Yes, I certainly can't think of any CG where the outcome was decided by campers. During one of the Azimuth CGs I had this conversation with OWH. The only effective means of disruption was to impose -ve BGS states on the source systems, strangling supply. Attacking haulers in the CG system was worthless.
Powerplay 2.0 “Open” Rewards
- Thread starter Ragnascot
- Start date
You did explain what you believe to be the problem, sure.
I just disagree with your analysis. You over-value pvp dramatically, and give it the benefit of the doubt when it isn't due, despite no evidence that your views would actually achieve their desired goals.
I disagree both on both a practical, technical, and broader level. On the practical level, I don't think there's any strong evidence - based on any real data - that pvp would improve the situation of powerplay. On a technical level, I am highly dubious of the ability to implement the degree of 'npc opposition' you desire; it will never be as stifling as pvp can be, so it really won't resolve even the claimed problems you highlight. On a broader level, I think that there's no compelling reason to make pvp the dominant factor in powerplay in the first place. Pvp is, after all, a fairly niche activity.
Given that the average Elite player is far more into PVE and solo hauling, it makes the most sense that THAT be the dominant factor in the game. Some people find that boring, but they're a small but vocal minority.
Since, again, you have no actual evidence to support your claim that pvp will fix the problems of powerplay, this is at best a philosophical dispute, one that I will always disagree with you on. So perhaps we could just leave it at that.
Anyway, moving on.
I certainly would be. I've been participating in the Thargoid War, after all.
The biggest thing it would do, however, is couch what I'm going to be doing anyway in a narrative. I like mining, for example, but have little reason to ever do it at the moment. But if I could mine and make some credits, or fill my carrier with tritium, AND support my Power? Suddenly that's an entirely new and stronger incentive to just play the game. The key being valuing general effort and gameplay.
Of course, the key is making sure player effort mostly goes to counteracting OTHER player effort, not just making most of it vanish into the void fighting the game itself. But that's a design decision and has nothing to do with pvp or whatever.
Incorrect.
Well, okay, the one hyperdiction I got last night while jumping into the Titan system did reduce my efficiency by approximately half a percent. But given the average impact is going to be so small as to be negligible, I'm gonna stick with incorrect.
Your fundamental flaw, I think, is assuming that PP2.0 is going to be basically exactly like PP1.0. I see no evidence to support that being the case. It looks to me like they're dramatically re-evaluating all aspects of it, allowing a much broader spread of activities to matter, fixing upkeep problems and 5C, and basically generally improving it in every way.
Even if your proposals were valid for PP1(which is doubtful, but we'll set that aside), there's no compelling evidence that they would be valid for PP2, if for no other reason than you really have no idea how it's going to work, so even the assumptions you make that ARE currently correct, may not be.
Honestly, I think probably the best thing to do would be wait until PP2.0 comes out, analyze it then, and THEN get back on the campaign horse. Anything else will be uninformed at best.
You stated that (hauling?) is "Super boring".I my opinion what?
You mean PP1 isn't a trainwreck and it's the epitome of fun amongst all the possible implementations of competitive gameplay?
This would be your opinion.
Certainly repetitive runs to 2 defined ports would be dull. Though as I indicated this isn't actually true of a trade CG where only 1 port is defined.
I wasn't talking about CGs, I was talking about PP1 which was basically a 'who can haul more irrelevant stuff from A to B in Solo' kind of competition.
Yeah, I find that super boring. It's certainly not the #1 thing I would conjure up if it was my job to design an entertaining kind of competitive gameplay in a space game.
But okay, that's only my opinion. For the majority of players that must have been literally the most fun kind of competition, that's why PP1 was such a resounding success, right?
The biggest problem with PP1.0 honestly wasn't the way you did it(even though honestly, it WAS terrible, but not because it was hauling - see clicking 240 times to load one load of merits), but moreso the fact you spend 99% of your effort just trying to overcome the weight of the system itself.
Even the most stubborn haulers still want their effort to do something meaningful. Needing to overcome upkeep and avoid 5C attacks rapidly leeches all the fun away. But it's looking promising that those types of things won't be present in PP2.0, which should allow a whole host of players to actually enjoy doing it!
I wonder how many hours are 
Which is it? Ineffective or 'stifling'? It can't be super effective and pointless.
If thats the case, they should have leapt at Powerplay given its the most basic hauling you can ever do. It was basic in 2015 and so routine bots eventually did it.
I'm surprised, considering its all in game right now. It also solves pad blocking as a bonus, makes each run unpredictable and has risk baked in.
Until NPCs can think and act like players it will certainly have a place.
And if you are pledged, you should see opposition from either NPCs or players since thats the actual narrative of Powerplay. You v ten other powers and supporters for dominance and the spoils of being on top.
If NPCs destroy you, make you run or change your build thats altering how you play and pulling you out of min /maxing. AX ships (just like any other role bar PP hauling) have at least some thought put into them, simply because more is happening to them.
PP V2 is going to have elements of V1- preparing systems (hauling), undermining (hauling + shooting) as well as fortifying (same again)-this was shown in FU #4. The biggest difference is how expansion and system improvement are handled and that conflict is uncapped (again seen in the livestream) which either results in a stronghold or the system falling away from that power.
We also know (so far) that other commanders are targets, and that the devs expect PvP in contested systems as well as PP FCs in strongholds (again, on stream) and /or activity focused on strategic support / high value systems.
Last edited:
Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood. PVP is ineffective as a means for improving powerplay. It's stifling for the players who don't enjoy it - as any forced and unenjoyable activity would be, no matter how unimpactful. Sorry for any confusion.
I believe I've adequately responded to this point several times in this thread alone, and once immediately prior to your own response!
As I've said multiple times now, there is no reason for this to be the case, other than you stubbornly insisting it be so.
But why should anyone care about your opinion? Especially in something that happens to most effectively benefit you, personally?
My suggestions are aimed at making the game as good as possible for everyone. Yours are aimed at making the game as good as possible for you. We can let the reader decide which is better.
To reiterate my views:
I assume you're hoping for PP2.0 NPCs on par with Glaives?
Well, that cannot possibly be true, since 'everyone' includes me as well, and your suggestion would make PP2 as unfun as possible for me.
I certainly would not touch an 'A to B hauling in Solo' kind of 'gameplay' with a ten foot pole.
Well I'm describing what Powerplay is- its you theorycrafting those things away. You have eleven powers, a ranking, hit squads for traitors, combat for UM and expansion (some powers), roving (albeit ineffectual) NPCs after you, a need to haul supplies to stave off attack....this is not a deep RP eleven way Maersk simulator, and no amount of roleplay will cover what you actually do and what you face.
Sounds very close to 'shut up'. Neither of us are arbiters of whats 'right', just points of view we argue over. And by now you should know what I would like to see and where I stand- either PvE is beefed up and made an actual risk or let players do it.
A feature has to have some unique aspect to it- just repeating whats in the BGS or making things vanilla as not to offend won't offer something compelling. Elite is a big game with many features and has room for unique experiences.
In the end its always going to be about your views alone- I don't make the cardinal sin of assuming I speak for anyone other than myself.
And I responded in kind on the thread.
That's why I want to create a zone for you to be relevant. Is this perfect for you? By no means, but it achieves it without requiring a sacrifice from anyone else.
As such, it is the most net-positive option.
That's incorrect. You are describing powerplay as you WISH it were. I am the one describing Powerplay as it is; where pvp - and for the most part, combat - is completely irrelevant.
I would like that to be moderately improved, in a way that allows as many players as possible to play as they wish. Including you. But that does not allow for any one player type to force any other player type to be subordinate to them, in ANY way - including NPC pressure to benefit any one group over any other.
I would encourage you to avoid the ethically-problematic approach of conflating what is and what you wish would be.
Nonsense. Just because I enjoy something doesn't make me incapable of putting myself in the shoes of others. I understand your viewpoint, and am sympathetic to it; just not any more sympathetic than I am to other types of players who have different viewpoints and desires.
When you get down to brass tacks, you want a gameplay mode that is exclusively for you, and that is something I can't abide. Powerplay has the potential to encompass the entirety of the game, to be a driving factor for not just pvp combat, but rather to provide context and meaning to almost everything this game provides. It has the potential to take what has historically been a mostly-directionless game, and give it direction.
I would encourage you to find a way that you can be happy WITHOUT impacting other players who have different viewpoints from your own. You have the opportunity to influence it at this stage; to create something which may not completely satisfy you, but which at least offers you enjoyment you currently lack.
But if you keep down your current path, refusing to change, you'll only end up Hotel Californiaing the matter like so many threads before.
It would be scaled to the player, but certainly at the high end they'd be tricky (especially in wings) using more advanced player weapons to dissuade tin box ships.
The real problem is trying to undo short sighted changes to the wider game without unwinding the game itself. For example hauling- you take off in total safety, can leave in total safety (due to NFZs and drop zones being so small), you fly virtually unopposed (the only small chance being in the destination system) and drop to a station already within range of its guns. Any pursuing NPC either drops down through the station or immediately turns away.
You can't alter drop zones 'globally' so whats needed is to remove the station and its safety (and provide jeopardy in normal space). This can be done via 'Hidden Trader' POI mechanics mixed with old school NAV scanning- so in effect you take off safely, but the destination becomes more involved and unpredictable.
At the destination you drop to the NAV, scan the buoy (to get a random rendezvous POI in that system) which puts you briefly in harms way (esp if you are being pursued). You can also use the FSS as well to reveal the POI, but that could have ramifications such as alerting NPCs or that you are not fully aware of ships around you.
You then have to get to the POI and get rid of pursuit. Why? Because like all hidden traders its a T-9 sat alone trying not to draw attention. If you drop with an NPC chasing you there is a chance the T-9 will be destroyed- so what this idea does is use NPC weakness on itself. The POI then becomes either defend the T-9, lose the T-9 (where you have to scan the NAV again for a new POI) or that you transfer your cargo by flying alongside. You could mix in RNG elements- different waiting transports (T-10, Cutter etc), friendly NPCs, maybe even random bonus objectives or surface POIs.
This fits the 'hidden war' aspect of Powerplay, randomises in system hauling times (and makes good use of SCO) and rewards tactical thinking. At higher NPC difficulties it would also suit wings acting as a team- you then have roles such as overwatch, patrol and delivery. Open based attackers might hunt these POIs down too (thus the need for overwatch and patrol). You could also mix it into V2s way of expansion into contested systems- the occupying power would use allied stations while powers wanting to infiltrate use the above method.
So in the end its a bit of both- better NPCs but also mixing in mechaics to mitigate the limitations.
The other approach might be using themed missions as a base- this way danger is priced in and has a varied objective. So with the hauling example, you can do lower level deliveries with low opposition but minimal merits, stack them or take more dangerous ones.
Unfortunately, I think this degree of complete rework of hauling is beyond the scope of Powerplay 2.0. Consider the fact that historically, we've gotten roughly one new mission type every other month or so, at best.
The type of rework you're proposing would require months or years of prolonged and sustained effort on a system which, while imperfect, works just fine.
The idea of specific powerplay missions, while more viable from a design standpoint, would diminish hauling to a shadow of its actual self, and would once again relegate Powerplay to an isolated corner of the game. Another bad approach.
On the whole, it would be better to leave Hauling alone, and just design Powerplay around it, flaws and all.
I'm listing whats in PP V1 right now. No wishing involved.
I speak for myself- you speak for yourself. There are people on this thread who see both our viewpoints, with some hating what you propose and some hating mine- there is no middle ground and nor should there be since this is a discussion.
Both. Both is good.
Players can't be everywhere everytime even when the deities of p2p networking and instancing are feeling particularly generous. NPC-s can, they are not limited by instancing, timezones or blocklists
Or, you could just create a zone for yourself. Oh wait, it already exists, it's called Solo, and @Rubbernuke has already had a number of cool suggestions on how to be relevant there.
'Anyone else' includes a lot of people like me, so what kind of sacrifice are you talking about?
I don't think you have the numbers to calculate a net-anything.
Its all in game right now (at least the hidden trader idea) and themed missions are extensions of the mission system.
I don't really understand why hauling should be the ideal Powerplay task though- surely you want variety and unpredictability, rather than the same thing over and over? Remember you have to haul a lot- a year down the line will the average player be wanting more hauling or want other tasks to do? The BGS is popular because of its variety compared to PP V1.
More accurately, you're taking aesthetic factors that exist, and using them to justify changing the game to add more combat and pvp. The one does not lead to the other, and claiming that they do is, in fact, wishing.
Unfortunately, he is proposing changing solo, which I cannot agree with.Or, you could just create a zone for yourself. Oh wait, it already exists, it's called Solo, and @Rubbernuke has already had a number of cool suggestions on how to be relevant there.
It would need to be extensively modified to suit the new Powerplay system, so to say it's already ingame is inaccurate.
Now, first of all, I don't necessarily think that Hauling should be the ideal Powerplay task. The relative balance of the pvp megaship attack idea I proposed would need to be determined, and would likely be worth quite a bit.
That said, why shouldn't hauling be the ideal powerplay task? It's no more or less valid as any other playstyle in Elite. One playstyle must be the best. There's no reason in particular it shouldn't be Hauling.
Ideally, all activities would offer roughly comparable value, so you could play as you pleased.