Option to not participate in PP v0.2 beta via Tech Broker

[sinkarma]

Simple: Option to obtain the special modules from power play via tech brokers until such a time as Fdev can finish work on the Power Play 0.2 Beta

Even if the cost is very high, I'd prefer not to have to deal with Power Play or its current beta state of version 0.2 (but it is still vastly superior to the older version)

I'm bit of a casual. I want the modules. Even if it costs me 600 void opals to unlock pack hounds.

And me playing power play activities in solo makes me feel like I am griefing the hardcore-dedicated powerplay community.
at the core I could probs get to max rank in a week if I just loot and slaughter 100 surface settlements. (its not that hard, can do 1 in an hour, if I do 4 or so a day I can be done with this in 2 months.)
But it would involve having to be forced to grief the rest of the community.

Hence... a request to be able to get the modules via tech broker... whilst Fdev work on Power Play 0.2 Beta.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

And me playing power play activities in solo makes me feel like I am griefing the hardcore-dedicated powerplay community.

Frontier have made clear in their recent patch notes that they think there is far too much peaceful building and too little actual attacking going on. If the hardcore-dedicated powerplay community was left to its own devices there'd be walls of strongholds invincibly staring each other down and no actual fights.

Picking one of the bigger powers and giving their systems a good kicking if you're able to do so on your way to unlocking the modules won't do a lot in the big picture but it'll be moving Powerplay closer to having some actual contest to it. That's not griefing, it's a public service.

 

[Screemonster]

If the hardcore-dedicated powerplay community was left to its own devices there'd be walls of strongholds invincibly staring each other down and no actual fights.

something something optimising the fun out of the game

 

[sinkarma]

Frontier have made clear in their recent patch notes that they think there is far too much peaceful building and too little actual attacking going on. If the hardcore-dedicated powerplay community was left to its own devices there'd be walls of strongholds invincibly staring each other down and no actual fights.

Picking one of the bigger powers and giving their systems a good kicking if you're able to do so on your way to unlocking the modules won't do a lot in the big picture but it'll be moving Powerplay closer to having some actual contest to it. That's not griefing, it's a public service.

blows an exasperated raspberry I mean... idk...
yea true... I saw that. Making things more active and making power play more dynamic... Which I am all for! But I also fear the thought that the powerplay faction I am in might just dissapear and get squished before I reach high enough rank to get all the modules. Unless I go nuke 100 civilians.

Would still be nice to have the modules available outside of PP0.2

Maybe I can make a protest and livestream each surface port I nuke with "this can all stop once I get my modules" as a form of throwing a tantrum?
sorry... I'm getting off topic... but mostly just cause I just don't feel good and right now I don't want to throw a tantrum and don't want to grind PP0.2

 

[metatheurgist]

Hey, I bet if they gave some of us the ability to shrink those tumors out of the galaxy entirely there'd be some action. But they still don't have the guts to give us the option to push back without being a joiner.

 

[Tifu]

Hey, I bet if they gave some of us the ability to shrink those tumors out of the galaxy entirely there'd be some action. But they still don't have the guts to give us the option to push back without being a joiner.

That simply isn't happening, either you're in (pledged) or out (unpledged). FD has given zero signs that that's going to change

 

[Rubbernuke]

Tough. You want the goodies, pony up your soul to the 12.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

I mean, the whole point is that it's a competitive "who can grab the most systems and be the biggest" part of the game.

To be honest, looking at how things are at the moment there shouldn't be a risk of any factions disappearing.

 

[BackToTheMud]

something something optimising the fun out of the game

Yes, but that's on Fdev. Players, as a group, will always go for what's most optimised. If Fdev want PP to be more offensive, they have to balance the incentiveses accordingly.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Yes, but that's on Fdev. Players, as a group, will always go for what's most optimised. If Fdev want PP to be more offensive, they have to balance the incentiveses accordingly.

And that includes the incentives towards fun and the optimisation of that too

With few exceptions, reinforcement actions are generally more fun as in-game activities than their undermining equivalents, where the same action doesn't work identically for both. Where the same action does work identically, the reinforcement version is generally easier.

High profit trade (reinforce/acquire): you're trading a variety of system-specific goods, possibly even trade-route-specific goods for Acquisitions, with a need to be aware of market prices and their changes. / Bulk flood trade (undermine): you're hauling limpets back and forth as fast as you can.
Exploration/exobiology (reinforce): you're doing fun exploration stuff. / None (undermine): you're not doing fun exploration stuff because it does nothing in this context
Holoscreen hacking (reinforce): you're flipping holo-displays to your Power. / Holoscreen hacking (undermine): you're flipping holo-displays to your Power and getting a bunch of annoying fines and rapid reputation loss for exactly the same (or fewer, subject to system strength penalty) control point change

There's also the question about optimisation vs fun at a strategic level.
- if Powers A and B are generally not attacking each other, players for both sides can reinforce and acquire uncontested systems at their own pace without need to hyper-optimise their in-game activities. You'll get there in the end, doesn't matter if it takes a week or three months.
- if Powers A and B are generally attacking each other then players on both sides' choices are "optimise your in-game activities whether you find that fun or not" or "lose if the other side does", which is not as popular a choice.

 

[BackToTheMud]

There's also the question about optimisation vs fun at a strategic level.

Sadly it isn't. Players, as a group, will chose optimisation over fun everytime. If Fdev want the player base to do lots of different things, all those things has to be equally rewarding compared to the time/effort put in.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Sadly it isn't. Players, as a group, will chose optimisation over fun everytime. If Fdev want the player base to do lots of different things, all those things has to be equally rewarding compared to the time/effort put in.

But in this case the optimal strategic activity (don't attack anyone because you gain absolutely nothing by doing so) is also the fun tactical activity (you can do what you like without needing to focus the most efficient method) so is actually fun.

Conversely the fun strategic activity (try to crush the opposition anyway) requires the optimal tactical activity (get those control points together as fast as possible) so is only fun on paper.

What I mean is that "optimal strategic + fun tactical" is way more obvious and sustainable a choice than "fun strategic + optimal tactical", which is why everyone (in the final aggregate) is doing it.

 

[Screemonster]

And that includes the incentives towards fun and the optimisation of that too

With few exceptions, reinforcement actions are generally more fun as in-game activities than their undermining equivalents, where the same action doesn't work identically for both. Where the same action does work identically, the reinforcement version is generally easier.

High profit trade (reinforce/acquire): you're trading a variety of system-specific goods, possibly even trade-route-specific goods for Acquisitions, with a need to be aware of market prices and their changes. / Bulk flood trade (undermine): you're hauling limpets back and forth as fast as you can.
Exploration/exobiology (reinforce): you're doing fun exploration stuff. / None (undermine): you're not doing fun exploration stuff because it does nothing in this context
Holoscreen hacking (reinforce): you're flipping holo-displays to your Power. / Holoscreen hacking (undermine): you're flipping holo-displays to your Power and getting a bunch of annoying fines and rapid reputation loss for exactly the same (or fewer, subject to system strength penalty) control point change

There's also the question about optimisation vs fun at a strategic level.
- if Powers A and B are generally not attacking each other, players for both sides can reinforce and acquire uncontested systems at their own pace without need to hyper-optimise their in-game activities. You'll get there in the end, doesn't matter if it takes a week or three months.
- if Powers A and B are generally attacking each other then players on both sides' choices are "optimise your in-game activities whether you find that fun or not" or "lose if the other side does", which is not as popular a choice.

There's also the fact that there are a lot of reinforcing activities that are relatively "passive" (and I count blowing up enemy power ships outside whatever station you happen to be at towards this, the occasional NFZ fine is barely relevant even if you're not negating it with the delaine bonus) while acquisition and undermining activities tend almost exclusively towards things you have to be actively going out of your way to do - again, power kills are illegal whether you're doing them for acquisition or undermining, so if I'm just passing through the system for unrelated reasons such as loading up my carrier for a settlement construction project, I'm actively not going to be taking that shot when I see an enemy ship pass by on the radar as I don't want to be locked out of the station.

 

[Hedganian]

Frontier have made clear in their recent patch notes that they think there is far too much peaceful building and too little actual attacking going on. If the hardcore-dedicated powerplay community was left to its own devices there'd be walls of strongholds invincibly staring each other down and no actual fights.

So much for "player-driven narrative" then. If that's how people want to play, create a cold-war of powers crouching behind their individual Iron Curtains, surely that's up to them?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

So much for "player-driven narrative" then. If that's how people want to play, create a cold-war of powers crouching behind their individual Iron Curtains, surely that's up to them?

At the moment that turtling behaviour is strongly rewarded by the game, so it's obviously the dominant one. People play the game they're given and there's no such thing as a "neutral" balance point for that. It's Frontier's role to shape the balance to make the feature an interesting one.

Frontier appear to be choosing to try to make Powerplay into a competitive (indirect!) PvP feature. That was their original "mission statement" for it. For that to work, the incentives for players to undermine and the incentives for them to reinforce have to be balanced. (And those "incentives" take a very wide variety of forms, all of which are currently reinforcement-biased)

If Frontier change the balance points so that undermining is the obviously superior action with better incentives ... and players still at that point persist in peacefully reinforcing their own space and maintaining 12-way truces? Sure, at that point Frontier have to accept that the players - including the organised Powerplay groups who loudly claim otherwise! - don't want Powerplay to be a competitive feature. And they can at that point rethink and focus on rebuilding Powerplay as the purely co-operative feature it should have been all along.

But I want to see them try that first - and, which I respect, they seem to want to try it first despite it probably being doomed.

 

[Hedganian]

My point was simply that, in the past, FDev have repeatedly and loudly claimed that the game is 'player-driven' and outcomes to most if not all events are determined by the players who interact with them. They then repeatedly undermined this claim by god-handing CGs, moving or reinforcing Titans when they are being killed too quickly for someone's liking, and various other things, but we're not supposed to have noticed that.

Admittedly, the recent changes to the game such as Colonisation and PP2 are still in flux and subject to refinement, so there's scope for tweaking how it works. I'm not convinced that nerfing reinforcement merits was the way to go about it, but FDev love a good nerf when players might actually be minimising the tedious grind.