PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[Rubbernuke]

Here a few flaw for you.

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

Last time I checked, the topic was still by FD.

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

What, like the idea that Maynard had that was a result of trying to find a middle ground compromise?

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.

Console owners have virtually unlimited commander slots- is that fair to a PC owner who has to pay for each one? Each of those can pledge, vote and is a 5C magnet.

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

Not really, it has a lot going for it that even the weighted idea can't do. In the end its down to FD but at least with threads like this one, they can see the consequences, pros and cons explained fully.

 

[Velixar]

Last time I checked, the topic was still by FD.

A locked topic by Sandros. He not part of Elite Dangerous anymore. We can put this on the line. An employee suggest an idea to a company and is Fired or quits shortly after words.

What, like the idea that Maynard had that was a result of trying to find a middle ground compromise?

Right now we do have a compromise. Equal for All Modes. It fair for us all.

Console owners have virtually unlimited commander slots- is that fair to a PC owner who has to pay for each one? Each of those can pledge, vote and is a 5C magnet.

That a topic you should bring up in Suggestion. To limit Console users to one account or have PC have multiple accounts. Not valid for this topic. My point is. I don't want to pay to play for something I already have now. I feel PC users who are solo only should have the same rights as Console users if they don't want to be in PvPer type game play.

Not really, it has a lot going for it that even the weighted idea can't do. In the end its down to FD but at least with threads like this one, they can see the consequences, pros and cons explained fully.

What it benefit PvPers and no one else. Ya I can see Frontier modifying Power play to make it better all level of game modes. But I do not see it taken away from Other players.

 

[Rubbernuke]

A locked topic by Sandros. He not part of Elite Dangerous anymore. We can put this on the line. An employee suggest an idea to a company and is Fired or quits shortly after words.

So does that by extension mean that Michael Brookes saying 'all modes are valid choices' no longer applies because he works on JWE?

Right now we do have a compromise. Equal for All Modes. It fair for us all.

Have you read and actually understood what was said? I do believe that Open is best, but I'm open to exploring all opportunities like that one.

That a topic you should bring up in Suggestion. To limit Console users to one account or have PC have multiple accounts. Not valid for this topic. My point is. I don't want to pay to play for something I already have now. I feel PC users who are solo only should have the same rights as Console users if they don't want to be in PvPer type game play.

And if the minority don't have a sub? FD would go with the numbers.

What it benefit PvPers and no one else. Ya I can see Frontier modifying Power play to make it better all level of game modes. But I do not see it taken away from Other players.

Depends what they feel is best.

 

[CMDR Kraag]

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 precedent is not requiring players to play in Open to engage in any permanent feature that forms part of the base game. The precedent is there already exists an aspect of PowerPlay that can only be accessed via PvP in Open play; interdicting and attacking real players. Successfully destroying said interdicted ship then has a small but quantifiable impact on PowerPlay.

If players choose to engage in this aspect of PowerPlay, it is only accessible by engaging in PvP in Open play. Regardless of how rare such an occurrence is due to the vagaries of instancing, timing, location, and luck, it still exists. Thus it is a precedent.

Arguing that my suggestion of creating completely voluntary PvP-only zones inside contested systems in Open play is gating PowerPlay behind Open play PvP and thus bad is specious. Open play PvP-only contributions to PowerPlay already exist. Furthermore, it's voluntary. No one is forced to engage in it and not engaging in it does not disadvantage anyone. Don't like that some PvPers may potentially gain an extra 2 CC for their Power by fighting for control of a contested system in Open play? Grab your Type 10, load it up with PowerPlay commodity, and contribute toward fortifying a control system in PG/Solo.

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

They already lose influence to an element of PowerPlay gated to Open as previously discussed. And that assumes they're losing anything in the first place, which they aren't. It's not a zero-sum game. The PowerPlay contribution of a PvE hauler in PG/Solo isn't decreased by the actions of PvP-er fighting in Open in a contested system. Whatever contribution they make in PG/Solo remains their contribution. Meanwhile, whatever contribution the Open play PvP-er makes is their contribution.

Are they potentially competing with one another - regardless of how indirectly - across modes? Yes. But that is the situation that already exists. PowerPlay is cross-mode competition with players choosing from a multitude of approaches. Adding PvP-only zones in contested systems in Open play adds but one more avenue which has no negative impact on the gaming experience nor personal contribution of a player PvE-ing in PG/Solo. Meanwhile, it opens up a whole new form of play for the PvP-minded which can also contribute to PowerPlay. All while keeping it compartmentalized out of respect for the already established play styles and the Open vs. PG/Solo distinction.

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.

Yes, PvP is optional. But that doesn't confer a blanket moratorium on any form of PvP in PowerPlay. As already explained, there are aspects of PowerPlay which are only accessible via Open play PvP. It doesn't matter how rare an occurrence nor how minuscule their contribution. Interdict Power-aligned real player ship, destroy ship, gain merits, deny them their contribution of whatever Power-specific commodity they were carrying (if any). So, yes, they are required to engage in PvP in an in-game feature (PowerPlay) if they voluntarily choose an established pathway to contributing to that feature. It isn't open to debate; it is a fact, it exists.

That it exists negates your argument that no one is required to engage in PvP. They are most certainly required to engage in PvP if they want to experience this specific aspect of PowerPlay. You would be correct if you had stated "No one is required - nor should be required - to engage in PvP to be able to contribute to PowerPlay." I agree with that argument but that's not the argument you're making.

Nothing in my original suggestion obligates a player to engage in PvP in order to contribute to PowerPlay. It is completely voluntary, just like the current options. To engage in PowerPlay is a choice; a choice which - in itself - does not, nor should not, force players into PvP. 100% agreed. But there already exist avenues of play underneath the overarching umbrella of choosing to engage in PowerPlay which do require voluntary PvP if one wishes to experience them. This is indisputable; Player A, "I want to experience what it's like to interdict and destroy a real player's ship in Open play in order to earn PowerPlay merits." It's not required to contribute to PowerPlay, but - once that option is chosen - engaging in PvP becomes a requirement.

My suggestion simply adds one more such avenue while respecting current conventions and further compartmentalizing it. If anything, PvE-ers who swear off Open play for fear of interdiction by real players would have less to fear. The PvPers will flock to the PvP contested system combat zones, freeing the space lanes to safer travel.

 

[kingbankai]

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

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

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

PLEEEAASSE.

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

Agreed. Just make them a mission contact or for hostile flags in Private and Solo. Everyone wins but Open only changes power outcomes.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The precedent is not requiring players to play in Open to engage in any permanent feature that forms part of the base game. The precedent is there already exists an aspect of PowerPlay that can only be accessed via PvP in Open play; interdicting and attacking real players. Successfully destroying said interdicted ship then has a small but quantifiable impact on PowerPlay.

If players choose to engage in this aspect of PowerPlay, it is only accessible by engaging in PvP in Open play. Regardless of how rare such an occurrence is due to the vagaries of instancing, timing, location, and luck, it still exists. Thus it is a precedent.

Arguing that my suggestion of creating completely voluntary PvP-only zones inside contested systems in Open play is gating PowerPlay behind Open play PvP and thus bad is specious. Open play PvP-only contributions to PowerPlay already exist. Furthermore, it's voluntary. No one is forced to engage in it and not engaging in it does not disadvantage anyone. Don't like that some PvPers may potentially gain an extra 2 CC for their Power by fighting for control of a contested system in Open play? Grab your Type 10, load it up with PowerPlay commodity, and contribute toward fortifying a control system in PG/Solo.

PvP is not limited to only one of the two multi-player game modes, therefore no aspect of a pan-modal feature is limited to Open....

.... therefore no precedent is set in that regard. If anything, the precedent set when the game design was announced, i.e. all three game modes affect a single shared galaxy state, predates any presumed precedent in Powerplay by a number of years before it was implemented in all three game modes in 1.3.

What specific contributory factor to Powerplay, other than destroying opponents in PvP (which, as pointed out, is available in two of the three game modes), is only available in Open?

So called "voluntary zones", in Open only, that would comprise the only method of achieving something in Powerplay constitute PvP-Gating:

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.

Thankfully none of the multi-player features of the game have been limited to a single game mode. I'd be surprised if Frontier chose to do so now.

 

[Kaocraft]

Whelp. Infinity Battlescape seems like it will basically be OOPP but with sprinkles. It’s semi-releasing soon so we’ll see if it holds people’s attention. If the game is successful then Frontier will 100% move forward with OOPP because there’s never been a feature they weren’t afraid to follow someone else’s lead on. Too bad they didn’t have the courage to do something that matters at a point in time where it had a chance to make a difference, but so long as the people who post 20 times a day in the same thread are happy (with nothing important happening or being able to happen, ever), I guess that’s what’s most important.

 

[Lestat]

Whelp. Infinity Battlescape seems like it will basically be OOPP but with sprinkles. It’s semi-releasing soon so we’ll see if it holds people’s attention. If the game is successful then Frontier will 100% move forward with OOPP because there’s never been a feature they weren’t afraid to follow someone else’s lead on. Too bad they didn’t have the courage to do something that matters at a point in time where it had a chance to make a difference, but so long as the people who post 20 times a day in the same thread are happy (with nothing important happening or being able to happen, ever), I guess that’s what’s most important.

I looked at it. All I see is an Advanced CQC type game. Graphics are a little on the low end. It also sounds like you can only do one thing. Combat with other players.

 

[CMDR Kraag]

PvP is not limited to only one of the two multi-player game modes, therefore no aspect of a pan-modal feature is limited to Open....

.... therefore no precedent is set in that regard. If anything, the precedent set when the game design was announced, i.e. all three game modes affect a single shared galaxy state, predates any presumed precedent in Powerplay by a number of years before it was implemented in all three game modes in 1.3.

All three game modes affecting a single shared galaxy state is true. But your attempt to imply that means they must all share it the same way using the same methods or this somehow invalidates PvP as a viable means of affecting it is false. They have different methods for affecting it. A player in Solo will never, ever be able to affect PowerPlay through a PvP interaction, for example. Yet a player in Open can affect PowerPlay through PvP. Furthermore you use "PvP" as a catch-all while conveniently ignoring the distinctions which already exist between the modes. PvP in PG is not the same as PvP in Open. Drawing equivalencies between them is disingenuous.

PG PvP is established between parties known to each other and who set the parameters of their interaction with zero chance of any outside actor interfering or changing those parameters. Though Open PvP can encompass the same parameters as PG, it offers an additional aspect that PG can't; random chance encounters between strangers. They're not one and the same. Yet FD saw fit to allow random chance encounters between strangers in Open play - the only mode in which this version of PvP is possible - to impact PowerPlay. Thus, once again, the precedent is already established by FD for PvP-gating in Open only. Your claim that my suggestion amounts to PvP-gating PowerPlay and should be discounted on that basis alone is countered by the evidence that already exists in-game.

What specific contributory factor to Powerplay, other than destroying opponents in PvP (which, as pointed out, is available in two of the three game modes), is only available in Open?

So called "voluntary zones", in Open only, that would comprise the only method of achieving something in PowerPlay constitute PvP-Gating:

There is no requirement to provide yet another qualifier. If FD saw fit to allow a form of PvP unique to Open play to impact PowerPlay, that's all the evidence needed. They obviously don't have a problem with it. It only requires one positive to discount your negative and FD has already furnished it.

Now that the albatross of "PvP-gating" has been dismantled by FD itself sanctioning such methods, hopefully we can move past it to more substantive discussions of the suggestion itself without attempting to discount it wholesale because "PvP bad!!!"

As to the voluntary zones, they aren't "so called" voluntary zones, they are voluntary zones; as made quite clear in my original post. It, like all other aspects of the game, represent voluntary choices of players wishing to participate. There is no requirement, no obligation, no forcing of players to participate in them. They are compartmentalized to the zones and further limited by only occurring in contested systems and possibly in systems in turmoil or on the borders of opposing Control System spheres of influence if the additional suggestions I made were implemented.

Now, to address your concerns regarding a method of achieving something in PowerPlay unique to Open only, that's an easy fix. Allow the contested systems to be reinforced by delivery of a PowerPlay commodity of some sort (Aid Supplies, Reserves, etc.) across all modes. Said commodity having to come from outside the sphere of influence of the Control System wherein the contested system exists (in-game rationale: the affected Control System and its exploited non-contested systems are shoring up their own reserves in anticipation of the contested system(s) conflict spilling outside its borders; they have none to spare).

Just use the existing Fortify / Undermine mechanic. PvP kills in the combat zones which reach their primary trigger will flip the system from contested to exploited by the victor unless the Aid Supplies / Reserve / what-have-you trigger is reached. However, this is not one-sided. It's not the case that side A is engaging in PvP combat only and Side B is engaging in Aid Supply hauling only. Rather, they are both fighting PvP battles and running Aid Supplies simultaneously (or at least they have the potential to do so if they choose).

It then becomes a four-way race to reach the trigger points; PvP kills on the one hand and Aid Supply running to counter the PvP kills on the other by both sides. This opens up more possibilities for outcome than simple binary win-lose:

1. Side A fails to reach its PvP primary trigger.
   Side A fails to reach its Aid Supplies trigger.
   Side B fails to reach its PvP primary trigger.
   Side B fails to reach its Aid Supplies trigger.
   Outcome = Stalemate. The system remains contested going into the next cycle.
   
   
2. Side A reaches its PvP primary trigger.
   Side A fails to reach its Aid Supplies trigger.
   Side B fails to reach its PvP primary trigger.
   Side B fails to reach its Aid Supplies trigger.
   Outcome = Side A wins and the contested system becomes exploited by Side A's resident control system next cycle (but will still have to be fought over yet again next cycle while it continues to meet the current criteria of a contested system; lying within overlapping Control Systems of opposing Powers).
   
   
3. Side A reaches its PvP primary trigger.
   Side A fails to reach its Aid Supplies trigger.
   Side B reaches its PvP primary trigger.
   Side B fails to reach its Aid Supplies trigger.
   Side A reaches its PvP secondary trigger.
   Side B fails to reach its PvP secondary trigger.
   Outcome = Side A wins and the contested system becomes exploited by Side A's resident control system next cycle (but will still have to be fought over yet again next cycle while it continues to meet the current criteria of a contested system; lying within overlapping Control Systems of opposing Powers).
   
   
4. Side A reaches its PvP primary trigger.
   Side A fails to reach its Aid Supplies trigger.
   Side B reaches its PvP primary trigger.
   Side B fails to reach its Aid Supplies trigger.
   Side A reaches its PvP secondary trigger.
   Side B reaches its PvP secondary trigger.
   Outcome = Stalemate. The system remains contested going into the next cycle.
   
   
5. Side A reaches its PvP primary trigger.
   Side A reaches its Aid Supplies trigger.
   Side B reaches its PvP primary trigger.
   Side B fails to reach its Aid Supplies trigger.
   Side A fails to reach its PvP secondary trigger.
   Side B fails to reach its PvP secondary trigger.
   Outcome = Side A wins and the contested system becomes exploited by Side A's resident control system next cycle (but will still have to be fought over yet again next cycle while it continues to meet the current criteria of a contested system; lying within overlapping Control Systems of opposing Powers).

And so on and so forth through all the iterations of comparing PvP kill triggers to Aid Supply triggers. The take away being the emphasis is on PvP with both primary and secondary triggers but only a single trigger for the Aid Supplies. Furthermore, the secondary PvP trigger set encourages continued participation as it's possible a heroic 11th hour push may still win the day if the secondary trigger is reached and the other triggers are in that side's favor. This keeps the battle going, maintaining interest and participation throughout the cycle.

Regardless of outcome, PvP participants still earn merits for their kills and Aid Supply haulers still earn merits for their successful deliveries per existing PowerPlay rules. I would even favor allowing bounties to be collected from players who have them (would need a Kill Warrant scanner, though, to discover bounties from outside the contested system). However, no bounty for killing enemy players will accrue while in these combat zones (friendly-fire bounties WILL accrue, however, per the original suggestion as a deterrent to friendly PK-ing and ganking).

Now players from across all modes can have an impact on the suggested contested system mechanic. No, it doesn't address the issue of its PvP aspect being exclusive to Open play (even, though, technically it's not; PGers could engage in the PvP battles as well, further countering the previous argument that my suggestion is exclusive to Open). But I've dismantled that argument per the above; there's no need to revisit it again. What it does allow, though, is counter-play from across all modes without being forced to PvP. Everybody can influence the outcome of the contested system battles through either PvP in Open and PG or hauling in Open, PG, and Solo.

So through discourse we arrive at an even better implementation of the original suggestion. That made it worthwhile.

Thank you.

 

[Goose4291]

Console owners have virtually unlimited commander slots- is that fair to a PC owner who has to pay for each one? Each of those can pledge, vote and is a 5C magnet.

I didn't know this. I'm actually quite annoyed about this, as it's another gaping exploit hole that needs to be plugged.

 

[Velixar]

I didn't know this. I'm actually quite annoyed about this, as it's another gaping exploit hole that needs to be plugged.

But do you have to pay to play on the PC? NO. Think about it. It $10.00 a month that $120 a year on a Console Either on PS4 or Xbox so Console users can play in Open. Bad thing is the money not going to Frontier.

 

[Goose4291]

But do you have to pay to play on the PC? NO. Think about it. It $10.00 a month that $120 a year on a Console Either on PS4 or Xbox so Console users can play in Open. Bad thing is the money not going to Frontier.

Eh?

At present you don't need to play in open to play PP.

Regardless of the discussion over OOPP, this is something that needs to be resolved.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Eh?

At present you don't need to play in open to play PP.

Regardless of the discussion over OOPP, this is something that needs to be resolved.

What the issue is for some is that if PP goes open, some console owners without subs would have to get PS+ or XBG to play Open PP.

But, consoles are a bit strange with unlimited local accounts (where the problem lies) and then linking PSN accounts with the sub (XB I don't know). It also means that you can share your PS access with others (since its linking) if I recall too.

Its a shame the the PP missions can't be spun into something for solo players (still keeping the same bonuses as Open players do) and that the Open PP part is enacted in full for the rest. Both still contribute and have gameplay that suits the modes better (IMO anyway) because trying to get a one size fits all design is not really possible.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Its a shame the the PP missions can't be spun into something for solo players (still keeping the same bonuses as Open players do) and that the Open PP part is enacted in full for the rest. Both still contribute and have gameplay that suits the modes better (IMO anyway) because trying to get a one size fits all design is not really possible.

Now that’s the kind of compromise I could get behind, especially since I think that one of the barriers to more people participating in Powerplay is the lack of missions. The whole concept that because Open is “more dangerous,” they should get a bonus was always tenuous IMO, and wouldn’t really work for missions anyway, given the problem of player diffusion.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Now that’s the kind of compromise I could get behind, especially since I think that one of the barriers to more people participating in Powerplay is the lack of missions. The whole concept that because Open is “more dangerous,” they should get a bonus was always tenuous IMO, and wouldn’t really work for missions anyway, given the problem of player diffusion.

Its also self balancing, since those in this hybrid will be doing far more of the hauling and collecting than missions- which is an interesting question in itself, what would an individual PP mission be 'worth' merit wise?

In my head I've always had the aspiration that solo / pg and open players have a sort of 'production line'- solo mission sucess unlocks something for open players- maybe the more missions done overall in solo (like a single CG) open haulers have higher allocation rates for forting rather than having a fixed rate as it is now. That way, everyone is helping 'the team' in some way.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yet a player in Open can affect PowerPlay through PvP.

A player in Open can affect another player's progress in any game feature in Open through hostile PvP combat. This is a consequence of players being able to shoot at any ship they encounter, in any game mode. In the multi-player game modes some ships encountered may be player ships rather than NPCs.

Yet FD saw fit to allow random chance encounters between strangers in Open play - the only mode in which this version of PvP is possible - to impact PowerPlay.

The fact that any player can choose to shoot at any ship they encounter, be it NPC or CMDR, means that the game offer players in the multi-player game modes a choice of whether to attack other players, possibly hindering their progress in any game feature - this is not limited to either Open or Powerplay.

Thus, once again, the precedent is already established by FD for PvP-gating in Open only.

It is evident that the optional nature of PvP in the game means that hostile PvP is self-gating - but no less optional. It is not a game feature in and of itself, it is a subset of combat.

Yet FD saw fit to allow random chance encounters between strangers in Open play - the only mode in which this version of PvP is possible - to impact PowerPlay. Thus, once again, the precedent is already established by FD for PvP-gating in Open only. Your claim that my suggestion amounts to PvP-gating PowerPlay and should be discounted on that basis alone is countered by the evidence that already exists in-game.

Limiting participation in any game feature to Open only amounts to PvP-gating - as Open (like Private Groups) is a PvP-enabled game mode and, unlike Private Groups, any player has access to Open (that can play in Multi-Player at all that is) . Limiting a feature to both multi-player game modes only does not constitute PvP-gating - as players could create a Private Group with just themself as a member and participate in the content. While hostile PvP may be rarer in Private Groups than it is in Open it remains possible, which undermines the contention that it is limited to Open only.

If FD saw fit to allow a form of PvP unique to Open play to impact PowerPlay, that's all the evidence needed.

Indeed - and they have not - as hostile PvP is neither limited to Open nor limited to affecting Powerplay.

No, it doesn't address the issue of its PvP aspect being exclusive to Open play (even, though, technically it's not; PGers could engage in the PvP battles as well, further countering the previous argument that my suggestion is exclusive to Open).

A feature is either Open only (to satisfy the needs of those who can't accept that other players don't need to engage in PvP with them to participate in a feature) or it's not. If it's not then the complaints will continue - that players can affect "their" game from Solo and/or Private Groups.

But I've dismantled that argument per the above; there's no need to revisit it again.

That's one opinion, of course. Others naturally vary. I'll agree to disagree on this particular contention.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Its also self balancing, since those in this hybrid will be doing far more of the hauling and collecting than missions- which is an interesting question in itself, what would an individual PP mission be 'worth' merit wise?

In my head I've always had the aspiration that solo / pg and open players have a sort of 'production line'- solo mission sucess unlocks something for open players- maybe the more missions done overall in solo (like a single CG) open haulers have higher allocation rates for forting rather than having a fixed rate as it is now. That way, everyone is helping 'the team' in some way.

I'm not keen on separating content by modes like that, but i think i suggested something like it once. Make solo for fortification, make open for expansion.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'm not keen on separating content by modes like that, but i think i suggested something like it once. Make solo for fortification, make open for expansion.

But I think this is the only way that you'd ever get some sort of agreement though. Solo players in my idea are doing a pretty important logistics job that underpins how 'fast' Open hauling can be done. It would look like a CG, with tiers based on how many missions were done overall by that power.

Driven like this via missions it gives these players a role but more importantly it leaves Open combat for Open, so those who want to risk it can, while others can still help in a non conflicting way.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Not a bad idea I must admit.... I like it @Rubbernuke @Agony_Aunt

 

[Rubbernuke]

Not a bad idea I must admit.... I like it @Rubbernuke @Agony_Aunt

I forgot to add that each 'tier' of the CG would equate to merit allocations: so tier 1 would be 15, 2 would be 20 each 30 minutes, and so on, and be visible on one of the PP UI panels. This would be on top of the existing any mode BGS part of PP (lowering for triggers).