PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[Rubbernuke]

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

It won't, for very good reasons:

The BGS has matured in all 3 modes over the years with continual development that relies on missions

Although you know your 'pledge' via squadrons ID, you cannot know a players intention because you can't scan / knowwhat missions they are doing. Powerplay is different in that you have designed pledges, power specific cargoes (prep / fort) and simple tasks that clearly show your intention to another pledge.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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.

From memory Sandro stated that weighted merits are easy to code. Although its far from what I personally feel is best, its better than what we have now and for me is the middle ground.

 

[Robert Maynard]

From memory Sandro stated that weighted merits are easy to code. Although its far from what I personally feel is best, its better than what we have now and for me is the middle ground.

While weighted merits may be seen as a "compromise" from the perspective of those seeking change, either option is a loss to players in Solo / Private Groups when compared to the status quo.

 

[Rubbernuke]

While weighted merits may be seen as a "compromise" from the perspective of those seeking change, either option is a loss to players in Solo / Private Groups when compared to the status quo.

The only loss is merits counting less towards the power. It could easily be set that personal merits are unchanged. I also remember that power modules would be moved, so not much change overall- all modes, just two count less towards the power.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

The only loss is merits counting less towards the power. It could easily be set that personal merits are unchanged. I also remember that power modules would be moved, so not much change- all modes, just two count less towards the power.

indeed
I personally think sandros very 1st handgrenade regarding PP is about the best suggestion i have heard for change.....
anything else i think can only work if there is a massive investment in getting PP improved, and FD seem to have other things on their mind at the moment for ED, not redoing PP from ground zero.

i know those not in open may not like it, because their "work" will have less power than others "work".... but i can see that those in open (who are not cheating using router blocks etc) have a steeper hill to climb. so putting a multiplier on the Power effects for their work done, but keeping the actual CMDR rewards and progression exactly the same to me seems maybe not an improvement for everyone, but at least an improvement for some and not game breaking / feature removing for anyone.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The only loss is merits counting less towards the power. It could easily be set that personal merits are unchanged. I also remember that power modules would be moved, so not much change overall- all modes, just two count less towards the power.

The magnitude of the change rather depends on the magnitude of any bonus applied to merits gained in Open - with various proposals from players ranging from "worth less" to "worthless", in terms of the residual value of Solo / PG merits.

As to coding simplicity, with mode weighted merits there would be a necessity to ensure that merits would only be awarded a bonus if the player stayed in Open while holding them

 

[Rubbernuke]

The magnitude of the change rather depends on the magnitude of any bonus applied to merits gained in Open - with various proposals from players ranging from "worth less" to "worthless", in terms of the residual value of Solo / PG merits.

As to coding simplicity, with mode weighted merits there would be a necessity to ensure that merits would only be awarded a bonus if the player stayed in Open while holding them

Some Sandro bits from here> https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal-part-2.430713/

It’s a very simple mechanically

“Powerplay vouchers and commodities have their values permanently reduced if a Commander enters Private Group or Solo mode with them, or acquires them in these modes.”

As a caveat, it’s worth noting that availability of Powerplay modules, which seems to represent a significant portion of concerns, could be made available in some fashion outside of Powerplay. The reason I’m mentioning this is to keep the feedback as focused as possible. What we want here are your opinions on the concept itself rather than secondary effects.

If AFK was sorted (i.e. new CZs rather than old ones) then solo / PG could go up much further. If both were done, 20% would be acceptable. What would you call an acceptable %?

 

[Robert Maynard]

If AFK was sorted (i.e. new CZs rather than old ones) then solo / PG could go up much further. If both were done, 20% would be acceptable.

A reduction "of" or "to" 20% when compared to merits gained in Open?

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

Still Can't believe all this is a year ago.

I'd probably be ok if that any merits earned in non-open don't count towards the Power Play background Simulation but they could count towards players getting the PP rewards. Mind you that would probably cause double the Dev Workload.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Still Can't believe all this is a year ago.

First time round Sandro brandished the hand-grenade in March'16 and acknowledged that nothing was planned in that regard in December'16 - then nothing until May'18 when he created the Flash Topics - then left the project.

 

[Rubbernuke]

A reduction "of" or "to" 20% when compared to merits gained in Open?

Anything. What would you call a fair reduction of solo merits compared to open? So for example, Open is worth 100%, what, from 0% to 100% of that would you say is fair in Sandros proposal?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Anything. What would you call a fair reduction of solo merits compared to open? So for example, Open is worth 100%, what, from 0% to 100% of that would you say is fair in Sandros proposal?

It depends on what one considers to be "fair" - in the context of retrospectively reducing the effect on a existing pan-modal game feature, that forms part of the base game, of players in two of the game modes to satisfy those who engage in what is an entirely optional play-style in the third game mode.

In that context 100% would be "fair".

In terms of the challenge from other players, I don't consider that a fixed blanket bonus simply for playing in a game mode is "fair" - as it would be applied even when other players were not encountered.

If a weighting were to be implemented then I'd rather that it took account of merits lost due to PvP encounters as a proportion of total merits earned, aggregated over a number of weeks, e.g. if 20% of merits earned in Open were lost due to PvP then a +25% weighting (i.e. 100% / (100% - PvP Losses)) could be applied to merits delivered in Open. In this way any weighting would be applied to all Powerplayers in Open for merits actually lost in Open.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It depends on what one considers to be "fair" - in the context of retrospectively reducing the effect on a existing pan-modal game feature, that forms part of the base game, of players in two of the game modes to satisfy those who engage in what is an entirely optional play-style in the third game mode.

In that context 100% would be "fair".

In terms of the challenge from other players, I don't consider that a fixed blanket bonus simply for playing in a game mode is "fair" - as it would be applied even when other players were not encountered.

If a weighting were to be implemented then I'd rather that it took account of merits lost due to PvP encounters as a proportion of total merits earned, aggregated over a number of weeks, e.g. if 20% of merits earned in Open were lost due to PvP and if Open merits constituted 50% of all merits then a 20% bonus would be applied to merits delivered in Open.

Currently in Solo you can have exactly 0 interdictions by NPCs, just as its possible you'll have no NPCs or players in Open. Thats twice the pool of possible chances, even before you factor in how powerful player ships are in comparison to PP NPCs interdicting, and that players can use all available weapons and loadouts.

How about a heat map that takes into account rival pledges? Just like trading heat maps right now, you'd record the amount of ships and collate the DPS to make a 'threat map'. If you fly through more dangerous places, you get a higher merit bonus. It would take into account every instance at once in Open (so its a true representation) and it would be fair, as it takes into account matchmaking and that you physically went there and risked more.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Currently in Solo you can have exactly 0 interdictions by NPCs, just as its possible you'll have no NPCs or players in Open. Thats twice the pool of possible chances, even before you factor in how powerful player ships are in comparison to PP NPCs interdicting, and that players can use all available weapons and loadouts.

How about a heat map that takes into account rival pledges? Just like trading heat maps right now, you'd record the amount of ships and collate the DPS to make a 'threat map'. If you fly through more dangerous places, you get a higher merit bonus. It would take into account every instance at once in Open (so its a true representation) and it would be fair, as it takes into account matchmaking and that you physically went there and risked more.

Trading heat maps are aggregated over what period? Collating DPS of opposing ships would reward players if they were in the same system as those camping in their DPS optimised ships - with no guarantee that they'd actually instance with them nor that the pilots in those ships would actually pose a threat.

Hence the counter proposal to weight Open merits according to actual losses due to PvP - something for something, not something for nothing.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Trading heat maps are aggregated over what period?

24 hours, or one tick if I remember right.

Collating DPS of opposing ships would reward players if they were in the same system as those camping in their DPS optimised ships - with no guarantee that they'd actually instance with them nor that the pilots in those ships would actually pose a threat.

But thats the idea: potentially you might not meet anyone else, but you are still risking your neck going to those places anyway because FD record each ship. In each case you took the chance that people in solo did not, along with the chance of meeting an NPC.

Hence the counter proposal to weight Open merits according to actual losses due to PvP - something for something, not something for nothing.

Its an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how it would work in Powerplay as it is, there are a lot of inconsistencies and angles to think about. For example:

Bigger powers attacking smaller ones- would relative size of power be considered?

Some powers being in combat all the time, while others hardly at all.

You have 11 powers with some allied / neutral- would you have weighting per grouping of powers or per power?

Your weighting idea is essentially hazard pay, but the temptation to drop to solo for 100% and lack of opposition is still there. The difference would have to be much more.

Is it exploitable? Console owners have almost infinite commander profiles and could plump up figures with the free merits (and that money flows like water these days).

You are effectively rewarding failure, as the more you die the more merits are worth. Part of me finds that counter intuitive, i.e. the more you hurt your enemy the stronger they get as they have danger pay (although it could balance out). In such a case it would discourage killing opposition forces.

Ironically your idea would work best in reverse, where the attacker is rewarded- just like war aces you get a multiplier the more kill marks you have. In a double irony that would work best in an Open only context.

 

[Robert Maynard]

24 hours, or one tick if I remember right.

.... so no reflection on current activity then.

But thats the idea: potentially you might not meet anyone else, but you are still risking your neck going to those places anyway because FD record each ship. In each case you took the chance that people in solo did not, along with the chance of meeting an NPC.

... and weighting based on historical observed losses due to PvP would, over time, compensate for actual merit losses due to PvP encounters

Its an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how it would work in Powerplay as it is, there are a lot of inconsistencies and angles to think about. For example:

Bigger powers attacking smaller ones- would relative size of power be considered?

Some powers being in combat all the time, while others hardly at all.

You have 11 powers with some allied / neutral- would you have weighting per grouping of powers or per power?

Your weighting idea is essentially hazard pay, but the temptation to drop to solo for 100% and lack of opposition is still there. The difference would have to be much more.

1) the weighting could be calculated based on all merits gained in Open and lost due to PvP in Open - size of Power would be irrelevant.
2) Powers in combat would lose merits due to PvP, Powers not in combat would not - all would receive the weighting.
3) See 1).
4) It is exactly hazard pay, i.e. a bonus for all players in Open for losses due to PvP in Open - is that not what all the complaints about players in Solo / PGs facing less opposition is all about? If a player carrying merits gained in Open dropped to Solo or PG then they'd lose weighting on those merits. I don't agree that any weighting should over-compensate for actual losses due to PvP.

Is it exploitable? Console owners have almost infinite commander profiles and could plump up figures with the free merits (and that money flows like water these days).

They could - and all Open players could benefit from it, not just their Power.

You are effectively rewarding failure, as the more you die the more merits are worth. Part of me finds that counter intuitive, i.e. the more you hurt your enemy the stronger they get as they have danger pay (although it could balance out). In such a case it would discourage killing opposition forces.

It's a "less loss" approach to the problem rather than a "throw a blanket bonus at PvPers" approach. On average, the number of merits delivered in Open would be the same no matter how many were lost due to PvP.

Ironically your idea would work best in reverse, where the attacker is rewarded- just like war aces you get a multiplier the more kill marks you have. In a double irony that would work best in an Open only context.

Inflicting PvP losses on other players would increase the weighting, yes. That's exactly what it is based on. No PvP losses, no weighting.

 

[Rubbernuke]

.... so no reflection on current activity then.

I agree its an abstraction, but thats the resolution a tick is at, plus each day you'd know what areas are hot as it counts every ship in Open- so capitals for example. It would be useful anyway for people to judge activity (for planning / defence- if it replaced station reports perhaps), and as an indicator of difficulty (in open only) so people would have a 'weather forecast'. Its not a perfect system, but it does double duty.

I actually like your idea a lot and it does give context to the weighting.The reason for the questions is really as a sounding board because I'm trying to apply it to how PP works currently in my head. My only reservation is that it would be more complicated to code as it would need to filter Open pledge deaths and have an algorithm to keep track of things, rather than a fixed number. But deaths are tracked so it can't be much more than that.

And more radically, why not apply it to all modes? In this way if NPCs are harder, then that would scale too, and that Open would have that + player deaths and the scaling would be the sum of both because all loses are treated the same- it would become a self regulating difficulty level reward system.

EDIT: If this was the way weighted worked, it would not counter AFK turretboats in combat expansions. To combat that the PP CZ design would need to be of the new type, and that relogging set you just outside the combat area to prevent automation from relogging after the enemies were exhausted.

 

[Velixar]

Some Sandro bits from here> https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal-part-2.430713/

Who tired of listing to a OLD TOPIC by Sandros who DOSE NOT WORK for Elite Dangerous part of the company anymore. He in Frontier working on a different project. So let it drop.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Who tired of listing to a OLD TOPIC by Sandros who DOSE NOT WORK for Elite Dangerous part of the company anymore. He in Frontier working on a different project. So let it drop.

Well, until FD sort Powerplay out, threads like this are useful to shake those ideas down and find flaws. If you don't like that, don't post or read it. Those posts are what was last said, so are the only guide we have.

 

[Velixar]

Well, until FD sort Powerplay out, threads like this are useful to shake those ideas down and find flaws. If you don't like that, don't post or read it. Those posts are what was last said, so are the only guide we have.

Here a few flaw for you.

1 Sandros DOSE NOT WORK for Elite Dangerous anymore. So his topic is invalid.

2 Taking Power Play from consoles users because they don't like the idea of Pay to play. They should be offered Power Play Solo

That give us this issue

3 If they give Console users a Free pass for Pay to play for Power Play Open and offered solo Power Play Then they should give the same Pass to PC users so it fair for all players.

So Rubberduck as you can see. Power Play Open failed.

LOL Sorry auto correct kinda funky tonight.