Power Play 2.0 - Minimum Expectations?

[Rubbernuke]

Fundamentally, I think a progression from Faction to Power means it needs to transcend from system control to regional control, much like the current powerplay, and not have a system control focus, otherwise the rise and fall of factions to powers and vice-versa won't really work/

If they were to do an OG powerplay where this happens... it needs to be distinct, otherwise, much like current BGS, big factions get bigger, other factions just languish.

In other words, Factions ascend to Powers, for BGS reasons.
Powers descend back to Factions, for Powerplay reasons.

But those two sets of reasons are distinct.

Good thing there's no difference between PMFs and Factions

Although all the pieces* are in the game to allow factions to become powers, I think FD will keep PP distinct and a 'top level' layer.

Considering that all factions have reps that have 3D avatars (that also sometimes show emotion) could devolve a power into a system faction and keep it in a reserved eighth / ninth slot and make power flavoured reps / leaders themselves to streamline the BGS / PP merge.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

Having BGS faction ascend to PP powers would be cool but I'd leave PMFs out of it and limit it to pre-written story factions like the FGC, Orion University, Marlinists, Aegis, Azimuth and others (new ones too!) - their story would progress if they "win" at powerplay enough and after that they could either retire to make room for new stories or stay as a main faction with no story progress like the current ones.

 

[Jmanis]

Having BGS faction ascend to PP powers would be cool but I'd leave PMFs out of it and limit it to pre-written story factions like the FGC, Orion University, Marlinists, Aegis, Azimuth and others (new ones too!) - their story would progress if they "win" at powerplay enough and after that they could either retire to make room for new stories or stay as a main faction with no story progress like the current ones.

I'm trying to make sense of this, but I'm confused.

Are you saying PP would be an entirely narrative thing? In which case... why would anyone participate if it's just an on-rails thing?

Or... are you saying just limit it to an incredibly small set of factions? In which case we'd just get... current powerplay?

I feel like you're trying to somehow "protect" the game from big groups dunking on things, but tbh, limiting the playing field like that would just make it way worse.

And, well, again, I don't get the "leave PMFs out of it" line... there's just Factions, that's all the game recognises. "PMFs and non-PMFs" is an entirely human construct outside the game.

Frankly, having PP at all connected to any form of narrative is a terrible idea, IMO, especially if players have any hand in influencing it. It's been a major limiter of the current narrative as it is.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

Are you saying PP would be an entirely narrative thing? In which case... why would anyone participate?

Stuff like Dark Wheel and project witch hunt are supported for imaginary narrative reasons and there's probably quite a few players who are disillusioned with BGS/PP (and CGs to a lesser extent) precisely because they have no narrative impact.

Or... are you saying just limit it to an incredibly small set of factions? In which case we'd just get... current powerplay?

I feel like you're trying to somehow "protect" the game from big groups dunking on things, but tbh, limiting the playing field like that would just make it way worse.

Yeah, having a small set of BGS factions that could ascent to PP powers would solve some of the issues with the galaxy being too big to generate any serious flashpoints and having them not strongly tied to existing big player groups would ideally be something that causes strife due to people wanting to back different factions for whatever reason.

And, well, again, I don't get the "leave PMFs out of it" line... there's just Factions, that's all the game recognises. "PMFs and non-PMFs" is an entirely human construct outside the game.

PMFs could be a part of it if they have an interesting story over just having a big/active group with expansionist goals. That ship sailed with new PMF applications being closed and past applications not being made with those ambitions in mind.

What would be the interesting outcome of suddenly giving the biggest BGS powers PP factions? Wouldn't it just end up in a fairly similar status quo among them that discourages new players/factions?

 

[metatheurgist]

Never was a fan of players making galactic powers dance. It's a horribly simple system.

EDBGS: When an Uber driver decides week to week if the Mafia or the NYPD controls NYC.

I really hope the PP rework isn't more of the same or I'll just go back to eyerolling.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

EDBGS: When an Uber driver decides week to week if the Mafia or the NYPD controls NYC.

Wars can be won purely by logistics etc. !

 

[metatheurgist]

Wars can be won purely by logistics etc. !

Sure assuming the Mafia and the NYPD are chumps that just lean over and let you have your way with them. 'Cos they're not going to send out hit squads, or arrest you and throw away the key or have their own agents countering your every move, or .....

 

[Jmanis]

Stuff like Dark Wheel and project witch hunt are supported for imaginary narrative reasons and there's probably quite a few players who are disillusioned with BGS/PP (and CGs to a lesser extent) precisely because they have no narrative impact.

I disagree with the narrative impact bit there. Players got frustrated not because they didn't have narrative impact, but because they didn't have impact.

For example, players targeted Torval because there was comments to the effect of "when a power goes into turmoil, they could collapse!"

But, Torval didn't collapse, because she was narratively connected. Thus, narrative connection is a very, very bad idea for something that ultimately gets player driven. That's a surefire way to strip away any impact, narrative or otherwise, for players.

Yeah, having a small set of BGS factions that could ascent to PP powers would solve some of the issues with the galaxy being too big to generate any serious flashpoints and having them not strongly tied to existing big player groups would ideally be something that causes strife due to people wanting to back different factions for whatever reason.

I just generally disagree with the sentiment the galaxy is too big for serious flashpoints. I think the game being Elite: Best Friends and the lack of any real antagonistic pursuits has more to answer for towards that end.

PMFs could be a part of it if they have an interesting story over just having a big/active group with expansionist goals.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. But again, narrative connections are bad news.

That ship sailed with new PMF applications being closed and past applications not being made with those ambitions in mind.

PMF insertion was always a bad idea anyway, because it wasn't sustainable and the reasoning behind it was poor (FD thought it no more than a request to name a star).

What would be the interesting outcome of suddenly giving the biggest BGS powers PP factions? Wouldn't it just end up in a fairly similar status quo among them that discourages new players/factions?

Remember, this is a PP rework, not a BGS rework.

The BGS is not balanced. If PP is the "competitive, group vs group" big-strategy overlay that it's meant to be, success in it it can't be connected to the BGS at all. Fundamentally, it's what lets current Powerplay tick... if it was bound to control by a particular faction (noting each Powerplay entity has a home faction), you'd have a massively whitewashed galaxy.

But it's disconnected, therefore the underlying faction landscape stays non-homogenous[1]. A mechanism to promote a Faction to Power status (i.e congratulations! Faction X has spread to a dozen systems[2], you're now a weak power) pivots players from the BGS activities which affect factions, to PP activities which should be balanced and not tie in to expansion of a specific faction, only to expansion of that power's sphere of influence much like the current PP system.

I mean, you just need to look at how PP was first conceived to understand that it's whole point was to stop people gaming the BGS. FD thought people wouldn't care about factions, and instead focus on allegience to a superpower (Federation, Empire, whatever), and thought the specific faction you worked for would be largely irrelevant.

Instead, players really latched onto them, so (I imagine) they went "Well, the BGS is meant to be background, so let's give Powerplay" and sorely under-delivered in terms of what people enjoyed in the BGS. I know of numerous groups who were all gee'd up to go do Powerplay, and when the underpinning activities completely missed the mark in terms of what people enjoyed with working for the factions, they just went "Well, back to faction grinding I guess"... the merit system and associated activities was one of the biggest failings here.

If FD get the activities right, and they get the right hooks in to a strategic layer that sits above the BGS that's mostly divorced from the day-to-day of the faction, then they're on a winning formula.

Meanwhile, if PP2.0 means Faction Size == Power Success, they've done it very wrong.

Like I said earlier... entry to Powerplay would be by being a successful faction. Departure from Powerplay is because you were a poor Power, and the two conditions are definitely separable.

[1] Though arguably the secondary effect of system control impacts powers, it's too large a thing to keep contained.
[2] just a random number and mechanism I plucked out of the dark. Dont read into that

 

[Rubbernuke]

I disagree with the narrative impact bit there. Players got frustrated not because they didn't have narrative impact, but because they didn't have impact.

For example, players targeted Torval because there was comments to the effect of "when a power goes into turmoil, they could collapse!"

But, Torval didn't collapse, because she was narratively connected. Thus, narrative connection is a very, very bad idea for something that ultimately gets player driven. That's a surefire way to strip away any impact, narrative or otherwise, for players.

I just generally disagree with the sentiment the galaxy is too big for serious flashpoints. I think the game being Elite: Best Friends and the lack of any real antagonistic pursuits has more to answer for towards that end.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. But again, narrative connections are bad news.

PMF insertion was always a bad idea anyway, because it wasn't sustainable and the reasoning behind it was poor (FD thought it no more than a request to name a star).

Remember, this is a PP rework, not a BGS rework.

The BGS is not balanced. If PP is the "competitive, group vs group" big-strategy overlay that it's meant to be, success in it it can't be connected to the BGS at all. Fundamentally, it's what lets current Powerplay tick... if it was bound to control by a particular faction (noting each Powerplay entity has a home faction), you'd have a massively whitewashed galaxy.

But it's disconnected, therefore the underlying faction landscape stays non-homogenous[1]. A mechanism to promote a Faction to Power status (i.e congratulations! Faction X has spread to a dozen systems[2], you're now a weak power) pivots players from the BGS activities which affect factions, to PP activities which should be balanced and not tie in to expansion of a specific faction, only to expansion of that power's sphere of influence much like the current PP system.

I mean, you just need to look at how PP was first conceived to understand that it's whole point was to stop people gaming the BGS. FD thought people wouldn't care about factions, and instead focus on allegience to a superpower (Federation, Empire, whatever), and thought the specific faction you worked for would be largely irrelevant.

Instead, players really latched onto them, so (I imagine) they went "Well, the BGS is meant to be background, so let's give Powerplay" and sorely under-delivered in terms of what people enjoyed in the BGS. I know of numerous groups who were all gee'd up to go do Powerplay, and when the underpinning activities completely missed the mark in terms of what people enjoyed with working for the factions, they just went "Well, back to faction grinding I guess"... the merit system and associated activities was one of the biggest failings here.

If FD get the activities right, and they get the right hooks in to a strategic layer that sits above the BGS that's mostly divorced from the day-to-day of the faction, then they're on a winning formula.

Meanwhile, if PP2.0 means Faction Size == Power Success, they've done it very wrong.

Like I said earlier... entry to Powerplay would be by being a successful faction. Departure from Powerplay is because you were a poor Power, and the two conditions are definitely separable.

[1] Though arguably the secondary effect of system control impacts powers, it's too large a thing to keep contained.
[2] just a random number and mechanism I plucked out of the dark. Dont read into that

Powerplay has to bring context as to why you'd expand, whereas the BGS expansion itself is the 'game'- in short PP V2 covering that blackspot in BGS faction play.

I'm kind of wondering how FD will do this, and what perks we will see as its here where V2 will live or die.

 

[aRJay]

Minimum expectation.

• It lets me continue to play how I want to with no significant interference.

Maximum expectation.

• It lets me continue to play how I want to with no noticeable effect to my play.
• It lets the players who want to PP have more fun.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

I just generally disagree with the sentiment the galaxy is too big for serious flashpoints. I think the game being Elite: Best Friends and the lack of any real antagonistic pursuits has more to answer for towards that end.

It's only friendly because BGS fighting is just a war of attrition and there's usually other places to put your efforts to which make the numbers go up more, faster. There needs to be more scarcity to get people to really fight over stuff.

Meanwhile, if PP2.0 means Faction Size == Power Success, they've done it very wrong.

That's pretty much always going to be true.

Good group vs group systems can mess with players that would make big alliances by capping group sizes and offering rewards for individual groups that disincentivize big alliances. This wouldn't really work in Elite but I don't have a clear theory on why, but mainly because PP/BGS is so optional.

Another way to mess up big groups would be to make things generally more chaotic and/or deliberately pit everyone else against the big factions. "Nice powerplay faction you have there, would be a shame if a new faction like the FGC came along and offered advances in thargoid communication if they win PP for a while" (or whatever narrative lure FDev has and wants to go with).

This only works if the overall gameplay is more fun than who can haul the most merits though and I don't expect a good strategy layer in Elite for anything to make something like this work.

 

[Darrack]

Meanwhile, if PP2.0 means Faction Size == Power Success, they've done it very wrong.

The fact of life is always going to be this way, as a supporter of a small Power (Utopia obviously) we will never get into the top 3.
Whoever has the most Tanks/Planes/Soldiers normally wins.

O7

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Thus, narrative connection is a very, very bad idea for something that ultimately gets player driven.

Well - at least if Frontier isn't comfortable with players taking the narrative in unexpected directions.

They could make it entirely disconnected from the narrative (start with not naming the powers after narrative NPCs) - and incentivise competition because the effects of power control are something people want to move around in a purely mercenary sense. The tricky thing there would be giving people other reasons to actually make the powers fight - it'd be tough even with really strong power effects to get a disagreement over whether system A or system B should have the N% outfitting discount while the other one had the X% trade price boost.

Another option would be to make it the primary narrative driver. Sure, the numbers and difficulty curves are set up such that the Empire capturing Sol is implausibly difficult, but if it happens it happens, and the plot reflects that. That could still let them add in narrative content as Powerplay-mediated effects - benefits for whichever power controls a key system on a particular date - to keep conflict moving against the natural player tendency to keep stable borders and only fight at most one enemy at a time. But obviously they have to be comfortable with really weird outcomes.

The usual problems come when they try to do something in between the two so it looks like it should have some impact but usually doesn't.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

Another option would be to make it the primary narrative driver. Sure, the numbers and difficulty curves are set up such that the Empire capturing Sol is implausibly difficult, but if it happens it happens, and the plot reflects that.

The emergent narrative of powerplay suffers from the same problem as the thargoid war - whenever someone does something unexpected however amazing it might be they do it by making some numbers go up.

The empire in that example doesn't capture Sol by a clever strategy, decisive military battle in the orbit of the moon, sneaky diplomatic scheming with corporations, a cultural/propaganda victory, a daring heist for the access codes, a superweapon or anything else that would make for a good story. It's just numbers.

It would still ultimately be just numbers if you put those numbers towards achieving any of those things in a game, but it should feel/play slightly different if the system was better - just think of how any other grand strategy game with many victory conditions builds emergent narratives.

Elite superficially does this but since there's no choice and the power always uses the same method there's no story to it since it's always the same thing - "power X captured Y system using Z method" (mechanically the same for almost everyone too)

 

[Darkfyre99]

EDBGS: When an Uber driver decides week to week if the Mafia or the NYPD controls NYC.

It’s more like this: EDBGS, when factions within the 3rd largest Human Superpower (sorry, Alliance) decide to interfere with local politics. Seriously, mercenaries can have a serious effect, for better or ill, on the course of history. Is it any wonder that Frontier decided to model the effects of our actions on the local status quo?

 

[Rubbernuke]

The fact of life is always going to be this way, as a supporter of a small Power (Utopia obviously) we will never get into the top 3.
Whoever has the most Tanks/Planes/Soldiers normally wins.

O7

The issue is that PP did not have everyone fighting everyone else for that 1/2/3 spot- whats happened is power blocs that take away chances of knocking off territory to claim.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Minimum expectation.

• It lets me continue to play how I want to with no significant interference.

Maximum expectation.

• It lets me continue to play how I want to with no noticeable effect to my play.
• It lets the players who want to PP have more fun.

Which is why Frontier can’t win, because I’d like to PowerPlay 2.0 to have a bigger impact on how I play, regardless of whether I’m participating in it or not. I think it’s kind of silly to have all these mechanisms that could breathe more life into the galaxy, but they’re all siloed off.

 

[Darkfyre99]

The issue is that PP did not have everyone fighting everyone else for that 1/2/3 spot- whats happened is power blocs that take away chances of knocking off territory to claim.

Could you imagine what would happen if who’s number one among the Imperial Powers had a major effect on overall Imperial policy, especially if it came to the unregulated slave trade? Who’s Emperor should be under Frontier’s control, of course, but I always figured the four Imperial Powers represented the four major power blocks in the Imperial Senate.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Could you imagine what would happen if who’s number one among the Imperial Powers had a major effect on overall Imperial policy, especially if it came to the unregulated slave trade? Who’s Emperor should be under Frontier’s control, of course, but I always figured the four Imperial Powers represented the four major power blocks in the Imperial Senate.

It would be pretty cool, and drive competition between them- the same with the Feds...

 

[marx]

Another problem with letting players steer the narrative via automated systems and such is that bugs and/or exploits are bound to happen, and when they do, they'll mess things up even more. They don't even have to be exploits, some balancing errors could also do the trick.
Can't say I'd love it if the Federation took Achenar and Facece because somebody at Frontier did a typo and added two extra zeroes somewhere.

Anyway, back to the original topic, the minimum expectations for PP 2.0: personally, mine would be that it receives some minor QoL improvements and some on-foot content. (Insert "feet gameplay" joke here) Minimal expectations, after all.

Besides, it's all well and good to dream of extensive things and such, but let's not forget that ED's dev team just got downsized, and likely isn't flush with money and time either. There's only so much they could do. That might also be the reason why the "key feature rework" was delayed so long and turned out to be a rework of a niche feature... and it's not like it's out yet, so it could be delayed again. However, that would still be better than rushing things out like the last "rework" they did. (And hey, imagine if fleet carriers were actually rushed out as the squadron carrier system they were originally shown as. Hoo boy.)


Also, a minor note:

It's as if thousands of King-Admirals suddenly all cried out in terror and then were silenced...

The "fun" part is that the previous two games (FE2 and FFE) had already solved this problem, in a simple and effective way. For every point you earned with one side, you lost one with the other.
However, there were no ships or equipment locked behind ranks there either. The only thing that it determined was what kinds of military missions were offered to you.
So if negative points were a thing in ED as well, that could easily mean losing access to something you've already unlocked, and I imagine Frontier really didn't want to implement that.