PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[IndigoWyrd]

I find that particularly rich coming from someone who takes every opportunity to look down at the various Elite (and in this case powerplay) subreddits and their users in such a manner, and discount someones post if they mention them in some manner. I've just outlined one of these issues with merits in a manner that makes the process for you clear, so you have at least an understanding one of the issues before sneering again like you always do, in every thread, at organised group play in ED.

As to your suggestion, if you actually read those horrid toxic reddits you regularly post about how much you dislike (you know... where the users actually play powerplay), you'd know that's one of the things that occasionally gets floated as a suggested fix for that issue.

I never said said anything about the users, just the site. It looks like was a C - 7th grader’s project cobbled together an hour before it was due, and the few rare times I have tried to look at things there (not Elite-related), it proved to be too difficult to find the actual information amid the sea of unrelated commentary.

But since I admittedly don’t frequent that site, which you are clearly aware of, I’d hoped common sense would prevail and you could easily infer that I would not be aware of what is discussed there. I have to wonder though, if it’s so wonderful there what brings you here to these lowly forums?

 

[lenna]

It's comments like this which show your absolute inexperience with the multiplayer mechanics of Elite, and in particular powerplay.

For example you could 'merit bomb' (which I'll explain, as I imagine you have no idea how this sort of gameplay works)

You chose a system. Went to it in PG/Solo and undermined the hell out of it (So by yourself you could drop the place into the double CC Cost if not foritfied state).
You're colleagues did the same.

You spend the next week in solo/PG (where the NPCs have the capabilities of a wingless, beakless declawed sparrow with asthma to kill you) and you waited. Perhaps did some fortification of your systems, or whatever counted as regular risk free gameplay for you.

In the closing hour of the week before the powerplay 'tick' you and your mates cash in the undermining merits accrued for your respective systems.

At this point these systems now cost their owning powers double CC if they haven't fortified them, or regular CC costs if they have. Up until you drop off those merits, they have no idea the systems even been targeted. Congratulations, you've thrown that power into turmoil.

The problem here is not PG/Solo though, it is the behaviours in question.

FD should be able to easily mitigate such behaviours, if FD adopted a first past the post type voting system and/or made it so that rapid dumping of merits has a diminishing return then perhaps the kind of scenarios you are referring to would at least have a lesser effect if not no effect at all.

 

[Arkadi]

Apart from that...

If you come to think that in the old Forums of the old times, Powerplay had it's own dedicated thread, where an official sticky-thread existed that linked to each Powers Sub-Reddit and if you look at this new Forums structure, where powerplay is hidden away in a "playstyles" thread togehter with pvp and cqc without any stickys or guides or whatever... one can come to think that powerplay might be shelved away. And this thread here in "Suggestions" is the only remaining "beep" on a flat line of the monitor in a forgetten corner of the Internal Unit where an elderly nurse is visiting once a day to see if this "playstyle" is still breathing.

 

[Rubbernuke]

First: the system doesn't need to assume people act dishonestly - that's a given. Second: you're still missing the point at the bottom of that post - that 5C is a symptom of an underlying problem of account quantity. Allow me to lay out your idea for you (it's not a bad one, it just won't have the effect you think it will)

So you go to a raw points competition - no voting, no ability to make 'bad moves' because all moves are good moves. This isn't a terrible suggestion, really! Lots of games employ a similar model. You've eliminated 5C because you can't actually 'sabotage' a power. Right? Well...not quite. Instead of incenting sabotage, you've incented zerging. Different execution styles, same effect: you're losing to bean-counting, not skill.

If the calculation is just 'who runs more systems' - and we have free expansion to wherever players want to work - that sounds great for an independent squadron, or even a solo commander who just wants to 'do their part' in their piece of the galaxy. However, Power Play is a competition. Eventually, powers collide on systems to fight for control. Working as intended. The system goes to whoever puts in the most effort to maintain it.

Until you use mass accounts for your power.
You don't need 5C if you can use mass accounts for your side.
You literally flipped a polarity switch - instead of mass negative outcomes for you, you just changed it to mass positives for them.

Let me be clear: your idea isn't awful, it's employed and successful in multiple franchises but it requires the developer to create standards to prevent mass accounts being effective. You still have the quantity vs quality problem: all you did was switch which side it was happening on, but you're still losing to raw numbers, not skill. You still have to build a standard of measure that requires quality accounts to make a difference.

Go 'only positive Power Play' - that works. Really! But if you don't solve the quantity problem, you'll be back here in the forums complaining about multiboxing again. Because it shouldn't matter if you own lots of accounts. It isn't fair that a schmuck who wants to blow the cash and time on a multibox setup gets to ruin your day without even actually playing against you. I 100% agree with that sentiment. I ran multiple accounts on EVE Online, but I had to actually pilot those accounts to make them effective. Today, CCP has made many poor choices that have resulted in multiple accounts running rampant...but that's just cash in their pocket, so who cares?

Voting is not your problem - you can nix it, really, but it won't solve the actual problem you're experiencing.

But you have to play the BGS to make it work. Missions have to be completed, murder done, BH undertaken. You actually have to do something. If more people do that then its fair because you are being opposed by opposite actions. You can't AFK bot a new CZ, you can't bot BH, murder or BM. In this scenario having unlimited commander slots means nothing, as each one has to do a mission which means you have to legitimately play each one to make a difference.

You don't have free votes- nothing is free and its you having to do it. PP fails with votes mainly as votes are free, and that its impossible to put value on good actions- as far as the engine is concerned a weaponised expansion is indistinguishable from 5C. PP also fails in that it is time gated, so its you waiting for 30 minutes for that allocation instead of self contained missions.

PP was always envisaged as being asymmetrical, and that small powers always expected an uphill battle.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Perhaps this is a big part of the problem - too many different people making use of too many different “Official” sites and chat for anyone to keep track of or know what’s going on, especially since anyone can start up a Discord or rubbish /site/ and declare themselves “the leader”, when in real reality no one is actually in charge. You may have worked for Hudson since day 2, but you are not Zach Hudson, and don’t really speak for him. (Not a personal “you”, but applicable to everyone who says they’re in charge.) I’ll come back to this.

There has always been one primary Reddit per power, and on average one Discord for smaller powers (that banded together- ZYADA, IHC, FUC etc).

If it were only about materials this would be quite simple to fix - you simply limit the number of merits per day, per player, per location.

Then that introduces issues that penalise actual players doing legitimate work.

I can’t see how this could work. Can I do something with my Merits other than increase my standing each week, and make some credits based on how many I had, prior to them being halved? Is there some Merit Broker I don’t know about? Sure, there is some coronation between merits earned and stations fortified or undermining done, but this isn’t quite the same.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. Players quite often blow through the 10K barrier and just keep on going to win. Snipes are very common with powers holding onto them and dropping them minutes before the cycle ends.

This sounds very different from when you said:

So either all the powers are in shambles, or they’re not. Either everyone is spending all their time recovering or they’re not. If it’s cyclic, periodic and only happening in isolated cases, then it’s not a rampant problem threatening the very fabric of the multiverse.

As an example: Mahon had a period of about 10 cycles where 5C kept pushing crap on them, and ever since (bar very recently) had to aim for 1 CC to prevent 5C being able to prep something silly.

My power, the Kumo have had 5C on them for ages. Expansions were forced onto us through 5C who would expand as well as fortify systems making turmoil (and escape) impossible.

And this brings me back to the matter of Who’s In Charge. Who made you the Leader? How do you know that those you lead actually want or need your leadership? Perhaps what you call 5C is actually the result of your followers following the orders of the “real” leader instead.

The PP groups and leadership can be ignored its true. But powers can tell quite easily the best path and the worst. Its quite easy to track if you are being listened to because you can see the PP tab UI numbers tally with you.

Can you see what the problem is here yet? You’ve got people trying to Power Play like Power Play is Elite: Guildwars. It’s not. Your claim to a title of leadership isn’t worth the pixels it’s made up of, since you have no actual power to DO ANYTHING. Your vote is worth no more or less than anyone else’s, you can’t eject anyone from their pledge, because who pledges or doesn’t isn’t up to you, because you lead nothing. (Again, not a personal “you”).

And you are operating on an assumption that there are multiple groups fighting over powers. This has only happened once and only recently with Zemina Torval with two rivals fighting over its direction. The rest have had solid groups.

This is one of those unique Elite-isms - no one is in charge of anything. Even as Power Players, we’re all still just little cogs in much bigger wheels. It was designed that way, and I suspect for good reason. I know from my own experiences in other games where groups of players have players as leaders that those leaders can easily ruin the experience for other players, intentionally or otherwise. We can’t have those kinds of problems here because no one is in charge of anything but themselves.

And ironically this is PP's greatest flaw. You have to work in big groups like what has happened, because PP is way too complicated for one person to undertake.

Now we do have Squadrons these days, to give those who feel like they have to lead something the illusion of importance, but look how long we’ve got on without them and how little they’ve actually changed anything.

What has happened in reality is that Powerplay pledges have made squadrons to support Powers. Plus, its human nature to seek organization and stability (which is evident in Powerplays player groups).

In this particular case it’s not a problem of game mechanics, but a problem of people and misconceptions, of trying to do things like they do in other games and it just doesn’t work here. And what do people do? They come to the forums here and cry about how things aren’t how they are in every other game and demand they be changed to make them like every other game, because why should they have to adapt?

People like me cry because FD made a half baked mode that has so much promise and abandon it almost as quickly as introducing it. All the things I argue for are framed by whats be said and possible within Sandros proposals. PP is flawed to the core, but unless FD remake it the proposal is as good as it will get and Open is a big part of that.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Apart from that...

If you come to think that in the old Forums of the old times, Powerplay had it's own dedicated thread, where an official sticky-thread existed that linked to each Powers Sub-Reddit and if you look at this new Forums structure, where powerplay is hidden away in a "playstyles" thread togehter with pvp and cqc without any stickys or guides or whatever... one can come to think that powerplay might be shelved away. And this thread here in "Suggestions" is the only remaining "beep" on a flat line of the monitor in a forgetten corner of the Internal Unit where an elderly nurse is visiting once a day to see if this "playstyle" is still breathing.

If thats the case, I'm going to pee the bed each day.

 

[CMDR Jayce MacLeod]

No, absolutely no, to open only anything, let alone powerplay.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

[All of that.]

I do not disagree that Power Play is flawed, from the ground up, and in need of an overhaul that dwarfs Exploration and Engineering combined. That’s what I was aiming for with my proposal.

I don’t think it fair to say it’s been abandoned though. Elite is far from “complete”, but there is only so much that can be worked on at one time. I feel fairly confident Frontier wants to give Power Play the attention it deserves as well, when it is appropriate. Since we’re not privy to their thought processes or plans, we can’t but speculate when this will be or what it will entail, though I feel pretty certain whatever changes are made, it will not be exactly what either of us envision, but hopefully at least it will be something we can both agree is a vast improvement.

My thoughts on Space Politics could well be summarized by watching Dark Matter on Netflix. I happen to like a lot more intrigue and string-pulling from behind the behind the scenes than Rebellion vs. Empire pew-fest. Not that there isn’t a time and place for blowing things up, just that it should be the last option, not the first (or only).

 

[Rubbernuke]

I do not disagree that Power Play is flawed, from the ground up, and in need of an overhaul that dwarfs Exploration and Engineering combined. That’s what I was aiming for with my proposal.

I don’t think it fair to say it’s been abandoned though. Elite is far from “complete”, but there is only so much that can be worked on at one time. I feel fairly confident Frontier wants to give Power Play the attention it deserves as well, when it is appropriate. Since we’re not privy to their thought processes or plans, we can’t but speculate when this will be or what it will entail, though I feel pretty certain whatever changes are made, it will not be exactly what either of us envision, but hopefully at least it will be something we can both agree is a vast improvement.

My thoughts on Space Politics could well be summarized by watching Dark Matter on Netflix. I happen to like a lot more intrigue and string-pulling from behind the behind the scenes than Rebellion vs. Empire pew-fest. Not that there isn’t a time and place for blowing things up, just that it should be the last option, not the first (or only).

But there are ways of being a spy that don't involve the other side having to spend millions in pointless hauling- I hope FD realize that after the mess they made with PP so far. All my arguments are about the gameplay that is in Sandros proposal, but I'm not against FD doing something totally different. My main concern is that unlike engineering or exploration, Powerplay is about teams and player groups that FD have simply ignored. If FD keep on stalling, these groups will simply melt away which to me is a great shame.

 

[sandkid]

But you have to play the BGS to make it work. Missions have to be completed, murder done, BH undertaken. You actually have to do something. If more people do that then its fair because you are being opposed by opposite actions. You can't AFK bot a new CZ, you can't bot BH, murder or BM. In this scenario having unlimited commander slots means nothing, as each one has to do a mission which means you have to legitimately play each one to make a difference.

You don't have free votes- nothing is free and its you having to do it. PP fails with votes mainly as votes are free, and that its impossible to put value on good actions- as far as the engine is concerned a weaponised expansion is indistinguishable from 5C. PP also fails in that it is time gated, so its you waiting for 30 minutes for that allocation instead of self contained missions.

PP was always envisaged as being asymmetrical, and that small powers always expected an uphill battle.

Ok, so why not base votes on merits instead and link merits to the completion of your proposed missions and similar activities? Again, elevate the requirements of voting to a level not obtainable by botting? That is what you're suggesting, isn't it?

I don't really care either way, but here's my two credits on why voting is a good system (if implemented right, which as we've all said now, it isn't currently):

• Voting allows consensus choice and creates the dynamic for leadership need
• When you create the need for leadership, you generate content creators out of your population, which in turn elevate the gameplay
• Leadership dynamics also allow for bad choices (not just subterfuge, but actual mistakes) - the ability to make bad choices creates a strategic dynamic that goes beyond raw numbers and increases the risk/reward factor of the competition. It also enhances the overall experience and lends weight to the political nature of leadership dynamics

Again, voting is busted in its current format...nearly 80 pages of this one thread show that. I can understand why you'd want to throw out voting, and I'd be cool with it if you did. I genuinely believe you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater though: voting can be a powerful enhancement to a competitive system like Power Play if executed correctly. We're back to square 1: the issue is that votes are driven by quantity, not quality.

I'd love to see more missions and USSs and other content for Power Play, but I don't think eliminating one of its core mechanics when all it really needs is a balancing to be a good idea. Just elevate what it takes to vote.

• You can lock it behind merits, but that requires merits to be earned by real actions - not turret camping, as already pointed out
• You can lock it behind some other currency that can't be gained through mass accounts (missions only, as an example)
• You can lock it behind a leaderboard: only the best (whatever metric that is) have a vote, regardless of pledge status

Whatever you do, all I'm hearing from the litany of complaints about Power Play is, "Account Quality, not Quantity, should dictate Power Play strategy"

 

[Arry]

Question: Why is expansion, voted on?

I mean, we are basically talking about a collection, of dictatorships. So why doesn't, one person,or character, or even a voted committee of players; dictate which and how many systems 'will' accept expansion packets? All other systems, are locked out.

Now about 5 people here, will no doubt explain; the stupidity, of my thoughts.

 

[sandkid]

Question: Why is expansion, voted on?

I mean, we are basically talking about a collection, of dictatorships. So why doesn't, one person,or character, or even a voted committee of players; dictate which and how many systems 'will' accept expansion packets? All other systems, are locked out.

Now about 5 people here, will no doubt explain; the stupidity, of my thoughts.

Not at all stupid - I pointed out the irony of democracy mechanics in Power Play a few pages back.

A committee of players could work, but by virtue of how voting currently works and the issue of 5C, that committee could be fairly easy to shanghai. So either the developer selects that committee (bad form and not player-choice-oriented at all) or you form that committee based on metrics of performance so you can at least argue 'they did the work' to be leaders - good, bad, or indifferent for the whole faction. The CSM (an elected player body for EVE Online) is notorious for these problems - it isn't very representative of the overall player population, but by virtue of how voting works when based on just quantity...yeah.

That's why it's so easy to just say 'no voting' - but it still doesn't resolve the issue of multiboxing and how it affects overall gameplay. Instead, you cut out a major piece of the feature system that gave it its character and intrigue. We don't really need a 'secondary BGS' - the first one is already indicative of how mind-numbing that can be. It just isn't very interesting as it relies on raw bean-counting, much like the model of existing CGs...which also don't generate a lot of interest.

 

[Arry]

Not at all stupid - I pointed out the irony of democracy mechanics in Power Play a few pages back.

A committee of players could work, but by virtue of how voting currently works and the issue of 5C, that committee could be fairly easy to shanghai. So either the developer selects that committee (bad form and not player-choice-oriented at all) or you form that committee based on metrics of performance so you can at least argue 'they did the work' to be leaders - good, bad, or indifferent for the whole faction. The CSM (an elected player body for EVE Online) is notorious for these problems - it isn't very representative of the overall player population, but by virtue of how voting works when based on just quantity...yeah.

That's why it's so easy to just say 'no voting' - but it still doesn't resolve the issue of multiboxing and how it affects overall gameplay. Instead, you cut out a major piece of the feature system that gave it its character and intrigue. We don't really need a 'secondary BGS' - the first one is already indicative of how mind-numbing that can be. It just isn't very interesting as it relies on raw bean-counting, much like the model of existing CGs...which also don't generate a lot of interest.

The 'committee' could offer a number of systems, for the general player population to vote on. Say, top 5 out of 10, get to be expanded.

 

[Goose4291]

I never said said anything about the users, just the site. It looks like was a C - 7th grader’s project cobbled together an hour before it was due, and the few rare times I have tried to look at things there (not Elite-related), it proved to be too difficult to find the actual information amid the sea of unrelated commentary.

But since I admittedly don’t frequent that site, which you are clearly aware of, I’d hoped common sense would prevail and you could easily infer that I would not be aware of what is discussed there. I have to wonder though, if it’s so wonderful there what brings you here to these lowly forums?

Well, that's a bare-faced lie, as here's one of your typical musings regarding the people who post there, and the value of their posts:

"Reddit is where 4chan goes when they flush, everyone knows that, so whatever gets posted there is of less value that scrawlings on toilet stall walls in subway stations."

 

[Roybe]

What OOP think will occur with the change:

What the OOPP folks fail to understand, they will miss all this:

 

[HairballHacker]

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.

I agree SO much.

Plus, it could be such a great platform for meaningful PvP gameplay instead of what they are currently doing, whittling away at PvP with each update.

Right now we are fighting another player made faction for control of a system. The other side won't come out into Open where we can defend against their incursion. So as a result control of the system will be determined by who can out BGS-grind the other in CZs and such. So much lameness. Such a lost opportunity FDev.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Ok, so why not base votes on merits instead and link merits to the completion of your proposed missions and similar activities? Again, elevate the requirements of voting to a level not obtainable by botting? That is what you're suggesting, isn't it?

You could indeed do that- the important aspect is that no expansion is 'bad'- PP is in the mess its in because players can vote for bad things. If every system was good / was not attached to CC (with a possible -ve value) you could go where you like.

I don't really care either way, but here's my two credits on why voting is a good system (if implemented right, which as we've all said now, it isn't currently):

• Voting allows consensus choice and creates the dynamic for leadership need
• When you create the need for leadership, you generate content creators out of your population, which in turn elevate the gameplay
• Leadership dynamics also allow for bad choices (not just subterfuge, but actual mistakes) - the ability to make bad choices creates a strategic dynamic that goes beyond raw numbers and increases the risk/reward factor of the competition. It also enhances the overall experience and lends weight to the political nature of leadership dynamics

PP has always been an oddity in that when it was introduced it had no way of forming power structures (unlike now with squadrons). It was assumed everyone would play indiviually and know what was best and act that way, we now know how that is not true to a certain extent. But then, player groups have always formed around features (the BGS before PMFs for example) even with no way in game to do so, so I think if PP was simplified it would not go missing, voting and decisions would simply go more onto Discord or via squadrons.

Again, voting is busted in its current format...nearly 80 pages of this one thread show that. I can understand why you'd want to throw out voting, and I'd be cool with it if you did. I genuinely believe you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater though: voting can be a powerful enhancement to a competitive system like Power Play if executed correctly. We're back to square 1: the issue is that votes are driven by quantity, not quality.

If FD can find a way (if they rebuild the lot) to vote and do it without 5C I'd be very happy too.

I'd love to see more missions and USSs and other content for Power Play, but I don't think eliminating one of its core mechanics when all it really needs is a balancing to be a good idea. Just elevate what it takes to vote.

• You can lock it behind merits, but that requires merits to be earned by real actions - not turret camping, as already pointed out
• You can lock it behind some other currency that can't be gained through mass accounts (missions only, as an example)
• You can lock it behind a leaderboard: only the best (whatever metric that is) have a vote, regardless of pledge status

Whatever you do, all I'm hearing from the litany of complaints about Power Play is, "Account Quality, not Quantity, should dictate Power Play strategy"

You can lock it behind merits, but that requires merits to be earned by real actions - not turret camping, as already pointed out

You can lock it behind a leaderboard: only the best (whatever metric that is) have a vote, regardless of pledge status

Quite often 5C outspend, outfortify or expand the most, so they would (admittedly briefly) be high up on that.

You can lock it behind some other currency that can't be gained through mass accounts (missions only, as an example)

If missions only counted as positive actions then that would work.

In the end I'm thinking of simplicity- nearly all of Powerplay is behind a vertical wall of maths that in part is still not understood (the Galactic Standing is a near mystery).

If you can decouple voting rights from 5C then thats the battle won. To do that you need a foolproof way to see good actions that have benefited the power from bad ones. In my mind thats impossible, because you have weaponsied expansions which are both good and bad at the same time. If you did them, its possible the game would demote you because it thought you were not acting in the powers interests- and in trying to untangle this you are (to my mind anyway) expending effort trying to make it work when you should have simpler systems to begin with.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Question: Why is expansion, voted on?

I mean, we are basically talking about a collection, of dictatorships. So why doesn't, one person,or character, or even a voted committee of players; dictate which and how many systems 'will' accept expansion packets? All other systems, are locked out.

Now about 5 people here, will no doubt explain; the stupidity, of my thoughts.

Because you are playing a game in the end and not roleplaying a gov type.

 

[Rubbernuke]

What OOP think will occur with the change:

What the OOPP folks fail to understand, they will miss all this:

But in solo or PG, the bear does not exist.

And all those identical fishes that run identical min/max builds would change as well, since (in fortifying at least) they are all swimming past bears in the capital.

Prep / haul expansion wise you would have those fish swimming in parallel with other streams with multiple bears.

Combat expansion wise you have a pit of bears with more bears outside.

 

[Roybe]

But in solo or PG, the bear does not exist.

And all those identical fishes that run identical min/max builds would change as well, since (in fortifying at least) they are all swimming past bears in the capital.

Prep / haul expansion wise you would have those fish swimming in parallel with other streams with multiple bears.

Combat expansion wise you have a pit of bears with more bears outside.

Nothing will change...that's the fantasy that you all fail to realize....Open only will have no effect on Powerplay...the devs certainly can make the change...but the problems of the game will not change...instancing and matchmaking will see to that.