Modes PvP Powerplay Powerplay: a focus on gameplay

[Darkfyre99]

Truth be told, the main reason why I'm attracted to Powerplay is that it gives greater depth to the game. It's an additional layer to consider while I'm playing. Since I don't enjoy either of the methods of gaining merits currently, I'm not participating in Powerplay currently for the credits, modules, or benefits... the latter two, given that I'm pledged to a combat oriented Power and I'm a decidedly non-combat player, are essentially useless to me anyway.

I'm participating in Powerplay for that additional depth. When I'm helping those brave freedom fighters resist the cruelty of the Evil Galactic Federation, I don't help just any freedom fighters. I need to consider the greater galactic stage, and where my limited time will have the greatest impact. Even when I'm operating in the Empire, I need to keep an eye on preserving the light of freedom, prosperity, and culture within the Empire, as well helping to spread its light outside it's borders.

Sandro's proposal, limiting the BGS's influence on Powerplay to Control Systems, would've been a net benefit as far as I'm concerned. It would've filled in a little bit of the depth in this game (although IMO there's more than most people give it credit for), but it also would've simplified my choices greatly. More importantly, it would've been accompanied by actually earning merits for activities I do on behalf of my Power. Just because I'm willing to do it for free, doesn't mean I'd say "no" to actual recognition, and the benefits that would come with.

Divorcing Powerplay from the rest of the game, ala CQC? That's a way of losing more players as far as I'm concerned, as opposed to drawing in additional ones. And we should want to draw in more players into Powerplay. The more the better, because the more players involved in a feature, the more likely Frontier would be willing to spend limited development time on it, both in fixing any problems, and more important, adding additional features.

 

[Bashy81]

At the end of each daily tick the amount of power cargo hauled to a powers capital (as they are now, Polevnic, Harma etc) is counted, and whoever has the most in that system will control it. Control in this context means influence: that powers bonuses act alongside the BGS. Players may wish to have LYR control high tech shipyards, the Feds fed systems, and so on.

Powerplay undoubtedly needs to be more dynamic; having possibility to shed systems in a more practical way (at the moment the only way for a Power to deal with a metaphorical headache is by putting itself into cardiac arrest) , conventional attacks having a possibility of success, etc. But there's dynamic and then theres bat'poop' crazy. If the bubble is flipping completely every single day, that's surely going to be uncontrollably bonkers? Plus just one of those little no-tick days is going to grind everything to a halt.

Personally i'd prefer to have more territorial persistence, somewhere between this extreme and the current stalemate, & id like to see bubbles needing to be connected, so each power always has a single large bubble instead of being able to pop-down mini bubbles wherever they can haul-to. this way strategic blocking, and competitive expansion races on the map to reach highly desirable areas could be a thing that gives an easier-read on galmap for everyone to see strategic objectives.

This 'connecting-the-bubbles' thing could replace Exploited systems, so the current 15ly bubble radius would become a territorial boundary in another way, and only Control systems having a check for favourable status (as-per Sandro's Proposal) This was a thing I was v much in favour of, as it doesnt disenfranchise parts of the playerbase who favour exploring & mining and all the BGS, while also giving much more breathing room for all the inserted PMFs to act freely in all those thousands of currently Exploited systems without impinging on Poweplay objectives. Powerplay at present isnt just one thing, it includes every activity possible in the game (inluding bug-hunting) and that diversity is a strength, so long as many-choices dont ultimately result in a no-choice META.

This would mean powerplay merits & bonuses can only be earned and have influence in Open, but BGS elements would still have an effect on the economies of Powers, which ofc could still be done in any mode. Im raising this because I prefer it, but also because it's exactly the kind of watering-down that ends up as a last minute dev-choice that can defeat the purpose of the whole thing. So its best to discuss these middle-grounds before we get lumbered with them unexpectedly

Sorry Darkfyre99, your post hadnt appeared for me until I posted my similar one, or I would have referenced it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

and then theres bat'poop' crazy.

I had to flesh out that proposal just to satisfy my curiosity! I wanted to see what it would be like, mainly as it would be a bit like the religion / culture mechanic in Civ games. It would allow any system to be 'influenced', Maia, Sag A, Colonia etc. and add a variety of effects to the BGS that would in essence make all players Powerplay players directly and indirectly.

The only downside is that it is PvP / tactically light when compared to Sandros proposal.

 

[Bashy81]

I had to flesh out that proposal just to satisfy my curiosity! I wanted to see what it would be like, mainly as it would be a bit like the religion / culture mechanic in Civ games. It would allow any system to be 'influenced', Maia, Sag A, Colonia etc. and add a variety of effects to the BGS that would in essence make all players Powerplay players directly and indirectly.

The only downside is that it is PvP / tactically light when compared to Sandros proposal.

Haha, sry I did write that didnt I !, all I meant, the only crazy part IMO was the game-pace that wipes all faction progress & starts again every day. It sounds like Valhalla, just with less ale. The outcome of each day's battles, becoming utterly irrelevant.

As it stands, in Utopia we get vertigo when we get in the top-half of the rankings, we're not going to 'win' any awards, except perhaps for stubbornness But we do have a nice gardened BGS, and a culture that's a cross-between Hobbiton and Clockwork Orange, and that has to be something worth fighting for . Utopia is something semi-permanent to fight for & work to improve. The efforts of all our players over the years are evident on the map and in all our systems, and it's a place we call home. (Even if the Utopian NPCs call us a 'waste of time' every time they see us.) It's one of the major draws that keeps players going.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The sad part of all this is that its a waste of energy really. I could make a massive book from all the lovingly set out proposals people have made to improve Powerplay. I'm hoping that there is a flip-chart in FD towers that has some sort of plan for Powerplay on it. I mean, how many iterations of C + P and discovery scanners do you need?

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Considering the actual Powerplay what I like the most is how linear it is, the fact that theoretically distance is a decisive factor to the ability of conquer a system or not for example, it makes it a simple game, overcomplicated by rules like overhead, for example, that was the wrong answer of the legitimate demand to somehow limit how big a Power actually could be.
I think that we should not focus on creating a too much different game, I've made the same mistake in the past (remember my "megaship-driven" proposal? X-D ), instead we should look at what the game already offers and maximise those features in Powerplay.

For example: if we really had single-handled turmoils with competitive triggers, things like weaponised expansions would assume a much more complicated meaning, because a highly contesting system would have necessarily a very low income for a very far away system, making mandatory to keep it fortified if you want to keep the pressure over your enemies. As Rubbernuke wrote just now, it's a waste of energy to propose new things, and our new proposals will never be that good because it's not our field of expertise.

All we can do, is to tell the Developers what doesn't work for sure in Powerplay.

• votes do not work
• the actual "generic" turmoil system does not work
• the actual "fortify trigger reaching and never think about that system anymore" thing doesn't work
• overhead doesn't work
• grindy-repetitive actions do not work

We should stick as much as we can to this and possibly propose tweaks to the actual Powerplay, even if they could work on something completely different.

 

[Darkfyre99]

The sad part of all this is that its a waste of energy really. I could make a massive book from all the lovingly set out proposals people have made to improve Powerplay. I'm hoping that there is a flip-chart in FD towers that has some sort of plan for Powerplay on it. I mean, how many iterations of C + P and discovery scanners do you need?

My chief fear is that any drive to improve Powerplay departed with Sandro. I may have had my issues with his impact on this game, some of which were fair, and some of which may have been a case of misblame, but I was really looking forward to most of those changes.

Unlike Voronwe above, I prefer complexity. The interplay between Powerplay and the BGS added depth to my game, which in turn led to richer choices. The meat of Sandro’s proposal preserved that complexity, while making the whole system less opaque while broadening it’s appeal.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

My chief fear is that any drive to improve Powerplay departed with Sandro. I may have had my issues with his impact on this game, some of which were fair, and some of which may have been a case of misblame, but I was really looking forward to most of those changes.

Unlike Voronwe above, I prefer complexity. The interplay between Powerplay and the BGS added depth to my game, which in turn led to richer choices. The meat of Sandro’s proposal preserved that complexity, while making the whole system less opaque while broadening it’s appeal.

It's not about being simple or complex, it's about being linear. The Background Simulation is the perfect example about that. Its rules are simples, its their iterations that makes it very complex and engaging.
Another example outside videogames is chess: very linear and straightforward, still extremly complex.
And I think we should consider how this game should be independent of any type of player-driven leadership, it's the game itself that should reward a player that's doing the best for its Power (personal rewards weighted to the condition of the Power in a particular system as suggested before for example).
So... I totally agree with making Powerplay more complex but not more complicated, if you know what I mean.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I think this year will be the make or break of Powerplay, simply as Powerplay is one, if not the thing from the 1.x days that has not seen drastic improvement. The longer FD skirt around the edges of it the more pressure will build. They need the courage to actually realize its potential, as it ties together so much of the game.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's not about being simple or complex, it's about being linear. The Background Simulation is the perfect example about that. Its rules are simples, its their iterations that makes it very complex and engaging.
Another example outside videogames is chess: very linear and straightforward, still extremly complex.
And I think we should consider how this game should be independent of any type of player-driven leadership, it's the game itself that should reward a player that's doing the best for its Power (personal rewards weighted to the condition of the Power in a particular system as suggested before for example).
So... I totally agree with making Powerplay more complex but not more complicated, if you know what I mean.

This is partly why I inverted Powerplay in my crazy idea, as it decentralises Powerplay, and you can push where you like as nothing is 'wrong'.

 

[Darkfyre99]

It's not about being simple or complex, it's about being linear. The Background Simulation is the perfect example about that. Its rules are simples, its their iterations that makes it very complex and engaging.
Another example outside videogames is chess: very linear and straightforward, still extremly complex.
And I think we should consider how this game should be independent of any type of player-driven leadership, it's the game itself that should reward a player that's doing the best for its Power (personal rewards weighted to the condition of the Power in a particular system as suggested before for example).
So... I totally agree with making Powerplay more complex but not more complicated, if you know what I mean.

Here’s the amusing thing. I consider Powerplay to be far more “linear” than the BGS is... unless your approach to the BGS is to grind influence, much like you grind Merits in Powerplay. If random players visiting the system you’re manipulating aren’t working for the faction you’re supporting, and/or avoiding the faction you’re opposing, then you’ve failed somewhere in your BGS strategy.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Here’s the amusing thing. I consider Powerplay to be far more “linear” than the BGS is... unless your approach to the BGS is to grind influence, much like you grind Merits in Powerplay. If random players visiting the system you’re manipulating aren’t working for the faction you’re supporting, and/or avoiding the faction you’re opposing, then you’ve failed somewhere in your BGS strategy.

Well it is not, 5C is an example of that, you can harm your power by playing for it, you can't 5C a minor faction, you can trigger an undesired expansion maybe, but that will not risk the very same minor faction to collapse or lose more important assets.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Well it is not, 5C is an example of that, you can harm your power by playing for it, you can't 5C a minor faction, you can trigger an undesired expansion maybe, but that will not risk the very same minor faction to collapse or lose more important assets.

On the contrary.

My usual strategy to forcing the Federation out of power is to work for them, while simultaneously working for those brave freedom fighters resisting them. By the time I’m done, I’m usually allied to them, and they’re out of power, having lost their best station(s).

I’m kind of curious what rank I’d be in the Federation if I ever decided to take a rank up mission. It’s bad enough that those minor factions I’ve helped remove from power consider me their best friend. Ranking up would be a bridge too far.

 

[RELSPI]

On the contrary.

My usual strategy to forcing the Federation out of power is to work for them, while simultaneously working for those brave freedom fighters resisting them. By the time I’m done, I’m usually allied to them, and they’re out of power, having lost their best station(s).

I’m kind of curious what rank I’d be in the Federation if I ever decided to take a rank up mission. It’s bad enough that those minor factions I’ve helped remove from power consider me their best friend. Ranking up would be a bridge too far.

not just working for everyone at once, then selling them out to the Thargoids

Your espionage game is weak. Weak, I tell you!

 

[Bard Voronwe]

On the contrary.

My usual strategy to forcing the Federation out of power is to work for them, while simultaneously working for those brave freedom fighters resisting them. By the time I’m done, I’m usually allied to them, and they’re out of power, having lost their best station(s).

I’m kind of curious what rank I’d be in the Federation if I ever decided to take a rank up mission. It’s bad enough that those minor factions I’ve helped remove from power consider me their best friend. Ranking up would be a bridge too far.

I'm afraid I'm hitting some language barrier in here (my fault of course), I will try to explain that better. X-D
If you are talking about triggering multiple conflicts in the BGS to conquer more facilities in a System, then I agree with you but in that particular case it show how a straightforward rule (you need conflicts to control facilities) may generate complex situations. But still that kind of behaviour, if successful, it's an advantage for the minor faction you are supporting in the end.
In Powerplay on the contrary the conquest is not Always a good thing for your Power because of overhead, prolonged 5C actions (as the ones Winters had in the last months) will put that Power in a situation that will make for them impossible to recover. Again, Powerplay is overcomplicated by overhead, making It more of a game of management that would call for a leadership control as it is right now, and it's exactly what happened, with many communities born around the different Powers mainly to avoid other players to harm the Power they were pledged to.
There's a great difference in how the BGS and the Powerplay function, the only need you have right now to control a PMF is to make them expand exactly where you want but theoretically if people just support one faction because they want, they will do no harm to them, this is not the case for Powerplay, this is the "original sin" in Powerplay by design, which opened up to 5C for example.

 

[Darkfyre99]

No, what I’m talking about is manipulating faction states, creating a situation where random players will preferentially work for the faction you’re supporting, and not the one you’re trying to overthrow, because they have the “best” missions. To do that, you have two choices.

The first is to simply murder enough NPCs of that faction to trigger lockdown, but I consider that inelegant, boring, and quite frankly an exploit at this moment. The second is far more fun, but takes longer. Manipulating BGS states by taking missions that result in harmful faction states, as well as missions that result in those wrinkles that nobody else even considers, because you make far more credits these days simply completing the mission as described.

Ideally, if your goal (like mine) is to oust a Superpower from positions of power, as opposed to expanding a particular minor faction, you can create a gold rush situation, and watch as a horde of Veruca Salts descend upon the system for the easy credits or rank, joyously grinding influence for you

That being said, I grok what you’re saying. I’m talking about the day to day activities of the typical Commander, whereas you’re talking about consideration at the strategic level. Unlike Powerplay, the only thing restricting the size of minor “empires” is the number of players required to defend it, because a controlling faction has a natural advantage over the others. The BGS has natural equilibrium states, so it requires deliberate player effort to disrupt that equilibrium.

But what you consider to be Powerplay’s “original sin,” I consider it to be its greatest virtue. That’s why I was attracted to it in the first place. “Empire” building should require a greater degree of strategic thinking than what is seen in BGS play, expansion should come at a cost, and it should be possible to find yourself fighting the proverbial “land war in Asia.” I, personally, find guaranteed success to be boring.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

But what you consider to be Powerplay’s “original sin,” I consider it to be its greatest virtue. That’s why I was attracted to it in the first place. “Empire” building should require a greater degree of strategic thinking than what is seen in BGS play, expansion should come at a cost, and it should be possible to find yourself fighting the proverbial “land war in Asia.” I, personally, find guaranteed success to be boring.

Well it depends what you design that game for.

Example: the actual Powerplay would probably benefit a "moderator" (if you don't want to call it "leader"): 5C would become impossible, they could decide (for example) for a system to not really be fortified or directly scrap systems. In that case the actual Powerplay would work like a charm against 5C, even if it would stay dramatically stagnant (every Power would be too easy to be defended and not just because of the private/solo servers, but mathematically).
But FDev always said that they don't want that kind of approach in their game, and to be honest I totally agree with them.
I understand what you're trying to do with BGS, it's a personal way to play it, very roleplay style which I appreciate but somehow make you look at the rules of the game in a different way.
Considering the rules "just as they are" the BGS is a simple accumulation of positive and negative actions towards a minor faction which are calculated on a daily bases and, when two factions collide in influence, they enter a conflict to switch control over 1 facility each (if they posses one of course). Economy, security etc serve to "spice things up", but in the end of the day it's all about positive or negative actions.
As said before, like chess, it's simple and straightforward but can have multiple ways and styles to approach it, but in the end everything you do is create the perfect conditions for your faction to conquer something in the end and dominate. (Ok MAYBE the only exception is controlling planetary settlements that attract negative missions, but it's easily counterable).
In Powerplay a theoretically positive action (conquering a close system) is potentially dramatic (because of overhead) and makes that Power in the condition to lose their best, far away systems, with the final result of an even worse CC reserve to make them lose even more systems: Felicia Winters has been a perfect example of this 5C collapse which, again, was just a consequence of a design done not considering the possibility of 5C.
So: it's the actual Powerplay with leadership (that would suck) or a simplier straightforward Powerplay.
This "grey area" thing they gave to us simply doesn't work, I think we all can agree on that.

 

[Darkfyre99]

This "grey area" thing they gave to us simply doesn't work, I think we all can agree on that.

On the contrary. It isn’t that that this “grey area” doesn’t work, it works too well, to the point where it’s easier to attack a Power by forcing it to over expand, rather than through undermining. The mechanism was intended to allow for controlling systems for strategic gain, though at a loss of CC, or to stimulate the need for internal Power politics, such as in the case of Lugh and the Crimson State Group.

That’s where the changes to Powerplay Sandro proposed would fix true 5C, while still preserving the intended purpose of this “grey area.”

 

[Bard Voronwe]

On the contrary. It isn’t that that this “grey area” doesn’t work, it works too well, to the point where it’s easier to attack a Power by forcing it to over expand, rather than through undermining. The mechanism was intended to allow for controlling systems for strategic gain, though at a loss of CC, or to stimulate the need for internal Power politics, such as in the case of Lugh and the Crimson State Group.

That’s where the changes to Powerplay Sandro proposed would fix true 5C, while still preserving the intended purpose of this “grey area.”

It's not the first time I read that even 5C was considered by design.

What if I tell you that the leaders of Powerplay had to explain what 5C exactly was to the developers and why was it so harmful to Powers? Would be that proof enough for you that it wasn't done by design at all?

I think that Powerplay suffered an excess of faith from FDev to its player base, or if you want to look to that my way an excess of naivity about how people approach a game and how they could consider ethical or not an action even in a videogame. This all "it was done by design" concept is much more of an assumption of yours. You never consider the possibility that they simply failed it big time. As they did with the first undermining technique, the PvP-Piracy oriented one, that suffered from the day one of people voluntarily lose power commodities to harm their very own Power (and that wasn't something they like, and proof of it is that the developers changed that mechanic very soon, chosing the actual kill-undermining system).

Powerplay right now is like playing chess with somebody able to make bad moves for you to be able to win. That makes it a bad designed game and, if it wasn't, there wouldn't be all of this request to change Powerplay.

You said that you play Powerplay more because of the BGS, and mainly considering BGS. Well, I play Powerplay as a whole (both the BGS side and the Powerplay per se part), and even the link between BGS and Powerplay is bad designed, because I remember you we have Hudson and Aisling Duval that are supported by Governments that can't be found in the respective Superpower.

So no: I don't believe it's all "by design", it isn't at all, and we had external proof of that in the past (goodbye piracy undermining, the whole consolidation mechanic attempt, Sammarco's past statements about that) and more "internal and reserved" proof I maybe shouldn't talk about.

Again: it was not intended. You may like the consequences but that was a mistake.

 

[Justinian Octavius]

• Powerplay actions engaged into the same game mode, if a player change mode with a task on hold, that task fails immediately
• no effects from the Powerplay mode to the BGS, only Powerplay in that mode
• Powerplay missions and scenarios
• no BGS effect to Powerplay
• BONUS: minor effects from Powerplay to the game as it is today or now? I'm talking about effects over Black Markets, Security Levels etc

Again: let's discuss this by a gameplay point of view ONLY. If you even mention botting or 5C you're bad people. Just gameplay. Let's discuss.

There is no need for a specific game mode for Powerplay imho as Open should become de facto. Imho disconnecting Powerplay from the rest of the risks limiting its potential for player growth; Powerplay should be visible & with tangible impacts upon the galaxy. Regarding BGS, shifting it to purely the control system rather than the entire control sphere would be something I would like to see. I don't think removing BGS entirely would help Powerplay as a number of commanders do Powerplay for the BGS element.

Regarding Power Exploitation Impacts, personally I'd just delete all of them and start again giving each Power just two that fit with the theme of the Power and are a genuine benefit which are easy for everyone to understand. These should affect the BGS elements that affect commanders directly and ideally be one for the Control Sphere & one for the Control System. To illustrate using Torval, for the Control System I'd keep the Imperial Slaves price reduction but increase it to be competitive whilst for the Control Sphere I'd possibly inverse the Mined Mineral price reduction to be an increase. Of course, I'd hope to move to per system Turmoil so that Powers can more easily choose the systems they want to place their bonuses in & naturally it would allow their enemies to target such high value systems as well.