PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[Rubbernuke]

I do not disagree that Power Play is flawed, from the ground up, and in need of an overhaul that dwarfs Exploration and Engineering combined. That’s what I was aiming for with my proposal.

I don’t think it fair to say it’s been abandoned though. Elite is far from “complete”, but there is only so much that can be worked on at one time. I feel fairly confident Frontier wants to give Power Play the attention it deserves as well, when it is appropriate. Since we’re not privy to their thought processes or plans, we can’t but speculate when this will be or what it will entail, though I feel pretty certain whatever changes are made, it will not be exactly what either of us envision, but hopefully at least it will be something we can both agree is a vast improvement.

My thoughts on Space Politics could well be summarized by watching Dark Matter on Netflix. I happen to like a lot more intrigue and string-pulling from behind the behind the scenes than Rebellion vs. Empire pew-fest. Not that there isn’t a time and place for blowing things up, just that it should be the last option, not the first (or only).

But there are ways of being a spy that don't involve the other side having to spend millions in pointless hauling- I hope FD realize that after the mess they made with PP so far. All my arguments are about the gameplay that is in Sandros proposal, but I'm not against FD doing something totally different. My main concern is that unlike engineering or exploration, Powerplay is about teams and player groups that FD have simply ignored. If FD keep on stalling, these groups will simply melt away which to me is a great shame.

 

[sandkid]

But you have to play the BGS to make it work. Missions have to be completed, murder done, BH undertaken. You actually have to do something. If more people do that then its fair because you are being opposed by opposite actions. You can't AFK bot a new CZ, you can't bot BH, murder or BM. In this scenario having unlimited commander slots means nothing, as each one has to do a mission which means you have to legitimately play each one to make a difference.

You don't have free votes- nothing is free and its you having to do it. PP fails with votes mainly as votes are free, and that its impossible to put value on good actions- as far as the engine is concerned a weaponised expansion is indistinguishable from 5C. PP also fails in that it is time gated, so its you waiting for 30 minutes for that allocation instead of self contained missions.

PP was always envisaged as being asymmetrical, and that small powers always expected an uphill battle.

Ok, so why not base votes on merits instead and link merits to the completion of your proposed missions and similar activities? Again, elevate the requirements of voting to a level not obtainable by botting? That is what you're suggesting, isn't it?

I don't really care either way, but here's my two credits on why voting is a good system (if implemented right, which as we've all said now, it isn't currently):

• Voting allows consensus choice and creates the dynamic for leadership need
• When you create the need for leadership, you generate content creators out of your population, which in turn elevate the gameplay
• Leadership dynamics also allow for bad choices (not just subterfuge, but actual mistakes) - the ability to make bad choices creates a strategic dynamic that goes beyond raw numbers and increases the risk/reward factor of the competition. It also enhances the overall experience and lends weight to the political nature of leadership dynamics

Again, voting is busted in its current format...nearly 80 pages of this one thread show that. I can understand why you'd want to throw out voting, and I'd be cool with it if you did. I genuinely believe you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater though: voting can be a powerful enhancement to a competitive system like Power Play if executed correctly. We're back to square 1: the issue is that votes are driven by quantity, not quality.

I'd love to see more missions and USSs and other content for Power Play, but I don't think eliminating one of its core mechanics when all it really needs is a balancing to be a good idea. Just elevate what it takes to vote.

• You can lock it behind merits, but that requires merits to be earned by real actions - not turret camping, as already pointed out
• You can lock it behind some other currency that can't be gained through mass accounts (missions only, as an example)
• You can lock it behind a leaderboard: only the best (whatever metric that is) have a vote, regardless of pledge status

Whatever you do, all I'm hearing from the litany of complaints about Power Play is, "Account Quality, not Quantity, should dictate Power Play strategy"

 

[Arry]

Question: Why is expansion, voted on?

I mean, we are basically talking about a collection, of dictatorships. So why doesn't, one person,or character, or even a voted committee of players; dictate which and how many systems 'will' accept expansion packets? All other systems, are locked out.

Now about 5 people here, will no doubt explain; the stupidity, of my thoughts.

 

[sandkid]

Question: Why is expansion, voted on?

I mean, we are basically talking about a collection, of dictatorships. So why doesn't, one person,or character, or even a voted committee of players; dictate which and how many systems 'will' accept expansion packets? All other systems, are locked out.

Now about 5 people here, will no doubt explain; the stupidity, of my thoughts.

Not at all stupid - I pointed out the irony of democracy mechanics in Power Play a few pages back.

A committee of players could work, but by virtue of how voting currently works and the issue of 5C, that committee could be fairly easy to shanghai. So either the developer selects that committee (bad form and not player-choice-oriented at all) or you form that committee based on metrics of performance so you can at least argue 'they did the work' to be leaders - good, bad, or indifferent for the whole faction. The CSM (an elected player body for EVE Online) is notorious for these problems - it isn't very representative of the overall player population, but by virtue of how voting works when based on just quantity...yeah.

That's why it's so easy to just say 'no voting' - but it still doesn't resolve the issue of multiboxing and how it affects overall gameplay. Instead, you cut out a major piece of the feature system that gave it its character and intrigue. We don't really need a 'secondary BGS' - the first one is already indicative of how mind-numbing that can be. It just isn't very interesting as it relies on raw bean-counting, much like the model of existing CGs...which also don't generate a lot of interest.

 

[Arry]

Not at all stupid - I pointed out the irony of democracy mechanics in Power Play a few pages back.

A committee of players could work, but by virtue of how voting currently works and the issue of 5C, that committee could be fairly easy to shanghai. So either the developer selects that committee (bad form and not player-choice-oriented at all) or you form that committee based on metrics of performance so you can at least argue 'they did the work' to be leaders - good, bad, or indifferent for the whole faction. The CSM (an elected player body for EVE Online) is notorious for these problems - it isn't very representative of the overall player population, but by virtue of how voting works when based on just quantity...yeah.

That's why it's so easy to just say 'no voting' - but it still doesn't resolve the issue of multiboxing and how it affects overall gameplay. Instead, you cut out a major piece of the feature system that gave it its character and intrigue. We don't really need a 'secondary BGS' - the first one is already indicative of how mind-numbing that can be. It just isn't very interesting as it relies on raw bean-counting, much like the model of existing CGs...which also don't generate a lot of interest.

The 'committee' could offer a number of systems, for the general player population to vote on. Say, top 5 out of 10, get to be expanded.

 

[Goose4291]

I never said said anything about the users, just the site. It looks like was a C - 7th grader’s project cobbled together an hour before it was due, and the few rare times I have tried to look at things there (not Elite-related), it proved to be too difficult to find the actual information amid the sea of unrelated commentary.

But since I admittedly don’t frequent that site, which you are clearly aware of, I’d hoped common sense would prevail and you could easily infer that I would not be aware of what is discussed there. I have to wonder though, if it’s so wonderful there what brings you here to these lowly forums?

Well, that's a bare-faced lie, as here's one of your typical musings regarding the people who post there, and the value of their posts:

"Reddit is where 4chan goes when they flush, everyone knows that, so whatever gets posted there is of less value that scrawlings on toilet stall walls in subway stations."

 

[Roybe]

What OOP think will occur with the change:

What the OOPP folks fail to understand, they will miss all this:

 

[HairballHacker]

This is such a great game. Engineering ships to fight and fly according to your playstyle is great. Graphics are good. The POWERPLAY system can potentially be a great system. It gives the player base direct control over the power structure and can actively affect what the boundaries are in this galaxy. Unfortunately all the immersion potential is completely wasted because we are living in two galaxies, parrallel dimensions or something not understandable. The powers and their borders can be affected by people's actions in another reality that somehow translates to the current 'open' reality.

You get my drift. You lose the awesomeness of there being one galaxy that we all live in when people can just live in their own pretend version of the galaxy and still influence the 'politics' of the real galaxy called OPEN.

I know this has been brought up plenty in the past, I'm just casting my vote for making POWERPLAY activities only available in OPEN.

PLEEEAASSE.

Seriously though, I think you would see a lot more of your player base return if you made this change.

I agree SO much.

Plus, it could be such a great platform for meaningful PvP gameplay instead of what they are currently doing, whittling away at PvP with each update.

Right now we are fighting another player made faction for control of a system. The other side won't come out into Open where we can defend against their incursion. So as a result control of the system will be determined by who can out BGS-grind the other in CZs and such. So much lameness. Such a lost opportunity FDev.

 

[CMDR Maylor Rom]

I do agree with the OP in principle, that the BGS should only be effected by one mode of play as Consoles together with PG/Solo (as the two groups being isolated players) can give more weight to the BGS than one mode alone, regardless of what is done. Open has a unique problem of it's own for two reasons. The first is it only represents 1/3rd of the three groups present, with two groups being isolated. The second is that it is the playground for newbies/cheaters/gankers/children who don't care about the PP, but effect it in undesirable ways by killing PP players doing PP tasks.

Just as an example, think of PP acting like the three dimensions, with length, width and height. Open BGS is the length. Console BGS is the width and PG/Solo BSG make up the height. Together, with BGS Time, they make up the BGS space we have. The problem lies in giving each dimension a comparable weight in the effect each has on the overall BSG over time.

Both Console and PG/Solo together have the problem of being isolated from Open and those players trying to get things done in Open. I don't think the BGS can account for the progress made in Open by players against those in the two isolated groups of Consoles and PG/Solo, because the two isolated groups never meet in the same space, head to head in any meaningful way, with the BGS being effected in undesirable ways.

If I think of the BGS in this way, I can see how folks would want PP isolated to one mode of play, because 2/3rds of PP play (Consoles and PG/Solo) have undesirable and unpredictable effects for the one -third Open mode everyone wants to see the effects reflected in, which should (if the BGS works correctly, and it does not) filter down to the two-thirds of this pie, i.e. Consoles and PG/Solo, instead of allowing what happens in two-thirds of this pie, i.e. Consoles and PG/Solo filtering up to Open via the BGS.

o7....

 

[Rubbernuke]

Ok, so why not base votes on merits instead and link merits to the completion of your proposed missions and similar activities? Again, elevate the requirements of voting to a level not obtainable by botting? That is what you're suggesting, isn't it?

You could indeed do that- the important aspect is that no expansion is 'bad'- PP is in the mess its in because players can vote for bad things. If every system was good / was not attached to CC (with a possible -ve value) you could go where you like.

I don't really care either way, but here's my two credits on why voting is a good system (if implemented right, which as we've all said now, it isn't currently):

• Voting allows consensus choice and creates the dynamic for leadership need
• When you create the need for leadership, you generate content creators out of your population, which in turn elevate the gameplay
• Leadership dynamics also allow for bad choices (not just subterfuge, but actual mistakes) - the ability to make bad choices creates a strategic dynamic that goes beyond raw numbers and increases the risk/reward factor of the competition. It also enhances the overall experience and lends weight to the political nature of leadership dynamics

PP has always been an oddity in that when it was introduced it had no way of forming power structures (unlike now with squadrons). It was assumed everyone would play indiviually and know what was best and act that way, we now know how that is not true to a certain extent. But then, player groups have always formed around features (the BGS before PMFs for example) even with no way in game to do so, so I think if PP was simplified it would not go missing, voting and decisions would simply go more onto Discord or via squadrons.

Again, voting is busted in its current format...nearly 80 pages of this one thread show that. I can understand why you'd want to throw out voting, and I'd be cool with it if you did. I genuinely believe you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater though: voting can be a powerful enhancement to a competitive system like Power Play if executed correctly. We're back to square 1: the issue is that votes are driven by quantity, not quality.

If FD can find a way (if they rebuild the lot) to vote and do it without 5C I'd be very happy too.

I'd love to see more missions and USSs and other content for Power Play, but I don't think eliminating one of its core mechanics when all it really needs is a balancing to be a good idea. Just elevate what it takes to vote.

• You can lock it behind merits, but that requires merits to be earned by real actions - not turret camping, as already pointed out
• You can lock it behind some other currency that can't be gained through mass accounts (missions only, as an example)
• You can lock it behind a leaderboard: only the best (whatever metric that is) have a vote, regardless of pledge status

Whatever you do, all I'm hearing from the litany of complaints about Power Play is, "Account Quality, not Quantity, should dictate Power Play strategy"

You can lock it behind merits, but that requires merits to be earned by real actions - not turret camping, as already pointed out

You can lock it behind a leaderboard: only the best (whatever metric that is) have a vote, regardless of pledge status

Quite often 5C outspend, outfortify or expand the most, so they would (admittedly briefly) be high up on that.

You can lock it behind some other currency that can't be gained through mass accounts (missions only, as an example)

If missions only counted as positive actions then that would work.

In the end I'm thinking of simplicity- nearly all of Powerplay is behind a vertical wall of maths that in part is still not understood (the Galactic Standing is a near mystery).

If you can decouple voting rights from 5C then thats the battle won. To do that you need a foolproof way to see good actions that have benefited the power from bad ones. In my mind thats impossible, because you have weaponsied expansions which are both good and bad at the same time. If you did them, its possible the game would demote you because it thought you were not acting in the powers interests- and in trying to untangle this you are (to my mind anyway) expending effort trying to make it work when you should have simpler systems to begin with.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Question: Why is expansion, voted on?

I mean, we are basically talking about a collection, of dictatorships. So why doesn't, one person,or character, or even a voted committee of players; dictate which and how many systems 'will' accept expansion packets? All other systems, are locked out.

Now about 5 people here, will no doubt explain; the stupidity, of my thoughts.

Because you are playing a game in the end and not roleplaying a gov type.

 

[Rubbernuke]

What OOP think will occur with the change:

What the OOPP folks fail to understand, they will miss all this:

But in solo or PG, the bear does not exist.

And all those identical fishes that run identical min/max builds would change as well, since (in fortifying at least) they are all swimming past bears in the capital.

Prep / haul expansion wise you would have those fish swimming in parallel with other streams with multiple bears.

Combat expansion wise you have a pit of bears with more bears outside.

 

[Roybe]

But in solo or PG, the bear does not exist.

And all those identical fishes that run identical min/max builds would change as well, since (in fortifying at least) they are all swimming past bears in the capital.

Prep / haul expansion wise you would have those fish swimming in parallel with other streams with multiple bears.

Combat expansion wise you have a pit of bears with more bears outside.

Nothing will change...that's the fantasy that you all fail to realize....Open only will have no effect on Powerplay...the devs certainly can make the change...but the problems of the game will not change...instancing and matchmaking will see to that.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Nothing will change...that's the fantasy that you all fail to realize....Open only will have no effect on Powerplay...the devs certainly can make the change...but the problems of the game will not change...instancing and matchmaking will see to that.

All the stuff I talk about is from events that have happened in PP now when everything came together -Sandros proposal and its changes simply makes that more likely to happen and would make for a more dynamic game.

Its true instancing can be a problem, but so far that has not prevented large wing fights taking place or prevented the times when (for me anyway) situations I describe happening. In the end the only way to really find out is test.

 

[CMDR KOBAL]

Nothing will change...that's the fantasy that you all fail to realize....Open only will have no effect on Powerplay...the devs certainly can make the change...but the problems of the game will not change...instancing and matchmaking will see to that.

Well, there certainly is all sorts of problems with the foundation of PP. However, I think that there would certainly be some positive aspects brought to PP from a move to OOPP.

For example, the Feds are currently working on Simyr. As Imperials, we want to stop them. Occasionally, there are some Fed player groups that choose to play in Open. They come in with their haulers accompanied by their escort of PVP ships. For us to impede their progress, we must coordinate together and defeat their convoy. Sometimes we defeat their PVP ships yet their haulers still get through, sometimes we get their haulers before their combat wing gets to us. In the midst of this, we also have our haulers to coordinate with to do their work in system as well. This has occasionally made for some entertaining and exciting game play.

It all breaks down when one side gets is outnumbered and doesn't want to risk losing ships anymore. They just move to Solo, continue with their hauling unimpeded and can still take over the system. Yea, sure, I am looking for more exciting game play, that's why I vote for OOPP.

But aside from that, this system just doesn't make any sense. In war, if one side is outnumbered or outclassed, whatever, then the dominant side deserves the spoils of war. Not so in this universe. Being the dominant power is meaningless because the enemy can just go to a "parrallel universe" where there are no enemies and win the war there.

It's just silly.

 

[varonica]

But aside from that, this system just doesn't make any sense. In war, if one side is outnumbered or outclassed, whatever, then the dominant side deserves the spoils of war. Not so in this universe. Being the dominant power is meaningless because the enemy can just go to a "parrallel universe" where there are no enemies and win the war there.

It's just silly.

Well, that point makes no sense logically, both sides have the same opportunity to go into a "parallel universe". Your argument would only make sense if the players of only one side was allowed access to solo or PG, but they both have it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Well, that point makes no sense logically, both sides have the same opportunity to go into a "parallel universe". Your argument would only make sense if the players of only one side was allowed access to solo or PG, but they both have it.

This arguement has the ultimate conclusion that currently the best method is to go into solo- then both sides have zero opposition and farm as fast as possible. In the end it has to be locked into one mode or another as having a mix of everything just messes it all up.

 

[CMDR KOBAL]

Well, that point makes no sense logically, both sides have the same opportunity to go into a "parallel universe". Your argument would only make sense if the players of only one side was allowed access to solo or PG, but they both have it.

I'm not saying it isn't "fair". Of course both sides can go into pve world and play by themselves. I'm saying it doesn't make sense logically that territory can be won and lost in "war" without battles taking place.

 

[Kaocraft]

Well, that point makes no sense logically, both sides have the same opportunity to go into a "parallel universe". Your argument would only make sense if the players of only one side was allowed access to solo or PG, but they both have it.

His critique of the system is not contingent on it being unfair. It is of course completely fair because everyone has equal access to all these modes. The problem is that it’s dumb, counterintuitive, and needlessly abstract, which makes it profoundly cripplingly uninteresting.

A football/soccer match can be interesting because there are human beings employing strategies to circumvent and obstruct one another from kicking goals. There is coordination and collaboration, there are unexpected turns of events, close saves and near misses. Drama, in short. When the teams are given the option to play on separate fields, kicking and tallying goals unopposed over and over again, it stops being a game and is reduced to being nothing more than a race. Races are primarily tests of endurance, resources, and speed. They can sometimes be dramatic but most of the time they are just exhausting.

 

[CMDR KOBAL]

-

Hey, have you read this post?

[Proposal] A solution to meaningful PvP: Squadron Warfare

A propsoal to provide meaningful PvP So the open vs solo/private group argument has continued to rumble on and on and has so far shown no sign of abating. What has become clear is that the PvE community generally do not react well to the prospect of having an existing part of the game changed...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Do you think this is a viable solution?