PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[Agony_Aunt]

Its not a mindless grind, but it is a grind. Utopia has only done a full fortification of every system on two occasions that I know of, & once was last cycle. Fortifying everything is certainly not the first thing on the agenda every week.

But fortifying most systems is important right for CC? Don't fortify enough and you get into a CC deficit right? Which stops your ability to expand as well and you can lose systems if you can't fortify those that are under attack.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Alrighty, it’s lunch time, time to “dig in” while I’m digging in.

I guess that’s another area where you and I differ. I think that all the time with NPCs, and have fled from NPCs frequently, but rarely do I feel that fear with players. There’s one simple reason for that: NPCs include the “fight” option in my decision matrix, but that option is grayed out with players, unless I’m the aggressor.

I realized long ago that the type of player whose likely to attack me isn’t actually very good at this game. They have an equipment advantage, especially post-engineers, but they rely on that advantage like a crutch.

There are several areas in this game where that equipment advantage is minimized. I just happen to enjoy one if those areas, so I've gotten good at it. I’m not brilliant at it, but I’m good enough that even though the “fight” option is grayed out, I still have several options in my decision matrix besides “the Sir Robin maneuver.”

Believe me, there are people who kill Cutters with Cobras and mines, and l can visualise the people from the Kumo who would disagree about not being very good.

The 'tenet' of Open Powerplay is that they are supposed to attack you and make your mission harder to achieve. Its them disrupting you, making you alter how you build your ship and how you fly it.

I have no doubt that kind of thing can happen, but again I consider that kind of thing an anomaly, not the norm. After all, three of those involved were winged up, and while I’m on an iPad at work, I’d wager good money that that furball was the result of one or two players being an “anchor” for the rest of those involved, thanks to a chain of friends and wings.

The thing is, these things are rare(ish) in Powerplay now. All of my posts are based on the flashes of Powerplay that I've experienced in Open now that bear out Sandros Flash Topic. From that video huge fights happen and work- the only time instancing fails is with wing missions for items like black boxes.

From what I've been told, it formed organically and was not organised, it just happened in that expansion. And remember that Winters is a hauling expander.

This illustrates exactly what would happen with the 'mega UM' and multi power prep races in the flash topic. Taking the former example: a system gets UMed past 100% +, the defender has to respond. The defenders know that attackers are in system, and like antibodies they are compelled to swarm in and stop this hot zone becoming hotter and escalating. Now with this situation we have some interesting options: the attacker can hit the transports inbound in the capital, they can UM directly but be exposed to defenders, and all sorts of permutations inbetween. The point is it draws players in by design. No power can hide behind maths and abstracted red lines.

In a prep race (taking the GCRV example) attackers know exactly where preppers will be going- you know people are prepping because you have the map numbers. If all three really want that system, they have to outstrip each other and Open allows each power to disrupt the other directly. You can do that via cargo capacity (and risk attack), have a faster ship (safer but lower cargo), or a hybrid that can attack opportunistically when you see a rival prepper. Having to deal with players means your opponent can do all manner of things- LR lasers, ignore NFZs, report your position in station, undock and chase after you- that wake scanner will be a fun tool. None of that is possible in any other mode.

I said it once, and I’ll say it again, while I can certa8nly understand why that is appealing to players like you. OTOH, if that kind of th8ng was frequent enough to actually matter in the long run, it sounds absolutely exhausting to me. Or, as Agony Aunt put it,

But thats the thing, it does appeal to many.

I understand why you feel that way, but what your proposing is taking existing game feature, that is currently free to anyone to play, and gating it behind a PvP barrier where none previously existed. That isn’t free choice. That is forcing others to play in the way you like to play. And that, in my book, is neither kosher nor fun.

I'm going to be brutally honest and say games change. Bits are cut off and rearranged, but in the end they need to work. FD so far have not wanted to invest much more time in PP, each fix has been simple and cheap (all maths tweaks). If the same holds true now, then there is no way you can make NPCs behave like players like Open can. With no open, mega UM sites are simple grind races with no end, its debatable if its viable in other modes because its 'side effect' of being player magnet for open is an unexpected bonus.

If you can make Powerplay better with the same formula tweaks that Sandro suggested that keeps to three modes then great- but so far every idea assumes FD will put in ten times the work....if FD do, thats fantastic, because in the end I want PP to be developed but I know thats a long shot, and every change proposed has to do double or triple duty value wise.

True, nobody can know what will happen. Maybe Power Play Open Only would be one of those rare exceptions that encourage other developers to once again shoot for the proverbial holy grail. But online gaming has been around for 40 years, and developers, publishers, and academics have put much thought into gamer psychology. There’s a reason why PvP games are designed the way they are, and why MMO developers feel the need to gate PvP behind a software wall, or else see their game fail financially. I, personally, would hate to see Power Play become yet another example future developers point to and say, “See, this is why we should put in a PvP switch.”

YMMV

Also remember that PP currently is tiny. The debate over Powerplay going open has lost sight of that.

 

[Rubbernuke]

But fortifying most systems is important right for CC? Don't fortify enough and you get into a CC deficit right? Which stops your ability to expand as well and you can lose systems if you can't fortify those that are under attack.

If your power starts each cycle with a deficit (for example Antal starts on -180 cc ish) then you have to fortify to first get above 0, and secondly to make a cushion against UM that would bring that CC back down. If attackers do that, then you turmoil. If you are lucky, you don't and that spare CC can be used to 'purchase' preparation slots in the next cycle. Clever powers aim for a net CC of between 0 and 10, so they are not in turmoil but can't afford to expand (so 5C proof).

Turmoilled powers can't normally expand (bizzaro maths aside) and sometimes to avoid expanding a power will turmoil itself to escape a 5C expansion.

You can fortify any system under attack- systems that are under threat do not generate CC- attack a power hard enough the victim will enter a death spiral where losing profit making systems strips CC generation, sinking the power further.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

If your power starts each cycle with a deficit (for example Antal starts on -180 cc ish) then you have to fortify to first get above 0, and secondly to make a cushion against UM that would bring that CC back down. If attackers do that, then you turmoil. If you are lucky, you don't and that spare CC can be used to 'purchase' preparation slots in the next cycle. Clever powers aim for a net CC of between 0 and 10, so they are not in turmoil but can't afford to expand (so 5C proof).

Turmoilled powers can't normally expand (bizzaro maths aside) and sometimes to avoid expanding a power will turmoil itself to escape a 5C expansion.

You can fortify any system under attack- systems that are under threat do not generate CC- attack a power hard enough the victim will enter a death spiral where losing profit making systems strips CC generation, sinking the power further.

Yeah, thanks for clarifying. Especially the bit about 5Cing.... although i presume if a power aimed for that, some last minute 5C work could push the CC higher to push for expansion?

 

[PharaohSteve]

Seems like commonsense to me, it's dangerous to let galaxy wide politics be influenced in a private game mode.

 

[Velixar]

Seems like commonsense to me, it's dangerous to let galaxy wide politics be influenced in a private game mode.

Well for players like me who can't afford PAY TO PLAY or people who don't pay Subscription for consoles and enjoy Power play. The idea of making Power play Open only is a stupid one.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Seems like commonsense to me, it's dangerous to let galaxy wide politics be influenced in a private game mode.

Even if everyone is in open, you won't see most of the people most of the time due to: time, location, instancing, platform.

So the politcs would still be influneced largely by people you can't see.

If everyone is in open, and you are hauling (which is 90% of PP), what you going to do about it if you can see them? If they are hauling youre just going to stay out of each others way. If one of you is doing a combat activity and the other is hauling, the hauler is going to be running, not fighting. If you are hauling what you going to do? Attack a person who is shooting PP ships? If you are attacked, you're going to run right? If you attack them and they are hauling, they are going to run. If you are both fittied for combat due to protecting territory or a PP activity and in the same location, in the same instance, on the same platform, then sure, you can attack each other, but its not going to help either of your powers much. Its just wasting time.

The main thing open only should do is change the hauling meta, with the clever haulers flying something fast or beefy, most likely Cutters. What you would most likely see is just Cutter after Cutter hauling, there is no better ship for it. For people who can't afford Cutters, well, they are not going to have the spare credits to stock up on massive amounts of PP tokens time and again, so not going to be having much of an impact, but hey, credits are soooo easy to make, anyone these days can afford to if they want. For people who don't have the rank, Clippers are not hard to get, and you can load up quite a bit in them.

Haulers will most likely fall into one or two camps. Those who usually escape attacks, in which case, little imapct on PP from open only. Those who usually die when attacked, in which case, its not hard to imagine such people quitting PP in frustration. This split should be more or less equal among powers, so the impact across powers would be roughly equal.

Net result for PP, overall less people hauling, those who are hauling are making their deliveries anyway. More PvP among those looking for PvP, but those are not actually helping the power directly anyway and their contributon to CC/merits is minimal.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yeah, thanks for clarifying. Especially the bit about 5Cing.... although i presume if a power aimed for that, some last minute 5C work could push the CC higher to push for expansion?

Yes, thats correct. When a power turmoils itself 5C can play other tricks too. For example 5C can force a power to expand by fortifying everything (so you can't turmoil) at the same time as winning the expansion.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Even if everyone is in open, you won't see most of the people most of the time due to: time, location, instancing, platform.

Partially true- instancing and platform are issues, but not what they used to be. Since objectives are week long, they gain momentum as the cycle closes, so for things like snipes the last couple of days often are very busy. If a power is trying to fight off a turmoil or fortify top to toe the work is ongoing.

Also remember this is for now- the pattern will change in the new proposal. All fortifying would be inbound, i.e. everyone travels to the same system doing it. And since expansion systems are few in number and prep races for the scant profitable expansion candidates often have more than one power, that focusses even more. To top that off you have the potential for 'mega' UM where an attacker can turmoil a system if they are 100% + ahead of fortifying. In this case the defender has to either fight them off or continue fortifying, all in the same system (or capital).

So the politcs would still be influneced largely by people you can't see.

In some ways, but then thats the case now because NPCs don't appear often either. In other words, PP NPCs rarely look for you, its you looking for them.

If everyone is in open, and you are hauling (which is 90% of PP)

Its 90% now because there is no space to expand into, its too easy to defend and powers have used up most space without giving large amounts of systems back.

what you going to do about it if you can see them?

Depends. You have a number of choices depending on the situation and your build. Like I said before, because of this you can make pure transports that are vulnerable, speedier ships that have less cargo, or a combat courier that can do both. Each has compromises but it adds context to your build beyond min/ max.

If they are hauling youre just going to stay out of each others way.

It depends. It might be to begin with players use larger ships with more cargo, but as they are slowed by attackers they switch to faster ships. In time critical stuff like prep races, denying an opponent a clear run while you can keep trucking would be a great additional tactic.

If one of you is doing a combat activity and the other is hauling, the hauler is going to be running, not fighting.

Indeed. That job is to fortify, and the attacker to stop you. Its Rinzlers Git Gud in essence used in an ongoing conflict.

If you are hauling what you going to do?

Haul, its your self appointed mission, or you are following a plan on discord. Or prep, or do the things that need doing at that time. Its not fixed. In a week I've switched from BGS to fortifying to UM and back over and over.

Attack a person who is shooting PP ships? If you are attacked, you're going to run right? If you attack them and they are hauling, they are going to run. If you are both fittied for combat due to protecting territory or a PP activity and in the same location, in the same instance, on the same platform, then sure, you can attack each other, but its not going to help either of your powers much. Its just wasting time.

It depends. As I pointed out the proposal changes how players flow and what they do. In a prep race slowing the opposition means you can catch up, expansions you can pick off players who might be carrying merits (tens of thousands in some cases) or disrupt fortification (since it all goes to one system). You know when there is activity because you can see it on the tabs and station reports.

The main thing open only should do is change the hauling meta, with the clever haulers flying something fast or beefy, most likely Cutters. What you would most likely see is just Cutter after Cutter hauling, there is no better ship for it. For people who can't afford Cutters, well, they are not going to have the spare credits to stock up on massive amounts of PP tokens time and again, so not going to be having much of an impact, but hey, credits are soooo easy to make, anyone these days can afford to if they want. For people who don't have the rank, Clippers are not hard to get, and you can load up quite a bit in them.

If a Cutter is set up for pure cargo its shields are weak, and its hull paper. If its a shield hulk its vulnerable to phasing and reverb munitions (and carries much less cargo). Players might find the sweet spot between cargo size and protection which is already changing the min / max meta, but facing them you have Grom bombs, drag munitions, phasing, ion and reverb. There are players that specialise inc racking shields and sniping powerplants. With the latter if you want to live you need beefy powerplants with module protectors- which is more weight and less cargo again, and even more meta disruption.

Haulers will most likely fall into one or two camps. Those who usually escape attacks, in which case, little imapct on PP from open only. Those who usually die when attacked, in which case, its not hard to imagine such people quitting PP in frustration. This split should be more or less equal among powers, so the impact across powers would be roughly equal.

This is true, to an extent. But then its a team game, with people nurturing and training people who are new. For seasoned players (either new to PP or not) facing off like this is a new challenge in a semi- controlled way, it would make little sense to ask new guys to do the most dangerous things. Currently we do not, players will say what they are good at and discords suggest roles. Its not mini Hitlers saying "DO THIS NOW NOOB!".

Net result for PP, overall less people hauling, those who are hauling are making their deliveries anyway. More PvP among those looking for PvP, but those are not actually helping the power directly anyway and their contributon to CC/merits is minimal.

Which is good, hauling (fort or prep) is far too easy, with too few opponents to disrupt it. I get the argument that its not going to be like that all the time, it won't. But when powers clash in prep wars, or oppose expansions (hostile or otherwise) the chances are high. Less hauling = more vulnerable powers, and more turmoil. This would shrink powers making more systems to fight over. It would free the log jam and have a more 'oscillating' Powerplay landscape, with powers expanding and contracting more often. At the very worst, you have the people who currently play normally (minus the unkown number who don't like PvP) doing regular things, with dedicated PvP wings being directed as hoodlums to bash a rival like guided missiles. It will not be prefect, but for what it offers on paper it would make for a dynamic game beyond what we have. NPCs can't behave like players, they can't oppose you in a joined up way with the current design (if at all really) because ED is highly compartmentalised in its gameplay.

 

[CMDR Kraag]

How about this as a possibility to at least partially satisfy the call for more PvP in PP:

Currently, overlapping spheres of influence of Control Systems of two or more Powers can lead to contested systems. Said systems provide no CC for any of the Powers involved. As it stands now those contested systems just sit there - inert, stagnant - contributing nothing to PP. What if a mechanic was introduced in which PvP combat became the method by which the fate of those contested systems could be decided? Whichever side prevails in the combat then converts those contested systems into exploited systems subject to the existing rules.

In so doing, PvPers are given an arena to engage in ongoing combat in known locations. They would no longer rely on dumb luck hoping to run into another player in Open. Simultaneously, their chosen play style would now be contributing directly to PP. The PvPers are happy. Those who don't want to engage in combat yet still participate in PP give the contested systems a wide berth. This assumes they even OOPP in the first place. If they don't, they get to continue playing PP in PG/Solo as they've always done; no one forces them into OOPP. The PG/Solo haulers are happy. Win-win!

This is a high-level suggestion seeking to avoid delving into the minutiae of implementation. However, I will pre-emptively address a few of the most obvious criticisms.

1) Criticism: Contested systems are too few and far between / too rare an occurrence to provide reliable ongoing PvP.

Fair enough. There's a few solutions that wouldn't be too difficult to implement that may address this, though.

Turmoil Systems
First, add systems that are in turmoil into the mix. Make a small change to the turmoil mechanic in which a system in turmoil doesn't automatically revolt at the end of the cycle if the controlling Power is running a CC deficit. Instead, players pledged to the controlling Power can fight to hold onto it while players pledged to any other Power or even non-aligned can fight to wrest control away from the owning Power.

If the pledged players are successful, their Power retains control of the system. However, it now falls into a new state called Subjugation. This state persists as long as the controlling power (a) continues to run a CC deficit and (b) the controlling Power's pledged players continue to emerge victorious in the PvP battle for the system with each new PowerPlay cycle. For the purposes of CC, Subjugated systems will be treated just like a Turmoil system; they will no longer exploit nearby systems for CC income, but will still incur an upkeep cost.

Conversely, if the players fighting to wrest control away from the controlling Power emerge victorious, then the system will revolt at the beginning of the next PowerPlay cycle. All the rules governing revolting systems then apply. Perhaps use mechanics akin to fortify and undermine where triggers must be reached, including secondary triggers if the opposing side reaches their primary trigger first. This allows for wins, losses, stalemates, and 11th hour heroic rallies to push the victorious condition over the top of the secondary trigger.

Set them up similar to conflict zones. Players enter the contested systems to find combat zones unique to this new mechanic. The difference being they are PvP Open play only; there will be no NPC ships there. Once entered, players choose a side to fight for; the exception being those players pledged to the controlling Power can only fight on the side of that Power. Also, add a new checkbox to the Galaxy Map > Map View Configuration > State dropdown menu which allows players to filter for Contested / Turmoil / Subjugated systems. PvP players now get to fight for systems tied to PowerPlay yet remain compartmentalized. Everybody's happy

Border Worlds
Another suggestion to allow for greater frequency of PvP occurrences is allow players to fight over systems which lie sandwiched between two opposing Control Systems' spheres of influence. These are neither contested nor exploited systems; they lie wholly outside those spheres yet are in a zone within X lightyears distance of the two nearest Control Systems. The border worlds, the badlands, the DMZs; call them whatever you like.

In similar fashion to the existing conflict zones, players can enter zones in these systems to fight for who gets to lay claim to these systems. The choices will be to fight for either of the two Powers with the nearest Control Systems or - and here's a little twist - a third option; fight to keep the systems unaligned. It can potentially become a three-way battle. Similar to what I wrote previously, players pledged to a Power who control an adjacent system can only fight for that Power. Anyone else can choose whatever side they want.

If one of the controlling Powers is victorious at the end of the cycle, the system becomes a captured system, conquest system, whatever you want to call it. It will be treated like an exploited system within the victor's Control System's sphere of influence; however, it's CC income will be halved or quartered or whatever, reflecting it's status as an unwilling spoil of war. Furthermore, this is not a permanent state. The system will fall back into a state of conflict every PowerPlay cycle. If the Power who successfully captured the system last cycle wishes to maintains its hold over it (along with the CC it bestows), it will have to fight for it all over again in this new cycle and every cycle thereafter while the system remains caught between two competing spheres of influence.

If the battle results in a stalemate or the third force fighting to keep the system free from either sphere of influence prevails, then neither of the adjacent Control Systems capture the system, they gain no CC from it, and it remains free until the next cycle where its fate will be decided by a whole new round of combat. Lastly, if at any time an adjacent Control System ceases to be a Control System such that the DMZ system is no longer within X lightyears of two opposing Powers' Control Systems, then that system will no longer be considered a border world. No further battles can be waged to capture it until a new Control System is established close enough to put it back into the category of a border world.

Tweak Existing Mechanics / Rules
Lastly, increase the size of Control Systems' spheres of influence a little or otherwise tweak the rules governing how systems come to be contested to bring about more opportunities for contested systems to arise. This, in turn, will create more opportunities for PvPers to fight over contested systems per the previous suggested mechanics.

Regardless, with some minor tweaks using already existing mechanics (thus keeping the programming effort low), there exist methods for turning the undeveloped resource of contested systems into PvP battlegrounds without negatively impacting any currently existing PowerPlay mechanics while simultaneously negating entirely any requirement to force PowerPlay into Open-Only play.

2) Criticism: Using contested systems as the PvP battleground limits it to only those players pledged to a Power and then only to the two Powers who are contesting a system(s).

Yes, players pledged to a Power can only fight on the side of that Power when fighting over a contested system within their own Power's Control System sphere of influence. This only makes sense; the player pledged to that Power, they're expected to fight for that Power. However, there's nothing stopping them from fighting on either side of any contested system conflict not involving their pledged Power.

If a player pledged to Arissa Lavigny-Duvall wants to fight on the side of Hudson over a contested system between him and Patreus, there'd be nothing stopping them. They're free to do so. If that's just too much for some to accept, then maybe balance it out by limiting it to only fighting on the side of Powers aligned with your own Superpower. Imperials can only fight for other Imperials, Federals for Federals, etc. However, the goal is to increase opportunities for PvP; not decrease them. So my bias is towards allowing players to be free agents when it comes to fighting over contested systems. Regardless, any opportunity for more PvP is better than none provided it doesn't force anyone into it who doesn't want to participate. So I could accept a limit of only fighting for similarly-aligned Powers.

Of course, for non-aligned players no such limit would exist. The trade-off then becomes pledged players can only fight for similarly-aligned Powers but gain merits for their efforts, while free agents / mercenaries can fight for anyone but aren't gaining merits with a particular Power.

3) Criticism: How do you handle 5th columnists / friendly-player killers / gankers?

For pledged players fighting in a PvP-only zone who attack their own players, they will lose merits in the same way as if they attacked a friendly-aligned player or NPC elsewhere. Of course this doesn't affect non-pledged players. However, these additional consequences would apply to all players who engage in friendly-fire in the PvP zones:

• A fine for friendly-fire similar to assault fines levied elsewhere.
• A galaxy-wide bounty for killing a friendly player equal to the value of the ship they destroyed. Going to really hurt if you kill a friendly ship worth several hundred million credits.
• A Superpower-wide "Wanted" status for killing a friendly player. If you're fighting in Imperial space and kill a friendly player there, then you're wanted in all systems controlled by the Empire.
• A notoriety demerit for each friendly-fire kill.
• Immediate ejection from the PvP-only combat zone on friendly player kill.
• Prevented from entering any PvP combat zone for 12 in-game hours per friendly player kill.

That should cover friendly PKers.

As for gankers who would seek to enter these PvP-only combat zones, I'm going on the assumption they would enter unaligned, lurk on the edges of the fight, then pick off targets of opportunity. The simple solution here is that no player enters a PvP-only combat zone without first picking a side. With that in place, ganking is nipped in the bud as they now fall under the consequences listed above for friendly PK-ing. These are severe enough they'll gank once and never do it again because not being able to PvP for 12 in-game hours sucks along with all the other consequences that accrue.

As for 5th columnists, the active version (5th columnists who enter the fight pledged to a side who then proceed to fire on their own allies) falls under the same category as gankers / friendly PKers; the severe consequences for such behavior will quickly bring it to an end. For the passive version (5th columnists who enter the fight pledged to a side who then attempt to "throw" the fight by not fighting / intentionally losing), there's not a simple solution. If they allow themselves to be destroyed, it's kind of self-correcting as they will be forced to respawn at the nearest station; they're taken out of the fight temporarily. If, on the other hand, they don't die but neither are they making any progress towards victory, there's not a whole lot that can be done about that. Nothing is foolproof.

However, this, too, may be self-correcting. If they're 5th columnists rather than mere gankers, they're devoted to a cause; they're actively seeking to undermine from within the Power to which they're pledged. So which is a better use of their time? Throwing a PvP fight over a single contested system that's worth probably a couple CC at most or using their time more productively to undermine an entire Power to the tune of scores of CC wasted on deficit systems? They'll choose the latter, taking them out of the PvP arena altogether.

4) Criticism: How to ensure players seeking PvP in contested systems will even be matched with one another?

No easy answer there. That is one glaring short-coming of the game when viewed from the perspective of wanting to reliably and consistently put numerous players together in the same instance. Maybe it's a hybrid solution of implementing CQC mode inside the Open galaxy.

Regardless, those are my suggestions and my tl;dr: Take an underutilized resource (contested systems) and develop them into a viable PvP arena which also impacts PowerPlay.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In so doing, PvPers are given an arena to engage in ongoing combat in known locations. They would no longer rely on dumb luck hoping to run into another player in Open. Simultaneously, their chosen play style would now be contributing directly to PP. The PvPers are happy. Those who don't want to engage in combat yet still participate in PP give the contested systems a wide berth. This assumes they even OOPP in the first place. If they don't, they get to continue playing PP in PG/Solo as they've always done; no one forces them into OOPP. The PG/Solo haulers are happy. Win-win!

Not exactly a win-win. A particular aspect of Powerplay would have been gated behind PvP combat - not wanting to engage in PvP is not the same as not wanting to engage in combat in general. In essence, a win (for PvPers) - lose (for the PvEers).

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Are you just persistently using hypocrisy as a means to bait an angry reaction? well ok, i'll bite. You're the one making assumptions here. You have repeatedly accused Rubbernuke of making assumptions, when he is simply asserting well established points of view. You then go on to make outlandish assumptions of your own. The most astonishingly disingenuous of which in your last post, is the priceless notion that "ultimately there is a strong consensus that OO/OB would be counterproductive wrt the popularity of PP". Something like 50'000 votes to the contrary in Obsidian Ant's poll, said otherwise. That is a consensus. It is not a handful of old mode-warriors harking back to Hotel California nostalgia, while continuously missing the points regards Powerplay either wilfully or just out of sheer ignorance.

I dont know how many people play PP, or how many would play PP if it was open only and whether there would be a net loss or a net gain.

I do know my personal preferences, and for PP and PP only personally I would be ok if FD went a different way from what i would prefer. Of course if i cant participate in PP then it should not be represented out side of open at all imo, so no PP targets etc, basically it would just not exist (because it is 4th wall breaking if it is there but with a glass ceiling on it).

What I DO know however is that, unless Open only PP was totally decoupled from the BGS and the unique weapons were not removed and replaced with skins or something, that I would think it was a massive bait and switch, so sure OO PP i could live with but it would need to be changed somewhat from its current implementation.

as for online polls.... these are massively skewed. not everyone does social media, or is remotely interested in youtube influencers or online forums. My guess is that those who are NOT interested in such things are more likely to be the ones playing in solo or small PGs of mates and as such it could be (my opinion not fact) that there is a rather large silent majority of people which no online poll would ever capture.
The only chance of getting them would be on log in a forced poll where players had to choose a preference of removing PP from all modes apart from open, and until you have made a choice you cant log in. Anything else is just biased towards people who already have a penchant for more online "social" type interactions.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

As yet, Fdev have simply chosen not to act on the feedback they sought & received. It is either blind ignorance or shameless revisionism to claim otherwise.

FD are the only people with the metrics. they (presuably) will know the percentage of players who play PP and who potentially have never played in open ever.
They will also know how many players play PP on console who dont go in open - who possibly cant go in open.

The problem with OAs polls or any online polls isnt that OA is biased... it is that the platform used to record the poll in the 1st place has an inherent bias.

it is a bit like taking a poll about peoples average fitness levels at a gym and then trying to expand the results to suggest they reflect the average fitness levels of an entire population.

Any poll online is only a reflection of the users who are interested in social media or online forums. This intimation that those who do not visit online forums or do not pay for online subs do not matter is selfish in the extreme... Esp when the developers made a point of saying that online subs are not needed to play ED.

 

[CMDR Kraag]

Not exactly a win-win. A particular aspect of Powerplay would have been gated behind PvP combat - not wanting to engage in PvP is not the same as not wanting to engage in combat in general. In essence, a win (for PvPers) - lose (for the PvEers).

False. We already have precedent for this. One method by which players can currently engage in PowerPlay is to interdict and attack ships of opposing Powers in open space. Such attacks can be carried out against real players; not just NPCs. Kills reward merits and - if the players killed were hauling PowerPlay-specific resources - this directly impacts PowerPlay by preventing those resources from being delivered. If someone wants to avoid this scenario, they switch to PG/Solo, entirely negating the possibility of it even happening (yes, NPCs can interdict; but we're discussing PvP and going PG/Solo eliminates the possibility of PvP in this context). So there is already an aspect of PowerPlay gated behind PvP in Open play only and an aspect of PowerPlay gated behind PG/Solo only (hauling without risk of interdiction by real players actively hunting you).

My suggestion is functionally similar to what already exists; a distinction in PowerPlay between Open and PG/Solo. Furthermore, by limiting players to PvP in zones set up for this purpose around contested systems, it compartmentalizes such combat such that it doesn't intrude upon the wider galaxy in Open play. What's more, unlike taking your chances of getting interdicted in deep space while hauling PowerPlay resources, this form of PvP combat is 100% voluntary. No one is forced into it and all other options for combat outside of this specific instance of PvP are still available to all; thus satisfying those who want to engage in combat but not in PvP.

The PvEers lose nothing; the way they play the game and their impact on it under my suggestion will be no different than how they play the game today. Meanwhile, the PvPers gain the opportunity to engage in the form of play they enjoy while at the same time having their effort contribute - albeit in a small way - to the PowerPlay metagame.

Your argument amounts to "It's OK for the PvEers to do an end run around PvP by going PG/Solo yet still have their effort contribute to PowerPlay. But it's not OK for the same courtesy to be extended to the PvPers, denying them any possibility of their efforts contributing to PowerPlay in a similarly compartmentalized fashion."

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

The issue was that Powerplay was supposed to provide endgame consensual PvP content. Without the open only approach, it doesn't achieve those goals. With the present level of 'perceived' tools cheating, I suppose moving the game-play mode to open only would be a waste of time anyway.

Ironically, I believe that power-play might have been released too early. A lot of commanders at that time (1.3) were not where I would consider they were ready for that kind of 'Endgame' content. I know a lot of people went to join Mahon (as the Alliance is considered the 'Good Guys'), which probably didn't show off the powerplay mechanics to the best as it felt like the postman Pat simulator.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

The issue was that Powerplay was supposed to provide endgame consensual PvP content. Without the open only approach, it doesn't achieve those goals. With the present level of 'perceived' tools cheating, I suppose moving the game-play mode to open only would be a waste of time anyway.

Ironically, I believe that power-play might have been released too early. A lot of commanders at that time (1.3) were not where I would consider they were ready for that kind of 'Endgame' content. I know a lot of people went to join Mahon (as the Alliance is considered the 'Good Guys'), which probably didn't show off the powerplay mechanics to the best as it felt like the postman Pat simulator.

It is true that that is what the developers say PP was meant to be now.......... however iirc this actually isnt what PP was advertised as being when it was 1st pitched to us.
IF it is true that PP was always meant to be the forced PvP content of ED then lets be honest, they did a pi.. poor job of designing it, as its entire design is really just competetive PvE content. Personally I think someone at FD has realised that PP could be reworked as something to give the PvP community to get into and are trying to alter history a bit to get the non open players to not moan too much. (just my guess work).

AS i said, if there is any content at all in ED which with a minor rework could go OO without killing the game for that many, it probably is PP..... however there are some players who would undoubtedly be figuratively thrown under the bus if this happend.

My concern however is, if this was to happen, how long before the flood of posts on the forums that now PP is OO then the BGS must also go OO

which is why any changes made by FD must be done with thought and care, and also with a very clear statement of intent that the BGS will not be affect what so ever by PP going OO and that the rest of the game will continue to be mode agnostic. Just moving the current PP to OO and not changing it, its influences, or its rewards at all i think is gonna be a crap storm.

 

[Robert Maynard]

False. We already have precedent for this. One method by which players can currently engage in PowerPlay is to interdict and attack ships of opposing Powers in open space. Such attacks can be carried out against real players; not just NPCs.

Really? There is no precedent regarding players requiring to play in Open to engage in any permanent feature that forms part of the base game. While attacks can be carried out against players, they can only be carried out against players who instance with other players - which is not the case in Solo and players in Private Groups can select which other players are permitted to access the PG.

The PvEers lose nothing; the way they play the game and their impact on it under my suggestion will be no different than how they play the game today. Meanwhile, the PvPers gain the opportunity to engage in the form of play they enjoy while at the same time having their effort contribute - albeit in a small way - to the PowerPlay metagame.

They'd lose influence in any element gated to Open.

Your argument amounts to "It's OK for the PvEers to do an end run around PvP by going PG/Solo yet still have their effort contribute to PowerPlay. But it's not OK for the same courtesy to be extended to the PvPers, denying them any possibility of their efforts contributing to PowerPlay in a similarly compartmentalized fashion."

Indeed - as we all bought a game where PvP is an optional extra. No-one requires to engage in PvP, in this game, to engage in any in-game feature (CQC / Arena excepted of course - as it's out-of-game). This holds for the BGS as well as Powerplay - as it all forms part of the base game that every single player owns.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

My concern however is, if this was to happen, how long before the flood of posts on the forums that now PP is OO then the BGS must also go OO

which is why any changes made by FD must be done with thought and care, and also with a very clear statement of intent that the BGS will not be affect what so ever by PP going OO and that the rest of the game will continue to be mode agnostic. Just moving the current PP to OO and not changing it, its influences, or its rewards at all i think is gonna be a crap storm.

That's what got me when the original proposal came out. A lot of people put their oar in that had never tried powerplay and there seemed to me more focus on OO spreading to the BGS or even the hell-hole of the entire game going OO. That was making a mountain out of molehill. There was no intention for that to happen.

When we talked to people about this at Lavecon, you got the impression that FDev hadn't considered the knock on effects regarding the rewards, the BGS influence and console players with access to open only, which is probably why these kind of threads are ignored by FDev.

 

[Robert Maynard]

When we talked to people about this at Lavecon, you got the impression that FDev hadn't considered the knock on effects regarding the rewards, the BGS influence and console players with access to open only, which is probably why these kind of threads are ignored by FDev.

Given the re-introduction of the slightly less contentious "weighted merits" proposal (from March'16) in the second Flash Topic, it did seem as if the full consequences of making the feature Open only had not been considered.

 

[Rubbernuke]

How about this as a possibility to at least partially satisfy the call for more PvP in PP:

Currently, overlapping spheres of influence of Control Systems of two or more Powers can lead to contested systems. Said systems provide no CC for any of the Powers involved. As it stands now those contested systems just sit there - inert, stagnant - contributing nothing to PP. What if a mechanic was introduced in which PvP combat became the method by which the fate of those contested systems could be decided? Whichever side prevails in the combat then converts those contested systems into exploited systems subject to the existing rules.

In so doing, PvPers are given an arena to engage in ongoing combat in known locations. They would no longer rely on dumb luck hoping to run into another player in Open. Simultaneously, their chosen play style would now be contributing directly to PP. The PvPers are happy. Those who don't want to engage in combat yet still participate in PP give the contested systems a wide berth. This assumes they even OOPP in the first place. If they don't, they get to continue playing PP in PG/Solo as they've always done; no one forces them into OOPP. The PG/Solo haulers are happy. Win-win!

This is a high-level suggestion seeking to avoid delving into the minutiae of implementation. However, I will pre-emptively address a few of the most obvious criticisms.

1) Criticism: Contested systems are too few and far between / too rare an occurrence to provide reliable ongoing PvP.

Fair enough. There's a few solutions that wouldn't be too difficult to implement that may address this, though.

Turmoil Systems
First, add systems that are in turmoil into the mix. Make a small change to the turmoil mechanic in which a system in turmoil doesn't automatically revolt at the end of the cycle if the controlling Power is running a CC deficit. Instead, players pledged to the controlling Power can fight to hold onto it while players pledged to any other Power or even non-aligned can fight to wrest control away from the owning Power.

If the pledged players are successful, their Power retains control of the system. However, it now falls into a new state called Subjugation. This state persists as long as the controlling power (a) continues to run a CC deficit and (b) the controlling Power's pledged players continue to emerge victorious in the PvP battle for the system with each new PowerPlay cycle. For the purposes of CC, Subjugated systems will be treated just like a Turmoil system; they will no longer exploit nearby systems for CC income, but will still incur an upkeep cost.

Conversely, if the players fighting to wrest control away from the controlling Power emerge victorious, then the system will revolt at the beginning of the next PowerPlay cycle. All the rules governing revolting systems then apply. Perhaps use mechanics akin to fortify and undermine where triggers must be reached, including secondary triggers if the opposing side reaches their primary trigger first. This allows for wins, losses, stalemates, and 11th hour heroic rallies to push the victorious condition over the top of the secondary trigger.

Set them up similar to conflict zones. Players enter the contested systems to find combat zones unique to this new mechanic. The difference being they are PvP Open play only; there will be no NPC ships there. Once entered, players choose a side to fight for; the exception being those players pledged to the controlling Power can only fight on the side of that Power. Also, add a new checkbox to the Galaxy Map > Map View Configuration > State dropdown menu which allows players to filter for Contested / Turmoil / Subjugated systems. PvP players now get to fight for systems tied to PowerPlay yet remain compartmentalized. Everybody's happy

Border Worlds
Another suggestion to allow for greater frequency of PvP occurrences is allow players to fight over systems which lie sandwiched between two opposing Control Systems' spheres of influence. These are neither contested nor exploited systems; they lie wholly outside those spheres yet are in a zone within X lightyears distance of the two nearest Control Systems. The border worlds, the badlands, the DMZs; call them whatever you like.

In similar fashion to the existing conflict zones, players can enter zones in these systems to fight for who gets to lay claim to these systems. The choices will be to fight for either of the two Powers with the nearest Control Systems or - and here's a little twist - a third option; fight to keep the systems unaligned. It can potentially become a three-way battle. Similar to what I wrote previously, players pledged to a Power who control an adjacent system can only fight for that Power. Anyone else can choose whatever side they want.

If one of the controlling Powers is victorious at the end of the cycle, the system becomes a captured system, conquest system, whatever you want to call it. It will be treated like an exploited system within the victor's Control System's sphere of influence; however, it's CC income will be halved or quartered or whatever, reflecting it's status as an unwilling spoil of war. Furthermore, this is not a permanent state. The system will fall back into a state of conflict every PowerPlay cycle. If the Power who successfully captured the system last cycle wishes to maintains its hold over it (along with the CC it bestows), it will have to fight for it all over again in this new cycle and every cycle thereafter while the system remains caught between two competing spheres of influence.

If the battle results in a stalemate or the third force fighting to keep the system free from either sphere of influence prevails, then neither of the adjacent Control Systems capture the system, they gain no CC from it, and it remains free until the next cycle where its fate will be decided by a whole new round of combat. Lastly, if at any time an adjacent Control System ceases to be a Control System such that the DMZ system is no longer within X lightyears of two opposing Powers' Control Systems, then that system will no longer be considered a border world. No further battles can be waged to capture it until a new Control System is established close enough to put it back into the category of a border world.

Tweak Existing Mechanics / Rules
Lastly, increase the size of Control Systems' spheres of influence a little or otherwise tweak the rules governing how systems come to be contested to bring about more opportunities for contested systems to arise. This, in turn, will create more opportunities for PvPers to fight over contested systems per the previous suggested mechanics.

Regardless, with some minor tweaks using already existing mechanics (thus keeping the programming effort low), there exist methods for turning the undeveloped resource of contested systems into PvP battlegrounds without negatively impacting any currently existing PowerPlay mechanics while simultaneously negating entirely any requirement to force PowerPlay into Open-Only play.

2) Criticism: Using contested systems as the PvP battleground limits it to only those players pledged to a Power and then only to the two Powers who are contesting a system(s).

Yes, players pledged to a Power can only fight on the side of that Power when fighting over a contested system within their own Power's Control System sphere of influence. This only makes sense; the player pledged to that Power, they're expected to fight for that Power. However, there's nothing stopping them from fighting on either side of any contested system conflict not involving their pledged Power.

If a player pledged to Arissa Lavigny-Duvall wants to fight on the side of Hudson over a contested system between him and Patreus, there'd be nothing stopping them. They're free to do so. If that's just too much for some to accept, then maybe balance it out by limiting it to only fighting on the side of Powers aligned with your own Superpower. Imperials can only fight for other Imperials, Federals for Federals, etc. However, the goal is to increase opportunities for PvP; not decrease them. So my bias is towards allowing players to be free agents when it comes to fighting over contested systems. Regardless, any opportunity for more PvP is better than none provided it doesn't force anyone into it who doesn't want to participate. So I could accept a limit of only fighting for similarly-aligned Powers.

Of course, for non-aligned players no such limit would exist. The trade-off then becomes pledged players can only fight for similarly-aligned Powers but gain merits for their efforts, while free agents / mercenaries can fight for anyone but aren't gaining merits with a particular Power.

3) Criticism: How do you handle 5th columnists / friendly-player killers / gankers?

For pledged players fighting in a PvP-only zone who attack their own players, they will lose merits in the same way as if they attacked a friendly-aligned player or NPC elsewhere. Of course this doesn't affect non-pledged players. However, these additional consequences would apply to all players who engage in friendly-fire in the PvP zones:

• A fine for friendly-fire similar to assault fines levied elsewhere.
• A galaxy-wide bounty for killing a friendly player equal to the value of the ship they destroyed. Going to really hurt if you kill a friendly ship worth several hundred million credits.
• A Superpower-wide "Wanted" status for killing a friendly player. If you're fighting in Imperial space and kill a friendly player there, then you're wanted in all systems controlled by the Empire.
• A notoriety demerit for each friendly-fire kill.
• Immediate ejection from the PvP-only combat zone on friendly player kill.
• Prevented from entering any PvP combat zone for 12 in-game hours per friendly player kill.

That should cover friendly PKers.

As for gankers who would seek to enter these PvP-only combat zones, I'm going on the assumption they would enter unaligned, lurk on the edges of the fight, then pick off targets of opportunity. The simple solution here is that no player enters a PvP-only combat zone without first picking a side. With that in place, ganking is nipped in the bud as they now fall under the consequences listed above for friendly PK-ing. These are severe enough they'll gank once and never do it again because not being able to PvP for 12 in-game hours sucks along with all the other consequences that accrue.

As for 5th columnists, the active version (5th columnists who enter the fight pledged to a side who then proceed to fire on their own allies) falls under the same category as gankers / friendly PKers; the severe consequences for such behavior will quickly bring it to an end. For the passive version (5th columnists who enter the fight pledged to a side who then attempt to "throw" the fight by not fighting / intentionally losing), there's not a simple solution. If they allow themselves to be destroyed, it's kind of self-correcting as they will be forced to respawn at the nearest station; they're taken out of the fight temporarily. If, on the other hand, they don't die but neither are they making any progress towards victory, there's not a whole lot that can be done about that. Nothing is foolproof.

However, this, too, may be self-correcting. If they're 5th columnists rather than mere gankers, they're devoted to a cause; they're actively seeking to undermine from within the Power to which they're pledged. So which is a better use of their time? Throwing a PvP fight over a single contested system that's worth probably a couple CC at most or using their time more productively to undermine an entire Power to the tune of scores of CC wasted on deficit systems? They'll choose the latter, taking them out of the PvP arena altogether.

4) Criticism: How to ensure players seeking PvP in contested systems will even be matched with one another?

No easy answer there. That is one glaring short-coming of the game when viewed from the perspective of wanting to reliably and consistently put numerous players together in the same instance. Maybe it's a hybrid solution of implementing CQC mode inside the Open galaxy.

Regardless, those are my suggestions and my tl;dr: Take an underutilized resource (contested systems) and develop them into a viable PvP arena which also impacts PowerPlay.

Good stuff!