PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

"Split the forum" is not really the times that I've scanned threads for number of unique players commenting the amount of people for trying to push a more pvp orientated thing are often the same limited number.
If only you could go back in time and experience it first hand.

I would not agree with that perspective, and last I checked like the rest of the game, it was never presented as PvP? correct me if I am wrong.
I did not say it was presented as PvP. It began with strong PvP elements (like piracy) that got nerfed because they could be exploited though.

Powerplay was supposed to be where Powers could die and be removed via collapse. It was the underpinning feature that drove you to expand, and if you did not (and were in the bottom 3) you were in danger of collapse and being removed.

Once that happened Powerplay lost its direction, and main selling point. Ever since its limped along as a half a mechanic filling the bubble up.
 
Well it would certainly remove alot of "pledged" players... I do not follow how this make this any less relevant, or as you put it nullified...
Module shoppers would have no need to pledge to get what they want.

So explain how this would change in any meaningful by having it all done in open?
You gather your PP supporters, and do your thing. All of you can by all purposes be working towards the same goal, despite being on different platforms, or you could all be on the same.

So how would any potential response be from the "other" side look like? if they are now on a different platform than you, then there would be NO difference from how it is today. And even if one of your team is on the same platform as where the response is done on, and the rest of you are on other platforms, how would you help your friend in that case?

So your supporting evidence is your own anectdotal experieceny of 5 players doing something... it still does not address core issue you made that response too.... far from most players do not enjoy the freedom to do alot of things just before the tick... because of in what timezone they are located in.
I've explained in great detail several times over in this thread how different it would be, however to summarize the main action would be around capitals, prep and combat expansions, with the rest being opportunistic. IMO miles better than Solo or PG because players are spontaneous,

far from most players do not enjoy the freedom to do alot of things just before the tick... because of in what timezone they are located in


Source? See I can play this game too. Now its you making sweeping statements while I've watch players drop merits at the last minute each week every week.

What 3 dynamic conflicts are you talking about? You seems to be confused....I do get where you get the number 3 from... but presenting PC, XBox and PS4 as 3 separate conflicts is just just wrong...
The 3 Open Powerplay Modes across XB, PS and PC. Currently 3 modes x 3 platforms = 9


So lets see how many conflicts there are likely to be...
11 powers
Started well, yes we have 11 powers.

and we have 3 main activities
What about UM? Thats 4.

and we can do multiple of each each cycle, so we can safely assume that on average, that all powers have on average atleast one of each activities each cycle, that gives us 11 powers and 3 activities = 33 different locations...
The last time I checked Powers don't attack every one else simeltaneously, as fun as that would be.

And there is a top 10 list, so that means that the number of potential conflicts each power can have is ALOT more than 1-2 on average... So if we go with that they could be 10 of each, that brings this to be a potetial of 3x10x11 powers = 330 conflicts....
'Top 10 list'- you mean the Preparation list? Expansions?

Couple this with players do not play 24/7, they have limited time to spend on this, as school,. work, family, etc, also requires their attention. So what is the average play time? 2 hours? 3 hours 4 hours? lets go with 4 hours on average each day, this further limit how many players you are likely to encounter in those 4 hours.

So if I do my 4 hours at 13-17 UTC time, and you play your 4 hours at 18-22 UTC time, we are very unlikely to ever meet ingame. But we still play every day...
Ever heard of Discord, where teams co-ordinate? The tool that Powerplay communities use week in, week out? And that we have things called 'objectives' where after one or two days it becomes obvious what the other side wants. For example prep races. You may have 10 systems listed (mostly 5C) but via consolidation that often gets down to zero or one. And then, as if by magic you know where your enemy is.

Same for expansions. Once it kicks off you know where they will be. Fortifying is safer because you can do that at any time, and UM is the same. However since fort traffic is one way, you have to be careful, and smart opposition will monitor when things happen.

So how many players at any given timeslot is active in PP activities? Lets say we have 10 000 players engaged in this, on all 3 platforms.
For ease of calculations we assume all platforms are split evenly (even you suggested that you have even split of players on each platform)
So on average we have 10000/3 players = 3333 players per platform.
If we assume an evenly spread of play time, that means that we have roughly 24/4 = 6 rolling time slots during any day.
So in each timeslot we then have 3333/6 = 555 PP players online.

These players are now (assuming evenly support between all powers, I know they are not), that gives us 555 players over 33 locations, which give us ~17 players per conflict.
Now if there would be 333 conflicts, then we are looking at ~1.7 player per conflict....
And I just outlined why all that is incorrect supposition. There are no 333 conflicts- this is a mathmatical construct does not fit typical (or even hypothetical) Powerplay behaviour.

In Sandros proposal:

You have per power anything from 38 to 110 systems for fortification.You can opportunistically come across someone in a control system, but that would be random. But still that chance is >0, and that some systems are very valuable and must be forted at all costs, while others are less valuable and some are not forted at all in the hope any turmoil would make them fall off (so your base CC improves).

Capitals would be the smart choice to raid, cutting out the need to go hunting (unless you felt like it or planned it). So out of all those 1000's of places you have 11 capitals to hit that would do as much disruption fort wise. This does not even include upstream UM as well further destabilizing that fortification with the new rules. A power that scouts will know from station reports what is being hit.

Last cycle (as an illustration) there was 4(?) expansions to fight in out of 11 powers. Now, if powers find holding the amount territory difficult this will change and you will see more being fought over. But, powers do not fight everyone else. The Feds and Archon fight ZYADA, LYR , Antal and Mahon don't fight (being neutral, sometimes >:) )

Prep races are the same. You will have a race for 2 normally, if at all: a weaponized expansion / profitable expansion v a 5C one. And quite often powers consolidate meaning they don't expand anything next cycle.

Add to this that that these tasks mostly is about hauling stuff, so you are moving back and forth further limited the time spent in the system the conflict is over.... further limiting the time to see other PP players. We also assume that there would be no instancing issues at all.
And that players do not need to search for haulers. Since all forting is inbound, and if the opposition are fortifying (looking on the fort tab) you take a holiday in capitals. Your targets come to you and must get past you to 'win' that situation.

So the likelihood of all that "action" you suggest would happen, is unlikely. So with some very rough estimates, it becomes evident, that your "vision" for dynamic conflicts is unlikely to happen.... as there are probably to few players in doing PP activities at the same time, spread over to many locations. And if other stats are anything to go by, PC platform is probably bigger, so in this regard, PC players are more likely to encounter other players in these conflicts, compared to two other platforms, which in turn then makes it even less likely for them to encounter other PP players...
So having these sorts of fights could never mathematically happen?


So quite alot of assumptions, to get some numbers, but I welcome any better sources putting more real numbers in here. But as you have already acknowledged the only ones having those figures are FDev, and they will most likely not disclose those...
So quite alot of assumptions, to get some numbers

Really? I couldn't have guessed :D
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
And who says it does not have any. I meant a lot of it cannot emerge because powerplay is not open mode exclusive.
All the dynamics Rubbernuke theorized above, the ones you might be subconsciously refusing to read.
The phrasing of the response seemed to suggest that all emergent content was stopped by the pan-modal implementation of features. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Yea, we may all do good to consider this. The resistance to changing PP to OO is unreal.

After all, these type of threads should be promoting discussion that could lead to some positive change. Unfortunately, they often turn to platforms where we are just trying to win an argument. I don't think it's possible for anyone to really win this OOPP argument. People are different, they have different points of view, and they enjoy gaming in different ways.

I wonder if FDEV would actually take another game mode into consideration; an Open Only with its own unique rules and identity? It seems like this is the only hope anyone has if they desire to fly their spaceships in the same galaxy as everyone else.
This resistance to changing PP to OO is mainly irrational slippery slope material.

There are genuine technical problems for certain: P2P reliability, block list implementation, and that some players would self exclude from Open Powerplay.

But the rest is quite a sound argument: taken together it would be the basis for repositioning Powerplay alongside the BGS so that more people are catered for, and make use of an unpopular feature very cheaply. The only other option is for Powerplay to be removed since 5C rule it, and its frankly little fun as it stands because its mathematically run its course (full galaxy, little to fight over bar pride).

Opposition here and elsewhere comes from players who don't play Powerplay, never will in any incarnation and oppose any change that they feel will impact them. Sandro said three times point blank this would be for Powerplay only, and yet people descended into emotional ranting and fist pounding saying FD will change it all and we are all doomed.

For the record, I want Open Powerplay but I don't want the rest of the game (BGS etc) to be open because its not suitable for it.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Sandro said three times point blank this would be for Powerplay only, and yet people descended into emotional ranting and fist pounding saying FD will change it all and we are all doomed.
Sandro's repeated statements did not quell the continued demands from those insisting "Powerplay first, BGS next".
For the record, I want Open Powerplay but I don't want the rest of the game (BGS etc) to be open because its not suitable for it.
I seem to remember at least some CGs being on your list at one point. Has that changed?
 
Indeed. However, at the beginning, Powerplay was implemented for all players....
It was, and that design failed. FD responded with the best proposal possible given the limitations.

Merely seeking the limits of the scope of the Open only proposal from the userbase.
Well for clarity, if the CG's premise benefits from that mode, why not? But thats not the issue here. Its all about Powerplay.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
It was, and that design failed. FD responded with the best proposal possible given the limitations.
So Frontier should stick to what they say only when it suits?
Well for clarity, if the CG's premise benefits from that mode, why not? But thats not the issue here. Its all about Powerplay.
Which could apply to pretty much all CGs (as some players like to oppose CGs using "direct action"). Got it.
 
So Frontier should stick to what they say only when it suits?
FD should do what is right for that feature now, and not be bound by the past. We have had years of data and results. We know what works and what does not, and how Powerplay sits with other advanced features.

Which could apply to pretty much all CGs (as some players like to oppose CGs using "direct action"). Got it.
Depends on your interpretation. The Titan X CG is a good example that is analogous to PP. You have an item that others want to stop you delivering. Can you do that in Solo or PG? Would it been as fun if it was a straight race in solo?
 
How would the yawning imbalance between powers play style be addresses in open only?

Some powers are combat bias. So a pvp ship would work well, at the same time as undertaking PP actions.

Some powers are entirely trade based, meaning a pvp ship would be sub optimal, and PP actions would be impacted.

For those advocating open only PP, how would you address this obvious imbalance?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
FD should do what is right for that feature now, and not be bound by the past. We have had years of data and results. We know what works and what does not, and how Powerplay sits with other advanced features.
We'll see which, of the proposals contained in the investigation announced in Sandro's first Flash Topic, Frontier put forward for implementation.
Depends on your interpretation. The Titan X CG is a good example that is analogous to PP. You have an item that others want to stop you delivering. Can you do that in Solo or PG? Would it been as fun if it was a straight race in solo?
You can certainly deliver it in Solo or PG. As to other players stopping the carrier, not so much. Shame that PvP-gating it excluded those who don't enjoy PvP. NPCs could have been used as opposition.

However, like the race to Elite that preceded it, it was not normal gameplay - which remains pan-modal with respect to CGs.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line, if FDev cares what the player base thinks on this issue, they should survey their player. If they don't care, then it's easiest for them to ignore the debate altogether, but that just means it's gonna keep surfacing.
 
How would the yawning imbalance between powers play style be addresses in open only?

Some powers are combat bias. So a pvp ship would work well, at the same time as undertaking PP actions.

Some powers are entirely trade based, meaning a pvp ship would be sub optimal, and PP actions would be impacted.

For those advocating open only PP, how would you address this obvious imbalance?
Thats an interesting question. Since its a design issue, one possible outcome would be (just like the inbound fort change) that some ethos is amended- but in practical terms I don't see that happening. You could also argue that the current setup favours the reverse.

Mahon is totally trade based (haul to do everything), but several other powers share the same ethos for expansion and fortifying (Winters and I think Aisling). I think Denton has a finance prep but I'd have to check.

While PvP ships are good at taking people down, they are not particularly well suited to UM work. PvP ships have high burst damage but low endurance with poor efficiency. Its a bit tedious trying to PA everything when a gimalled pulse will do it many times over and faster.

For those powers in expansions it would be an interesting thought exercise - since it would be gauntlet running with a need for some sort of prior interference as transports come in, whereas with combat powers they would need to be opposed inside the combat areas directly and then drop off is the closest friendly system (where damaged or exhausted ships are intercepted). Transport ships would need to be fast, so Cutter or Clipper. But for opposition you need to shoot down the PP NPCs in system to match that rate of delivery.

At any rate, no one usually attacks Mahon, and since you can see whos opposing you can swiftly fight back. Or get Winters to train you :D
 
We'll see which, of the proposals contained in the investigation announced in Sandro's first Flash Topic, Frontier put forward for implementation.
Any improvement is a move in the right direction.

You can certainly deliver it in Solo or PG. As to other players stopping the carrier, not so much. Shame that PvP-gating it excluded those who don't enjoy PvP. NPCs could have been used as opposition.

However, like the race to Elite that preceded it, it was not normal gameplay - which remains pan-modal with respect to CGs.
But no NPC can be as dynamic and unpredictable as a player though.
 
Top Bottom