't a contest of player vs player skill but an arbitrary bar against an entity that isn't playing by the same rules, isn't limited by input devices, manual dexterity, reflexes, and so on.

But thats the thing- you are seeing this as 100% dead or 100% escape proof- its like WW2 expecting bombers to always get through, at some point you will be attacked. So rather than expect to get through unscathed in a Lancaster, you instead take a Mosquito or add more armour and weapons to the Lancaster.

That would be possible, but still doesn't make a difference if you can always avoid the interdiction, and you always can, which is a fixed point that can't be changed without doing more damage than it solves.

See above- I'm warming to the idea that sometimes you just can't rely on escaping.

It's not limiting what an individual can do, just limiting what they can do by delivering cargo. There would need to be uncapped activities that allowed any individual to earn any amount of merits, it's just that beyond a bit of haulage they have to fight for them.

Ah, I see. I'm not a fan, because its abstracting an abstraction- I prefer to have a goal, you, and a starting point and the fun is you crossing through that.

There's no greater way to cathartically howl into the void than posting in the suggestions forum for a videogame, I guess...

Indeed. Its quite fun being a better game designer than the game designers themselves.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

You do realise that thsi is open-only discussion with a powerplay cloak?

Not really but even if it was, I fully support open only powerplay. Which is still not forcing anything on solo players.

 

[Rubbernuke]

You do realise that thsi is open-only discussion with a powerplay cloak?

Really? Either your mental gymnastics is legendary or you missed an /s tag.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I don't see how, because this would also be present in Open (because most Open is PvE anyway)

Make the gameplay worse for the PvE pigs if we can't have open-only powerplay is pretty much how I read this.

 

[WhoCares]

...
1. The asynchronous bit: Delivery from the faction HQ of war assets to a staging point in the faction's own space near the target system. This takes place over about a week, it's about as hard to intercept as it is currently, and happens in all modes. It helps the faction but doesn't provide anything more than immediate haulage cash to the person doing it (no rank progression)

2. The open conflict bit: This has two aspects, conflict zones in the target system where destruction of an enemy ship reduces their war assets, and deliveries of war assets from your staging point to your forward base (specially spawned megaships in the target system) to top up your faction's ability to stay in the fight. The conflict ends when one side or another has a critical advantage in war assets (like 75-80% of the total present in the system). This takes place over about a day, timed for peak server population (so probably the weekend).

Now here's the clever bit. The open conflict bit is a special hived off instance of the target system that you can only get into if you're pledged to one of the powers contesting it, and it is always in matchmade open play. If you're playing in solo and pledged, then when you enter a system in open conflict, you matchmake into an Open setting in that system. Even if you're solo everywhere else. Also because it's a special instance of the system it can prevent fleet carriers from entering, so everyone has to drop in at the star.
...

So after a 3 months exploration run worth 5.5 billion credits, you want to force me into open play to unlock the LYR exploration bonus to turn it into a 12 billion trip (not 16.5 due to selling some data in between)? Why am I not convinced?!?!
And I anyway almost lost it to an NPC interdiction (mainly because I experimented in the evasion)... In that case you can just as well do away with the LYR exploration bonus, because no sane explorer would consider it worth the risk...

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

More or less selfish than those seeking to have existing pan-modal content that every player bought access to (as part of the base game) retrospectively PvP-gated over five years after it was implemented - in a game where PvP is entirely optional and no game features are limited to a single game mode?

 

[GloatingSwine]

But thats the thing- you are seeing this as 100% dead or 100% escape proof- its like WW2 expecting bombers to always get through, at some point you will be attacked. So rather than expect to get through unscathed in a Lancaster, you instead take a Mosquito or add more armour and weapons to the Lancaster.

From the perspective of the interdiction minigame, yes. It should not be the case that any ship is incapable of succeeding at that minigame against NPCs no matter what the player does. What happens afterwards is irrelevant to that point.

Now, you could possibly allow other features of a ship to impact supercruise agility like thruster rating, new utilities, and engineering so that a ship that doesn't want to fit traditional defences can focus on interdict evasion instead, but those don't exist right now, supercruise agility is baked into the hull just like thermal capacity and point the ship at the blue is the only determinant of success.

See above- I'm warming to the idea that sometimes you just can't rely on escaping.

Against NPCs, with no tools to change your odds of doing so, you have to be. Ultimately, there can't be a state where no possible player input other than "don't buy a Type 9" leads to success.

Ah, I see. I'm not a fan, because its abstracting an abstraction- I prefer to have a goal, you, and a starting point and the fun is you crossing through that.

Not really, the limit's already there you can just throw credits in a hole to bypass it.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't see how, because this would also be present in Open (because most Open is PvE anyway)

It reads like a fallback position from the Open only proposal - if players can't / won't be forced into Open when participating in Powerplay to engage with those who enjoy PvP, make participating in Powerplay harder for "them"....

 

[GloatingSwine]

So after a 3 months exploration run worth 5.5 billion credits, you want to force me into open play to unlock the LYR exploration bonus to turn it into a 12 billion trip (not 16.5 due to selling some data in between)? Why am I not convinced?!?!

If you're pledged to a power and you enter the one or two specific obviously marked systems currently being openly contested on the one specific day that's happening.

This wouldn't be a global suggestion, it would be hyper-specific to one or two systems per power, for one or two days of the week.

 

[Northpin]

Not really but even if it was, I fully support open only powerplay. Which is still not forcing anything on solo players.

How come?
It will prevent solo players to do the powerplay as it is now.

Powerplay is in dire need of major changes and it's absolutely ridiculous for solo players to complain about any changes to it when they don't even do powerplay beyond the bare minimum to get modules, and they have the rest of the entire game to play in solo if they wish.

PP may or may not be in dire need of major changes.
But since it's a part of ED - it should abide to the game rules. That is No Mode-Only changes.

There should be a way to improve / re-design PP without touching the modes.
And @Rubbernuke proposal to scale the difficulty of NPC has some merits, but it should implemented in a way so it does not becomes an annoyance.

Like what's happening when having 15-20 supply/delivery missions stacked and you get interdicted 6-7 times in 200ls.
It's not making the game more interesting. Just more annoying.
I never lose the interdictions or i submit and boost away. They're jsut pss me off and delay the delivery with some minutes.

 

[Rubbernuke]

From the perspective of the interdiction minigame, yes. It should not be the case that any ship is incapable of succeeding at that minigame against NPCs no matter what the player does. What happens afterwards is irrelevant to that point.

Now, you could possibly allow other features of a ship to impact supercruise agility like thruster rating, new utilities, and engineering so that a ship that doesn't want to fit traditional defences can focus on interdict evasion instead, but those don't exist right now, supercruise agility is baked into the hull just like thermal capacity and point the ship at the blue is the only determinant of success.

Well, one can dream If they did invest more time as you describe it would benefit the game as a whole.

Against NPCs, with no tools to change your odds of doing so, you have to be. Ultimately, there can't be a state where no possible player input other than "don't buy a Type 9" leads to success.

But you could still buy a T9 for Powerplay, its just you'd have to upgrade it expecting trouble and not min/ max it for cargo.

Not really, the limit's already there you can just throw credits in a hole to bypass it.

In the end, thats what Powerplay is though, just like FCs are- credit sinks.

 

[Northpin]

It reads like a fallback position from the Open only proposal - if players can't / won't be forced into Open when participating in Powerplay to engage with those who enjoy PvP, make participating in Powerplay harder for "them"....

@Rubbernuke said the change should not apply to Solo only, but to all the modes. So the thread title should be changed accordingly.

But i would love to see the backlash of having a pvp player and a wing of atr like npc on a T9 hauling merits
or a wing of atr like npc interfering with pp pvp...

 

[Rubbernuke]

It reads like a fallback position from the Open only proposal - if players can't / won't be forced into Open when participating in Powerplay to engage with those who enjoy PvP, make participating in Powerplay harder for "them"....

Or actually- make PvE actually PvE and not an eternal, mindless harvest festival.

 

[Rubbernuke]

@Rubbernuke said the change should not apply to Solo only, but to all the modes. So the thread title should be changed accordingly.

But i would love to see the backlash of having a pvp player and a wing of atr like npc on a T9 hauling merits
or a wing of atr like npc interfering with pp pvp...

If I could change the title I would, but for me Solo = PvE, while PG and Open are PvE + PvP. Changing the solo PP experience is changing PvE in my mind.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Or actually- make PvE actually PvE and not an eternal, mindless harvest festival.

Not everyone shares the opinion that PvE is an "eternal, mindless harvest festival".

.... and, possibly, there are also players seeking a peaceful existence within the game and aren't looking for an adrenaline charged experience....