PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

Powerplay pledging is a PvP flag. The lack of C&P bounties for killing pledged opponents confirms this, as does dev comments.

Agreed.

This should be the biggest point regarding the issue. It's not always direct PvP, but it is PvP.

Considering people who don't like the concept or idea of powerplay are quite so vocal about it not going open only does make me question both thier motives and thier reasoning.

Equality of modes means nothing if you don't utilise all modes avalible, or indeed all the avalible content. In fact, it more or less renders the point moot.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But if the current proposal keeps the current design, then only the people who play it now can actually judge its impact. If the design was completely new then no-one could.
Whether or not Open only is on the list of features that Frontier are considering, as Will indicated that only some of the proposals in the first Flash Topic were being proposed, remains to be seen.
The feedback on the other proposals would seem, from cursory inspection, to be fairly positive.
Talking about the silent majority that speaks all the time again?
Not really - referring to a minority who seek to PvP-gate existing game content.
Then FD have a right pickle on their hands then with PP. Unless they give it a massive revamp we have limited options.
Indeed they do - I'm of the opinion that they are currently facing a lose-lose scenario with regard to Powerplay where, whatever they do, there will be an adverse reaction among elements of the player-base.
And yet they need constant input to work. If you ignore 3 plans out of 4 your Power is stuffed.
Which would suggest that Powerplay needs as many participants as possible.
Which is where we probably are now, because FD ignored it for too long- and probably why such drastic measures are being considered, and why each change has to do triple work.
What "triple work"?
 
Whether or not Open only is on the list of features that Frontier are considering, as Will indicated that only some of the proposals in the first Flash Topic were being proposed, remains to be seen.
The feedback on the other proposals would seem, from cursory inspection, to be fairly positive.

All of it - even Open - was.

Not really - referring to a minority who seek to PvP-gate existing game content.

A minority that could be a majority within PP..we simply don't know.

Indeed they do - I'm of the opinion that they are currently facing a lose-lose scenario with regard to Powerplay where, whatever they do, there will be an adverse reaction among elements of the player-base.

Then they can't be timid with changes. Its go big or go home time.

Which would suggest that Powerplay needs as many participants as possible.

It requires people to actually participate in all of Powerplay. I.e. each day do something- vote, UM, prep, fort, BGS. Just waiting 3 weeks and doing a wing missions worth of kills / spend 7.5 million is not doing anything to benefit that power.

What "triple work"?

Each change needs to have as many benefits as it can. Open for example, brings dynamism and unpredicatability that NPCs lack but also is a mild 5C counter.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
All of it - even Open - was.
We'll see. I took the deliberate use of "some" to be a clear expectation limiter, i.e. not all of the proposals would be under consideration for implementation.
A minority that could be a majority within PP..we simply don't know.
.... and a majority in Powerplay would still be a small minority among the player-base, given what Sandro has indicated about the relative size of the Powerplayerbase.
Then they can't be timid with changes. Its go big or go home time.
They can - they don't need to do anything radical simply to satisfy a few players.
It requires people to actually participate in all of Powerplay. I.e. each day do something- vote, UM, prep, fort, BGS. Just waiting 3 weeks and doing a wing missions worth of kills / spend 7.5 million is not doing anything to benefit that power.
Which in turn requires Powerplay to be a draw for enough players to sustain it.
Each change needs to have as many benefits as it can. Open for example, brings dynamism and unpredicatability that NPCs lack but also is a mild 5C counter.
Whether Open only constitutes a benefit is a matter of opinion - and Frontier would seem to be well aware that, while a significant majority of players play in Open (at least some of the time), the majority of players don't get involved in PvP (or Powerplay for that matter).
 
We'll see. I took the deliberate use of "some" to be a clear expectation limiter, i.e. not all of the proposals would be under consideration for implementation.

At this point FDs commitment is like nailing jelly to a wall.

.... and a majority in Powerplay would still be a small minority among the player-base, given what Sandro has indicated about the relative size of the Powerplayerbase.

And we don't know its makeup. For all you know it could be a majority Open.

They can - they don't need to do anything radical simply to satisfy a few players.

Your weighted example is one way, but in the long term it simply keeps the design where it is, static and dull because PP NPCs don't offer anything back.

Which in turn requires Powerplay to be a draw for enough players to sustain it.

Hence it needs to stand out from its failed design- simply shoring up that design is not going to attract more people. Something bold will.

Whether Open only constitutes a benefit is a matter of opinion - and Frontier would seem to be well aware that, while a significant majority of players play in Open (at least some of the time), the majority of players don't get involved in PvP (or Powerplay for that matter).

Well, I've detailed the new gameplay it would introduce- and despite some drawbacks it is tangible.

I still find it odd people play in Open and seek to avoid each other if PvP is not widespread. Does FD even know what PvP is going on, or what they define it as?
 
Just to chime in, I think Powerplay should be open only.

I realise that PvE players feel they would be missing out, though you'd hope the system would allow you to play solo the rest of the time and only if you have PP assets aboard would you be forced to log in open.

The BGS is essentially weighted as PvE though and while I'm not sure how much PP is driven by any economy simulation in the back end, my perception of it is it is - or should be - much more about direct conflict between player groups. For that the players need to be able to interact with each other or the motivation to do it pretty much vanishes.
 
Robert and Rubber - been watching you two spar for a while, but would like to hear from both of you regarding my proposal. If you skipped over it, it’s here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/please-make-powerplay-in-open-only.512067/post-7842127 in this very thread.

I like it- like I said before though its best to design a system that does not rely on voting though, as it will be misused. But if FD went with something like that I'd not be complaining at all.
 
I like it- like I said before though its best to design a system that does not rely on voting though, as it will be misused. But if FD went with something like that I'd not be complaining at all.

Voting already is a function of Power Play though there’s not much to do with it - expand or fortify.
 
But voting is misused- 5C will either attempt to get consolidation to 100% to block something you want, or will ensure its low enough to let in a bad prep that magically appears at #1.

Yes, and?

A little personal history here - I am an admitted PP Module Tourist. I’ve made a habit of popping into the various power Discords, jumping through the hoops, and admitting I’m just here for the toys. But I’ve always worked to support whichever power I’ve aligned myself with, voting on party lines, to not be a disruptive influence. That’s just me. While I might not 5C a power, I certainly support someone else’s right to do so. As I said, it IS a valid political tool, and that is what Power Play is - playing Space Politics. While it may be subversive and even annoying to loyalists, it still adds to this incredibly limited system.

Now, by changing the method by which we pledge a power, it may slow down 5C efforts, as it would require someone to “prove themselves” before the offer to pledge is extended, so there is that advantage. No system is ever fool-proof though, and that’s not a bad thing either.

Personally I like my intrigue with a side of politics. I love a grand Machiavellian scheme. It’s interesting and fun, regardless of which side of it you’re on as it unfolds. It’s also very human. Adding humanity to an otherwise cold and empty system of menu-based mechanics is not bad at all. It gives people reasons to care.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert and Rubber - been watching you two spar for a while, but would like to hear from both of you regarding my proposal. If you skipped over it, it’s here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/please-make-powerplay-in-open-only.512067/post-7842127 in this very thread.
First read thoughts:

One can be allied with many factions simultaneously - sometimes quite by accident - so defection / rejoining would be near instant for some players. Also, becoming allied with a Faction doesn't take very long at all, e.g. dropping exploration data.

Points for PvP kills in either of the multi-player game modes - would be abused mercilessly (with the ability for any player to have retained a zero rebuy ship) - even in Open.
 
Yes, and?

A little personal history here - I am an admitted PP Module Tourist. I’ve made a habit of popping into the various power Discords, jumping through the hoops, and admitting I’m just here for the toys. But I’ve always worked to support whichever power I’ve aligned myself with, voting on party lines, to not be a disruptive influence. That’s just me. While I might not 5C a power, I certainly support someone else’s right to do so. As I said, it IS a valid political tool, and that is what Power Play is - playing Space Politics. While it may be subversive and even annoying to loyalists, it still adds to this incredibly limited system.

Now, by changing the method by which we pledge a power, it may slow down 5C efforts, as it would require someone to “prove themselves” before the offer to pledge is extended, so there is that advantage. No system is ever fool-proof though, and that’s not a bad thing either.

Personally I like my intrigue with a side of politics. I love a grand Machiavellian scheme. It’s interesting and fun, regardless of which side of it you’re on as it unfolds. It’s also very human. Adding humanity to an otherwise cold and empty system of menu-based mechanics is not bad at all. It gives people reasons to care.

5c in practice is a pox that needs to die. Sandros proposal is about 60% anti 5C because everyone realises its simply nailing PPs coffin shut. Console owners have access to unlimited commanders who can also multiply voting which makes the whole system pointless.

Hence, its better to design a system where players can only do positive actions (i.e. they can't vote on making bad moves) because then the only way to harm a power is to oppose it from another power.

This is why the BGS is so good, because no expansion is bad, and all actions count.
 
While I might not 5C a power, I certainly support someone else’s right to do so. As I said, it IS a valid political tool, and that is what Power Play is - playing Space Politics. While it may be subversive and even annoying to loyalists, it still adds to this incredibly limited system

It is not a valid tool because it is mathematically impossible to lose some of the systems & all Powers have agreed it is not a valid tool. It does not add to the limited system it takes away from it as a majority of Powers' time is consumed combating 5C activities to prevent them taking on systems they can never lose. 5C is only possible due to the badly designed mechanics that everyone had hoped FDev would have been able to allocate the resources to fix by now but other priorities dictated otherwise.

CMDR Justinian Octavius
 
First read thoughts:

One can be allied with many factions simultaneously - sometimes quite by accident - so defection / rejoining would be near instant for some players. Also, becoming allied with a Faction doesn't take very long at all, e.g. dropping exploration data.

Points for PvP kills in either of the multi-player game modes - would be abused mercilessly (with the ability for any player to have retained a zero rebuy ship) - even in Open.

So.. to address the first point, currying favor with power-aligned factions could be tracked by a separate variable, let’s call it “F”. “F” would default to 0 for all players, including those already pledge to a power, and would be used solely to track a power-aligned faction’s Favor, and determine when a player is offered a “Join our Power” mission. It could also be used by factions aligned to other powers as well, and drop into negative values when players take actions opposing that faction. For example, participating in a CZ between Faction A and Faction B, on the side of Faction A, would raise the player’s Faction A “F” value, while decreasing their Faction B “F” value. This would mean the player would have to work harder to win the favor of Faction B, should they later wish to pledge to the power supported by Faction B.

Missions performed could also add to or subtract from a player’s faction-specific “F” value. Dumping Exploration data may have no effect on a Faction’s “F” value, or a minimal one, as could other “common” activities, like market trading, though the effects of these sorts of activities could also be Faction-specific as well. Li Yong Rui might be more interested in a player’s trading abilities than their combat prowess. Aisling Duval might disapprove of a player buying and selling slaves (“F” down), while Archon Delaine may approve of a player’s Black Market dealings (“F”+), while Zemina Turval frowns on them (“F”-).

This approach would then give meaning to everyone’s actions, pledged or unpledged, and give people reasons to think about their actions. Keep this “F” value a hidden variable from the players, and this system takes a huge breath of life.

As to the second point, we already have a “point system” that is and can be abused, in the form of Merits and Bonds. As I recall, it’s 30 merits per NPC ship in Control or Expansion systems, and 10 in CZ’s.

So what if we value human players at 35 and 12, with the added effect of the losing player loses 35 or 12 Merits (loss being either blown up or disconnecting from combat. Retreating is not a loss, but that player must be online and not in the menu to be considered as Retreated, rather than Defeated).

This is the main reason for Power Players to blow each other up in the first place, so let’s reward them for doing it. We can already abuse it, so nothing will really change here, save perhaps a bit of ungrateful connection loss, and no one’s apt to complain about that.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
So.. to address the first point, currying favor with power-aligned factions could be tracked by a separate variable, let’s call it “F”. “F” would default to 0 for all players, including those already pledge to a power, and would be used solely to track a power-aligned faction’s Favor, and determine when a player is offered a “Join our Power” mission. It could also be used by factions aligned to other powers as well, and drop into negative values when players take actions opposing that faction. For example, participating in a CZ between Faction A and Faction B, on the side of Faction A, would raise the player’s Faction A “F” value, while decreasing their Faction B “F” value. This would mean the player would have to work harder to win the favor of Faction B, should they later wish to pledge to the power supported by Faction B.

Missions performed could also add to or subtract from a player’s faction-specific “F” value. Dumping Exploration data may have no effect on a Faction’s “F” value, or a minimal one, as could other “common” activities, like market trading, though the effects of these sorts of activities could also be Faction-specific as well. Li Yong Rui might be more interested in a player’s trading abilities than their combat prowess. Aisling Duval might disapprove of a player buying and selling slaves (“F” down), while Archon Delaine may approve of a player’s Black Market dealings (“F”+), while Zemina Turval frowns on them (“F”-).

This approach would then give meaning to everyone’s actions, pledged or unpledged, and give people reasons to think about their actions. Keep this “F” value a hidden variable from the players, and this system takes a huge breath of life.
If missions were the only method of increasing "F" then becoming allied should be non-trivial, i.e. it could not be banked, like exploration data, prior to defection from the previous Power. Presumably on pledging to a Power "F" values for other Factions would be zeroed? Also, presumably, the "F" values would have no effect on players who don't want to engage in Powerplay at all?
As to the second point, we already have a “point system” that is and can be abused, in the form of Merits and Bonds. As I recall, it’s 30 merits per NPC ship in Control or Expansion systems, and 10 in CZ’s.

So what if we value human players at 35 and 12, with the added effect of the losing player loses 35 or 12 Merits (loss being either blown up or disconnecting from combat. Retreating is not a loss, but that player must be online and not in the menu to be considered as Retreated, rather than Defeated).

This is the main reason for Power Players to blow each other up in the first place, so let’s reward them for doing it. We can already abuse it, so nothing will really change here, save perhaps a bit of ungrateful connection loss, and no one’s apt to complain about that.
The point system currently in place does not reward, as I understand it, players colluding by "throwing" combat - which could result in a 70 merit effective delta in your proposal. NPCs, while they may not be as challenging as some players, are more challenging than a player that is flying an easily destroyed ship putting up no resistance whatsoever.
 
If missions were the only method of increasing "F" then becoming allied should be non-trivial, i.e. it could not be banked, like exploration data, prior to defection from the previous Power. Presumably on pledging to a Power "F" values for other Factions would be zeroed? Also, presumably, the "F" values would have no effect on players who don't want to engage in Powerplay at all?

That is correct. The “F” factor is only utilized to determine if a power-aligned Faction will offer a player a “Pledge Our Power” mission. Once the threshold value is met, the player will then receive an invitation to join the power that faction supports.

The point system currently in place does not reward, as I understand it, players colluding by "throwing" combat - which could result in a 70 merit effective delta in your proposal. NPCs, while they may not be as challenging as some players, are more challenging than a player that is flying an easily destroyed ship putting up no resistance whatsoever.

I’m afraid I am not privy to the inner workings of the Power Play Bond mechanics, so I have to infer and guess my way around here. Did some digging and it looks like, from what I can find, PvP kills currently (as current as I could find), pay out 1 merit, compared to NPC’s at 30.

I’d welcome a confirmation of this. If this is the case, then I’d say let’s keep this in that same realm, though I still say applying a stiffer penalty for Defeat are in order.
 

Goose4291

Banned
That is correct. The “F” factor is only utilized to determine if a power-aligned Faction will offer a player a “Pledge Our Power” mission. Once the threshold value is met, the player will then receive an invitation to join the power that faction supports.



I’m afraid I am not privy to the inner workings of the Power Play Bond mechanics, so I have to infer and guess my way around here. Did some digging and it looks like, from what I can find, PvP kills currently (as current as I could find), pay out 1 merit, compared to NPC’s at 30.

I’d welcome a confirmation of this. If this is the case, then I’d say let’s keep this in that same realm, though I still say applying a stiffer penalty for Defeat are in order.
It used to be like for like (30 for each type of kill) till the PvP-fear took hold and people began making ridiculous claims that people would merit farm their friends (despite it being a damn sight more hard and awkward to do than the proper way at the time).
 
My Two Credits:

I tried PP...wasn't all that interested for long, mostly because it is terrible at communicating what my role as a faction supporter is. It reminds me very much of Faction Warfare in EVE Online in this regard. So, my opinions:

Faction Channel
Simply a dedicated chat channel for pledged commanders. Emissaries (detailed next) have different color names and text to distinguish themselves.

Power Play Emissaries
I would suggest that the top 10 commanders contributing to a faction are designated as 'Emissaries' for that faction. Being an emissary grants certain benefits, most of which are geared towards communicating strategy for the faction and granting minor control over that strategy.
  • Emissaries have five times the voting power of the typical pledged commander
  • Emissaries have access to the 'Faction Message Board', a message board that all members of the faction can view for suggestions or orders from the Emissaries
  • Emissaries can 'force' a system to exceed consolidation vote if three or more of them vote on it. This means up to three systems can be simultaneously forced above consolidation, regardless of total votes.
  • Emissaries are determined on a monthly (four week) cycle. They can only be replaced by outperformance.

Power Play Objectives
This is the lever for Frontier to pull on to generate additional conflict or throw a wrench into a monotonous series. Power Play Objectives are essentially community goals specific to Power Play that will declare a 'battleground' system. GalNet article explains why Patreus and Mahon are having at it, or whoever.
  • The PPO is a CG that measures merits gained in that system.
  • Both factions will have 'taken temporary command' of a station, each, in the system.
  • Merits are gained through the usual means specific to the faction and PP PvP: designated goods can be shipped to the faction's station, much like with Fortified systems, to gain merits. Bonds turned in generate merits as well. The key is that all merits must be earned in the system to be counted towards the CG.
  • The faction that wins the CG is awarded a boost to their CC for the current powerplay cycle.
  • Once the CG ends, the system returns to whoever the normal authorities are and falls back under the PP faction that would normally control it - even if that faction 'lost' the system. The CG system will never be a control system for a faction.

Other Thoughts
I get the argument for Open Play only - I generally play Open Play only myself, if only because I like to see other players on occasion. Personally, I'm a solo commander who isn't interested in squadrons and winging up. That said, I don't think the solution to solo 5c movements or the lack of danger to trader-oriented factions in solo mode is to prevent these commanders from participating. If you close the solo box, you've gotta close the PG box, too - which would be disastrous, to be honest.

I think if we want to get to a 'fair' system of merit gains between solo, pg, and open, we've got to look at setting NPC interactions more central to the fight. NPC faction-specific ships could be worth more merits, rendering the 'need' for commanders to kill obsolete to be competitive. At this stage, it becomes 'who has more commanders' supporting - but now combat-oriented factions have a fighting chance against an army of Type-9s and Cutters in solo or pg. Would you rather be killing those commanders? Sure, I get that - I've played pirate before - but those players have a right to play the game alone, a right Frontier has unequivocally supported.

So, I'd suggest providing other avenues for merit generation and maybe not pigeon-hole the factions into their play style so much. It's that or trade merits vs combat merits has to be arbitrarily balanced. FDev probably has the data to figure that balance out, but it seems more like an appeasement for one side rather than creating opportunities for both sides to compete.

On Fifth Column
I get the anger around 5c, but I'm in the camp of 'a little espionage is fitting' - it's a political feature system, after all. But I also agree that 5c movements seem to be getting a bit out of hand. The Emissaries idea or something similar potentially fixes that with both designated voting powers to the top commanders, but also greater transparency: if the strategy of voting is clearly depicted to commanders in-game, failure to see that strategy supported clearly means one of two conclusions:
  • The overall commander block does not support the Emissary strategy
  • There is a strong 5C presence in the faction

You can determine the second by determining the first: you broadcasted the strategy in game, not some reddit channel I can't be bothered to find, and you can see the commanders communicating with you in the chat channel. A commander that even halfway understands the game will know not to vote for consolidation without good reason. A dedicated chat allows leadership to gauge overall faction population feelings - if they think your strategy stinks, they'll say so and vote so, your big votes be darned! If they are 5C, they won't say anything - or be trollish in chat - and you'll have your answer.

By giving Emissaries the ability to, together, designate at least three systems, you can significantly reduce 5c effectiveness. If commanders are truly dedicated to maintaining top merits for their faction - even if their goal is to ruin that faction - they deserve the ability to do so, and commanders below them must choose whether to follow...or step up and lead. If I told you that Torval basically has no real leaders, how many PP commanders would rush to try and take ownership? I'd argue many PP commanders would be more involved across all factions if there was a system for designated leadership.

My thoughts.
 
You can determine the second by determining the first: you broadcasted the strategy in game, not some reddit channel I can't be bothered to find, and you can see the commanders communicating with you in the chat channel. A commander that even halfway understands the game will know not to vote for consolidation without good reason. A dedicated chat allows leadership to gauge overall faction population feelings - if they think your strategy stinks, they'll say so and vote so, your big votes be darned! If they are 5C, they won't say anything - or be trollish in chat - and you'll have your answer.

Unless they're moderately intelligent, in which case, they'll speak up, agreeing where they should, disagreeing where they should, be mindful and mannered, and still vote against the actual faction desires.
 
Top Bottom