Powerplay 2.0 “Open” Rewards

[Rubbernuke]

Ultimately, everything revolves around time invested versus rewards - and all your answers are avoiding this issue.

So, what i'd like to see is not me being penalized, because my time spent in solo is as precious as your time spent in open

? Wut?

Are you then saying the BGS mission system does not revolve around time invested v reward? You invest the time by taking the mission on, which can be anything you like and you can up front see the reward.

I find it incredible you think the current NPC setup in PP respects time invested and rewards- its anything but.

Powerplay has a problem in that its PvE 'activities' are rudimentary. Its shoot the same NPCs in the same place endlessly, or haul the same cargo endlessly. How is that a good time investment? Do you enjoy doing the very worst, most linear thing in ED and getting nothing back?

Powerplay also has the problem that outside the above areas there is...nothing. That huge territory of yours (plus ten others)? Pointless. Traversing it is pointless because nothing challenges you (not unless you enjoy mindless jumping? Is that a good time investment? I doubt it). Its empty time. Missions price in NPCs that fill that time, and actually make it a game.

The truth is I'd be happy with a scaling NPC system- I want to be rewarded for risking more in Open or Solo. What I don't want (and you somehow do) is to have monotonous Powerplay tasks where nothing happens, and be rewarded just the same.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

? Wut?

Are you then saying the BGS mission system does not revolve around time invested v reward? You invest the time by taking the mission on, which can be anything you like and you can up front see the reward.

I find it incredible you think the current NPC setup in PP respects time invested and rewards- its anything but.

Powerplay has a problem in that its PvE 'activities' are rudimentary. Its shoot the same NPCs in the same place endlessly, or haul the same cargo endlessly. How is that a good time investment? Do you enjoy doing the very worst, most linear thing in ED and getting nothing back?

Powerplay also has the problem that outside the above areas there is...nothing. That huge territory of yours (plus ten others)? Pointless. Traversing it is pointless because nothing challenges you (not unless you enjoy mindless jumping? Is that a good time investment? I doubt it). Its empty time. Missions price in NPCs that fill that time, and actually make it a game.

The truth is I'd be happy with a scaling NPC system- I want to be rewarded for risking more in Open or Solo. What I don't want (and you somehow do) is to have monotonous Powerplay tasks where nothing happens, and be rewarded just the same.

It's probably worth asking whether or not the Cmdr intends to engage meaningfully in powerplay 2.0. One tell on that might be whether or not they did the same with PP1.0 (i.e. more than basic module shopping, which is just meeting an unlock criterion and misses out the meat of the feature).

 

[Northpin]

I find it incredible you think the current NPC setup in PP respects time invested and rewards- its anything but.

Difficulty is relative
Time spent is time spent - and time flows at the same rate in both Solo/PG or Open

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's probably worth asking whether or not the Cmdr intends to engage meaningfully in powerplay 2.0. One tell on that might be whether or not they did the same with PP1.0 (i.e. more than basic module shopping, which is just meeting an unlock criterion and misses out the meat of the feature).

v2 is about long term engagement, which means FD have to bake variety into the feature. This means that for those who want a challenge it can give one but also see a proportionate reward. If what I think is true with the modules for example, you would have to actually engage and work in the power for weeks with each tier unlocking a module.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Difficulty is relative
Time spent is time spent - and time flows at the same rate in both Solo/PG or Open

And thats why if you want 2015 levels of NPCs you can, but you also don't see the same reward for someone who faces 2024 levels of danger.

And I'm talking only about NPCs here, regardless of mode. If you don't want Open only where players provide the random challenge, something has to fill that gap.

 

[Northpin]

And thats why if you want 2015 levels of NPCs you can, but you also don't see the same reward for someone who faces 2024 levels of danger.

And I'm talking only about NPCs here, regardless of mode. If you don't want Open only where players provide the random challenge, something has to fill that gap.

No, i'm saying that NPC difficulty is hard to set to match player skill
Too high, and it would be unplayable for the vast majority
Too low and some players will be 3-4 times more effective than other players
What is the solution? to time gate missions so it's not skill based but time based? could that be IT?

Also, for open, it's hard to balance the rewards vs the encounters.

You spend 2 hours unsuccessfully trying to hunt skilled Cutter players, trying to prevent them to deliver merits - you get nothing for your power, right?
So you set this achievement (killing a Cutter full of merits) as having really high rewards - and then you find a newb in a Cutter and you get your quota for the entire day? For a full week?
Or you get an alt / friend / whatever with a Cutter full of merits and you kill them 3 times in an hour and exploit the system down to the core?

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

Personally, I just don't take any enjoyment from an activity where the lose condition is just wasting my time.

I will haul Commodities all day long, and if the other side hauls more than me, fair enough. But if I try to haul Commodities all day long, but every time I try, I get killed, I'm just going to quit.

Ultimately, I think it's reductive to boil power play down to nothing more than PVP. It should be a comprehensive competitive environment.

Open only is nothing more than an attempt to put all other activities under the thumb of PVP players.

And I will be fair here; PVP players do have legitimate complaints. After all, PVP has been completely pointless and meaningless and useless for the lifespan of elite.

But that doesn't give them the right to suddenly demand complete dominance over all other playstyles.

Let me play the way I want to play, or I won't play at all. That's the long and short of it.

No moreso than any type of race. It's the same reason why people rightly criticize Quidditch, because most of the game is determined in the end by the Seeker.

PVP is the seeker. It doesn't matter how good or dedicated your chasers(haulers) are, if their seeker(pvpers) is on their game, they win.

It depends on what you consider your victory conditions are for Powerplay PvP. I was very much like you when I started to play PP1. I didn't seem to get how my trading vessel would win in a fight against a full on murder hobo ganker in powerplay and it put me off.

I then realised the ship I needed wasn't a trader, it was a blockade runner. My objective was to deliver my power's cargo, not kill other commanders. Therefore my victory conditions were if I get interdicted by another player was to either to win the interdiction or escape from the encounter if they successfully returned me to real space, So I built a ship accordingly and it revolutionised how I played powerplay. Sure I couldn't carry as much cargo as I wanted, but I had a ship which got me out of trouble 90% of the time. Although I was called a coward by my attackers, I didn't care (still don't) because I wasn't playing to fight other commanders, I was playing to deliver my cargo for the power.

There was one guy who managed to interdict me 5 times in one run, and I still got through (He wasn't happy!). The upshot was that this gameplay was much more enjoyable than playing PP1 in solo or pvt because the NPC ships just weren't up to the task. e.g. another player was making the same run in a T-7, hauling more cargo than me, and not getting a single NPC interdiction and it felt that although I was certainly getting more enjoyment out of my run, I wasn't getting rewarded for the run.

I don't want the open only solution, but I would prefer a more weighted reward structure so that open players have more influence over the powerplay background simulation to reflect the higher risks they're taking.

I'll get back to powerplay once I've kicked some more thargoid bottom, there's only so much time in the day.

 

[Northpin]

I don't want the open only solution, but I would prefer a more weighted reward structure so that open players have more influence over the powerplay background simulation to reflect the higher risks they're taking.

What risk did you had while flying an ungankable Cutter in open?
Failed interidictions are just a nuisance, and i can get those in solo as well. If i stack 10 supply/delivery missions, i can get 6 interdictions in less than 500ls travel distance.
No real danger, just an annoyance - same for an ungankable Cutter.

There was one guy who managed to interdict me 5 times in one run, and I still got through (He wasn't happy!). The upshot was that this gameplay was much more enjoyable than playing PP1 in solo or pvt because the NPC ships just weren't up to the task. e.g. another player was making the same run in a T-7, hauling more cargo than me, and not getting a single NPC interdiction and it felt that although I was certainly getting more enjoyment out of my run, I wasn't getting rewarded for the run.

Well, you did your part for your power, but what did your interdictor did except for wasting their time?
And if their power didnt lose the PP battle, it only means that besides the one unsuccessfully hunting you down, they also had someone successfully delivering merits - maybe in pg, while thumping their chest that "we do pp in open, as you've seen already"



This game is not really made for PVP, i;ve said this multiple times.
But i'm really curious how will they do with PP20 - time will tell

 

[Rubbernuke]

No, i'm saying that NPC difficulty is hard to set to match player skill
Too high, and it would be unplayable for the vast majority
Too low and some players will be 3-4 times more effective than other players
What is the solution? to time gate missions so it's not skill based but time based? could that be IT?

Well FD have been doing just that for a number of years. All thats required is to add extra difficulty levels to the top (so the base does not change).

And considering that all players have access to broadly the same missions, how can someone be advantaged? Plus, some missions all missions have a time constraint. Its why people stack.

Also, for open, it's hard to balance the rewards vs the encounters.
You spend 2 hours unsuccessfully trying to hunt skilled Cutter players, trying to prevent them to deliver merits - you get nothing for your power, right?
So you set this achievement (killing a Cutter full of merits) as having really high rewards - and then you find a newb in a Cutter and you get your quota for the entire day? For a full week?

Its up to people how they attack- otherwise the games FUC and ZYADA play would be pointless. Also powers are not in sync- some powers some weeks are defensive, while other times they can attack- so in that free time messing up another power is not wasted.

Or you could try something like this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...s-for-both-attack-and-avoiding-attack.624821/

Or you get an alt / friend / whatever with a Cutter full of merits and you kill them 3 times in an hour and exploit the system down to the core?

You can try that, until you have to actually play the game and rely less on silly hypothetical (not to mention pathetic) edge cases. Soon you'll be playing more on your alt than your real commander.

 

[Rubbernuke]

This game is not really made for PVP

Strange that PP V1 has explicit territory, explicit pledges, location specific cargo, real time 1:1 feedback, and has no abstraction. None of that is required in Solo or PG so why was it introduced?

What risk did you had while flying an ungankable Cutter in open?
Failed interidictions are just a nuisance, and i can get those in solo as well. If i stack 10 supply/delivery missions, i can get 6 interdictions in less than 500ls travel distance.
No real danger, just an annoyance - same for an ungankable Cutter.

Then what do you suggest fills the time in SC? Or is it that you dislike all those timewasting NPCs who ruin your snooze?

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

I thought about this some more and I think the best way to do this is give people participation rewards for playing in open based on time played with at least a minimal form of anti-idle so you can't just AFK at a station like with notoriety.

It shouldn't really matter if you win or lose in open just that you're playing and engaging with other commanders.

Could just be something simple and immaterial like a different color name or a checkmark in the targeting info panel that indicates that the player has player has played at least X hours in open in the past 1-2 weeks.

 

[Northpin]

Strange that PP V1 has explicit territory, explicit pledges, location specific cargo, real time 1:1 feedback, and has no abstraction. None of that is required in Solo or PG so why was it introduced?

None of those were aimed specifically at commanders - as i said, if you remove open - PP10 still functions exactly as it is functioning right now

Then what do you suggest fills the time in SC? Or is it that you dislike all those timewasting NPCs who ruin your snooze?

No, i'm saying that is little to no difference between being interdicted by in solo or in open if you fly an ungankable cutter.
You low wake again, you get interdicted again, you low wake again and so on - and after 5-6 interdictions you finally reach the destination

And at the next run, that bloke that you wasted 20 minutes earlier - more often than not - will not interdict you again*, since they dont get anything out of it, while NPCs are dumb enough to keep trying and will keep wasting your time.

* (unless FD introduces a "merits gains" for each interdiction which again - will be exploitable)

You can try that, until you have to actually play the game and rely less on silly hypothetical (not to mention pathetic) edge cases.

You can minimize or even dismiss these issues - but that doesnt mean they will go away or people will not exploit them

 

[Northpin]

I thought about this some more and I think the best way to do this is give people participation rewards for playing in open based on time played with at least a minimal form of anti-idle so you can't just AFK at a station like with notoriety.

It shouldn't really matter if you win or lose in open just that you're playing and engaging with other commanders.

Could just be something simple and immaterial like a different color name or a checkmark in the targeting info panel that indicates that the player has player has played at least X hours in open in the past 1-2 weeks.

Why not giving them merits for just logging in - like FD does with XMass Arx?

I'm sarcastic ofc, but this doesnt work either -so you will just faff around exchanging greeting to just get merits?

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

I'm sarcastic ofc, but this doesnt work either -so you will just faff around exchanging greeting to just get merits?

Yeah, one of the things with multiplayer/competitive games is that people get stressed and play the more casual modes instead of the pro ranked cyberathlete ladder mode in whatever game. Elite open isn't that and shouldn't be that, it's more of a sandbox. Maybe not everyone should be kill on sight etc.

Having people spend time in open just for the reward (not tied to winning or losing or being effective) can frame it differently and change the vibe. "Yeah I got ganked and it wasted a bunch of my time but I get the reward anyway so who cares" could be a better mindset than whatever people who hate open (or are intimidated by it) are approaching it with currently.

 

[Rubbernuke]

None of those were aimed specifically at commanders

Then why pledge, belong to a power and have defined territory and have bonuses derived from said things if not aimed at players?

No, i'm saying that is little to no difference between being interdicted by in solo or in open if you fly an ungankable cutter.
You low wake again, you get interdicted again, you low wake again and so on - and after 5-6 interdictions you finally reach the destination

And at the next run, that bloke that you wasted 20 minutes earlier - more often than not - will not interdict you again*, since they dont get anything out of it, while NPCs are dumb enough to keep trying and will keep wasting your time.

* (unless FD introduces a "merits gains" for each interdiction which again - will be exploitable)

Then either SC becomes dangerous or other places introduce that danger if you choose a dangerous mission. For example more NPCs (in harder missions) having containment missiles and reverb torpedoes.

You can minimize or even dismiss these issues - but that doesnt mean they will go away or people will not exploit them

I can really see hundreds of people buying Cutters, filling them, flying them out, blowing them up, rebuying, filling, flying out and repeating, logging out, logging in, and rubbing their hands with glee. Its especially silly if ship destruction is on a BGS murder like S curve because its self limiting if done to excess.

 

[DemiserofD]

So how do we solve the problem of balance between the modes, if in open mode you can expect to be unable to complete an activity whereas in solo it's butter? Mode is supposed to be a choice after all. Not a Hobson's choice.

You recognize and accept that no decision is going to make everyone happy, and try to create a system that makes as many people happy as possible.

In this case, it means accepting that making PVP the governor of other activities is a non-starter, and instead, you create new activities more centered around PVP to make it a valid play style, but not a dominant one.

For example, you could make it so that stronghold carriers can only be attacked or defended in open. This creates a meaningful and engaging way for PVP to matter, without unduly burdening other activity types.

 

[Rubbernuke]

You recognize and accept that no decision is going to make everyone happy, and try to create a system that makes as many people happy as possible.

In this case, it means accepting that making PVP the governor of other activities is a non-starter, and instead, you create new activities more centered around PVP to make it a valid play style, but not a dominant one.

For example, you could make it so that stronghold carriers can only be attacked or defended in open. This creates a meaningful and engaging way for PVP to matter, without unduly burdening other activity types.

I still maintain that if FD increase the ceiling on mission difficulty (for a corresponding reward) that would be enough for a lot of people. This would include random wings, better armed ships and trickier situations.

It might be that in solo or PG attacks on carriers do not count- so solo still get to play it, but only open counts INF wise where it can be repelled. Or that certain things can't be redeemed- just as long as the player is told upfront.

 

[DemiserofD]

I still maintain that if FD increase the ceiling on mission difficulty (for a corresponding reward) that would be enough for a lot of people. This would include random wings, better armed ships and trickier situations.

It might be that in solo or PG attacks on carriers do not count- so solo still get to play it, but only open counts where it can be repelled.

I feel like the issue you'll run into is, people will still be frustrated that there are people they can't see, doing things they can't personally stop.

The issue is, it's an intractable problem. In a game like Elite, you can NEVER guarantee that people are going to be visible. I watch ganker streams, for example, and the first assumption if someone fails to load into their instance is ALWAYS that they're clogging, even though for me, getting into an instance is something like a 50/50 shot at best. And when we're both TRYING to get into the same instance, we can only blame Fdev, which is moderately frustrating, but acceptable. Statistically, half of ganker connections should also fail, but the instant someone gains an advantage from failing to connect, the first assumption will ALWAYS be that rather than being Fdev's fault, it's that the target is doing so intentionally. It's just human nature to blame whoever has the most to gain.

So while I agree with you on a rational level, I don't think it will actually solve the real problem, which isn't actually the imbalance between modes; it's players getting frustrated. Rationally, they will know that things are more or less just as difficult everywhere, but emotionally, they'll want to SEE them themselves.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I feel like the issue you'll run into is, people will still be frustrated that there are people they can't see, doing things they can't personally stop.

The issue is, it's an intractable problem. In a game like Elite, you can NEVER guarantee that people are going to be visible. I watch ganker streams, for example, and the first assumption if someone fails to load into their instance is ALWAYS that they're clogging, even though for me, getting into an instance is something like a 50/50 shot at best. And when we're both TRYING to get into the same instance, we can only blame Fdev, which is moderately frustrating, but acceptable. Statistically, half of ganker connections should also fail, but the instant someone gains an advantage from failing to connect, the first assumption will ALWAYS be that rather than being Fdev's fault, it's that the target is doing so intentionally. It's just human nature to blame whoever has the most to gain.

So while I agree with you on a rational level, I don't think it will actually solve the real problem, which isn't actually the imbalance between modes; it's players getting frustrated. Rationally, they will know that things are more or less just as difficult everywhere, but emotionally, they'll want to SEE them themselves.

There is a line that has to be drawn (as you stated earlier IIRC) and that people will just have to accept it. Its just finding that common ground and saying 'these are the rules'.

The frustration comes from a lack of set rules and boundaries- everyone has a mode, block list, personal rules etc and meshing those (and the expectations) causes the friction.

 

[DemiserofD]

There is a line that has to be drawn (as you stated earlier IIRC) and that people will just have to accept it. Its just finding that common ground and saying 'these are the rules'.

True enough, but the question is, do the new rules improve the problem?

Right now, pvpers have a legitimate complaint('pvp doesn't matter'), and an intractable complaint('I can't pvp everyone'). Your solution, while making open powerplay more even with solo powerplay, would still not actually solve either problem.

The goal of rule changes is to solve - or at least mitigate - problems to the point where they can be ignored. I don't feel like your solution would serve that end, and may in fact generate new complaints('Powerplay missions are too hard').

Which is why I prefer a more targeted approach. Solve the legitimate complaint of pvp not mattering(via open-only server-hosted pvp areas), and ignore the intractable complaint entirely. Leave non-pvp activities alone, so anyone can participate. There will still be pvpers complaining that they can't kill everyone who doesn't choose to play in open, but they will at least have the salve of being able to do SOMETHING in open that does actually matter. And on the flipside, it creates a gateway to pvp, as fighting other players around your Power's stronghold megaships should give a significant advantage, making it easier to justify getting into the game.