Powerplay: Ideas from the devs - Feedback wanted! #2

[Raist]

I have never said I know what's enjoyable for others. What I have been defending is elements of the game I pledged for and I (and it seems devs too) seem to enjoy. Nothing less, nothing more.

It doesn't seem like many of the people really "enjoying" PP want to comment....

Secondly I think the landslide of suggestions on how to try and alter it to make it work; goes to show how badly thought out and untested the idea was before it was launched into the live environment.

PP has kicked the Community Goal crowd firmly in the nuts. There were thousands signing up to follow the events and story and be part of the universe. The community has been fractured and PP has driven people (including myself) to halt play until a resolution is found).

Recent community goals appear poorly thought out and almost look like they were created with the intention of community failure.

If Elite's main focus is to be PowerPlay; (a political simulator) then the founders and fans should have been told so, early on.

If it is, in fact, a hastily bolted on distraction whilst Xbone development, CQC etc is dabbled with; then I feel that we have a reason to complain.

The amount of time and effort required to sort PP out (if at all possible) should not be done at the expense of spoiling what was previously being enjoyed by thousands.

Elite had a core of rich story and engaging missions etc, this content should be made to be the best it can be; before attempting untested wild ideas.

 

[CMDR M Kozak]

Adjusting that formula is of massive importance to most players participating in powerplay whether they realize it or not.

Without it, I would certainly have stopped my participation.

Not, that I don't think more work is needed to make powerplay compelling.

Perhaps - I wont dispute that at all!

But the people its suppose to help seems to care less and less because something ELSE than that formula. I didnt even realize there was a problem. I havent heard a single player say "Overhead is a problem guys". If there ever were a scream it drowned in the other issues people are having.

I dont really care about my "boss" because I dont know him. I cant read up on him. They are so abstract that some of them even oppose their own major factions authorities.
So all I care about is me and my experiences in game.

Thats why I think the formula change is irrelevant.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I'd be very surprised if the Dev's actually player power play properly. All you do is shout down criticism (and well deserved criticism) with endless smaller and smaller circles of pedantic arguing. In fact Pecisk, I think you actually like grinding so much you 'forum grind'.

Where I shout down criticism? I just point out my own POV. I even don't reply to most complain threads. I engage when I feel I can argue against hyperbole or claims which are not founded in facts. Feel free to ignore me as fan boy.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't seem like many of the people really "enjoying" PP want to comment...

Well, most of players avoid gaming forums for well known reasons. I wonder which are those

 

[LeetNoob]

Where I shout down criticism? I just point out my own POV. I even don't reply to most complain threads. I engage when I feel I can argue against hyperbole or claims which are not founded in facts. Feel free to ignore me as fan boy.

I invite anyone to read through your post history to see if what I said is unfair.
I won't ignore you as I don't think that's necessary, as you, as a member of this community, reflect a part of that community, and I can hear that point of view, regardless if I agree or not.

 

[Zmaj od Bosne]

I Don't PP

I've been playing this game since day 1 of the release and have mostly enjoyed the game so far. Played it off and on a little bit at a time and tried pretty much everything (mining, exploring, bounty hunting, smuggling, missions, naval ranks etc..). Luckily I haven't played enough to get burned out on all of the elements this game offers despite of how limited all of them are. That is why I can still play this game and enjoy it.There are only two things I haven't tried in this game: Community Goals and Power Play.Since this is a thread about PP I'll just go into that one. For me it's very simple, PP is a full time job and not a game, due to the reputation and merit decay. I have a job already and I don't need another. All I want to do is have some fun playing a game for a couple of hours every once in a while. Going to vacation for a couple of weeks and finding that your reputation with factions went from allied to friendly after coming back is just stupid.If you want to improve PP and incentivize players to participate, especially the casual players remove the decay and player competition within the same faction and allow all payers to achieve maximum ranks at their own pace. In it's current form PP is nothing but a boring, time wasting game element that is of no interest to me, and as far as I can tell to most ED player base as well.

 

[nrage]

Some interesting ideas for changes to power play were posted here which scrap the idea of rank entirely, and make merits more of a currency.. which sounded odd to me at first, but it rather elegantly resolves the issue with things like the exploration reward which is more or less unattainable unless you risk it all. My reply (Mal Reynolds) adds a few alternative ways to incentivise the sort of power play we want to happen too.

 

[LeetNoob]

My feedback?

First, anything in a game that requires me to look at formula’s like that are missing the point of a game.

I pledged to what’s her name Duval because I want the shields, I’ll wait until week 4 then go get 750 merit’s to get in to rank 3.
In the meantime I’m now Hostile where I am, which means every now and again I get interdicted by something that has no chance against me so they can kill themselves. Maybe a CMDR would have a better chance against me but I never see any of them, as Power Play encourages solo. It does not interest me, the merit grind is less fun that the credit grind.

To the Dev’s. There is nothing wrong with admitting something doesn’t work, and isn’t needed. I say rip it out and leave it out. It was an interesting idea but it’s nothing to do with what Elite was in previous games or what Elite Dangerous was when it came out. It just doesn’t fit.

Swing and a miss.

 

[7x5]

When a power controls a system, it has to pay upkeep for it each cycle. This upkeep is based on the distance of the system to the power’s home system and the population of the system.

An additional cost, called system overheads is also paid at this time.

System overheads are currently determined by the total number of systems controlled and exploited by a power. The greater this number is, the higher the system overhead cost is. So the more systems a power controls, the larger the system overhead cost it pays each cycle.

in my opinion, it is too limiting expansion, perhaps there is a reason we do not know, and at least I do not understand. with this system hardly a system that generates many CC and is far away from the capital will not produce more than a moderate system close to this.

Why the possibility of having small or big remote systems that are very productive are removed?

As I understand it, the various factions reach a natural point of balance between expansion and fortification, which occurs when X number of players per faction, no longer able to fortify all the systems to which it has been expanded. Just then apply a formula that limits its expansion in subsequent turns.
For me it is a mistake to artificially limit the capacity expansion of a power faction, and this, naturally be limited by the number of players comprising it, and the productivity of these, try to limit the expansion just gets frustrated players see the mathematical limitations always present, and although the number of players affiliated to a power increase much, the formula will always be there, inserting an artificial control of the universe.

More fortification = More time to work for your power + Less time for work for me + less money + no faction rank progresion & More.

and yes, the same time investing in trading, anybody can obtained more than 50,000,000 Cr in a week.

 

[Hydrino]

<snip for length> Hello Commanders! (because if I try to keep answering every post then it's game over!)

Addressing as best I can right now a couple of issues that crop up a number of times:

Powerplay is too grindy:

Without infinite resources there is always going to be a limit to what the game can offer, inside or outside of Powerplay. That being said, we hear ya, we definitely have plans regarding variety and game play, again, both inside and outside of Powerplay (that's all I can say right now).

This is in addition to changes we're contemplating like adding collapse states for systems that get ultra-undermined, e.g. changes in the Powerplay mechanics to facilitate more nuanced game play.

Powerplay is not rewarding:

I would hope there is some inherent reward in seeing your power do well. In addition, we don't necessarily want Powerplay to simply be a way of generating huge amounts of credits, which is why we'll be keeping a close eye on rating rewards and system effects to see how it pans out. We have no problem making changes if we're confident it will help.

Going forward, broadening the concept of tangible "rewards" from simply credits in the game is something we're exploring.

In conclusion (for now!) the concept of Powerplay is something we think is good for the game. It represents the background simulation on a grand scale, it dynamically changes how the galaxy operates in clean, legible ways for all Commanders, not simply those supporting a power, and it is player driven.

We understand direct participation with Powerplay is not for everyone, and that's OK; the system can operate effectively at wildly different levels of participation. We also think that it could support more, in terms of activity and reward: we're looking at these areas - no guarantees or ETA, but it's on the agenda.

That's where we stand with Powerplay at the moment; I hope this info helps show where we're coming from.

+1 rep for this, simply the best FD response to a barrage of tough questions that I think I have ever seen! Direct answer as far as you are allowed to make with minimal dancing.

I am not currently participating in PP but I agree it adds to the game overall (I like ongoing news-feeds as it does add to the sense of a living simulation/galaxy), and it is there for when and if anyone decides to dive in. I look forward to the ongoing development.

Now if we could get you, MB or DBOBE to make a similar response to all the hundreds of more generalized "direction of the game" posts "soon", it would be like an earthquake around here. I really don't see why such a response about the long-term vision and direction of the game (versus a specific map with dates) is so difficult, given the excellent post you just put here. While I have no worries, the angst on the forums since CQC announcement is draining and without rebuttal feeds on itself.

I don't want summer to go too fast, but I'm excited to see what FD has to say at Gamescom!

 

[nicomak]

Making it a tad more visual. Assuming that's (13*control systems /42 ) ^3 for the first part :
Actually i changed it to (exploited systems /42 ) ^3 . the idea is the same but nombers are closer to current numbers

Vertical axis = CC
Horizontal axis = Number of exploited systems

Values for Powers are of the current cycle. (that's what they have left after paying upkeeps, but before paying overheads)

The yellow line is based on the difference between CC incomes and CC upkeeps, divided by the number of exploited system.
Which is roughly the line every powers have been folowing since begining. Some do better than average, some do worse.
It shows you what a power can expect in average for n number of exploited systems, when upkeeps are already paid, but not overheads.

The red curve is the old overheads(approximation : (exploited systems/42)^3), it's a wall you cant get through, if you did that would mean that :

incomes - upkeeps < overheads <==> incomes - overheads - upkeeps < 0.

No matter what you did, taking one further control system(and a handfull of exploited system with it) was even more expensive than the last one.
In the end your incomes cant keep up with both upkeeps and overheads, you get turmoil, and if you cant make things better, you may loose systems and the whole thing might happen again, or you would be stuck where you are, unable to expand.

The Blue curve would be the new overheads, it's more forgiving, The same things happen if you go bellow it.
But once you go above the linear part of the curve, you can still go on expanding, as long you get high income systems, and you have enough CC available for that. After paying upkeeps, +75 CC (Incomes - upkeeps >= +75CC) would be needed. Less and you reduce your amount of available CC for the next cycles, more and you'll increase it, and fortification can help too. However undermining a system is still possible.

What may happen is that powers get stuck, too few CC to go further, too much to get into turmoil and loose systems, even though loosing some may actually help the power get some momentum back.

-- updated --

One thing i noticed :
If i write the formula as : min( (A/42)^3 , 5.8*A )
1°) if A = Eploited_Systems, results are closer to current overhead values.
2°) if A = Control_Systems*13, it's not quite as close, especially for Mahon.

Note that in average, there are 13 exploited systems for every control system, probably why it's in the formula.

The higher part shows overheads based on A = Controled_Systems*13, the lower half replaces that with A = Exploited_Systems.

CTRL : number of control systems
EXPL : number of exploited systems.
The first line bellow : EXPL / CTRL
The second line bellow : Incomes - Upkeeps. ( to place them on the grahp above).
O1 : old overhead formula, presumably the same as (A/42)^3.
O2 : the new one : min( (A/42)^3 , 5.8*A)
Real : current overhead values.

(Eploited_Systems/42)^3 has been a good approximation for previous cycles (~= Eploited_Systems^3/74000).
But there always were a few weird gaps, especially with Patreus. Never knew why(See lines Real-o#).


-- updated (2) --

Available CC(exploited systems).

Best to worst scenario based on ' (incomes - upkeeps) / exploited systems - new_overheads '

worst assumes the smallest resut seen of (incomes - upkeeps) / exploited systems for every power or cycle, removing fortification.
Average is the average of those value again for all power / cycle, fortification included.
Best is the very best result for all power / cycle, fortification included.

Wether i use A = exploited systems or A = control systems * 13, the general idea would be the same. I used the former however.

 

[woodhouse]

I find it frustrating that powerplay seems to need so much work that they could use that time to develope the game that alot of us expected. I remember how excited fdev was about releasing powerplay but I fail to see what got them so excited. I fear it's all a waste of resources.

I have to agree, concise and very well put!
Practically speaking, it would be best not to invest in powerplay, sad but true. Better just switch it off or keep it as it is.

 

[woodhouse]

To the Dev’s. There is nothing wrong with admitting something doesn’t work, and isn’t needed. I say rip it out and leave it out. It was an interesting idea but it’s nothing to do with what Elite was in previous games or what Elite Dangerous was when it came out. It just doesn’t fit.

Agreed. The best thing FD could do in my opinion is to remove powerplay from ED. Maybe the powers can continue to exist on the Galnet for the background story (and for CGs). Focus should then go to making the minor faction background simulation more functional and more interesting.

 

[sorcer3r]

Increasing variety and game play for Poweplay is not something we've ignored, but such stuff tends to take longer and, importantly, needs the framework to be solid. So the framework generally has to come first (plus, it's often quicker to see changes!).

[...]

Without infinite resources there is always going to be a limit to what the game can offer, inside or outside of Powerplay. That being said, we hear ya, we definitely have plans regarding variety and game play, again, both inside and outside of Powerplay (that's all I can say right now).

Sad news that there are only plans for gameplay improvements.
After CQC and PP it's really time for some good news.

I remember that PP was announced as a content update. Not a framework update. ED has already enough (mostly soulless) frameworks which need improvements (trading, exploring, mining, combat, wings, bulletin board missions, major and minor factions etc.).
Please fix your roadmap before it's too late.

A couple of things for Sandro et al to chew on:

East India Company leaves Powerplay: https://np.reddit.com/r/EliteDanger...india_company_buys_out_zemina_torvals_shares/
The Code leaves Powerplay: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...he_code_completes_its_contract_with_and_says/
More and better battles before Powerplay: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...o_members_of_code_eic_mm_aa_and_other_lonely/

No surprise for everyone who played PP. It was just a question of time and it was not much time. Could become hard times for the community managers.

 

[Cmnd Fulsom]

incomes - upkeeps < overheads <==> incomes - overheads - upkeeps < 0

This, as I said earlier, global overhead is either no impedance to expansion, or stops it altogether. But since my colleague nicomak was kind enough to post a graph demonstrating why this is I think I will expand on this now.

You see, the problem with global overhead is this, if you want people to continue to expand they, in fact, need to be able to expand. In a global overhead system this would mean that no mater how many expansions are taken, or how little value an expansion has the best choice would be to always expand as rapidly as possible and never stop. The other option is that after a certain point expansions cost too much money in which case it becomes impossible to expand any farther as we see now and the problem is that there is no middle ground in this. You either don't limit growth at all or you put a hard limit on what can be controlled. Why? Well, look at the graph above but ignore the numbers, that dotted line represents net income based upon the number of systems held, the actual numbers don't matter just remember that concept if your upkeep goes above that line you're in debt.

Now, Frontier could change the math to make the overhead more lenient, but all that would do is make the curve representing the overhead, making it more shallow, allowing more systems to be held but all this would do is change how many systems can be held before you would have to go into debt to keep expanding, they could keep going lower and lower and lower, but I think anyone can see what would eventually happen, eventually the curve would become so shallow that a power could hold every system in the game without having to worry about losing money doing so but, of course, that would mean the system isn't an impedance to expansion at all...

I'm going to say this again, and I'm going to encourage you all to say it with me because if enough of us say it long and loud enough maybe Frontier will listen. Global overhead does not work, and cannot work. Instead each system should have its own upkeep that a power initially pays at a loss but players can do missions for the system, bringing in supplies, spreading propaganda, policing the space ways, ect to improve the amount of CC the system produces until it becomes profitable. This would curb over expansion while still allowing powers to grow without destroying themselves under their own weight.

Stay frosty

 

[finchywinchy]

Tell you what.....it sounds loads of fun, this. Keep up the good work. But remember, the world needs ditch diggers, too.

 

[Rubbernuke]

This, as I said earlier, global overhead is either no impedance to expansion, or stops it altogether. But since my colleague nicomak was kind enough to post a graph demonstrating why this is I think I will expand on this now.

You see, the problem with global overhead is this, if you want people to continue to expand they, in fact, need to be able to expand. In a global overhead system this would mean that no mater how many expansions are taken, or how little value an expansion has the best choice would be to always expand as rapidly as possible and never stop. The other option is that after a certain point expansions cost too much money in which case it becomes impossible to expand any farther as we see now and the problem is that there is no middle ground in this. You either don't limit growth at all or you put a hard limit on what can be controlled. Why? Well, look at the graph above but ignore the numbers, that dotted line represents net income based upon the number of systems held, the actual numbers don't matter just remember that concept if your upkeep goes above that line you're in debt.

Now, Frontier could change the math to make the overhead more lenient, but all that would do is make the curve representing the overhead, making it more shallow, allowing more systems to be held but all this would do is change how many systems can be held before you would have to go into debt to keep expanding, they could keep going lower and lower and lower, but I think anyone can see what would eventually happen, eventually the curve would become so shallow that a power could hold every system in the game without having to worry about losing money doing so but, of course, that would mean the system isn't an impedance to expansion at all...

I'm going to say this again, and I'm going to encourage you all to say it with me because if enough of us say it long and loud enough maybe Frontier will listen. Global overhead does not work, and cannot work. Instead each system should have its own upkeep that a power initially pays at a loss but players can do missions for the system, bringing in supplies, spreading propaganda, policing the space ways, ect to improve the amount of CC the system produces until it becomes profitable. This would curb over expansion while still allowing powers to grow without destroying themselves under their own weight.

Stay frosty

But why do we need to expand in the first place? Games like Civ don't, so why should we? If a power wants to stay as it is, why not let it?

 

[Cmnd Fulsom]

Because this isn't Civ? That's going to be my guess, because powerplay isn't trying to be Civilization it's trying to be powerplay. So asking it to be Civ is dumb. I would ask it to, at least, be functional. That would be nice.

And anyway, I'm going to guess your used to playing Civ V which stringently punishes players for expanding. All other Civ games have a simple motto, expand or die, and the one city challenge was just that, a very challenging variant that people did because they could.

Stay frosty

 

[Alderius]

I've been playing this game since day 1 of the release and have mostly enjoyed the game so far. Played it off and on a little bit at a time and tried pretty much everything (mining, exploring, bounty hunting, smuggling, missions, naval ranks etc..). Luckily I haven't played enough to get burned out on all of the elements this game offers despite of how limited all of them are. That is why I can still play this game and enjoy it.There are only two things I haven't tried in this game: Community Goals and Power Play.Since this is a thread about PP I'll just go into that one. For me it's very simple, PP is a full time job and not a game, due to the reputation and merit decay. I have a job already and I don't need another. All I want to do is have some fun playing a game for a couple of hours every once in a while. Going to vacation for a couple of weeks and finding that your reputation with factions went from allied to friendly after coming back is just stupid.If you want to improve PP and incentivize players to participate, especially the casual players remove the decay and player competition within the same faction and allow all payers to achieve maximum ranks at their own pace. In it's current form PP is nothing but a boring, time wasting game element that is of no interest to me, and as far as I can tell to most ED player base as well.

Although I've only been playing a few months, I'm totally in agreement with the above (with the exception of the CG's, I have done 4 or 5 of them). I like the CG's because I can jump in (or not), spend a short amount of time, get some reward, and it's done. Then I can go exploring, or mining, or whatever and not have to worry about putting in required PP time. For me, the issue of having a goal that decays is that it very soon becomes a chore........

 

[Martin Schou]

Another idea for how to improve powerplay.

Currently CC is an incredibly boring resource to have. You HAVE to spend it each cycle, and you can only use it to expand your reach. This forces everyone's hand every single week, and there is no tangible advantage for the people doing the work.

Here's my suggestions for CC:

1) Make CC roll over from week to week. This allows powers to go into deficit spending, provided they have a large enough coffer to pull from.
2) Give pledged players the ability to use CC to buy them tangible advantages. Give them a number of votes equal to their weekly preparation nominations (0/25/50/100/250) that they can spend on as many things as they want.

This would make it easier to attract players to small powers like Antal, who has a large amount of available CC, but few commanders to actually spend the CC on things like preparing systems.

So, what should players be able to buy? Here are a few of my suggestions - keep in mind that they only be available to that power's pledges.

- Ethos relevant community goals, that are only available to that power's pledges. Say 1,000 CC to create one.
- Increases to the weekly pledge bonus. Say 100 CC to double the bonus, 300 CC to triple it, 1,000 CC to quadruple it.
- Buy ship and equipment rebates in the power's control and exploited systems for the pledges. Say a 5% discount per pledge rank (i.e. between 5% and 25% discounts) for 500 CC.
- Boost to rare commodity production. Say a doubling of allotment for 1,000 CC.
- Increase the value of trade vouchers. Say doubling the value for 500 CC.
- Increasing the population of exploited systems. Say increasing the population of the power's lowest income exploited system enough that the system's income increases by 1 CC/week for 500 CC.
- Populating an unpopulated system in the power's space. Say 1,500 CC to gain one brand new exploited system in your sphere of influence.

 

[Ben Ryder]

Hi Developer Folks,

Will we be able to use Power Specific weapons in CQC?

Thanks

Ben