PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

I'd suggest that those that participate in Powerplay but don't enjoy PvP are currently playing it for both.

People play if its good. The people that have stayed in the feature are the ones who see its potential. The people I chat to from my leadership days don't care about modes, they see that as baggage rather than scripture.

One proposal would gate content behind a hostile PvP barrier. Not every player agrees that that is a desirable outcome.

But its not gating it; you are splitting down logical chunks in ways that work. CQC is gated, part of PP would be Open. But you would still have a lot of it available still with missions and the BGS.

It's entirely about gating - that is the whole point of making any game feature Open only. It's about making all participants play in a manner that only some choose at the moment.

Its making parts work the best way they can with FD spending as little time doing it as possible. Thats the heart of the issue- if FD won't put the time in, then this is as much as can be done.

Probably because the lack of participation in the feature made it difficult to prioritise in terms of features competing for resource allocation. Engineers, exploration and mining are available to all players (who own Horizons, in the case of Engineering), in any mode. Open only Powerplay would not be available in all game modes and would therefore cut its likely playerbase before any development began.

You don't know that, just as I can't definitely say otherwise.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
People play if its good. The people that have stayed in the feature are the ones who see its potential. The people I chat to from my leadership days don't care about modes, they see that as baggage rather than scripture.
Different players' ideas of what constitutes "potential" vary. It causes no surprise whatsoever to read that those who want content to be gated behind a hostile PvP barrier see Frontier's continued stance regarding multi-modal access to features as "baggage" to be overcome - just as it should come as no surprise that Frontier's stance is a selling point of the game for other players.
But its not gating it; you are splitting down logical chunks in ways that work. CQC is gated, part of PP would be Open. But you would still have a lot of it available still with missions and the BGS.
CQC / Arena remains, in my opinion, an out-of-game feature that provides a few credits and a single system permit for a system where players may receive a 3% discount (rather than the 10% for Founders and 15% for LYR, plus a 2.5% compounding discount for achieving Elite rank). It remains as the remnant of a short-lived stand-alone game and, from what I can gather, a short term exclusive launch extra for players on XBox One. Yes, CQC / Arena is PvP-gated - that's all there is to do in a feature that is in no way connected to the BGS, Powerplay, etc., it is, therefore, an irrelevance in terms of the game.

We'll see, in time, if any parts of Powerplay become gated to Open.
Its making parts work the best way they can with FD spending as little time doing it as possible. Thats the heart of the issue- if FD won't put the time in, then this is as much as can be done.
Forgive me for not sharing the opinion that gating anything behind a hostile PvP barrier constitutes "making parts work the best way they can".
You don't know that, just as I can't definitely say otherwise.
Frontier have indicated that they are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP while, at the same time, a "significant majority" of players play in Open and "significant portions" play in Solo / Private Groups.

The latter does not mention what proportion of players play exclusively in Open. The former indicates that there may be a significant majority of players who don't PvP. Gating a feature behind a play-style preference that the majority of players don't engage in constitutes a reduction in potential playerbase.
 
Robert, Do you consider Powerplay Fit for purpose?
Considering weather something is 'fit for purpose', is often dependent, on what an individual thinks that purpose is. In other words, it is a personal thing.

Robert, has answered this over the last 70 pages or so.

We all agree: That P/P needs improvements, to become more popular.
 
Going over this thread, almost a month old now. It seems that any alternative idea to the present state is shot down, so it's a bit pointless carrying on any conversation about it.

It's not as if Fdev are going to do anything about it anyway.
 
Different players' ideas of what constitutes "potential" vary. It causes no surprise whatsoever to read that those who want content to be gated behind a hostile PvP barrier see Frontier's continued stance regarding multi-modal access to features as "baggage" to be overcome - just as it should come as no surprise that Frontier's stance is a selling point of the game for other players.

And from 'inside' Powerplay quite a lot of people can see the design does not work, and each week see more bits of the ceiling fall down. Its not baggage if that tenet has made a part of ED dull and is quite frankly being used as rope to hang any progress.

CQC / Arena remains, in my opinion, an out-of-game feature that provides a few credits and a single system permit for a system where players may receive a 3% discount (rather than the 10% for Founders and 15% for LYR, plus a 2.5% compounding discount for achieving Elite rank). It remains as the remnant of a short-lived stand-alone game and, from what I can gather, a short term exclusive launch extra for players on XBox One. Yes, CQC / Arena is PvP-gated - that's all there is to do in a feature that is in no way connected to the BGS, Powerplay, etc., it is, therefore, an irrelevance in terms of the game.

But it does have an effect in the game though- until that changes you can't deny it just as Powerplay has effects that some have over others.

We'll see, in time, if any parts of Powerplay become gated to Open.

If its a fair distribution of things to do, whats the harm?

Forgive me for not sharing the opinion that gating anything behind a hostile PvP barrier constitutes "making parts work the best way they can".

Again, if its a fair division, and that it makes PP more popular for the least amount of work, whats the problem? Everyone gets a slice of something rather than trying to stretch something that does not work over 3 modes.

Frontier have indicated that they are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP while, at the same time, a "significant majority" of players play in Open and "significant portions" play in Solo / Private Groups.

Of that, do we know how many play in Open and are active in Powerplay? Saying the majority don't get involved in PvP is meaningless because you are not defining what PvP is, or what it is within Powerplay.

The latter does not mention what proportion of players play exclusively in Open. The former indicates that there may be a significant majority of players who don't PvP. Gating a feature behind a play-style preference that the majority of players don't engage in constitutes a reduction in potential playerbase.

PP is not a mainstream feature of ED, or is played by a significant majority so how does that relate to anything? Since we don't know or have specifics this sort of statement is futile guesswork.
 
Going over this thread, almost a month old now. It seems that any alternative idea to the present state is shot down, so it's a bit pointless carrying on any conversation about it.

It's not as if Fdev are going to do anything about it anyway.

FD know enough by now to actually implement something- they just need to actually do it now.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
And from 'inside' Powerplay quite a lot of people can see the design does not work, and each week see more bits of the ceiling fall down. Its not baggage if that tenet has made a part of ED dull and is quite frankly being used as rope to hang any progress.
That players who bought a game that does not support their preferred play-style (i.e. others can participate in game features without requiring to play with them) consider that the lack of required PvP causes a feature of the game to be "dull" is, perhaps, totally unsurprising.
But it does have an effect in the game though- until that changes you can't deny it just as Powerplay has effects that some have over others.
I'll agree that CQC/Arena is all but inconsequential in terms of the game.
If its a fair distribution of things to do, whats the harm?

Again, if its a fair division, and that it makes PP more popular for the least amount of work, whats the problem? Everyone gets a slice of something rather than trying to stretch something that does not work over 3 modes.
What's the definition of "fair" in the context of a pan-modal game feature that forms part of the base game that everyone bought, with no requirement to engage in PvP when participating in game features?

The harm could be what players in general think about Frontier making such a change, contrary to previous statements regarding the three game modes being equally valid ways to play the game. Once done that could not be undone, even if the change were reverted.
Of that, do we know how many play in Open and are active in Powerplay? Saying the majority don't get involved in PvP is meaningless because you are not defining what PvP is, or what it is within Powerplay.
We don't - just as we don't know how many players engage in Powerplay in Solo and Private Groups. I'd suggest that the Dev who indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP used a definition of the term used by Frontier.
PP is not a mainstream feature of ED, or is played by a significant majority so how does that relate to anything? Since we don't know or have specifics this sort of statement is futile guesswork.
It relates in that Frontier will have an idea, from their own game metrics, how many players they might be shutting out of the feature should they choose to gate it behind a hostile PvP barrier in Open.
 

dxm55

Banned
Maybe FDev needs to rewrite PP in such a way that it's like conscripting, or signing up in the militia.

Sure, you don't expect to get paid much, but what they can do is to
- Cover 80 to 90% of your rebuy in any PP missions, or maybe while you're still signed on to the power

- Give the player the choice of using his own ship, or a choice of 2/3 ships provided by the power, for the mission.
This gives players opportunities to fly ships that are not accessible to them... just for that one mission.
It could be a ranked locked ship. You don't need to pay rebuy if you get blown up. Maybe lose prestige or rep with the power.


Incentives. After all, WHY fly for a power if it doesn't pay you well in the first place, while still exposing you to risk?
 
Considering weather something is 'fit for purpose', is often dependent, on what an individual thinks that purpose is. In other words, it is a personal thing.

Robert, has answered this over the last 70 pages or so.

We all agree: That P/P needs improvements, to become more popular.

PvP would need much more than “improvements” to make it popular. It’s just not the purpose of the game, and that is the main reason it will remain as popular as it is. It’s just not why X% of the player base does not play PvP.
 
That players who bought a game that does not support their preferred play-style (i.e. others can participate in game features without requiring to play with them) consider that the lack of required PvP causes a feature of the game to be "dull" is, perhaps, totally unsurprising.

I play in all modes, but I realize from years of playing Powerplay Solo does not work, and from swapping to playing Open in PP its much better. Its why I'm here explaining at great length trying to illustrate that.

I'll agree that CQC/Arena is all but inconsequential in terms of the game.

Inconsequential but still part of it, and linked to the main game with effects.

What's the definition of "fair" in the context of a pan-modal game feature that forms part of the base game that everyone bought, with no requirement to engage in PvP when participating in game features?

Because multimode Powerplay is pointless and holds no challenge or variety, hence why so few play it at any serious level. You split things so that each part suits the modes- we know the BGS works in all modes and has a lot of polish, so make things that play to that strength- i.e. missions, free form BGS work that have a non competitive (but essential logistical element). For the hauling and shooting we have Open, where people can have a direct influence on each other. Its great for FD because all of this exists. Is that not fair?

The harm could be what players in general think about Frontier making such a change, contrary to previous statements regarding the three game modes being equally valid ways to play the game. Once done that could not be undone, even if the change were reverted.

So this is not about PP at all then? Its just another way of saying nothing can change. FD won't spend time on it, and people like you who don't actually play it think changing Powerplay to Open (or parts of it) is like kicking a puppy so the people who do play it are stuck in limbo.

We don't - just as we don't know how many players engage in Powerplay in Solo and Private Groups. I'd suggest that the Dev who indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP used a definition of the term used by Frontier.

It relates in that Frontier will have an idea, from their own game metrics, how many players they might be shutting out of the feature should they choose to gate it behind a hostile PvP barrier in Open.

And from every proposal FD have suggested changes into Open, or weighted merits- without exception. Why is that? Is it because they have information we don't? Is it because PP is so down its worth the gamble? When FD talk about multimodes they never mention Powerplay at all- have they forgotten about it, or what?
 
Last edited:
Maybe FDev needs to rewrite PP in such a way that it's like conscripting, or signing up in the militia.

Sure, you don't expect to get paid much, but what they can do is to
- Cover 80 to 90% of your rebuy in any PP missions, or maybe while you're still signed on to the power

- Give the player the choice of using his own ship, or a choice of 2/3 ships provided by the power, for the mission.
This gives players opportunities to fly ships that are not accessible to them... just for that one mission.
It could be a ranked locked ship. You don't need to pay rebuy if you get blown up. Maybe lose prestige or rep with the power.


Incentives. After all, WHY fly for a power if it doesn't pay you well in the first place, while still exposing you to risk?

An idea I had a while ago was that merits acted as a shadow currency, allowing you to 'buy' rebuys with them at a knock down cost (as well as purchase materials, perks etc).
 
PvP would need much more than “improvements” to make it popular. It’s just not the purpose of the game, and that is the main reason it will remain as popular as it is. It’s just not why X% of the player base does not play PvP.
Hold it. I was talking about power play, not PvP. Yes I agree, PvP has its own issues and lots of room for improvement.

Power play is a time consuming grind and causes a player issues, when taking time out to do other things in the game.

Yes: There are ways to reduce the grind aspects of P/P; as with knowledge of the dark arts, of playing many different parts of this game.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I play in all modes, but I realize from years of playing Powerplay Solo does not work, and from swapping to playing Open in PP its much better.
In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.
Its why I'm here explaining at great length trying to illustrate that.
Indeed.
Inconsequential but still part of it, and linked to the main game with effects.
Indeed - it's inconsequential in terms of the game even if it has near negligible effects.
Because multimode Powerplay is pointless and holds no challenge or variety, hence why so few play it at any serious level. You split things so that each part suits the modes- we know the BGS works in all modes and has a lot of polish, so make things that play to that strength- i.e. missions, free form BGS work that have a non competitive (but essential logistical element). For the hauling and shooting we have Open, where people can have a direct influence on each other. Its great for FD because all of this exists. Is that not fair?
What is "fair" about taking content away from players who don't enjoy PvP to attempt (with no guarantee of success) to satisfy the subset of the subset of players who like PvP and engage in Powerplay?
So this is not about PP at all then? Its just another way of saying nothing can change. FD won't spend time on it, and people like you who don't actually play it think changing Powerplay to Open is like kicking a puppy so the people who do play it are stuck in limbo.
Not that nothing can change, no. Just that some changes are so fundamental that making them may have more far reaching consequences than the change itself.

As to not playing it - that's not a strictly accurate statement - my main CMDR will be purchasing some Prismatic Shields this week. ;)
And from every proposal FD have suggested changes into Open, or weighted merits- without exception. Why is that? Is it because they have information we don't? Is it because PP is so down its worth the gamble? When FD talk about multimodes they never mention Powerplay at all- have they forgotten about it, or what?
Who knows what Frontier's candid opinion of Powerplay is. We know that they have proposed changing it twice. We know that the first proposal did not go ahead. We know that Sandro tried again with the Flash Topics. We know that the proposed changes did not meet with universal approval among the player-base. We know that Sandro left the project. We know that Will has indicated that Frontier are considering some of the proposals contained in Sandro's first Flash Topic.

We don't know what the result of Frontier's investigation initiated in the Flash Topics is. We don't know if Frontier are prepared to make Powerplay Open only. We don't know if they are prepared to gamble with the player-base.
 
In your opinion. Other opinions, naturally, vary.

Very true, except mine are based on years of engagement.

Indeed - it's inconsequential in terms of the game even if it has near negligible effects.

But it does have them? A lot of PP bonuses are inconsequential to the point people forget about them too.

What is "fair" about taking content away from players who don't enjoy PvP to attempt (with no guarantee of success) to satisfy the subset of the subset of players who like PvP and engage in Powerplay?

The content you are taking away: hauling from A to B continuously, and shooting continuously. What do you gain? PP themed missions, freeform BGS, tech broker based modules. You keep the merits (since you are still earning them for ranks) and you keep the perks as they are. Thats pretty fair to me. The unending grind of hauling and shooting then gets uncertain via Open.

Not that nothing can change, no. Just that some changes are so fundamental that making them may have more far reaching consequences than the change itself.

Its a shame FD can't poll everyone about it because its holding Powerplay hostage.

As to not playing it - that's not a strictly accurate statement - my main CMDR will be purchasing some Prismatic Shields this week. ;)

But you are not engaging with it. You are not helping AD at all week after week. Module shopping is just that- shopping. A massacre mission involves more work.

Who knows what Frontier's candid opinion of Powerplay is. We know that they have proposed changing it twice. We know that the first proposal did not go ahead. We know that Sandro tried again with the Flash Topics. We know that the proposed changes did not meet with universal approval among the player-base. We know that Sandro left the project. We know that Will has indicated that Frontier are considering some of the proposals contained in Sandro's first Flash Topic.

We don't know what the result of Frontier's investigation initiated in the Flash Topics is. We don't know if Frontier are prepared to make Powerplay Open only. We don't know if they are prepared to gamble with the player-base.

Thats the problem: FD won't say anything about it, even though 11 self organised groups play it, generate content for it every week year on year and want an answer. Even if its removal, at least its closure.
 
Hold it. I was talking about power play, not PvP. Yes I agree, PvP has its own issues and lots of room for improvement.

Power play is a time consuming grind and causes a player issues, when taking time out to do other things in the game.

Yes: There are ways to reduce the grind aspects of P/P; as with knowledge of the dark arts, of playing many different parts of this game.

You hold it, I was quoting dxm55.:)

And the exact same thing can, and had, many times, been and be said for every single occupation in the game. Given that Grind is in the Mind, it’s quite easy for a disciplined mind to overcome.
 
If everyone agrees that Power Play needs changing to get more people involved, the way I see it, one of the following options needs to considered ;-
  1. Power-Play goes open only as per Sandro's proposal. Effectively making players risk open PvP if they want their power and the personal goals to advance. Put the Power modules behind a Tech Broker and remove the trade bonuses to balance it for people who can't make it into Open Mode.
  2. Power-Play Background Simulation only counts Command Credit if it has been earned in open. Effectively allowing player to advance their personal goals (i.e trade bonus and Power Modules) but the only way to advance the Power is to play in open.
  3. Power-Play pvt and solo mode's AI and interdiction occurrences are increased by a large amount, making it just as hazardous as open. Effectively making Pvt and Solo Players work for their merits, hopefully cutting down on Bots and reducing Min/Maxing Cargo Ships.
  4. Power-Play has 'weighted' Command Credit. This says that merits and Command Credit earned in open are worth a lot more than those generated in solo and Pvt, with the appropriate knock on effect.
The alternative to that is a full redesign of what Power Play is (which I don't see FDev doing) or leave it as is, which isn't what people want.
 
If everyone agrees that Power Play needs changing to get more people involved, the way I see it, one of the following options needs to considered ;-
  1. Power-Play goes open only as per Sandro's proposal. Effectively making players risk open PvP if they want their power and the personal goals to advance. Put the Power modules behind a Tech Broker and remove the trade bonuses to balance it for people who can't make it into Open Mode.
  2. Power-Play Background Simulation only counts Command Credit if it has been earned in open. Effectively allowing player to advance their personal goals (i.e trade bonus and Power Modules) but the only way to advance the Power is to play in open.
  3. Power-Play pvt and solo mode's AI and interdiction occurrences are increased by a large amount, making it just as hazardous as open. Effectively making Pvt and Solo Players work for their merits, hopefully cutting down on Bots and reducing Min/Maxing Cargo Ships.
  4. Power-Play has 'weighted' Command Credit. This says that merits and Command Credit earned in open are worth a lot more than those generated in solo and Pvt, with the appropriate knock on effect.
The alternative to that is a full redesign of what Power Play is (which I don't see FDev doing) or leave it as is, which isn't what people want.

5. Remove Power Play Entirely.

If Billy and Bobby keep beating each other up over one toy in the sandbox, you take away the offending toy and watch them both throw tantrums at deaf ears as you make them both watch it go into the refuse bin. When they’re exhausted from crying they will find a new way to entertain themselves.

It seems I have no other option but to rewrite my proposal for an overhaul of power play, in all its glorious details. It will be the same proposal I made after suggesting Sandro take a vacation to Bedlam after that terrible idea that sparked all this nonsense. Stay Tuned: Great Wall if Text incoming.
 
Top Bottom