PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[Agony_Aunt]

But it has been talked about internally- its been going on at one level or another for a long time. Sandro was kind enough once or twice to respond and he talked of long lead times with changes (and that was a year ago when all this kicked off properly). And that does not include the previous discussions from weighting, or the changes before that.



True, I forgot about block fiddling.

But going to open only itself is just flipping a switch and filtering. When the Gnosis leaked solo players into Open it showed that it was lists and filters.

And the moment they decide they are going to do it, there will likely be many more internal discussions.

Open only is a flick of switch from out perspective. There is lots of code behind it you know.

Let's say they just flicked a switch to disable all PP UI elements in any mode but open (which wouldn't just be flipping a swtich, but let's roll with it). Then that wouldn't stop people grabbing PP cargo, switching to PG/solo, and then flying to target, then switching back to open. Other checks need to be put in. I'm pretty sure you are aware of these potential issues as we have had discussions on them in the past.

 

[Rubbernuke]

And the moment they decide they are going to do it, there will likely be many more internal discussions.

Open only is a flick of switch from out perspective. There is lots of code behind it you know.

Let's say they just flicked a switch to disable all PP UI elements in any mode but open (which wouldn't just be flipping a swtich, but let's roll with it). Then that wouldn't stop people grabbing PP cargo, switching to PG/solo, and then flying to target, then switching back to open. Other checks need to be put in. I'm pretty sure you are aware of these potential issues as we have had discussions on them in the past.

Indeed. Its why I said Open would also have checks for merits (but forgot about the block tool).

Clause change and menu tweaks (i.e. checks for mode and removes merits / warns of merit removal)

 

[lenna]

Its an odd situation to find the proponents for an idea asking for a little, and the opponents to it asking for a lot, instead.

The point is that those asking for a little are asking for too much compromise as a result - it is not fair and reasonable to remove gameplay options from existing players. Making PP Open Only would be doing EXACTLY that. The counter proposal to create something new based on squadron mechanics is fairer and more reasonable, it could also be "designed" appropriately from day one.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The point is that those asking for a little are asking for too much compromise as a result - it is not fair and reasonable to remove gameplay options from existing players. Making PP Open Only would be doing EXACTLY that. The counter proposal to create something new based on squadron mechanics is fairer and more reasonable, it could also be "designed" appropriately from day one.

The counter proposal to create something new based on squadron mechanics is fairer and more reasonable

Which as a proposal does not exist. And why replicate that when it exists to begin with? You then start supporting my point of view that the BGS and squadrons is practically the same, just multi modal.

 

[lenna]

Which as a proposal does not exist. And why replicate that when it exists to begin with? You then start supporting my point of view that the BGS and squadrons is practically the same, just multi modal.

Not really true - PP has added role play value for starters, something that squadrons+BGS fail to provide - Squadrons are merely a means to organise players, that is it. While there are league tables and you can "soft" affiliate a squadron with an NPC faction the resulting gameplay is far from the same thing as PP pledging from a PvE perspective.

The argument for OO PP is for one reason and one reason alone - PvP - and it would be better for FD to build new PP-like but PvP-motivated mechanics around the squadron gameplay (specific squadron participation being entirely optional) rather than mutate PP into a mess that favours those looking to engage in PvP and penalises those that eschew it for any given reason.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Not really true - PP has added role play value for starters, something that squadrons+BGS fail to provide

How exactly? How does Sq. + BGS give you less roleplay opportunities when you can do anything in the game with them, while Powerplay all powers in the end play the same with the same two activities? The only role play that comes from Powerplay is born from players, since the lore of Powerplay is so thin many made their own. I know because I wrote a lot of player lore for Utopia for others to roleplay- and in the end it could be done with either.

- Squadrons are merely a means to organise players, that is it.

While there are league tables and you can "soft" affiliate a squadron with an NPC faction the resulting gameplay is far from the same thing as PP pledging from a PvE perspective.

The Powerplay tab does the same job, and has a league table too- just no-one knows how it really works. You can't send messages or set goals like you can with squadrons either.

The argument for OO PP is for one reason and one reason alone - PvP - and it would be better for FD to build new PP-like but PvP-motivated mechanics around the squadron gameplay (specific squadron participation being entirely optional) rather than mutate PP into a mess that favours those looking to engage in PvP and penalises those that eschew it for any given reason.

Its not an arguement though, a great deal of the proposal (from FD for the third time) was to make Powerplay more player on player focussed / give Open mode more weight to begin with. FD probably saw the same issue in that Powerplay is a poor BGS duplicate which has low player participation / retention and needed radical action to set it apart.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I don't find much value in the roleplay argument. I think roleplay is more down to the individuals involved. PP, Squadrons, BGS, all provide frameworks within which roleplay can be generated, but roleplay can exist without them as well.

 

[Velixar]

It's just humor.

Well in my situation.

To put the changes into context (from here > https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal.426940/#post6710840)



This change adds voting after 3 or 4 days. So thats some code, and a menu change.



Uses current voting and menu code.



Uses current voting and menu code, adding a new menu and options.



Formula change (i.e. its maths based).



Formula change (i.e. its maths based).



Maths tweaks (some removed, others tweaked).



Clause change (i.e. small code tweak)



Who knows, not enough detail. If it works like merits then the code is already there for re-purposing.



Clause change and menu tweaks (i.e. checks for mode and removes merits / warns of merit removal)

Weighted merits > small maths tweak based on mode.

Unique modules moved to tech brokers (change menu wording, think of materials needed for each).

Compare to > https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/april-update-patch-notes.509331/



In short, the proposal is peanuts in cost and size.

Thing is. That not a Vote plan and simple. You can put lipstick on a pig. It still a pig.

I don't find much value in the roleplay argument. I think roleplay is more down to the individuals involved. PP, Squadrons, BGS, all provide frameworks within which roleplay can be generated, but roleplay can exist without them as well.

Well I do find some argument for Role Playing. Players who play Solo or Private Role playing tend to have a Story behind it. We had to do it when we played Elite on the Commodore 64. Game back then had not much of a story. So we had to make it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Thing is. That not a Vote plan and simple. You can put lipstick on a pig. It still a pig.

And yet thats what we have. The changes as a whole would go a long way to making Powerplay at least for dynamic than it is now for not a lot of dev time, which was its intention.

 

[Velixar]

And yet thats what we have. The changes as a whole would go a long way to making Powerplay at least for dynamic than it is now for not a lot of dev time, which was its intention.

No your words should be for PvPers. Nothing more. Power Play users like my self who can't afford subscriptions Power play Open ruin MY game play. So are you going to pay for my Subscription? Then I happy support your Power play Open. Not everyone has a silver spoon in their mouth. I can understand players who Role play. I know someone who use Games like Elite Dangerous to help Write stories. I also seen issue of Open only Power play where Players can be use to Block Landing pads can we say lame.

Oh your Quote Polls. Are kinda like Steamrank system. Where people claim it to be so true. Yet they Ignore Other game systems. You Quote topics. Yet you Ignore 90% of the player base that don't post on the Topics or ignore the forums. Or the different player types. But ignoring everyone but your self and your crew is all what you are about.

 

[Rubbernuke]

No your words should be for PvPers.

No, my words are for the wider playerbase of ED. How do you know that Powerplay will not benefit from the change? The answer is no-one does until they do it. FD know the numbers, they obviously think its worth the gamble otherwise why would they suggest it?

Power Play users like my self who can't afford subscriptions Power play Open ruin MY game play.

Games change. As it is Powerplay is moving towards oblivion, and the devs responded with changes that reposition Powerplay. I'm sorry you would not be able to afford whatever you need, but unless the numbers show a significant playerbase on consoles without a sub in PP, FD have to go with what might attract a bigger audience to make the work that went into Powerplay pay off.

So are you going to pay for my Subscription? Not everyone has a silver spoon in their mouth.

Its a game, a luxury item. Next you'll be asking me to buy you a LEP account so you can have a Cobra Mk 4 that I have and you don't.

I can understand players who Role play. I know someone who use Games like Elite Dangerous to help Write stories. I also seen issue of Open only Power play where Players can be use to Block Landing pads can we say lame.

Like players can't block pads in the rest of the game? Open Powerplay would force FD to look at these issues and benefit the whole game.

Oh your Quote Polls.

Since they are the only places where players have made feelings clear, why not use them as data? What else do we have, the 'silent majority' that always speaks for you?

You Quote topics. Yet you Ignore 90% of the player base that don't post on the Topics or ignore the forums.

So you want me to quote people who have not written anything, or argue against silent invisible players who never speak or tell us what they want? How do you know you speak for them? You act as you do.

Yet they Ignore Other game systems. Or the different player types. But ignoring everyone but your self and your crew is all what you are about.

I comment on what we actually have, and try to be as realistic as possible and back that up with my reasoning. Its you thats ignoring the situation- a underdeveloped feature, that was launched incomplete and has a low playerbase has reached a point of general stagnation in comparison to the rest of the game. FD respond and reposition PP to make it more popular with some sensible (if conservative) choices bar Open / weighted merits to bring life back into the feature. I'm sorry if I'm ignoring reality there for you.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

So, i admit defeat. Not on the topic of open only. I mean in terms of taking part in PP.

I tried it. I tried it for 3 days. And i just couldn't any more. If there is a more boring mechanic in the game, i'm not aware of it. I have no idea how people can do this week in, week out.

Thanks to the supporters of Torval for letting me onto their Discord for those days. Good luck to you all.

It only served to convince me PP needs to have a massive overhaul, not just open only, or the other smaller proposals of Sandro, but something significant. The core mechanics of PP all revolve around endless grind. Week in, week out, doing exactly the same few things.

PP missions are a start, but i also thing the whole mechanics need to revolve less around grind and more about dangerous situations rewarding results. (and here perhaps i have some sort of concord with Rubbernuke). It doesn't have to be PvP of course, although that could be a factor.

I think Fortification needs massively reducing or even doing away with in some way. Why? Because the first thing every power has to do is fortify their core territories or face penalties. This means the priority for the first few days of PP has to be on a massive A to B grind of deliveries just to maintain a status quo, thereby delaying the actual conflict part of PP. Accepting Torval is not one of the most supported powers, by the end of the weekly cycle they still hadn't fully fortified all their systems, which of course costs them. They did some undermining, but that meant less people fortifying, and they had no expansion prepared. Meaning they spent a whole week effectively doing nothing.

If we compare with the BGS, the BGS allows supporters to take breaks without worry unless involved in some sort of BGS war. It allows a massive variety of activities to support your power, either in terms of "fortification" (ie: keeping up influence in systems you own) or "preparation" (ie: increasing influence in systems where you have a presence but don't control) or "expansion" (ie: moving into systems where you don't have a presence). I think many BGS players would love to have the measure of control that PPers get when it comes to expansion as well. But overall, the BGS is (for me) a much more satisifying experience. I don't feel pressured at any time to do it, no need to grind (except during wars/elections) and when i do it, i can choose to do a vareity of tasks to achieve the goals.

As things stand, i can only say that open only is absoloute irrelevant to my enjoyment of PP (i was in open by the way, didn't see a single other CMDR my whole time there... maybe everyone is in PG/solo.... dirty Feds, hiding in PG/solo!) and even most of Sandro's other proposals won't help. Even PP missions, while providing vareity, won't solve the problem of insane foritification requriements demanding a massive grind before any sort of conflict can be realistically considered.

If PP is mean to be about conflict, get rid of the demand to do relatively safe activities to start with. Push the players into conflict from day 1 of the cycle.

Those are my thoughts.

As things stand, they could make PP open only (as long as they removed all traces of it from PG/solo), they could completely remove PP, they could give all PP supporters 10 billion credits per day, it won't make a blind bit of difference to me. As things stand, the PP mechanics are simply tedious and horrendous.

 

[Rubbernuke]

So, i admit defeat. Not on the topic of open only. I mean in terms of taking part in PP.

Well you tried it, so points for that.

It only served to convince me PP needs to have a massive overhaul, not just open only, or the other smaller proposals of Sandro, but something significant. The core mechanics of PP all revolve around endless grind. Week in, week out, doing exactly the same few things.

PP missions are a start, but i also thing the whole mechanics need to revolve less around grind and more about dangerous situations rewarding results. (and here perhaps i have some sort of concord with Rubbernuke). It doesn't have to be PvP of course, although that could be a factor.

Amen to that.

I think Fortification needs massively reducing or even doing away with in some way. Why? Because the first thing every power has to do is fortify their core territories or face penalties. This means the priority for the first few days of PP has to be on a massive A to B grind of deliveries just to maintain a status quo, thereby delaying the actual conflict part of PP. Accepting Torval is not one of the most supported powers, by the end of the weekly cycle they still hadn't fully fortified all their systems, which of course costs them. They did some undermining, but that meant less people fortifying, and they had no expansion prepared. Meaning they spent a whole week effectively doing nothing.

If a Power has a lot of command capital they don't have to fortify much, its more a case of being cautious. Its not needed to fortify everything unless you need to (for example Antal needs to this cycle and even then that might not be enough.) But the other issue is that because PP is currently so static with no real places to expand you don't see how things are 'supposed' to work.

If we compare with the BGS, the BGS allows supporters to take breaks without worry unless involved in some sort of BGS war. It allows a massive variety of activities to support your power, either in terms of "fortification" (ie: keeping up influence in systems you own) or "preparation" (ie: increasing influence in systems where you have a presence but don't control) or "expansion" (ie: moving into systems where you don't have a presence). I think many BGS players would love to have the measure of control that PPers get when it comes to expansion as well. But overall, the BGS is (for me) a much more satisifying experience. I don't feel pressured at any time to do it, no need to grind (except during wars/elections) and when i do it, i can choose to do a vareity of tasks to achieve the goals.

Can you see why I keep saying that Powerplay is a poor relation to the current BGS now?

As things stand, i can only say that open only is absoloute irrelevant to my enjoyment of PP (i was in open by the way, didn't see a single other CMDR my whole time there... maybe everyone is in PG/solo.... dirty Feds, hiding in PG/solo!) and even most of Sandro's other proposals won't help.

Currently this depends on where you go, and remember that the proposal as is would channel a lot more players in and around core systems.

Even PP missions, while providing vareity, won't solve the problem of insane foritification requriements demanding a massive grind before any sort of conflict can be realistically considered.

If PP is mean to be about conflict, get rid of the demand to do relatively safe activities to start with. Push the players into conflict from day 1 of the cycle.

Depending on the circumstances direct conflict can come to fortifying under the new proposal. For example, Antals attackers last week could choose to UM directly or go and kill transports in the capital. Super undermining would make some systems very hot with continual traffic (I explained this elsewhere).

But in the end you are right, PP (as in common with a lot of the game, even the new BGS) is about doing the same thing over and over. PP alone is a recipe for madness, the social aspect makes up for that.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Can you see why I keep saying that Powerplay is a poor relation to the current BGS now?

Hah, poor relation as in comparing your average new york tramp with Bill Gates poor. The difference is astronomical.

But in the end you are right, PP (as in common with a lot of the game, even the new BGS) is about doing the same thing over and over. PP alone is a recipe for madness, the social aspect makes up for that.

Ok, now i'm waiting for the forums to implode, since me and Rubbernuke agree on something.

 

[lenna]

I don't find much value in the roleplay argument. I think roleplay is more down to the individuals involved. PP, Squadrons, BGS, all provide frameworks within which roleplay can be generated, but roleplay can exist without them as well.

True - but currently PP does provide a unique role-playing gameplay option for Solo/PvE players that NONE of the other mechanics in any combination either achieve or replicate. Making PP OO would essentially remove that option.

 

[Rubbernuke]

True - but currently PP does provide a unique role-playing gameplay option for Solo/PvE players that NONE of the other mechanics in any combination either achieve or replicate. Making PP OO would essentially remove that option.

As a genuine question, what is this roleplay? Is it a combination of the pledge, the bonuses or the unique module?

Plus, would you support weighted merits then which keeps everything roughly as it is?

 

[lenna]

As a genuine question, what is this roleplay? Is it a combination of the pledge, the bonuses or the unique module?

The fact you have to ask means you are either would not understand the answer or are simply trolling - no point in trying to explain it to someone who only sees the "social" aspect of PP as having any value. The answer is clear as day and should not need to be spelled out.

Plus, would you support weighted merits then which keeps everything roughly as it is?

No - because I do not agree in the Open v. other modes line of thinking. All modes should be considered equal where predominantly PvE gameplay is concerned and like it or not PP is and should remain predominantly a PvE activity.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The fact you have to ask means you are either would not understand the answer or are simply trolling - no point in trying to explain it to someone who only sees the "social" aspect of PP as having any value. The answer is clear as day and should not need to be spelled out.

So, I explain my thinking in detail to argue my point, your counter is.......to say I'd never understand. Thats a weak response, even for you.

I was asking a genuine question, if you can't answer it then I can only conclude as Agony Aunt did, these elements are much the same as in other parts of the game and not that unique.

No - because I do not agree in the Open v. other modes line of thinking. All modes should be considered equal where predominantly PvE gameplay is concerned and like it or not PP is and should remain predominantly a PvE activity.

But it would do- everyone retains access, those who do take risks in Open get better rewards for it (as well as prevent AFK turretboating which would be attenuated).

In the end something has to change, Powerplay can't stay as it is. Are you advocating Powerplay should stay the same? If you feel so passionately about Powerplay why are you not making posts with ideas for an alternative third way?

 

[Robert Maynard]

But it would do- everyone retains access, those who do take risks in Open get better rewards for it (as well as prevent AFK turretboating which would be attenuated).

That rather depends in which possible changes one suspects that Frontier are considering. Will's post referred to the first Flash Topic only, not the second - mode weighting was in the second Flash Topic.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

In the end something has to change, Powerplay can't stay as it is.

Well, it can, and it has for 4 years. Won't get me playing it though unless things signficantly change.