Powerplay 2.0 deep dive - Frontier Live 27th March

[Rainbro]

What I don’t understand is why anyone would want to bring these players back into Open. You’ve got to know they’re going to use every dirty trick available to them to avoid engaging with you: “clogging”, VPNs, firewall settings, hacking, traffic spoofing, and a host of other tactics. You’re going to get the exact same outcomes, only with even less PvP, and a lot more annoyances and frustration. Which is simply an environment I don’t consider fun.

Then Frontier can look at the dirty tricks once they become relevant. I see this comes up a lot and it always seems to be the "don't let perfection be the enemy of improvement" thing. Yes, some people will still be able to game the system. But then by doing so they are actively breaking the rules and that can be responded to.

Also, in no world does giving people a button on the main menu that instantly accomplishes the equivalent of buying a VPN/tweaking firewall settings/hacking the game result in a lower incidence of it. The barrier to entry of those tricks is much higher, and fewer players will be inclined to seek them out when the communicated expectation is "prepare for opposition" rather than "just click on Solo".

As an example: some people are going to use hacks to massively boost their damage and supercruise capabilities. Is the best option to just make that a part of the game and give everyone a button that triples their damage output and instantly interdict anyone? Or why should we bother removing that button if some people are just going to use the hacks anyway.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

The Powerplay rankings and territory are shared between everyone. If someone wants to affect them, they aren't just playing for themselves. So...yes? Why should the singleplayer mode be given equal power (or greater given the boost in efficiency) over the multiplayer mode, in the multiplayer competition?

If you want to affect others, play with them.
If you want to affect just yourself, Solo is right there.
If you want to affect others but also avoid direct opposition from them...well, I know that's always been an option, but maybe it shouldn't be? Seems like an unreasonable stance that is only being discussed because "that's the way it's always been" (ie the early design was not very well thought through and now we're not allowed to change it for some reason).

It didn't occur to you to reverse the statement?
Ie; Why should players in Open be allowed to affect the galaxy of those in PG/Solo? Do I need crayons to explain this?
We have a shred galaxy, what affects one affects all.

 

[Rainbro]

It didn't occur to you to reverse the statement?
Ie; Why should players in Open be allowed to affect the galaxy of those in PG/Solo? Do I need crayons to explain this?
We have a shred galaxy, what affects one affects all.

Because they're playing the multiplayer mode. You don't need crayons, but thanks for confirming that your argument is indeed "that's the way it's always been". Not particularly helpful when the topic is potentially changing that, like, I know what we have right now. It means that the Powerplay meta is Solo. I think that could cause problems with Frontier's stated goals for PP 2.0

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Tech brokers was a Sandro era idea and was mentioned in the forums (I can't be bothered to find it again).


Well- we have ten tiers, so far no talk on moving modules out, and that V2 is more casual friendly.

Yes its a guess, but what we know suggests it happening.

Each time I wrote it, I said guess

The Tech Brokers would seem to be a simple solution AFAICT. The total unlock by contrast looks more complicated without solving the issue.

 

[Grouchybhaal]

It didn't occur to you to reverse the statement?
Ie; Why should players in Open be allowed to affect the galaxy of those in PG/Solo? Do I need crayons to explain this?
We have a shred galaxy, what affects one affects all.

yes, i agree... for all those that play solo should have any open player effect their game.. so solo should ONLY effectively a single player game, their own personal echo chamber they can play with themselves in.
So when you (or anyone else in solo/pg) want to share the galaxy, play open with everyone else that wants to enjoy PP2.0
alternatively, for fdev to save money on maintence.. they could just delete solo and pg options and that would ease up on their infrastructure and save them money

 

[SergMx]

So I'm having some kind of breakdown in logic, I don't understand.
When I go out in the open game and I am attacked by a ganker, I write - it's your own fault, went into the open game be prepared for it.
Let's say.
But why do people resent the impact on the PP from the single-player game?
In this case, if you join the PP you should not be ready for it? You joined the PP and you chose this path!

 

[Grouchybhaal]

So I'm having some kind of breakdown in logic, I don't understand.
When I go out in the open game and I am attacked by a ganker, I write - it's your own fault, went into the open game be prepared for it.
Let's say.
But why do people resent the impact on the PP from the single-player game?
In this case, if you join the PP you should not be ready for it? You joined the PP and you chose this path!

its because people want to troll and others gameplay hiding away behind barrier, in a MMO where the aim is to effect others that should not be a thing what so ever.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Because they're playing the multiplayer mode. You don't need crayons, but thanks for confirming that your argument is indeed "that's the way it's always been". Not particularly helpful when the topic is potentially changing that, like, I know what we have right now. It means that the Powerplay meta is Solo. I think that could cause problems with Frontier's stated goals for PP 2.0

Crayons it is...
Does PP affect the shred galaxy yes/no?
Your own argument hinges on the effect that Solo /PG has on the shared galaxy. By the same token the affect the shared galaxy of Solo/PG players is affected by open players.
The argument works in both directions.

That is why an open only feature has to be irrelevant to the shared galaxy.
But apparently I'm trolling him with his own argument!

 

[Rubbernuke]

The Tech Brokers would seem to be a simple solution AFAICT. The total unlock by contrast looks more complicated without solving the issue.

It depends on your point of view.

The direct issues are:

1 Module shopping between powers (i.e. breaking pledge)

2 Module shopping in general (someone who just wants the modules)

1 is solved with total unlocks

2 is solved (from FDs pespective) if engagement is fun and gets players involved.

It also gives PP a non destructive unique draw along with other perks which promise to be credible and up to date.

The only downside is someone who just wants a certain module- but then even they win in the long run. V2 has no decay, so once its at tier 10 (and you stay pledged) all modules are available permanently (if this comes to pass). Also it takes four weeks of waiting- you could go to tier 10 and unlock everything in that time in V2. On top of that, you don't have to hoard modules. No more getting a billion credits and mass buying all classes of Prismatics.

So in reality this way is a real boon.

 

[Jmanis]

in a MMO where the aim is to effect others that should not be a thing what so ever.

Hard disagree. It's entirely valid to have an MMO where competitive action which affects other players doesn't occur purely as a result of direct player-against-player actions.

PP to-date is just one big competition of "how many widgets can I ship/accrue?"... almost entirely PvE. The only flaw it had was that PvP kills didn't count for anything. Now they will... balance achieved.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Crayons it is...
Does PP affect the shred galaxy yes/no?
Your own argument hinges on the effect that Solo /PG has on the shared galaxy. By the same token the affect the shared galaxy of Solo/PG players is affected by open players.
The argument works in both directions.

That is why an open only feature has to be irrelevant to the shared galaxy.
But apparently I'm trolling him with his own argument!

Then tell that to the devs, who multiple times talk of PvP aspects (and even have it on WIP UI).

 

[Rubbernuke]

Hard disagree. It's entirely valid to have an MMO where competitive action which affects other players doesn't occur purely as a result of direct player-against-player actions.

PP to-date is just one big competition of "how many widgets can I ship/accrue?"... almost entirely PvE. The only flaw it had was that PvP kills didn't count for anything. Now they will... balance achieved.

There are areas such as stronghold FCs that rely on PvP aspects- such action in solo should be muted INF wise since solo and PG remove any chance of being accosted.

 

[Rainbro]

Crayons it is...
Does PP affect the shred galaxy yes/no?
Your own argument hinges on the effect that Solo /PG has on the shared galaxy. By the same token the affect the shared galaxy of Solo/PG players is affected by open players.
The argument works in both directions.

That is why an open only feature has to be irrelevant to the shared galaxy.

Let me know when you want to address the rest of my point rather than just repeating the way things currently are. I'm saying that it makes sense for your impact on other players to be reliant on playing the multiplayer mode. You're saying that people who don't want to interact with others should regardless be able to do so - because that's the way it's always been. The current situation only benefits those who want to affect others but don't want to be directly opposed by them, and I think that's an unreasonable stance that hinders the competetive multiplayer Powerplay system.

Also, bolding your text doesn't make it any more convincing. At least use the crayons correctly if you're going to act that way, there's a text colour option up top.

Hard disagree. It's entirely valid to have an MMO where competitive action which affects other players doesn't occur purely as a result of direct player-against-player actions.

PP to-date is just one big competition of "how many widgets can I ship/accrue?"... almost entirely PvE. The only flaw it had was that PvP kills didn't count for anything. Now they will... balance achieved.

Valid? Sure, and I don't think Frontier are looking at making it purely as direct PvP, there should always be PvE aspects. But the ability to completely opt-out of direct PvP at no cost does rather get in the way of attempts to make direct PvP worthwhile.

 

[galahad2069]

Assumptions on it aside, it solves a lot of problems if everyone unlocks everything in the same order. So tier 1 -4 might be the lower end modules, 5-8 the interesting and 9- 10 the 'best'. So everyone gets the goodies if you keep up the work.

That would not be any less terrible either.

Why exclude people who do not want to play PP from completely unrelated activities like organized or organic but non-PP PvP? Why should these modules be locked behind the PP grind instead of simply moving them to tech brokers?

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Let me know when you want to address the rest of my point rather than just repeating the way things currently are. I'm saying that it makes sense for your impact on other players to be reliant on playing the multiplayer mode. You're saying that people who don't want to interact with others should regardless be able to do so - because that's the way it's always been. The current situation only benefits those who want to affect others but don't want to be directly opposed by them, and I think that's an unreasonable stance that hinders the competetive multiplayer Powerplay system.

Also, bolding your text doesn't make it any more convincing. At least use the crayons correctly if you're going to act that way, there's a text colour option up top.


Valid? Sure, and I don't think Frontier are looking at making it purely as direct PvP, there should always be PvE aspects. But the ability to completely opt-out of direct PvP at no cost does rather get in the way of attempts to make direct PvP worthwhile.

If there are aspects of PP V2 which affect the shared galaxy, including players who for whatever reason stay in Solo/PG, they will need to have the option to affect that.
Same as for BGS.
If the feature is irrelevant for the shared galaxy then pfft. Who cares?
The counter argument of course is what would be the draw of PP if it has no effect?
Is PvP not popular enough to be a draw itself?

 

[Rainbro]

If there are aspects of PP V2 which affect the shared galaxy, including players who for whatever reason stay in Solo/PG, they will need to have the option to affect that.

Yeah, they do. The option is called Open. What you're actually saying is "those who don't want to engage with the competetive multiplayer mode should be able to pick and choose which bits they interact with", and...rather than try and point out how that's unreasonable for the third time, I'll just google what your signature means.

 

[Jmanis]

Valid? Sure, and I don't think Frontier are looking at making it purely as direct PvP, there should always be PvE aspects. But the ability to completely opt-out of direct PvP at no cost does rather get in the way of attempts to make direct PvP worthwhile.

Precisely why, as I've said on several occasions now, rewarding PvP for Powerplay shouldn't come from organic PvP as it's known now. It's too difficult.

• Can't reasonably balance against standard-rate PvE activities
• Likely easily exploitable with alts without convoluted rulesets that FD have a poor track record of implementing
• No incentive for Solo/PG to move to Open
• Irregular cadence; you could camp a system all day and not see anyone
• Known won't-fix issues around instancing

Instead, it should reward structured PvP activities such as Frontline-Solutions-esque transition to surface/space CZ or comparable activities, where PvPers engage PvPers, with losers receiving low-moderate rewards, and winners receiving good-superior rewards, as comparison to a typical PvE rate.

That's the difference between simply rewarding PvP, and actually incentivising it.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Then Frontier can look at the dirty tricks once they become relevant. I see this comes up a lot and it always seems to be the "don't let perfection be the enemy of improvement" thing. Yes, some people will still be able to game the system. But then by doing so they are actively breaking the rules and that can be responded to.

The thing is, aside from hacking, all the "dirty tricks" I listed aren't against the TOS, unless Frontier considers having a firewall to protect your network (which you may not have permissions to alter), are on a busy network or dialup, or use a VPN due to being on a public network to be against the TOS. We already know that "graceful" logging out to not be against the TOS, which many people actually consider to be "combat logging."

This game's networking solution and instancing rules are... suboptimal... at the best of times when you want to be instanced with others. It's even worse to get instanced with people you're indifferent to.

Time and time again, the various powers all insist that they bravely do all their work in Open, while everyone else cowardly do their work in Solo/PG. While it could be that everyone are lying hypocrites, but I believe that this game's networking solution and instancing rules are suboptimal for organic PvP.

 

[Rainbro]

The thing is, aside from hacking, all the "dirty tricks" I listed aren't against the TOS, unless Frontier considers having a firewall to protect your network (which you may not have permissions to alter), are on a busy network or dialup, or use a VPN due to being on a public network to be against the TOS. We already know that "graceful" logging out to not be against the TOS, which many people actually consider to be "combat logging."

This game's networking solution and instancing rules are... suboptimal... at the best of times when you want to be instanced with others. It's even worse to get instanced with people you're indifferent to.

Time and time again, the various powers all insist that they bravely do all their work in Open, while everyone else cowardly do their work in Solo/PG. While it could be that everyone are lying hypocrites, but I believe that this game's networking solution and instancing rules are suboptimal for organic PvP.

I've seen plenty of conflicts where accusations of Solo/PG fly even when there have been numerous conflicts between both sides in Open, which you'd think would be incompatible with those accusations...certainly instancing and timezones play a part, but at this point I think it is also just an accusation that happens by default. It's the easiest way to assume moral superiority, and also the "best" way to counter an accusation being made against you.

But more importantly, yeah, the instancing is suboptimal. But suboptimal instancing is still better than a button to disable instancing entirely.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Yeah, they do. The option is called Open. What you're actually saying is "those who don't want to engage with the competetive multiplayer mode should be able to pick and choose which bits they interact with", and...rather than try and point out how that's unreasonable for the third time, I'll just google what your signature means.

There are players who refuse to to use any mode other than Solo.
In order to be fair, equitable and non-discriminatory to those players, any open only feature should not affect the shared galaxy.
Did I use any words you don't understand?