Power Play 2.0 - Minimum Expectations?

Barking_Mad

Barking_Mad
Don't want to theory craft too much, but I wonder what we can realistically expect from a new PP? I'd go...

  • More integration with the main game
    • Standard missions for each power that effect the bubble
      • Throw in some double agent/traitor mission offers from opposing powers to mix it up
      • Missions both in space and on foot
    • Rankings for each power with higher ranks providing more complex and dangerous missions
  • Online only
Probably obvious stuff I've missed, but I've been away for a while...
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
I would guess (just based on what else Frontier have done recently):
- more likely to resemble the Thargoid war rather than current Powerplay in terms of interface and measurement of contribution: the Thargoid content has flaws at the strategic level but a lot of them would be less severe in a competitive environment and it's a lot stronger than Powerplay (or even the Political BGS) for the basic alignment of "things which the game presents as helpful to your side" and "things which are actually helpful to your side"
- probably some shakeup of who the powers are to take into account the last eight years of narrative updates (and possibly a clearer mechanism to add new ones incrementally later); maybe even some move towards powers as groupings rather than individuals (e.g. Federal Liberals rather than Felicity Winters)

I can think of lots of ways that it could be done within that and don't have any particular reason to expect one over another.
 

Rebel Yell

Rebel Yell
This is my basic wish list (given I lead one of the powers) and based on current mechanics:

  • transfer modules to tech brokers >>> what's unlocked remains unlocked, so no more "powerplay shopping"
  • reduce substantially the merit decay and add further options (powerplay related missions, etc) to earn merits
  • introduce different contributions to fort/prep (i.e. not only hauling, but also missions, etc)
  • introduce scenarios like mini-CG where powers may have to confront directly
  • introduce foot activities ^^see above stuff^^ related to PP (to earn merits/contribute to fort/prep)
  • add/fix current in-game menu to keep track of controlled systems (i.e. no need of scouting) and BGS status

More ranks and more specific bonuses to pledged players? Why not, good idea!

I am more puzzled regarding 2 points:

  • Thargoid-like mechanic... how players will be able to drive this? I'm not expert of how the Thargoids are moving through invasions...
  • BGS effect to triggers (currently tied to government type and hence requiring a lot of micro-management / diplomatic stuff to powerplay groups)
  • ^^ some government types are not favourable to ANY of the powers (Anarchy, Colony, Prison Colony, Theocracy and Democracy)

And last but not least:

  • find a way to completely wipe out C5
  • encourage PvP and discourage solo/PG
 
Last edited:

Darrack

Darrack
Rebel Yell said:
This is my basic wish list (given I lead one of the powers) and based on current mechanics:

  • transfer modules to tech brokers >>> what's unlocked remains unlocked, so no more "powerplay shopping"
  • reduce substantially the merit decay and add further options (powerplay related missions, etc) to earn merits
  • introduce different contributions to fort/prep (i.e. not only hauling, but also missions, etc)
  • introduce scenarios like mini-CG where powers may have to confront directly
  • add/fix current in-game menu to keep track of controlled systems (i.e. no need of scouting) and BGS status

More ranks and more specific bonuses to pledged players? Why not, good idea!

I am more puzzled regarding 2 points:

  • Thargoid-like mechanic... how players will be able to drive this? I'm not expert of how the Thargoids are moving through invasions...
  • BGS effect to triggers (currently tied to government type and hence requiring a lot of micro-management / diplomatic stuff to powerplay groups)
  • ^^ some government types are not favourable to ANY of the powers (Anarchy, Colony, Prison Colony, Theocracy and Democracy)

And last but not least:

  • find a way to completely wipe out C5
  • encourage PvP and discourage solo/PG
Click to expand...
Missions would be a great idea, id love to see some of the on foot missions (data extraction/assassinate) linked to PP somehow.

O7
 

Shurimal

Shurimal
What would be rad would be thargoids causing some last ditch mayhem when we're about to kick the Titans outta here. A massive hit-and-run to power capitals and control systems (they probed the captured humies for intel) which resets the powerplay back to square one. Then the PP starts all over again with new mechanics, new powers and new perks.

As for new mechanics, I spent several months pledged to Aisling. But the whole system felt completely disconnected and boring. Just haul the McGuffins, and even that's timegated with optional bribery to be assigned another handful. No missions, no obvious in-game ways to find systems in which to fight a war or cause mischief and subterfuge to further the cause of my faction. And if you really want to make a difference, you need to join some discord server and take orders from a handful of grand strategists who have figured it all out because there are no accessible in-game indicators as to where to fight, where to haul, where to push expansion.

Adopting a minor faction (or several) and doing various activities to keep them happy and undermine their rivals when needed is much more interesting. If the PP 2.0 moves to similar mission-based system with clear in-game ways to see where what action is needed I'll happily pledge again.
 

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
Given how the BGS has matured I think its more likely PP will meld with that and go mission based- so all activities (hopefully PP themed ones too) replace horrible merits and decay. This then will allow for NPC difficulty to be wired in providing consistent opposition beyond what V1 does not do*. For this reason I can't see FD going Open Only since it goes against the grain of this momentum- but, it does make for an opportunity to really ramp up the difficulty and make wing co-op Powerplay missions possible and worthwhile.

A BGS approach eliminates 5C totally- in that, all activity is positive and mathematical abuse can't happen. If all expansions are good it also means groups can work independently and not be enemies of each other.

So in short I think it will be a better version of faction expansion- do missions / activities to inflate a hypothetical balloon of influence that can reach other points which then themselves can be expanded- so then expansions that have popular support grow.

Most importantly of all I want to see a reason for winning- why should I support or even partake in the feature? I want to see advantages and perks for long standing active service (and not people pledging and sitting about) and that powers change the territory they move into.

*Weak NPCs are the reason why PvP is required, as (in that design) they can do what the instanced NPCs cannot do. Thus, if the BGS model is used territory becomes local (and not bubble based) allowing NPCs to be used effecitively via POIs, missions etc.
 
Last edited:

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
Rebel Yell said:
  • Thargoid-like mechanic... how players will be able to drive this? I'm not expert of how the Thargoids are moving through invasions...
Click to expand...
It wouldn't exactly translate - having different players both supporting and opposing actions in the same system - but I think the key points for that sort of model would be:
- systems are independent of each other (so no control/exploit distinction) but there are still advantages to maintaining reasonably tight clusters
- there's no direct cost to owning a system so 5C opportunities are minimised (a system should be at worst useless to control, rather than actively bad)
- (optionally, but if they go this route I'm hoping for) a short expansion range like the Thargoid's 10 LY one so that systems can gain importance as bottlenecks "the one pass through the mountains"-style; uninhabited systems can also be important to hold
- because systems are independent of each other, the process of adding and losing systems is clearer (especially losing systems)
- as with current powerplay, systems closer to your HQ would be easier to capture and harder for opponents to break away from you, making even a relatively small power able to maintain a core of systems against all but the largest attacks.
- there are very noticeable differences between a system under Thargoid control and a system not under Thargoid control, which hopefully - if slightly less extreme - would also translate to Powerplay.
 

Darrack

Darrack
Rubbernuke said:
Weak NPCs are the reason why PvP is required
Click to expand...
Agree on the weak NPCs but PvP isnt the way forward.
As with combat rank increasing the level of difficulty for random NPCs sent at you, higher grade missions could do the same.
There still needs to be engaging play for soloers (not the mode but individuals) as well as stuff aimed at groups/wings so that all can be involved.
Otherwise it will drive some away and defeat the outcome we all want - more folks involved.

O7
 

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
Ian Doncaster said:
It wouldn't exactly translate - having different players both supporting and opposing actions in the same system - but I think the key points for that sort of model would be:
- systems are independent of each other (so no control/exploit distinction) but there are still advantages to maintaining reasonably tight clusters
- there's no direct cost to owning a system so 5C opportunities are minimised (a system should be at worst useless to control, rather than actively bad)
- (optionally, but if they go this route I'm hoping for) a short expansion range like the Thargoid's 10 LY one so that systems can gain importance as bottlenecks "the one pass through the mountains"-style; uninhabited systems can also be important to hold
- because systems are independent of each other, the process of adding and losing systems is clearer (especially losing systems)
- as with current powerplay, systems closer to your HQ would be easier to capture and harder for opponents to break away from you, making even a relatively small power able to maintain a core of systems against all but the largest attacks.
- there are very noticeable differences between a system under Thargoid control and a system not under Thargoid control, which hopefully - if slightly less extreme - would also translate to Powerplay.
Click to expand...
Going BGS also allows for the possibility of a 'topography' where borders of Powers are unstable and feature skirmishes automatically, and missions that involve strikes are generated.
 

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
Darrack said:
Agree on the weak NPCs but PvP isnt the way forward.
As with combat rank increasing the level of difficulty for random NPCs sent at you, higher grade missions could do the same.
There still needs to be engaging play for soloers (not the mode but individuals) as well as stuff aimed at groups/wings so that all can be involved.
Otherwise it will drive some away and defeat the outcome we all want - more folks involved.

O7
Click to expand...
What I mean is, PP as it stands involves territory that stretches over the inhabited bubble. NPCs in ED are terrible at traversing that, or even respecting borders. Instancing means you can't be chased, ambushed or have emergent situations that players can achieve. Thats why I say 'PvP is required' for V1 to work as it stands, because V1 is 95% geared for Open Only with real time feedback, 1:1 effort (unlike the BGS which is an aggregate over one tick).

I have the saying "either NPCs act like players or players become the NPCs"- the BGS route removes this pan bubble traversal / instancing problem as consistency is then no bigger than a system and achievable. V1 had players moving cargo and merits over multiple system distances and the game hoped something would happen in that traversal (but never did).
 

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
A concern I have though- BGS activity has a cap on influence. Now, that does not translate to Powerplay V1 which is 1:1 effort where one commander can move millions of leaflets far beyond that level.

Thus, what happens to small powers with fewer people? Less people means less possible influence generated and can't be offset via heroic effort....
 

Rainbro

Rainbro
Ettanin said:
"Online" only won't work due to peer to peer. There are many local peer factors that can prohibit instancing.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt it'll be Open only, but I also disagree with "it won't be perfect" as a reason not to do it. Sure, there's a lot of ways it could be bypassed, most notably the block feature unless that was also changed. It would still encourage teamwork by removing the otherwise superior method of "just switch to Solo to avoid resistance".
 

Darrack

Darrack
Rubbernuke said:
Thus, what happens to small powers with fewer people? Less people means less possible influence generated and can't be offset via heroic effort....
Click to expand...
This has aways been a concern that whilst i am happy to help a minor faction, if PP went to far down the route that large wings/groups could seriously overwhelm smaller powers what would be the point?
I know its realistic that sides with huge numbers pretty much always prevail but it makes for rubbish and frustrating play in an actual game.

O7
 

Darrack

Darrack
Rainbro said:
"just switch to Solo to avoid resistance"
Click to expand...
Power Play has to be always open to all modes.
My guess is here that Fdev will do their revamp without changing this as the intention is to attract more players.
If it works they may spend more time on it, turning PP into an Open only mode would (im guessing by my player group) drive folks away turning it into a niche activity which would then reduce the time they spend on developing it further.

O7
 

Rainbro

Rainbro
Darrack said:
Power Play has to be always open to all modes.
My guess is here that Fdev will do their revamp without changing this as the intention is to attract more players.
If it works they may spend more time on it, turning PP into an Open only mode would (im guessing by my player group) drive folks away turning it into a niche activity which would then reduce the time they spend on developing it further.

O7
Click to expand...
But, why? Powerplay is inherently a multiplayer effort, you're working with others to support or attack powers to have an effect beyond just yourself. This made more sense when consoles were around since you had to pay for online, but that problem is no longer around.

If some want to just play for their own progression, credits, modules, whatever, what's the problem with allowing those aspects in Solo? And for those who want to affect others, they can play with others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom