PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

Going over this thread, almost a month old now. It seems that any alternative idea to the present state is shot down, so it's a bit pointless carrying on any conversation about it.

It's not as if Fdev are going to do anything about it anyway.
FD know enough by now to actually implement something- they just need to actually do it now.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
And from 'inside' Powerplay quite a lot of people can see the design does not work, and each week see more bits of the ceiling fall down. Its not baggage if that tenet has made a part of ED dull and is quite frankly being used as rope to hang any progress.
That players who bought a game that does not support their preferred play-style (i.e. others can participate in game features without requiring to play with them) consider that the lack of required PvP causes a feature of the game to be "dull" is, perhaps, totally unsurprising.
But it does have an effect in the game though- until that changes you can't deny it just as Powerplay has effects that some have over others.
I'll agree that CQC/Arena is all but inconsequential in terms of the game.
If its a fair distribution of things to do, whats the harm?

Again, if its a fair division, and that it makes PP more popular for the least amount of work, whats the problem? Everyone gets a slice of something rather than trying to stretch something that does not work over 3 modes.
What's the definition of "fair" in the context of a pan-modal game feature that forms part of the base game that everyone bought, with no requirement to engage in PvP when participating in game features?

The harm could be what players in general think about Frontier making such a change, contrary to previous statements regarding the three game modes being equally valid ways to play the game. Once done that could not be undone, even if the change were reverted.
Of that, do we know how many play in Open and are active in Powerplay? Saying the majority don't get involved in PvP is meaningless because you are not defining what PvP is, or what it is within Powerplay.
We don't - just as we don't know how many players engage in Powerplay in Solo and Private Groups. I'd suggest that the Dev who indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP used a definition of the term used by Frontier.
PP is not a mainstream feature of ED, or is played by a significant majority so how does that relate to anything? Since we don't know or have specifics this sort of statement is futile guesswork.
It relates in that Frontier will have an idea, from their own game metrics, how many players they might be shutting out of the feature should they choose to gate it behind a hostile PvP barrier in Open.
 
Maybe FDev needs to rewrite PP in such a way that it's like conscripting, or signing up in the militia.

Sure, you don't expect to get paid much, but what they can do is to
- Cover 80 to 90% of your rebuy in any PP missions, or maybe while you're still signed on to the power

- Give the player the choice of using his own ship, or a choice of 2/3 ships provided by the power, for the mission.
This gives players opportunities to fly ships that are not accessible to them... just for that one mission.
It could be a ranked locked ship. You don't need to pay rebuy if you get blown up. Maybe lose prestige or rep with the power.


Incentives. After all, WHY fly for a power if it doesn't pay you well in the first place, while still exposing you to risk?
 
Considering weather something is 'fit for purpose', is often dependent, on what an individual thinks that purpose is. In other words, it is a personal thing.

Robert, has answered this over the last 70 pages or so.

We all agree: That P/P needs improvements, to become more popular.
PvP would need much more than “improvements” to make it popular. It’s just not the purpose of the game, and that is the main reason it will remain as popular as it is. It’s just not why X% of the player base does not play PvP.
 
That players who bought a game that does not support their preferred play-style (i.e. others can participate in game features without requiring to play with them) consider that the lack of required PvP causes a feature of the game to be "dull" is, perhaps, totally unsurprising.
I play in all modes, but I realize from years of playing Powerplay Solo does not work, and from swapping to playing Open in PP its much better. Its why I'm here explaining at great length trying to illustrate that.

I'll agree that CQC/Arena is all but inconsequential in terms of the game.
Inconsequential but still part of it, and linked to the main game with effects.

What's the definition of "fair" in the context of a pan-modal game feature that forms part of the base game that everyone bought, with no requirement to engage in PvP when participating in game features?
Because multimode Powerplay is pointless and holds no challenge or variety, hence why so few play it at any serious level. You split things so that each part suits the modes- we know the BGS works in all modes and has a lot of polish, so make things that play to that strength- i.e. missions, free form BGS work that have a non competitive (but essential logistical element). For the hauling and shooting we have Open, where people can have a direct influence on each other. Its great for FD because all of this exists. Is that not fair?

The harm could be what players in general think about Frontier making such a change, contrary to previous statements regarding the three game modes being equally valid ways to play the game. Once done that could not be undone, even if the change were reverted.
So this is not about PP at all then? Its just another way of saying nothing can change. FD won't spend time on it, and people like you who don't actually play it think changing Powerplay to Open (or parts of it) is like kicking a puppy so the people who do play it are stuck in limbo.

We don't - just as we don't know how many players engage in Powerplay in Solo and Private Groups. I'd suggest that the Dev who indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP used a definition of the term used by Frontier.

It relates in that Frontier will have an idea, from their own game metrics, how many players they might be shutting out of the feature should they choose to gate it behind a hostile PvP barrier in Open.
And from every proposal FD have suggested changes into Open, or weighted merits- without exception. Why is that? Is it because they have information we don't? Is it because PP is so down its worth the gamble? When FD talk about multimodes they never mention Powerplay at all- have they forgotten about it, or what?
 
Last edited:
Maybe FDev needs to rewrite PP in such a way that it's like conscripting, or signing up in the militia.

Sure, you don't expect to get paid much, but what they can do is to
- Cover 80 to 90% of your rebuy in any PP missions, or maybe while you're still signed on to the power

- Give the player the choice of using his own ship, or a choice of 2/3 ships provided by the power, for the mission.
This gives players opportunities to fly ships that are not accessible to them... just for that one mission.
It could be a ranked locked ship. You don't need to pay rebuy if you get blown up. Maybe lose prestige or rep with the power.


Incentives. After all, WHY fly for a power if it doesn't pay you well in the first place, while still exposing you to risk?
An idea I had a while ago was that merits acted as a shadow currency, allowing you to 'buy' rebuys with them at a knock down cost (as well as purchase materials, perks etc).
 
PvP would need much more than “improvements” to make it popular. It’s just not the purpose of the game, and that is the main reason it will remain as popular as it is. It’s just not why X% of the player base does not play PvP.
Hold it. I was talking about power play, not PvP. Yes I agree, PvP has its own issues and lots of room for improvement.

Power play is a time consuming grind and causes a player issues, when taking time out to do other things in the game.

Yes: There are ways to reduce the grind aspects of P/P; as with knowledge of the dark arts, of playing many different parts of this game.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I play in all modes, but I realize from years of playing Powerplay Solo does not work, and from swapping to playing Open in PP its much better.
In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.
Its why I'm here explaining at great length trying to illustrate that.
Indeed.
Inconsequential but still part of it, and linked to the main game with effects.
Indeed - it's inconsequential in terms of the game even if it has near negligible effects.
Because multimode Powerplay is pointless and holds no challenge or variety, hence why so few play it at any serious level. You split things so that each part suits the modes- we know the BGS works in all modes and has a lot of polish, so make things that play to that strength- i.e. missions, free form BGS work that have a non competitive (but essential logistical element). For the hauling and shooting we have Open, where people can have a direct influence on each other. Its great for FD because all of this exists. Is that not fair?
What is "fair" about taking content away from players who don't enjoy PvP to attempt (with no guarantee of success) to satisfy the subset of the subset of players who like PvP and engage in Powerplay?
So this is not about PP at all then? Its just another way of saying nothing can change. FD won't spend time on it, and people like you who don't actually play it think changing Powerplay to Open is like kicking a puppy so the people who do play it are stuck in limbo.
Not that nothing can change, no. Just that some changes are so fundamental that making them may have more far reaching consequences than the change itself.

As to not playing it - that's not a strictly accurate statement - my main CMDR will be purchasing some Prismatic Shields this week. ;)
And from every proposal FD have suggested changes into Open, or weighted merits- without exception. Why is that? Is it because they have information we don't? Is it because PP is so down its worth the gamble? When FD talk about multimodes they never mention Powerplay at all- have they forgotten about it, or what?
Who knows what Frontier's candid opinion of Powerplay is. We know that they have proposed changing it twice. We know that the first proposal did not go ahead. We know that Sandro tried again with the Flash Topics. We know that the proposed changes did not meet with universal approval among the player-base. We know that Sandro left the project. We know that Will has indicated that Frontier are considering some of the proposals contained in Sandro's first Flash Topic.

We don't know what the result of Frontier's investigation initiated in the Flash Topics is. We don't know if Frontier are prepared to make Powerplay Open only. We don't know if they are prepared to gamble with the player-base.
 
In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.
Very true, except mine are based on years of engagement.

Indeed - it's inconsequential in terms of the game even if it has near negligible effects.
But it does have them? A lot of PP bonuses are inconsequential to the point people forget about them too.

What is "fair" about taking content away from players who don't enjoy PvP to attempt (with no guarantee of success) to satisfy the subset of the subset of players who like PvP and engage in Powerplay?
The content you are taking away: hauling from A to B continuously, and shooting continuously. What do you gain? PP themed missions, freeform BGS, tech broker based modules. You keep the merits (since you are still earning them for ranks) and you keep the perks as they are. Thats pretty fair to me. The unending grind of hauling and shooting then gets uncertain via Open.

Not that nothing can change, no. Just that some changes are so fundamental that making them may have more far reaching consequences than the change itself.
Its a shame FD can't poll everyone about it because its holding Powerplay hostage.

As to not playing it - that's not a strictly accurate statement - my main CMDR will be purchasing some Prismatic Shields this week. ;)
But you are not engaging with it. You are not helping AD at all week after week. Module shopping is just that- shopping. A massacre mission involves more work.

Who knows what Frontier's candid opinion of Powerplay is. We know that they have proposed changing it twice. We know that the first proposal did not go ahead. We know that Sandro tried again with the Flash Topics. We know that the proposed changes did not meet with universal approval among the player-base. We know that Sandro left the project. We know that Will has indicated that Frontier are considering some of the proposals contained in Sandro's first Flash Topic.

We don't know what the result of Frontier's investigation initiated in the Flash Topics is. We don't know if Frontier are prepared to make Powerplay Open only. We don't know if they are prepared to gamble with the player-base.
Thats the problem: FD won't say anything about it, even though 11 self organised groups play it, generate content for it every week year on year and want an answer. Even if its removal, at least its closure.
 
Hold it. I was talking about power play, not PvP. Yes I agree, PvP has its own issues and lots of room for improvement.

Power play is a time consuming grind and causes a player issues, when taking time out to do other things in the game.

Yes: There are ways to reduce the grind aspects of P/P; as with knowledge of the dark arts, of playing many different parts of this game.
You hold it, I was quoting dxm55.:)

And the exact same thing can, and had, many times, been and be said for every single occupation in the game. Given that Grind is in the Mind, it’s quite easy for a disciplined mind to overcome.
 
If everyone agrees that Power Play needs changing to get more people involved, the way I see it, one of the following options needs to considered ;-
  1. Power-Play goes open only as per Sandro's proposal. Effectively making players risk open PvP if they want their power and the personal goals to advance. Put the Power modules behind a Tech Broker and remove the trade bonuses to balance it for people who can't make it into Open Mode.
  2. Power-Play Background Simulation only counts Command Credit if it has been earned in open. Effectively allowing player to advance their personal goals (i.e trade bonus and Power Modules) but the only way to advance the Power is to play in open.
  3. Power-Play pvt and solo mode's AI and interdiction occurrences are increased by a large amount, making it just as hazardous as open. Effectively making Pvt and Solo Players work for their merits, hopefully cutting down on Bots and reducing Min/Maxing Cargo Ships.
  4. Power-Play has 'weighted' Command Credit. This says that merits and Command Credit earned in open are worth a lot more than those generated in solo and Pvt, with the appropriate knock on effect.
The alternative to that is a full redesign of what Power Play is (which I don't see FDev doing) or leave it as is, which isn't what people want.
 
If everyone agrees that Power Play needs changing to get more people involved, the way I see it, one of the following options needs to considered ;-
  1. Power-Play goes open only as per Sandro's proposal. Effectively making players risk open PvP if they want their power and the personal goals to advance. Put the Power modules behind a Tech Broker and remove the trade bonuses to balance it for people who can't make it into Open Mode.
  2. Power-Play Background Simulation only counts Command Credit if it has been earned in open. Effectively allowing player to advance their personal goals (i.e trade bonus and Power Modules) but the only way to advance the Power is to play in open.
  3. Power-Play pvt and solo mode's AI and interdiction occurrences are increased by a large amount, making it just as hazardous as open. Effectively making Pvt and Solo Players work for their merits, hopefully cutting down on Bots and reducing Min/Maxing Cargo Ships.
  4. Power-Play has 'weighted' Command Credit. This says that merits and Command Credit earned in open are worth a lot more than those generated in solo and Pvt, with the appropriate knock on effect.
The alternative to that is a full redesign of what Power Play is (which I don't see FDev doing) or leave it as is, which isn't what people want.
5. Remove Power Play Entirely.

If Billy and Bobby keep beating each other up over one toy in the sandbox, you take away the offending toy and watch them both throw tantrums at deaf ears as you make them both watch it go into the refuse bin. When they’re exhausted from crying they will find a new way to entertain themselves.

It seems I have no other option but to rewrite my proposal for an overhaul of power play, in all its glorious details. It will be the same proposal I made after suggesting Sandro take a vacation to Bedlam after that terrible idea that sparked all this nonsense. Stay Tuned: Great Wall if Text incoming.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Very true, except mine are based on years of engagement.
.... and others already know that they don't enjoy PvP - and Powerplay is not a feature that requires it. Their opinions are no less valid.
But it does have them? A lot of PP bonuses are inconsequential to the point people forget about them too.
In the simplest possible sense, yes it does have them, as small as they may be.
The content you are taking away: hauling from A to B continuously, and shooting continuously. What do you gain? PP themed missions, freeform BGS, tech broker based modules. You keep the merits (since you are still earning them for ranks) and you keep the perks as they are. Thats pretty fair to me. The unending grind of hauling and shooting then gets uncertain via Open.
It may seem fair from the perspective of one whose merits would count towards the outcome - not so much for those whose merits would be deemed either wirth less or worthless.
Its a shame FD can't poll everyone about it because its holding Powerplay hostage.
Frontier choose what they poll the player-base on - I expect the optional nature of PvP in general in the game and specifically in relation to Powerplay is not a topic that they would create a poll for.
But you are not engaging with it. You are not helping AD at all week after week. Module shopping is just that- shopping. A massacre mission involves more work.
It's up to each player to determine their level of engagement in any game feature. It's a game, not a job....
Thats the problem: FD won't say anything about it, even though 11 self organised groups play it, generate content for it every week year on year and want an answer. Even if its removal, at least its closure.
Wanting something, even if it is under consideration, is not the same as getting something. As Sandro said in the Flash Topic:
Folk can demand whatever they wish, but we are only considering Open only for Powerplay, as we feel it may be uniquely suited to supporting the feature.

In addition, this is far from a done deal, and we're acutely aware of the importance of such a change, which is why we want to get feedback from the user base before committing to anything.
 
As promised (threatened), all are now obligated to read:

Power Play is in need of an overhaul. Here is my proposal to overhaul it:

1. Participation

The way we participate in Power Play, the basis and meaning of it, lies at the foundation of an overhaul, and should be changed as follows:

To begin on the path to Power Play, we first need to understand what it is we are doing. By pledging to support a particular Power, we are embracing the ideals and values of that power. Currently we simply pick a face and pledge fealty to that face. This is rubbish. To join Power Play under this revised system, you will first need to pick a particular faction that is aligned to that Power, and put in some work to demonstrate to those higher up the ladder that you do, indeed, embrace their values and ideals. This means working yourself up to Allied status with that faction. Once you have achieved Allied status, you then receive a Mission to pledge to continue to support that Power. This gives you a vested interest in seeing that Power prosper. This mission is simple: You accept the invitation, fly to that Power’s Capital system, and are then pledged to that Power. This replaces the current Pick a Face and Pledge mechanism.

The logic of it: By doing this, you are demonstrating that you actually want to be a part of this power. That you adhere to their values and ideals. You are proving yourself a loyal minion. At least, you’re going through the motions of demonstrating yourself as a loyal minion. After all, what Government or Corporate Entity would take in just any random person who says “Sure, I’ll support you.” This is an invitation to disaster and makes no sense whatsoever.

2. Supporting Your Power

This already takes a number of forms, be it hauling Power-specific commodities to maintain a Power’s influence in systems they already control, or hauling subversive materials to prospective new systems to prepare them for takeover. This can also include the wholesale slaughter of other players or NPC’s to enforce a Power’s hold, or prevent others from destabilizing a system. There are a vast number of other mechanics that can be added to this as well, to create diversity, enhance the fun factors, as well as give people other means to support their chosen power. Let’s look at this a little closer:

Your Power abhors slavery. You can support this power by hauling anti-slavery propaganda to another system. This campaign makes people start to go “You know, maybe they’re right, and slavery is bad.”, which primes that system for a takeover. However… it’s words, lacking any action. It could be enhanced by Power-Specific Missions, such as “Free Slaves from Somestation”, which would entail picking up a cargo-load of Mission Slaves, to deliver to a location in a “Free” system, where those slaves could be released from servitude. Think “Underground Railroad” here. This same type of mission could also be run by NPC’s, and as such, those NPC’s (along with Players engaging in this particular mission type) would be valid targets for operatives of the controlling Power, and offered as counter-missions (Stop Abolitionist Transports).

3. Points and Values

As it stands, we currently receive special Power-specific vouchers for opposing Power ships destroyed. A slight modification here would improve this aspect of Power Play greatly. Let’s just throw out some arbitrary numbers so we have something we can talk about here. If you destroy a ship of an opposing Power, you get 1 point. This corresponds to the current voucher value we get now. Now, let’s up those stakes. Under this new proposal, if you destroy an opposing power NPC ship, you get 1 point. If you destroy an opposing Power Player Ship, you get 2 points. If you are the Player of the Opposing Power who’s ship is destroyed, you LOSE two points. If you are destroyed BY a player of an Opposing Power, you also LOSE two points, and the other player GAINS two points. Everyone has good cause to stay alive now. Let’s sharpen this edge a bit more: if you are engaged in combat with a ship of an Opposing Power, and you disconnect, either by your action, or because you’ve opted to Power Play with Can-and-String Net, You LOSE two points, just as if you were destroyed. Now you have a real reason not to Combat Log – it will be held against you. You also have a good reason to make sure you’re connection is stable – it will be held against you.

These points and values are why we engage in Power Play related combat – either because we’re blowing up System Authority Ships or other Players to destabilize a system, or because we’re defending our own systems against the same. This proposed change will allow us to continue to do this, as well as give meaning to both PvP and PvE engagements, with all the same sort of benefits, plus a little more for the PvP side of the equation, which encourages play in Open, but also encourages the same play in Private Groups, and by including NPC targets in this, it also ensures Solo players can engage in a meaningful experience as well. Cross-modal play is maintained. Yes, there is a benefit for Human on Human play – but it is not mandatory or exclusive.

4. Defection

Modular tourists do it all the time, but there also comes a time where our own perceptions and values can change. You want something new, or the Kool-Aid has worn off, and you no longer see your old Power as The Place You Want to Be. You want to defect, and take half your current Merits with you, just as you do now. But it requires a bit more. You have to prove yourself to someone else. You have to prove you want nothing more to do with your old “friends”. You may even be called on to Kill Them to prove your loyalties have changed. This means reaching Allied status with a new faction aligned to the Power you are seeking to defect to, and undertaking missions to prove yourself. This might mean it takes a bit longer, and your merits may drop a bit more (perhaps your were a 5-merit when you wanted to leave, and were happy knowing you’d be a 2.5 merit when you switched, but now, it might take you longer and you might only be a 1-merit when you defect). This also makes sense. If Vladimir Putin’s most Trusted Advisor decided he’s had enough of Vladimir and came to your country’s Leaders and said “I want to work for you, I’ve had enough of them.”, do you really think they’d wrap open arms around him and say “Sure, come right in, here’s a Top Secret clearance for you.”? Same thing here. See #1 above. This also affords time for your old “friends” to perhaps change your mind. You are, after all, betraying your oath to them, and they may not take so kindly to that.

5. Get Out Of Here, You [insert appropriate slur] Scum! Aka Politics and Diplomacy

Right now, the only time stations of Opposing Powers are ill-disposed to you is if you’re carrying Power Vouchers. This is fine, to a point. There should come a point, however, where you are recognized for your actions, and Opposing Power stations should turn you away, denying docking. This would have an impact on both any botting, real or imagined, as these automated craft would be prohibited from delivering their propaganda endlessly. It would also introduce a measure of realism. The US would not welcome North Korea’s Secretary of Anti-Western Propaganda to simply wander the streets here. Why would also Power-Aligned station do the same? By limiting the number of times in a given time-span, the same ship can deliver the same materials to the same station, we introduce both a measure of realism as well as a measure of security. It also doesn’t make sense to win over influence of an entire system if only one of, let’s say, seven stations in that system is subject to such a campaign. What the threshold is before a Commander is turned away should be a variable range, say +/- 10%, as this will make it much harder to write any automation to do, and stop existing automation, when a request is denied, but the ship continues on and is reduced to rebuy ash.

That leaves the other avenue of Diplomacy we do not have – Forging Alliances. As it happens now, we do see a rating for Powers – Hostile, Neutral and Friendly, but we don’t have any real bearing on this. This opens up a whole new avenue of Power Play potential, by creating missions to allow us to forge these sorts of bonds. There would be a great deal of work to be done to make this a satisfying experience, as well as something that would span beyond just a single Power Play cycle – it could and should take several cycles to bring a Hostile Power to Neutral, or make a Neutral Power Friendly. It would require coordination between the players especially, and would not, and should not, be applicable to all Powers. Powers whose core values are diametrically opposed should never reach a Friendly status. Neutral would be as far as they get. What’s the purpose of this? For one, it would be far easier to win influence in a system of a Neutral Power than that of a Hostile one, if a Power is looking to expand into someone else’s territory. Of course, this same action could also lead to the degermation of those relations, making a Neutral Power turn Hostile. This is where things like Votes start to take on a new meaning. A vote might be held to Concede a territory to another Power, or exchange control of territories to benefit both Powers. Again, this would require a great deal of work, but would make the whole experience much more meaningful overall. It would also make the Galaxy feel more alive, and give the players more involvement with the overall shape of the galaxy – which is, at the end of the day, what Power Play should have always been about in the first place.

Commentary Welcomed – Please Discuss!
 
.... and others already know that they don't enjoy PvP - and Powerplay is not a feature that requires it. Their opinions are no less valid.
And yet it seems those who don't have a working knowledge of the feature get an equal say over the efficacy of proposed changes? Since its not a total rewrite its based on what we have currently.

In the simplest possible sense, yes it does have them, as small as they may be.
Which means to a lesser degree part of the BGS is gated behind Open already.

It may seem fair from the perspective of one whose merits would count towards the outcome - not so much for those whose merits would be deemed either wirth less or worthless.
But they would not be worthless. Take my idea for example- solo players (via missions) ensuring all Open players have the maximum allocation size (which means faster fortifying / preparation). Thats a big role, and a logical one. The BGS is another. Personal merits would still be the same value- its just each mode has a job to do in that mode. To me at least having that supporting role is fair- one that does not involve player combat, is not tied to modes, can be done at will, has more variety...its a perfect fit.

Frontier choose what they poll the player-base on - I expect the optional nature of PvP in general in the game and specifically in relation to Powerplay is not a topic that they would create a poll for.
The poll would not ask about PvP- it would be asking if certain modes should be for certain features or not.

It's up to each player to determine their level of engagement in any game feature. It's a game, not a job....
But to actually make a power 'work' it requires more than 750 merits in one month.

Wanting something, even if it is under consideration, is not the same as getting something. As Sandro said in the Flash Topic:
Not correct. FD owe it to those groups to give an answer, and to the people who keep it going.
 
As promised (threatened), all are now obligated to read:

Power Play is in need of an overhaul. Here is my proposal to overhaul it:

1. Participation

The way we participate in Power Play, the basis and meaning of it, lies at the foundation of an overhaul, and should be changed as follows:

To begin on the path to Power Play, we first need to understand what it is we are doing. By pledging to support a particular Power, we are embracing the ideals and values of that power. Currently we simply pick a face and pledge fealty to that face. This is rubbish. To join Power Play under this revised system, you will first need to pick a particular faction that is aligned to that Power, and put in some work to demonstrate to those higher up the ladder that you do, indeed, embrace their values and ideals. This means working yourself up to Allied status with that faction. Once you have achieved Allied status, you then receive a Mission to pledge to continue to support that Power. This gives you a vested interest in seeing that Power prosper. This mission is simple: You accept the invitation, fly to that Power’s Capital system, and are then pledged to that Power. This replaces the current Pick a Face and Pledge mechanism.

The logic of it: By doing this, you are demonstrating that you actually want to be a part of this power. That you adhere to their values and ideals. You are proving yourself a loyal minion. At least, you’re going through the motions of demonstrating yourself as a loyal minion. After all, what Government or Corporate Entity would take in just any random person who says “Sure, I’ll support you.” This is an invitation to disaster and makes no sense whatsoever.

2. Supporting Your Power

This already takes a number of forms, be it hauling Power-specific commodities to maintain a Power’s influence in systems they already control, or hauling subversive materials to prospective new systems to prepare them for takeover. This can also include the wholesale slaughter of other players or NPC’s to enforce a Power’s hold, or prevent others from destabilizing a system. There are a vast number of other mechanics that can be added to this as well, to create diversity, enhance the fun factors, as well as give people other means to support their chosen power. Let’s look at this a little closer:

Your Power abhors slavery. You can support this power by hauling anti-slavery propaganda to another system. This campaign makes people start to go “You know, maybe they’re right, and slavery is bad.”, which primes that system for a takeover. However… it’s words, lacking any action. It could be enhanced by Power-Specific Missions, such as “Free Slaves from Somestation”, which would entail picking up a cargo-load of Mission Slaves, to deliver to a location in a “Free” system, where those slaves could be released from servitude. Think “Underground Railroad” here. This same type of mission could also be run by NPC’s, and as such, those NPC’s (along with Players engaging in this particular mission type) would be valid targets for operatives of the controlling Power, and offered as counter-missions (Stop Abolitionist Transports).

3. Points and Values

As it stands, we currently receive special Power-specific vouchers for opposing Power ships destroyed. A slight modification here would improve this aspect of Power Play greatly. Let’s just throw out some arbitrary numbers so we have something we can talk about here. If you destroy a ship of an opposing Power, you get 1 point. This corresponds to the current voucher value we get now. Now, let’s up those stakes. Under this new proposal, if you destroy an opposing power NPC ship, you get 1 point. If you destroy an opposing Power Player Ship, you get 2 points. If you are the Player of the Opposing Power who’s ship is destroyed, you LOSE two points. If you are destroyed BY a player of an Opposing Power, you also LOSE two points, and the other player GAINS two points. Everyone has good cause to stay alive now. Let’s sharpen this edge a bit more: if you are engaged in combat with a ship of an Opposing Power, and you disconnect, either by your action, or because you’ve opted to Power Play with Can-and-String Net, You LOSE two points, just as if you were destroyed. Now you have a real reason not to Combat Log – it will be held against you. You also have a good reason to make sure you’re connection is stable – it will be held against you.

These points and values are why we engage in Power Play related combat – either because we’re blowing up System Authority Ships or other Players to destabilize a system, or because we’re defending our own systems against the same. This proposed change will allow us to continue to do this, as well as give meaning to both PvP and PvE engagements, with all the same sort of benefits, plus a little more for the PvP side of the equation, which encourages play in Open, but also encourages the same play in Private Groups, and by including NPC targets in this, it also ensures Solo players can engage in a meaningful experience as well. Cross-modal play is maintained. Yes, there is a benefit for Human on Human play – but it is not mandatory or exclusive.

4. Defection

Modular tourists do it all the time, but there also comes a time where our own perceptions and values can change. You want something new, or the Kool-Aid has worn off, and you no longer see your old Power as The Place You Want to Be. You want to defect, and take half your current Merits with you, just as you do now. But it requires a bit more. You have to prove yourself to someone else. You have to prove you want nothing more to do with your old “friends”. You may even be called on to Kill Them to prove your loyalties have changed. This means reaching Allied status with a new faction aligned to the Power you are seeking to defect to, and undertaking missions to prove yourself. This might mean it takes a bit longer, and your merits may drop a bit more (perhaps your were a 5-merit when you wanted to leave, and were happy knowing you’d be a 2.5 merit when you switched, but now, it might take you longer and you might only be a 1-merit when you defect). This also makes sense. If Vladimir Putin’s most Trusted Advisor decided he’s had enough of Vladimir and came to your country’s Leaders and said “I want to work for you, I’ve had enough of them.”, do you really think they’d wrap open arms around him and say “Sure, come right in, here’s a Top Secret clearance for you.”? Same thing here. See #1 above. This also affords time for your old “friends” to perhaps change your mind. You are, after all, betraying your oath to them, and they may not take so kindly to that.

5. Get Out Of Here, You [insert appropriate slur] Scum! Aka Politics and Diplomacy

Right now, the only time stations of Opposing Powers are ill-disposed to you is if you’re carrying Power Vouchers. This is fine, to a point. There should come a point, however, where you are recognized for your actions, and Opposing Power stations should turn you away, denying docking. This would have an impact on both any botting, real or imagined, as these automated craft would be prohibited from delivering their propaganda endlessly. It would also introduce a measure of realism. The US would not welcome North Korea’s Secretary of Anti-Western Propaganda to simply wander the streets here. Why would also Power-Aligned station do the same? By limiting the number of times in a given time-span, the same ship can deliver the same materials to the same station, we introduce both a measure of realism as well as a measure of security. It also doesn’t make sense to win over influence of an entire system if only one of, let’s say, seven stations in that system is subject to such a campaign. What the threshold is before a Commander is turned away should be a variable range, say +/- 10%, as this will make it much harder to write any automation to do, and stop existing automation, when a request is denied, but the ship continues on and is reduced to rebuy ash.

That leaves the other avenue of Diplomacy we do not have – Forging Alliances. As it happens now, we do see a rating for Powers – Hostile, Neutral and Friendly, but we don’t have any real bearing on this. This opens up a whole new avenue of Power Play potential, by creating missions to allow us to forge these sorts of bonds. There would be a great deal of work to be done to make this a satisfying experience, as well as something that would span beyond just a single Power Play cycle – it could and should take several cycles to bring a Hostile Power to Neutral, or make a Neutral Power Friendly. It would require coordination between the players especially, and would not, and should not, be applicable to all Powers. Powers whose core values are diametrically opposed should never reach a Friendly status. Neutral would be as far as they get. What’s the purpose of this? For one, it would be far easier to win influence in a system of a Neutral Power than that of a Hostile one, if a Power is looking to expand into someone else’s territory. Of course, this same action could also lead to the degermation of those relations, making a Neutral Power turn Hostile. This is where things like Votes start to take on a new meaning. A vote might be held to Concede a territory to another Power, or exchange control of territories to benefit both Powers. Again, this would require a great deal of work, but would make the whole experience much more meaningful overall. It would also make the Galaxy feel more alive, and give the players more involvement with the overall shape of the galaxy – which is, at the end of the day, what Power Play should have always been about in the first place.

Commentary Welcomed – Please Discuss!
If FD in the end feel a reboot can be done and justified, this sounds a nice idea. My only reservation is with voting- anything that has votes can be 5Ced.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
And yet it seems those who don't have a working knowledge of the feature get an equal say over the efficacy of proposed changes? Since its not a total rewrite its based on what we have currently.
We all bought a say when we bought the game, especially regarding retrospective PvP-gating of a feature that was implemented pan-modally and forms part of the base game. Unless some players assume that they are more equal than others?
Which means to a lesser degree part of the BGS is gated behind Open already.
Not Open, no. Gated behind a completely ignorable out-of-game PvP-only feature with no consequence for loss - it's essentially a demonstration of persistence.
But they would not be worthless. Take my idea for example- solo players (via missions) ensuring all Open players have the maximum allocation size (which means faster fortifying / preparation). Thats a big role, and a logical one. The BGS is another. Personal merits would still be the same value- its just each mode has a job to do in that mode. To me at least having that supporting role is fair- one that does not involve player combat, is not tied to modes, can be done at will, has more variety...its a perfect fit.
Support, as in lesser. Not a meeting of equals. Hence not "fair".
The poll would not ask about PvP- it would be asking if certain modes should be for certain features or not.
Which is functionally equivalent to "should [insert feature here] be PvP-gated" although worded in a way to seem to be less contentious.
But to actually make a power 'work' it requires more than 750 merits in one month.
Indeed - and a Power is not reliant on the efforts of a single player.
Not correct. FD owe it to those groups to give an answer, and to the people who keep it going.
We'll see what the response is, in time.
 
If FD in the end feel a reboot can be done and justified, this sounds a nice idea. My only reservation is with voting- anything that has votes can be 5Ced.
I don’t disagree, and in fact, this should NOT be discouraged by mechanics. This is a very real function of political systems, also called Espionage, and it only serves to enhance the experience. After all, look at the number of dead people who vote every year....
 
We all bought a say when we bought the game, especially regarding retrospective PvP-gating of a feature that was implemented pan-modally and forms part of the base game. Unless some players assume that they are more equal than others?
Informed opinions based on hard-earned experience in the subject matter have more credence than ignorant opinions. If you wish, you can judge the worth of individuals for whatever reason, but it is a meaningless irrelevance.
Support, as in lesser. Not a meeting of equals. Hence not "fair".
When im supporting my partner when she's in need, do I feel lessened by it? No. im enhanced if anything. Its a meeting of equals. It's fair. When im flying top-cover for an explorer bringing valuable data back to buff our BGS, im supporting them. I'm the expendable one. It's the one carrying the valuable cargo of whatever sort which is the important one that matters, theyre the sole reason im there in the first place. Do I feel lessened by this? is it not fair? No, not in the least, Theyre both important roles & each value the other. The same would apply to the BGS work done in control systems. These players would be ensuring those hauling merits in Open would have to haul half the total required to fortify otherwise. This makes them a vital link in the chain. Hopefully you can well understand why saving 7 or 8 long trips in a fully-loaded cutter or t9, for every system to be fortified, is something to be highly valued & appreciated by every participant for a Power. Its not lesser, or unfair, it creates a fair balance between the modes so they all have a place. Unless you believe some modes are more equal than others, which is the sorry situation we have at present.
Which is functionally equivalent to "should [insert feature here] be PvP-gated" although worded in a way to seem to be less contentious.
'PvP-gated' is your own construction, intended to be contentious, surely & which does not reflect a feature where those wishing to avoid PvP for whatever circumstantial reasons, succeed by escaping. PvP-gating suggests a requirement to fight directly and gain advancement only by winning at fighting. This is not what is being requested. OpenOnly calls for acting with consideration for the potential of PvP, and to act at a tactical and strategic level to mitigate, or maximise it, because PvP is undesirable in the hauling capacity. I wont say the 'haulage ROLE', because while I haul a lot of Powerplay & BGS cargo myself, & I know many other players in my power who haul, I dont know any who ONLY haul, and could be said to fit a 'haulage role'. They all fly combat & other roles too. Once you have your 10000 merits for the week secured, along with your 50million wage for rank5, youre better off doing activities to help others get theirs.

I don’t disagree, and in fact, this should NOT be discouraged by mechanics. This is a very real function of political systems, also called Espionage, and it only serves to enhance the experience. After all, look at the number of dead people who vote every year....
5c & collusion exploits are very likely to be overpowered if the mechanics are not heavily weighted against their effectiveness. Left to a natural balance, it's much easier to destroy something through bad choices (5c) than it is to build it up , and much easier to complete many easy wins (collusion) than the same number of contested ones.

It is this collusion aspect that precludes any significant merit value being directly attached to PvP. (collusion here meaning pledging to the opposing power, and dying repeatedly on purpose to score easy points for the other power you really support.)

I think the heavily-weighted voting system suggested in the Powerplay Flash Topic that reflected the value of a given expansion or system to be shedded, based on their profitability & therefore worth to the power, would be the measure needed to resolve the problem of overpowered 5c that currently plagues Powerplay.
 
Top Bottom