Powerplay: Ideas from the devs - Feedback wanted! #3

[TomR]

To use a well-known phrase... Okay, I'll bite!


Here are my suggestions...


Integrate "Power" Stuff With Minor Faction Allegiances

Like this...

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx310/CaptainKremmenED/Suggestion Box/Powers 1_zpsf9esc9cv.jpg

That alone opens up a LOAD of "integration-friendly" possibilities...


BBS Missions

Once some Minor Factions are given Power-based allegiance (as an extension of Major Faction allegiance), the impact of some Bulletin Board missions will be implicitly Power-related. Powers will benefit/suffer from mission activity if the "sponsoring" and/or "target" Minor Factions are allied to a Power figure.

We already have missions that are unavailable because "this faction does not trust you enough". Extend that to include the Minor Faction's Allegiance, compared against the pilot's pledged status...

• Use the interplay between Minor Faction Reputation and pilots' Power "Pledged" Allegiance to determine which missions are available.
• Power "sensitive" missions (ie. ones that could impact system control on the Power landscape) would only be available to appropriately pledged pilots.
• Use pledged pilot Levels in their Power progress to unlock the more interesting missions.

So, for high-level pledged pilots in relevant locations (ie. where their Power is active), all available mission types become "Power" missions. This means greater variety. And going forward, every single mission "variety" enhancement will be leveraged straight into PowerPlay.


For pilots, Minor Faction Reputation gains/losses could be aligned with Power Stuff in interesting ways. Currently, the Major Faction reputation rises and falls in line with Minor Faction reputation. Consider the possibilities of extending this to something like the "Favour" concept (or even just calling in "Power Reputation", and keeping all those ducks in a row).


It also has the neat benefit for selling exploration data. When sold to UC at stations owned by "Power-allied" Minor Factions, Power-related benefits could flow.


Given all the above, pilots could then play as they wish, while still being engaged with Power Stuff. 100% of existing in-game mechanics would have Power carry-over.



Impact of Minor Faction Rework on Global Power Mechanics

The above Minor Faction integration invites a re-imagining of the weirder Power concepts like Exploitation, Command Capital, etc.

If a system's Controlling Minor Faction is allied with the nearby Power (ie. controlling system close by), some concept other than "exploited" can be used. Perhaps such systems are more like "coalitions", or "bloc systems", or "aligned". If the Controlling Minor faction is not allied with the nearby Power, stick with "exploited".

Command Capital value could change based on the Controlling Minor Faction's level of influence (and its alliance). Systems could then gain and lose profitability based on their Minor Faction situation - famine, war, boom, flipping, etc.

Pilots would collectively have a vested interest in "building up" individual system health and well-being, to keep the Command Capital flowing. Keeping the population on-side with the favoured Controlling Minor Faction would be key to a stable power structure and support base.



Review Power Pledge Costs, Benefits and FUN FACTOR

The benefits of being pledged to a Power are pretty dodgy. The quirky bonus equipment is AT BEST "not better" than regular stuff, and more often worse.

The negative impacts of being pledged are many, and can be a real turn-off. Loss of freedom to roam without a target painted on your head. Distorted play, like being made to wait 30 minutes for another "parcel of stuff" to be handed out (people logging in via laptop at work, camping stations, collecting goods to ship in the evening). No progressive credit earning. No time to enjoy Power-conferred bonuses like bounty/exploration multipliers, due to the "either/or" approach to Power vs. non-Power actions. The way the merit decay makes pilots feel inside. The limited mission styles and unbalanced merit earnings. The list goes on.

This needs a fundamental reappraisal!

You need to ask some serious questions for PowerPlay to answer.

• What is FUN about PowerPlay? If it's not really good fun, why do it?
• What is CHALLENGING about PowerPlay? If it's not an intellectual, organisational and/or skill-based challenge, why do it?
• What is BORING about PowerPlay? If it is boring, get rid of it!
• What is ANNOYING about PowerPlay? If something is annoying, was it supposed to be "fun" or "challenging", but is being let down by the mechanics involved? If so, fix the mechanics making it annoying.
• What DRAWS YOU IN to the "living galaxy" when involved in PowerPlay?
• What BREAKS IMMERSION and smashes the concept of a "living galaxy" when involved in PowerPlay?
• What feels like ADVANCEMENT when flying around doing things in PowerPlay?
• What feels POINTLESS when flying around doing things in PowerPlay?

Example...

Being interdicted by "rival power" hit squads in your own Power HQ.

Sounds like fun - a bit of risk, a bit of pew-pew. But...

• If the attacking ships are idiot-level NPCs, it's no challenge - so BORING.
• If it happens too frequently, it becomes ANNOYING. It is also IMMERSION-BREAKING, as there is no sense in rival power hit squads roaming free in your HQ system.
• If you are given a reward for successfully eliminating a rival power hit squad, great - you can at least gain some ADVANCEMENT. But to gain no benefit whatsoever makes the exercise POINTLESS.

The same analysis should be run through for:

• Each available mission type.
• Each way of earning "merits".
• Reason for expanding your Power.
• Each Power-specific magic weapon/module.
• Each facet of "non-Power" style Elite play, from the perspective of a pledged pilot. Is Trading still FUN? Does Exploration benefit Powers, or is it pointless? Does being pledged to an exploration-focused Power actually help ADVANCE your exploration gameplay, or render it POINTLESS?

etc.



Leverage Existing Game Mechanics for Additional Power Benefits

Look to use what you already have, to give PowerPlay some actual sparkle, and some point. For example,


Rapid Response Squadrons

The higher your "level" as a pledged pilot, the more likely it is that a Power Rapid Response Wing will be deployed to assist you if you are attacked. Just use the same sort of spawn mechanic as the "system authority" response, but with Power-aligned NPC ships. Have them turn up faster if you are close to your HQ or Control systems. That way, if you are attacked by those silly "rival Power hit squads" in your own HQ, a squadron of angry Eagles appears to shoot them up.

Suddenly, there is a real-world benefit to being a pledged Pilot - your own wing of defenders, appearing on demand.


Redeem Bounty Vouchers and Combat Bonds Anywhere in Power Space

In the same way that you can currently land on any station to cash in a Bounty Voucher or Combat Bond for an in-system Minor Faction, make it possible to cash them in for any Minor Faction in Power-controlled space, if you dock at a station in that Power region.

Another instant benefit to being a pledged pilot - no need to travel to every darn system controlled by your Power. Convenient cashing in of a broad range of vouchers, facilitated by your friendly neighbourhood Power.




Make Sure Stuff Actually Works Properly and Consistently

Please shore up the Background Sim. Run extra internal simulations, add some extra back-end debugging, publish what is supposed to happen and when (so the players can actually differentiate "correct" and "incorrect" behaviour), etc. Us players have been tearing their hair out right from 1.0, through to 1.2, and then still more crazy stuff hit the BGS when 1.3 arrived. This demoralises, frustrates and discourages the very groups you need to engage.

Please improve stuff like relevance of ship spawning, NPC AI, etc. It doesn't make sense for roaming hit squads to be blithering idiots who cannot shoot straight. It doesn't make sense that they fly around unopposed in enemy power regions (Hint: We all know NPCs don't actually interdict other NPCs, but at least spawn ships in such a way as to pretend they do).

Please address the CRAZY EDGE CONDITION mess that PowerPlay introduces. It really shows its rough edges right now, and makes it look exactly like a layer slapped on top of an existing game world. For example,

• Empire Internal Security not stepping in to help a a CLEAN Imperial Earl being attacked by CLEAN ships in a system that has a "Controlling Minor Faction" allied to the Empire. Supposedly because a Federation-aligned Power figure is somehow "in charge".
• Said Imperial Earl becoming WANTED for defending himself.

Indeed, please consider ensuring Rule Of Law is restored across Elite space. If there is jurisdictional authority, there is NO justification for allowing a ship to attack a CLEAN ship without itself becoming WANTED. It shouldn't matter who is "pulling the strings"; An unlawful attack is an unlawful attack. If a manipulative Power wants to press buttons and have someone killed, get them to issue a bounty on a pilot that has done them wrong. Work WITH the legal system... don't compromise/discard it for the sake of Power Pew-Pew.


- - - - - - - -

Summary - Final Words

If PowerPlay worked like this, above, I'd actually be interested in playing it. It would be integrated with the "proper" Elite Dangerous, would be as fun and involving as the "proper" Elite Dangerous, and would be inclusive of existing gameplay activities... which could occur under the "PowerPlay" umbrella.

Unfortunately, as it stands today, PowerPlay gets an emphatic "hell, no" from me. It comes across as a minimally integrated add-on layer that could have been slapped on top of practically any multiplayer game with a map. World of Tanks, Elder Scrolls, Star Wars, heck - it could be plonked on Minecraft. But it would transform none of them, benefit none of them, and be a disappointing add-on... because it's not Right.



I'm sorry to be so blunt here, but PowerPlay strikes me as being a "separate" layer so as not to break anything else already in and running. These are the kinds of compromises that happen when live-running products are enhanced and extended... without significant resources being available to do the kind of job that would have been done if tackled prior to release. With the approach, "For God's sake, don't change the existing stuff!", you're left with a system that is, as Michael Brookes described it, "deliberately kept separate". Yes, it's pretty clear that it's been kept separate, let me tell you!

But it wasn't kept separate, I fear, in order to enhance the gameplay experience. The gameplay experience, in all honesty, is not good. It was kept separate because that limited the risks behind the PowerPlay code changes.

That design and delivery approach was reasonably successful at not breaking everything else, I guess. To me, though, it was NOT successful at delivering a compelling new way of enjoying Elite Dangerous.

It's all well and good to say, "You don't have to like it, and don't have to play it", but you should really WANT players to like it, and WANT them to be keen to play it! Months of effort went into this stuff, instead of being put into other things on the to-do list. True, PowerPlay didn't destroy the integrity of the existing game code, but in my book, it didn't deliver compelling, rich and fun gameplay experiences - which is surely the key objective here...?


To fix PowerPlay, I really think you need to take a good, hard look at the decision making behind the allowed scope of changes. Because just tinkering with add-on bits (Favour) and magic numbers (expansion formulae) won't resurrect PowerPlay.


I reckon you need to commit to a full and proper rework and BGS integration of PowerPlay... with all that it entails in terms of software risk, extra testing, community involvement and rollout complexity.

Don't go all Secret Squirrel on us again, please. Don't just "tinker" with PowerPlay around the edges. Discuss the issues with your playerbase, then dive in with confidence and build it properly. Throw away all the not-fun/frustrating/boring stuff (most of it, in my opinion), and integrate it. Not as a "separate" slap-on layer, but as a core set of mechanics alongside everything else.

- - - - - - - -


That's my list of stuff... thanks for asking for feedback.

Good luck!

Yes do this please. I'm trying to rep this guy but I already did.

 

[Thunda]

Mr Zac. Thanks for reaching out to request feedback. For what it's worth, here's mine...

Favour
The idea behind this suggestion is that each time a Commander earns a merit, they also earn a favour. However, favour does not decay – it’s a permanent resource (well, permanent as long as the power remains active, of course).

It'd be a change that I think, generally, will improve things for some Commanders - but ultimately it feels like you're kicking the empty can down the street by giving us *another* thing we have to monitor and factor into "the grindfest" that Power Play has become. If the fundamentals of Power Play, however, are based around giving the player base something to grind away at, then this'd be a positive change. If the fundamentals of Power Play (in the minds of the design crew at FD) is something else, then this seems to be at very best a band-aid. What's sad is that I'm at a loss with regards to giving you a better idea - I hate stating a problem without offering a solution - but I'm at a loss here.

Powerplay Flag
The suggestion is, simply enough, giving the ability for a Commander to toggle their Powerplay status to be active or hidden.

I think this'd be welcomed by the community - but one would have to consider the effect of the flag being toggled "on" to the underlying simulation. I have a friend who just broke away from his power because he was tired of getting interdicted by every single NPC he encountered - even in a friendly Control system. The zealousness of NPCs right now is frankly ridiculous... One would expect to encounter LESS opposition within the controlled space of one's faction; not more... flying into a station in a control system I *expect* to get interdicted by some flavour of NPC two, it not three times - which is frankly ridiculous and fixing that would mitigate the need for "toggling off" the indicator of one's allegiance.

Up/Down Vote
We understand that Commanders want to be able to communicate with their own power’s supporters in game. Because of Elite’s architecture, creating large scale communication is very challenging. That’s not to say that it can’t be done or that we aren’t going to look at it, but there are significant issues and costs involved that would need to be overcome.

To be brutally honest, GET IT DONE. The absence of fundamental social communication mechanisms within the game for one to keep in touch with allied commanders is comical. I know from previous posts that FD have admitted to be struggling with the MMO learning curve - but look at what you've done.. you've added Power Play.. a massive expansion of in-game capability *which is intended* to urge Commanders to group and work towards a common goal - and then you've failed to give them an easy way to communicate with other like-minded commanders... Instead we are driven out to TeamSpeak, and Reddit, to coordinate our actions.. It is a huge gap that I, personally, consider to be one of the *BIGGEST* things that has to be fixed if the social aspect of this game is going to keep people playing. So many of us have played multiple MMOs - and in every situation, the gameplay gets stale after a while - but it's the social interaction with other players that holds us here. Now granted, there is no monthly subscription in play here to motivate game design to "keep people playing".. other than selling us paint jobs for ships, after the initial purchase of the game your revenue stream drops to near zero so the financial drive of the company is to sell more copies, rather than to focus on retaining the interest of the already-acquired player base. Regardless of that, if you want to do something for your player base, please put this as a high priority. It's an aching chasm that needs to be bridged, and ultimately closed.

Up/Down Vote
This suggestion is the idea of being able to “up vote” or “down vote” a system involved in Powerplay action. Other Commanders from your power would see this data, and we think it might function as a very clean, contextual communication of ideas.

I'd welcome this change. It'd be a mechanism for those Commanders vested in Power Play who have ideas on where to focus our collective efforts to give an indication to other Commanders as to what may-or-may-not make sense for a specific power. Right now all we can do is spend our weekly stipend to help nominate preparation systems for expansion... this change would be an improvement, I think, especially if the vote capability was implemented in all sections of a power's activity screen (preparation, expansion, control)

Up/Down VoteFreedom Fighters
One concept that’s currently acting as a chew toy for us is the idea that Commanders could pledge to a system under the yoke of a power’s control, becoming system “freedom fighters”, ready to push back against the invader.

As a freedom fighter, a Commander would be able to take part in undermining and opposition for the system they had pledged to, effectively working with opposing powers to weaken the controlling power’s presence

Any mechanism to allow us to better manage 'the grind' would be welcomed. Whilst on the surface, this seems to be a reasonable suggestion I'll really have to let the concept ferment a bit in order to give reasonable feedback.

Up/Down VoteMore Powerful Ethos versus Government Effect
Our proposal would be to have the benefits and penalties of ethos versus government scale per exploited system rather than at a set 50%. This more granular approach would mean that Commanders could affect change without having to commit to such a large amount of work as flipping half the systems. It would also allow us to increase the overall range of effect – so that Commanders who did manage to flip loads of exploited systems could impose a much larger benefit/penalty. Also, this change would add another dynamic to space geography: areas of densely populated space would fundamentally have the potential to be affected more strongly than sparse areas.

Much Yes. The task of flipping exploited systems to reduce fortification costs is a tough one since the effort to do so, seems greater (at times) than just going ahead with the fortification in the first place (which again feeds into the concept of Power Play being intended to be a grind-fest for the player base rather than something more engaging...


Closing Thoughts
Social capabilities are, in my mind, a very high priority. Addressing the grindy-nature of Power Play in it's current state is a higher one though. You've read the posts from a few of the larger player groups - they're dropping Power Play because its current design seems to be suffering some fundamental flaws. I don't understand enough about Power Play to know what those flaws are, but as a casual player (for the most part) I've only really *enjoyed* Power Play because it's allowed me to group with other people to work towards a common goal...

In other words, the ability to socialise with other people dilutes the mind-numbing monotony of the Power Play Grind. That is why I place social capabilities and 'the grind' as the biggest areas that require your attention.

Mr Zac, if you read all this, then I thank you. I hope my thoughts help the design and development teams better understand how Power Play "feels" from those who are trying to love it. Right now, it's very hard to love..

Be safe. Fly Casual.
-Commander Thunda

 

[CMDR IAN NORTON]

Thank-you Zac. I'm very glad that you are your colleagues are clearly so passionate and excited about ED and will be for long years to come!

I really wanted to get into the power struggle to help my faction of choice (the Alliance) but found it very hard.

I've written up some things here that I hope will help - https://inorton.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/how-to-fix-elite-dangerous-powerplay/

I’m not alone in the view that power play feels out of place. It feels like an extra appendage on the game that forces you to play in a way that can feel stilted. It feels purely “game” rather than “experience”.
For me there are two barriers to getting enjoyment from power play. They aren’t major ones and are fixable.

1. Separation
   To find what I need to do for my power I have to come out of the normal interface. Finding what I have to do and where I have to go is complex and jarring. Contrast that to the simple bulletin board missions where I see what faction wants me to what thing, where I need to go and how quickly.
2. Contrived power play cargo
   I have to take some cans containing paperwork from A to wherever I like? Why does this stuff weigh so much? (missions to take messages from A to B require no cargo space!)
   Why is this hugely important message can able to be taken to anywhere?
   Why don’t I loose standing for just dumping them? Why can I not sell them to other factions?

How do we fix these? Well. In all fairness. The game mechanic at work (the maths, statis, code etc) isn’t the problem here. It’s how it is sewn into the fabric of the game that doesn’t work for me.
Bringing PP back into ED
Elite 2 used to have board items for black markets (why cant’ we have that now?) so how about board items for powerplay factions?
Say that I arrive in HeHeng, I’m pledged to Ed Mahon of the Alliance:
I could go to the boards and see an entry:

If I weren’t pledge to Ed then I enter and I might see:
“Sorry, we are closed today” or “You gotta be kidding me, get out of my sight imperial toady!”
Since I am, Instead I see a short header entry about the current system:
“We are currently preparing for expansion into HeHeng,
we (have a long way to go|are half way there|are close to) our objectives but still need support”
..with a button that takes me to the familiar page where we see our faction’s overview and our standing etc.

And under this header we see missions!

• Support us in HeHeng
  • We need to win the hearts of the people of HeHeng, deliver 10t of food canisters that we can distribute to those in need
• Support us in HeHeng
  • The habitations here are in a bad state. Bring us 12t of atmospheric processors.
• Take over HeHeng
  • To support our ambitions we must frustrate federation efforts here. Destroy 4 federation transport ships
• Defend take-over of the Zaonce System
  • Our brothers and sisters in Zaonce need help to maintain control
• Undermine Federation control of HeHeng
  • Steal trade data and cargo from convoys entering the HeHeng system.
• Support expansion into CD-34 9020
  • Deliver these encrypted messages to our friends at Back Orbital in CD-34 9020.

Notice these are all plausible in-game missions and cargos? Nothing made-up or strange here? You would still visit the galaxy map in PP view to see where you’d like to go, but you see this stuff when you arrive!
Comments?

 

[Bikky]

I've not been a fan of PP, since trying it in beta, for said grinding/time reasons.

The favour stacking would be a good way around this, as I could then dip in and out as I wish.

In addition to this, I wouldn't want to just transport around bits of paper. I quite like the idea that "any" entity for another power in your space is immediately open season. This should carry with it a bounty to be claimed. There could be weighting for value, where in critical areas that bounty is higher than non critical. And still maybe lower than independent assisinations. Maybe somewhere between conflict zone and bounty hunting.

Also maybe an increase in reward. So if you're pledge to a power, and sell/hunt/sell your exploration data, you get maybe 10% more as a bonus, likewise maybe 5% discount on purchases within your faction.

The freedom fighter sounds a good idea, but may need more detail before I'd comment.

 

[Matzov]

I think all these ideas are a step in the right direction. I have a think on them before possibly offering further thoughts.

 

[Maxximillian]

My comments to the OP.
All of it is good.
Suggestion for Up/Down voting.
Exponential reduction of votes impact to PP actions in the system based on the total number of votes cast for the cycle, combined with an increasing penalty/bonus for fortifying/expanding past the trigger
If a large number of commanders down vote a system for fortification or expansion then the rewards for pushing past the trigger diminish rapidly hopefully reducing incentive to over prep/fortify by the grinder commanders not paying attention to the needs of the rest of the power.
Exponential decay of the impact would make any 5th column effort to prevent an important system from being locked out more difficult. Again this would only kick in hard after the trigger were reached. I really hate seeing systems fortified to 1000% just because they are one or two jumps from HQ when others go untouched.
Conversely massive up votes for a system expansion could provide a bonus (possibly a favor) for expansion efforts to key systems. This would allow a community to stop/slow/change course mid cycle by retaining votes to drive the less community driven commanders to or away from a important system. Preventing a bad expansion when it becomes clear that lack of fortification will result in turmoil late in the cycle for example.

 

[Echoes]

Bonjour (check me out with a little bit of French there!)

Over the past few weeks, Sandro Sammarco, Frontiers Lead Designer has been working with the community closely on the topic of Powerplay. He wanted to address some of the most pressing topics and discuss, at a very early stage, ideas that are being considered.

Once again, he would be delighted if you were able to have a look give your thoughts.

===

Hello Commanders!

Following on from previous discussions about steps we’re looking at, to address a few pressing issues with the core mechanics of Powerplay (such as powers expanding themselves into oblivion J), I thought now might be a good time to take a look further ahead into the future, at Powerplay ideas we’re mulling over for potential deployment next year (as we’ve already rather a full calendar up to the end of the year!)

And now, here comes the caveat: This is stuff we’re *considering*. It’s not yet planned or scheduled, and certainly not guaranteed.

That being said, we’ve a clutch of ideas that we want to float to see if we can’t rustle up some interesting feedback from you folk. Especially as I think these suggestions - at least to some degree - address a few of the more interesting issues we’ve already received via feedback (again, thanks for this – we do listen, even if we can’t always answer, or don’t always agree!)


Favour
Part of Powerplay is about rewarding effort, which is why the merit system works as it does. However, there has been lots of feedback from Commanders who perhaps don’t have much time to devote to the game, let alone Powerplay; they make a very reasonable argument that potential gameplay is locked from them based on arbitrary time limits rather than skill or something equally nice.

Whilst I think it’s fair to suggest that time paid in can be considered effort of a sort, it got me thinking: perhaps there might be a reasonable compromise. The result: “Favour”.

The idea behind this suggestion is that each time a Commander earns a merit, they also earn a favour. However, favour does not decay – it’s a permanent resource (well, permanent as long as the power remains active, of course).

At any time during a cycle, a Commander could “spend” favour to trigger a an individual rating’s benefits until the next cycle. The cost of triggering a rating’s benefits would likely be significantly more than the merit total required to activate them, keeping merits as the “supercharged” currency of Powerplay.

Such a system would mean however, that Commanders would not necessarily have to put large amounts of constant effort in to taste the benefits a power might offer, instead building up their rewards over time in a piecemeal fashion and choosing when to execute them.

With such a system, I believe we could also consider reverting the way merits rewards are calculated back to the more competitive allocation method we started with, where rating requirements are based on success versus one’s peers as opposed to an arbitrary threshold. I know that this proved less than popular in the first instance, but I’d be interested if folk might reconsider its value if coupled with a favour system for the less competitive power supporters. Don’t worry if you strongly disagree, just say so!


Powerplay Flag
I make no bones about my personal support for Powerplay: I love it. Grand scale power-struggles, driven entirely by Commanders, with special supporter rewards and legible, dynamically altering system rules that affect all Commanders, not just supporters.

But of course, I would say that J.

However, looking at the feedback, I observed an interesting theme: Commanders upset by the perception that once pledged to a power they felt “locked in” and unable to enjoy the freedom the game normally offered them because of the extra dangers they faced.

Again, whilst there are reasonable counters, we had a think to see what kind of options we might employ to directly address this concern, because it is a legitimate one: in general you are at significantly greater risk when pledged. The coolness of space geography offered by Powerplay does come with this increased, potentially oppressive, danger.

After a lot of furrowed brows and sugar-filled cakes, we have a suggestion that I’d love to get feedback on. Again, remember, this is just us brainstorming. We’re not locking anything in, we just want Commander opinion.

The suggestion is, simply enough, giving the ability for a Commander to toggle their Powerplay status to be active or hidden.

Now, an ability as powerful as this would absolutely have to have some pretty iron-cast rules to prevent exploitation and to keep pledging as an important decision. We’re talking within the realms of having significant enforced cool downs when hiding your powerplay status before you get the benefits (e.g. when you switch to hidden you lose all Powerplay benefits and the ability to affect Powerplay immediately, but remain visible as a target for a significant amount of time. In addition, perhaps you can only cycle this flag when docked at a starport or outpost in one of your power’s control systems).

We *think* this might give a couple of fairly strong benefits: It would hopefully reinstate to a greater degree the freedom for Commanders to choose how they spend their time.

It might also tempt more Commanders to sign up to a power, feeling a little safer in the knowledge that they would not necessarily have to swim with space sharks *all* the time thereafter.

We also think that the Powerplay flag idea and favours work well together, as they both support more freedom without taking too much away from the importance of pledging to a power.

So, such an ability as the Powerplay flag would need to be carefully controlled to prevent it from undermining Powerplay, but do you guys and gals think it would be worth the effort?


Up/Down Vote
We understand that Commanders want to be able to communicate with their own power’s supporters in game. Because of Elite’s architecture, creating large scale communication is very challenging. That’s not to say that it can’t be done or that we aren’t going to look at it, but there are significant issues and costs involved that would need to be overcome.

Putting that to one side for a moment, we want to float a simpler concept that, whilst not trivial, might offer a surprising amount of bang per buck and is almost certainly doable.

This suggestion is the idea of being able to “up vote” or “down vote” a system involved in Powerplay action. Other Commanders from your power would see this data, and we think it might function as a very clean, contextual communication of ideas.

For example, if you looked at one of your power’s control systems and saw that it had a tremendous amount of “down votes”, you could clearly infer that many supporters considered fortifying this system would be a waste of time.

Similarly, lots of “down votes” on an enemy control system would indicate that undermining it would not be appreciated by lots of folk. Importantly, you’d be able to see totals for both “up” and “down” votes for systems involved with Powerplay.

This voting is different from that used in preparation: in that instance, your votes represent your ability to influence your power’s decision process. However, up/down votes could be rationed in a similar fashion, with more being allotted to supporters of a higher rating. I guess that at the end of a cycle all such votes would be removed, ready for the next cycle’s strategy to form.

Take a moment to chew on this one. I have a feeling that it could be deceptively effective. Your thoughts are?


Freedom Fighters
Some of the feedback we’ve collected has been from Commanders that do not wish to pledge support to any power (which is totally fine, of course!), instead wanting to remain as champions to minor factions/systems they have adopted.

In general the idea of having more dovetailing between minor factions and powers is something we’re interested in, beyond the government versus ethos effect that currently exists (and that we might consider buffing significantly).

One concept that’s currently acting as a chew toy for us is the idea that Commanders could pledge to a system under the yoke of a power’s control, becoming system “freedom fighters”, ready to push back against the invader.

As a freedom fighter, a Commander would be able to take part in undermining and opposition for the system they had pledged to, effectively working with opposing powers to weaken the controlling power’s presence (and if you’ve been reading some of our other posts on Powerplay, you’ll note that we’re also considering allowing massive undermining to force a system into collapse, allowing it to shake of power control without the power being in a CC deficit – personally, I see possibilities...)

Clearly, such courageous/dastardly behaviour would not be without *substantial* danger: we’d consider freedom fighters to possibly be valid targets in any system controlled or exploited by any power that shared a major faction with the one being attacked by the freedom fighter. We’d also likely want to limit Commanders to support one system at a time, with maybe a cool down before being able to pick a new one (or perhaps some mission to “wipe” their status clean?)

I think that such a feature would require the use of Powerplay flags, discussed earlier, to prevent the role of freedom fighter being a permanent death sentence across massive swathes of human space. I also think it offers a new way to enjoy Powerplay, without being beholden to organisations you might not approve of. What do you think?


More Powerful Ethos versus Government Effect
This is another idea to increase the interaction between minor factions and powers. Of all the suggestions, it’s possibly the smallest change, but I think it has enough potential for change to be called out.

Currently, you can affect the success thresholds for expansion and fortification by flipping systems so that they align or with, or against, the ethos of the power involved. The way this works is that if more than 50% of exploited systems are aligned (either for or against) then the threshold is raised or lowered by a set percentage, around 50%. Flipping the control system in question gives an additional effect.

Whilst these are fairly solid mechanics, I can a potential issue: flipping over half of the systems exploited by a control system is a *very* big ask. Yes, it’s a simple concept, but perhaps in this case it’s a little too simple. Also, the success threshold modifier, being a static value, can potentially become irrelevant if lots of Commanders take part in the Powerplay expansion/fortification.

Our proposal would be to have the benefits and penalties of ethos versus government scale per exploited system rather than at a set 50%. This more granular approach would mean that Commanders could affect change without having to commit to such a large amount of work as flipping half the systems. It would also allow us to increase the overall range of effect – so that Commanders who did manage to flip loads of exploited systems could impose a much larger benefit/penalty. Also, this change would add another dynamic to space geography: areas of densely populated space would fundamentally have the potential to be affected more strongly than sparse areas.

Do you think this is a worthwhile idea, or do you believe it would be a waste of time! Thoughts will be greatly appreciated.


Missions, Variety and Rewards
I add this section for the record, even though I don’t have much to add apart from: yes, we will be looking at these aspects, simply because feedback has been clear and I want to emphasise that we have been listening. As usual, no ETA, but truth be told, this stuff has always been on the agenda.


Conclusion
It’s worth noting that these ideas are separate from more conventional number tweaking and balancing that we treat as an ongoing task (for example, the balance of success from different activities).

There are also any number of smaller changes that could pop up as well, like offering sanctuary from opposing powers at home systems that we suspect might offer reasonable benefits, but for this update, I wanted to cast a weather eye towards the horizon and chat a little more speculatively about what the bigger picture could evolve into.

I hope this makes our current heading a little clearer and (importantly) sparks some juicy, constructive feedback!

1. Favour is a good idea, however I forsee many Gamebreaking issues arising for Powerplay when September rolls around ( school / work is back in full swing and nobody has time for the grind)

2. dont know what to think about the powerplay flag... maybe it would work if you couldnt be able to effect power-play while unflagged ( and only being able to toggle in a ALLIED station.)

3. Is there a way to integrate missions into undermining? potentially making a sort of capital ship instance available ( only viewable to attacking faction) where undermining missions can be collected. or even have a sort of capital ship with landing pads... that way the generation can place " temporary stations "
which CMDRs can use. ( but not turn in merits because thats part of the danger of undermining)


and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop giving merits for fortifying over 100%. I mean hell.



Srry about grammar, english is not my first language.


Echoes

 

[Saool]

I like all the ideas presented in the OP.

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

Bonjour (check me out with a little bit of French there!)

Over the past few weeks, Sandro Sammarco, Frontiers Lead Designer has been working with the community closely on the topic of Powerplay. He wanted to address some of the most pressing topics and discuss, at a very early stage, ideas that are being considered.

Once again, he would be delighted if you were able to have a look give your thoughts.

===

Hello Commanders!

FAVOUR seems convoluted:
Easiest option would be to make the merit rewards a one shot deal, much like it is for the lower ranks on a week to week basis as they constantly change bringing a realism to the game, powered by the players actions.
If a power loses it's rank, it loses its bonus like for Hudson this week. Same should apply when the 50m is reached. Not something you should be able to re-attain, but something that some will aspire to. But once done, no further rewards. Just remove the merit decay and let players work towards the tally required. It's a nice bonus but it shouldn't be the driving force of PP because it leads to merit farming the closest systems.
While it is a constant, people will just farm the crap out of the system for repeated 50m bonuses.

FLAGS
I don't like the "Enemy" thing at all. I read in Galnet that Aisling and Winters had some kind of agreement but still show as "Enemy" to each other. Makes no sense.
If you want it to work, things need to be flagged on the grounds of who they are affiliated with, much like the NPC's in Solo (Torval's shield / Aisling Guardian etc.). Then a choice can be made on how to act...may it be related to Galnet or a personal player's hatred for Baskers or only dead Feds are good Feds or whatever. Not everyone may be an Enemy at any specific time.
By restricting all to just "Enemy" restricts a players options, especially if an NPC is not bound by any rules related to what is being suggested by Galnet or anything else.
That would allow player freedom to the point where it makes sense, give options and not let players live in fear from all as it seems random atm. They may even relocate their trade runs to friendlier territory if the NPC's and other acted accordingly...then have to relocate if things go a bit wrong.
This would promote the idea that it's a Universe where events effect what a player does...then they'll feel more a part of it.

Allowing a player to remove their PP allegiance will only further the disconnect between PP and the main game. It would be like PP'ing, then not, then PP'ing again and that's just so shallow it isn't even funny. It would only enhance the idea that PP is a separate entity when most want it to become more relative with the main game.
The biggest problem you have with PP is there are only 2 roles a player can do, Pew Pew and trade. If you want more players to be interested then add Exploration and Mining things where they get rewarded for helping their power because they are currently ignored.

UP/DOWN vote:
I like this. Fed up with Feds over-extending beyond what is viable...much to their detriment. Anything that stops me going to the big white wall of text that is Reddit is a good thing.

Freedom Fighters:
Has merit maybe, chewing because tied to Flags...I can see problems so I need to think.

Ethos:
The same. Pretty new idea to me.

Missions:
Yea, well if you give things to do for all, then all may partake.
I can only leave that with you.

I really do appreciate the post and I hope these kinda things become a regular feature in the forums.
GG.

 

[SnugglySocks]

Hey, I like some of the items in there. especially the increased interaction with the existing BGS.

One point I would like to discuss is Favour. What about loyalty as a factor in merit degradation? Merits could degrade slower the longer you have been continuously pledged to a single power. Also defecting harms your degradation (defectors are never trusted as much) so your degradation multiplier goes up. This would help make power choices more thought out rather than, just hanging on four weeks for the weapons/equipment and then moving on.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commanders!

Just another update for you folk.

The clear consensus is that a return to the old system of merit rating, even with the addition of favours, would not be wanted. So, going further down this line, I want to pose another question for you to consider: merit decay is present specifically to reward Commanders who put in more effort over time than their peers. This is true, even in the current implementation, even though you don't actually compete.

So my question is: would you prefer to see the merit system mutate into something like the favour system, rather than have both active at the same time (I think something along those lines has cropped up a couple of times)? Before you respond, have a think about what would be gained versus what would be lost: the system would be simpler, but less dynamic. In essence, it would likely be a little more like a XP bar/resource.

Now, whilst I'm reflective mode

Clearly, everyone wants missions. Understood. So do we! It's a matter of timing.

Also pretty unanimous is a desire for stronger connection to minor factions. Again, we're down with this. However, it's important to remember that A) powers and minor factions are on a different scale, and that B) both systems are pretty complex. But that's just a caveat, really - we'll certainly spend some more time going over options here (the great thing about brainstorming early is that we can look at all the angles).

The Powerflag seems to have a lot of support, but has two potential challenges: exploitation and the dilution of pledging.

The Up/Down vote has a lot of love; it looks like the only folk objecting are doing so because they want more communication tools. We'd like more as well, but there are resource and technical restraints to consider (but in time, we *will* consider them).

As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, this is very similar to how the DDF worked. Which means the same concepts apply to how we use this feedback. So, to be completely clear: nothing in this thread is guaranteed or promised. It would be remiss to act that way as we simply don't know what might happen in the future.

Instead, this is closer to a plan of intent; we use your feedback to help us shape what goals we want to hit going forward. That does not mean we will blindly implement suggestions. We still have to listen to our own hearts and heads as well. But, as with the DDF, this process is very useful at generating ideas from the folk who are playing the game, and at forcing us to reassess our choices, making sure they're robust enough.

Right, that's all for now, again, thanks for taking to time, Commanders!

 

[Athan]

Up/Down Vote
I don't know what to say about this idea. Aside from giving players a suggestion, it wouldn't do much at all.

The more I think about this idea, the more I like it. Currently we have a few groups of players trying to actively co-ordinate a Power. There may in fact be some Powers with more than one group (a forum one, a Reddit one, maybe some other one...). Plus we'll have a bunch of pledged players just doing their own thing. It's all very random.

So when you look at Preparation, Expansion, Fortifying, Undermining of systems you see the result of an, on the whole, undirected mass of players. You can't use this to try and judge what direction players are trying to take things in.

Short of all players pledged to a Power actively co-operating on a shared agenda I see the up/down vote thing as valuable because the votes are by players that actually care and have put some thought into it, rather than those just doing random PP 'missions' for a merit grind. Thus it will form a better picture of player intent and where your efforts might be best directed to help or complement.

 

[Hydrino]

Hi Sandro,

I support the below quoted analysis by ElectricZ whole-heartedly! PP should have been built up from the existing faction background sim.

Additionally, resolving the fact that PP turns every leader into a supporter of leaflets and homicide/ fratricide/ genocide, just killing in general is amazingly shallow.

The disconnect between PP and the rest of the game is not good. PP is "executive control" that DB has previously down-talked. FD should have run this past the community before starting to code it. The over-riding sentiment ElectricZ gives would have been the result, I am 99.99% sure. So, when will FD politely close down the DDF or resurrect it? Seems daft to walk away and never even say "so long and thanks for all the fish", just daft and poor form.

Threads like this are, however, clear evidence that shows FD really are listening, and for that I still have to love you all.

Regards input on your specific suggestions:

• Favour: a non-decay mechanic. yes, absolutely all for it. Reputation should also NOT decay. I fully support MERIT decay as it is to reward the most active players at the moment. Reputation Decay is just another drag on casual players with a long-view of the game. I think long-term successful generals for instance, have historically traded on their legacy reputation to get benefits in society and get elected to political offices. Someone that serves a faction and does great things should never have that stripped to just "yeah, you are OK by us but nothing special". Slap a veteran in the face why don't ya?
• Powerplay Flag: this idea has merit but I am not sold on it... I really don't think players should be able to shut off their reputation in the game- just like it shouldn't decay. Multiple commanders per account would help alleviate this issue but those probably aren't coming.
• Up/Down Vote: Not great, but definitely a step in the right direction for some communications.
• Freedom Fighters: not sold on it, but for sure any commander working for a faction in a system should be able to resist a different faction trying to overrun the territory.
• More Powerful Ethos versus Government Effect: to easily see the player's afffect is always a good thing.
• Missions, Variety and Rewards: ***THIS, of course is not optional for all aspects of the game!

I posted this as its own thread, but after reading the proposals I still dislike the fact that PowerPlay is a separate strategy game attached to a space sim. It's supposed to be an optional play-if-you-want career at the same time as providing the basis for how power is defined through the galaxy which seems contradictory.

For those who feel like I do, Elite: Dangerous at its core is a spaceship sim. We play it because we want to pretend that we're Han Solo/Malcolm Reynolds/Roj Blake, zooming around space making a living however we choose. PowerPlay was intended to give players another direction to follow, but instead it limits the options pilots have and in some cases works against the basic structure of the game.

So, If I am a trader, explorer, bounty hunter, smuggler or pirate, how do I participate in PowerPlay? From what I can tell, you can't. You basically have to give up your career as a pilot when you pledge to a PowerPlay Power and work specific tasks to get merits.

Merits and Control Capital have no real value in the Elite: Dangerous universe. Credits and Reputation are the currencies of the galaxy. Working towards one set hurts the other, or at least prevents advancement.

The PowerPlay Powers are not in line with the established Main Factions. Someone who is a Federation Post Commander can pledge to Senator Duval, and a Baron in the Empire can go to work for Zachary Hudson and no one bats an eye. Attacking or undermining a Power has no effect on reputation with the main faction unless you specifically attack one of their subfaction, but there is currently no tie between a Power who holds a system or the subfaction who controls it in the Background Simulator.

Rank in a Power has no tie to rank with a Faction. For example, being a top ranked member of the Federation gets you no sway with the Federation Powers, nor does ranking up with a Power affect your standing with the aligned Faction.

There are no permanent consequences to pledging to a power and quitting. There is a minor timed penalty for defecting, but Powers do not have a memory when it comes to treachery. Factions and subfactions keep track of when you wrong them and your reputation suffers, and if you continue your destructive behavior they will turn hostile and stop offering hiring you to hurt them.

PowerPlay expansion is governed through the application of Control Capital. Background Sim control is determined by faction status, economic and social strength which is altered by trading, exploration and combat undertaken by pilots who turn in missions, cargo and exploration data for rewards.

PowerPlay is purely opt-in, whereas all pilots in the game are bound by the Background Simulator and its Factions. It's very difficult to pretend that any of the Powers have true influence over the galaxy when as a group they can be collectively ignored.

Trading, exploring and combat represent the three main Pilot's Federation Elite rankings on which the core of the game itself is based, yet only combat plays a role in PowerPlay.

Those are the disconnects. Here are some suggestions.

1. Have profits from trade, exploration data, combat vouchers, and mission rewards generated in a system by ALL pilots, pledged or not, translate into Control Capital for the faction who controls the system. This would allow Pledgers to do something other than haul leaflets or garrison goods back and forth, or spend hours in protest zones as they can fill their cargo bays with other goods other than 10 tons of leaflets, so some bounty hunting or smuggling and make a little profit and help their Power at the same time.
   
   It also has a side effect of making non-pledgers a factor. An independent, non-aligned pilot who just wants to make a living can decide to follow the money, but in the back of his or her mind will always have to be aware that their money might be going somewhere they don't like. Therefore, a non-pledged pilot who still favors the Empire, for example, could trade freely throughout Empire factions without having to worry that they are helping the Federation. Factions could also attempt to lure non-aligned pilots to do business using the rewards which are already in place by the Powers. (Bounty hunting bonuses, trade bonuses, etc.) This would actually make those rewards more valuable, and give non-aligned pilots a reason to sell their soul for credits.
2. Make Background Sim Reputation and Rank carry over into PowerPlay. If you're hostile with the Federation, you can't pledge to a Fed Power. Hostile with the Empire? No deal. If you unpledge from a Power, no problem, but if you Defect that should be a hit to your rep that will take a LONG time to repair. Conversely, if you are ranked in that Faction's navy, or have a solid reputation, it should help you with the Pledged Power. Maybe this could be used to negate the effect of Merit Decay: if you are Friendly or Allied with the parent faction, Merit Decay slows or even stops, and give pilots an actual reason to stay friendly or allied with the main Faction.
3. Powers need to be aware when a player is trying to sabotage them. You can tank a subfaction's standing in a system by accepting and then failing jobs, but it hurts your rep with them and they eventually wise up and stop letting you hurt them. Powers need to have a memory, too. And just like the sub factions, you should have to work to get back in their good graces.
4. Something has to be done to give the Powers more character. Right now, they are fundamentally the same, outside of their portraits and description texts. Ethos just determines what kind of PowerPlay widgets you haul every 30 minutes based on your maximum allotment. Players should want to Pledge to a Power because it matches their play style more than anything else. Archon Delane should offer raid missions to destroy system authority ships and interdict trading. Mahon should be sending trade ships and courier missions to deliver envoys throughout the galaxy. Aisling Duval should be offering missions to free slaves, and destroy trade of places that allow the practice, etc. Even if these aren't missions offered through PowerPlay, the bulletin board missions should reflect the attitude of the controlling power, and the character of the Power should dictate what kind of pilots they are looking to attract.

So, TLDR; Integrating PowerPlay better with the space sim aspect of the game would give it broader appeal at the same time allowing pilots to play the game their own way and go a long way toward making PowerPlay seem less like a separate game.

 

[Echoes]

The favour system actually makes much more sense than the merit one in the long run, if even just for the continuation of the game.

In a couple of weeks, players whom are students will lose all of their free time to school and will not have the sheer blocks of time required for farming merits.

This way the favour can be more gradual... and it is kinda the dynamicness of merits ( the decay ) which people dont like about it in the first place.


Another thing which needs to be looked at is the instancing issues with wings... Would Fdev please atleast give us a nod that they are looking into it?

 

[Chero]

Hello dear FDev-Team,

at first I love the PP-Idea. And I can understand that this complex thing needs even more then 2-3 iterations to be perfect. At the moment here are my top "Anti-Frust" recommendations:


1) Complete Documentation
2) Communicate Pledge per Power
3) Reduce / Eliminate the Delay of showing the actual Prep, Exp, Fortify Values
4) Anti-Griever Tool
5) 30 Min Treshold vs. Daylie Limit
6) More Reliable and Transparent EoW Processing
7) Power-Channel
8) No Merits for useless packages



1) Complete Documentation:
Even you add a guide for e.g. for Merit-Draining, there are a lot of unclear formulas, constrains. For e.g. the statistic page has even absolut no explaining help page. Also the constrain between Government-Style and CC-Change while flipping is unclear. Or why do a System drops from 103 to 0? Or raised from -27 to 11 from one week ot another? And there are much, much more open questions.

2) Communicate Pledge per Power
We have systems, we have population, we have distance from HQ. But we don't have a balance of power in respect of the amount of supporting cmdrs per power. Please add a Amount of Pledge Cmdr per Power into the CC Overhead Calculation. At the moment the amount of Cmdrs makes the actual limiter calculation less fair and more useless.

3) Reduce / Eliminate the Delay ...
... of showing the actual Prep, Exp, Fortify Values. A lot of Cmdrs a frustrated because they make wrong decision on outdated values. If you don't want eliminate the actual cache mechanic, please offer a "load actuals" Button or something like this. The "Last Update" value in the right upper corner only shows the "7:00 start-of-week". So no help in judging the values which are offered. It is possible to update the "Last Update" everytime the local PP-Cache is written?

4) Anti-Griever Tool
I saw some Ideas, for e.g. down/up votes to bring one power more in one unified direction. But atm it is very easy for a small group of trolls with some Anacondas to bring a power down from inside, for e.g. prepping bad systems, shouting on allies, etc. pp. Not sure if a kind of a court with a possible jurisdiction could help.

5) 30 Min Treshold vs. Daylie Limit
At the moment the working people are really disadvantaged, because they could not click every 30 Minutes on the Button. What do you think of a kind of a "stacking treshold". After 30 Minutes you can gather 50 Items, after 1h 100 etc. evt. with a draining limiter over the day and even the week, see also 6).

6) More Reliable and Transparent EoW Processing
At the moment so many systems was overtaken in the last minute of a Power-Week. In context with the delayed display this feels very chaotic. Even the player in the "wrong" timezone are very disadvantaged to jump into the last minute fights.
Perhaps not offering free packages in the last hours anymore, could mitigatte this a bit. Or accept the prep-nomination only until before the last day of the week. Or even drain the "stacking treshold" in the week, for e.g. 120 per h at the start an 10 per h in last few hours.

7) Power-Channel
Please add a Power-Scoped Ingame Chat-Channel. So we can inform commanders about actual threads.

8) No Merits for useless packages
Not sure why a power should grant merits for useless packages? For e.g. if a fortification is done, why should grant merit for more packages?

BR, Cmdr Chero

 

[Rubbernuke]

Why not just scrap merits and favour? Get PP running on what drives minor factions- influence.

Each action a player does earns influence. So, just like with the minor factions you build up your rank like you do with rep. This simplifies everything, gets rid of two confusing aspects and ties PP more into the background sim and mission structure.

 

[Echoes]

Hello dear FDev-Team,

at first I love the PP-Idea. And I can understand that this complex thing needs even more then 2-3 iterations to be perfect. At the moment here are my top "Anti-Frust" recommendations:


1) Complete Documentation
2) Communicate Pledge per Power
3) Reduce / Eliminate the Delay of showing the actual Prep, Exp, Fortify Values
4) Anti-Griever Tool
5) 30 Min Treshold vs. Daylie Limit
6) More Reliable and Transparent EoW Processing
7) Power-Channel
8) No Merits for useless packages



1) Complete Documentation:
Even you add a guide for e.g. for Merit-Draining, there are a lot of unclear formulas, constrains. For e.g. the statistic page has even absolut no explaining help page. Also the constrain between Government-Style and CC-Change while flipping is unclear. Or why do a System drops from 103 to 0? Or raised from -27 to 11 from one week ot another? And there are much, much more open questions.

2) Communicate Pledge per Power
We have systems, we have population, we have distance from HQ. But we don't have a balance of power in respect of the amount of supporting cmdrs per power. Please add a Amount of Pledge Cmdr per Power into the CC Overhead Calculation. At the moment the amount of Cmdrs makes the actual limiter calculation less fair and more useless.

3) Reduce / Eliminate the Delay ...
... of showing the actual Prep, Exp, Fortify Values. A lot of Cmdrs a frustrated because they make wrong decision on outdated values. If you don't want eliminate the actual cache mechanic, please offer a "load actuals" Button or something like this. The "Last Update" value in the right upper corner only shows the "7:00 start-of-week". So no help in judging the values which are offered. It is possible to update the "Last Update" everytime the local PP-Cache is written?

4) Anti-Griever Tool
I saw some Ideas, for e.g. down/up votes to bring one power more in one unified direction. But atm it is very easy for a small group of trolls with some Anacondas to bring a power down from inside, for e.g. prepping bad systems, shouting on allies, etc. pp. Not sure if a kind of a court with a possible jurisdiction could help.

5) 30 Min Treshold vs. Daylie Limit
At the moment the working people are really disadvantaged, because they could not click every 30 Minutes on the Button. What do you think of a kind of a "stacking treshold". After 30 Minutes you can gather 50 Items, after 1h 100 etc. evt. with a draining limiter over the day and even the week, see also 6).

6) More Reliable and Transparent EoW Processing
At the moment so many systems was overtaken in the last minute of a Power-Week. In context with the delayed display this feels very chaotic. Even the player in the "wrong" timezone are very disadvantaged to jump into the last minute fights.
Perhaps not offering free packages in the last hours anymore, could mitigatte this a bit. Or accept the prep-nomination only until before the last day of the week. Or even drain the "stacking treshold" in the week, for e.g. 120 per h at the start an 10 per h in last few hours.

7) Power-Channel
Please add a Power-Scoped Ingame Chat-Channel. So we can inform commanders about actual threads.

8) No Merits for useless packages
Not sure why a power should grant merits for useless packages? For e.g. if a fortification is done, why should grant merit for more packages?

BR, Cmdr Chero

Agree 100%

 

[Viajero]

Hello Commanders!

Just another update for you folk.

The clear consensus is that a return to the old system of merit rating, even with the addition of favours, would not be wanted. So, going further down this line, I want to pose another question for you to consider: merit decay is present specifically to reward Commanders who put in more effort over time than their peers. This is true, even in the current implementation, even though you don't actually compete.

So my question is: would you prefer to see the merit system mutate into something like the favour system, rather than have both active at the same time (I think something along those lines has cropped up a couple of times)? Before you respond, have a think about what would be gained versus what would be lost: the system would be simpler, but less dynamic. In essence, it would likely be a little more like a XP bar/resource.

Now, whilst I'm reflective mode

Clearly, everyone wants missions. Understood. So do we! It's a matter of timing.

Also pretty unanimous is a desire for stronger connection to minor factions. Again, we're down with this. However, it's important to remember that A) powers and minor factions are on a different scale, and that B) both systems are pretty complex. But that's just a caveat, really - we'll certainly spend some more time going over options here (the great thing about brainstorming early is that we can look at all the angles).

The Powerflag seems to have a lot of support, but has two potential challenges: exploitation and the dilution of pledging.

The Up/Down vote has a lot of love; it looks like the only folk objecting are doing so because they want more communication tools. We'd like more as well, but there are resource and technical restraints to consider (but in time, we *will* consider them).

As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, this is very similar to how the DDF worked. Which means the same concepts apply to how we use this feedback. So, to be completely clear: nothing in this thread is guaranteed or promised. It would be remiss to act that way as we simply don't know what might happen in the future.

Instead, this is closer to a plan of intent; we use your feedback to help us shape what goals we want to hit going forward. That does not mean we will blindly implement suggestions. We still have to listen to our own hearts and heads as well. But, as with the DDF, this process is very useful at generating ideas from the folk who are playing the game, and at forcing us to reassess our choices, making sure they're robust enough.

Right, that's all for now, again, thanks for taking to time, Commanders!

Great to see that background sim and PP will eventually become integrated!!!

Regarding the flag, I guess I am personally still not too convinced. Not only because of potential dilution but also because of the impact in Open Play (not so much in Solo/Private).

Just think about the potential ramifications (and I am not talking in terms of exploiting the timing of switching it on and off)... Let´s take a wing that switches the flag on to do some undermining. Off they go to an enemy Power control system and start their undermining work. Most of these players ,depending on their power ethos, will soon (if not already) become WANTED in that system. Now let´s consider another wing in that system that has pledged to the local Power but has decided to go under the PP radar and switched off the flag. The undermining players dont have in principle a "casus belli" to attack those apparently not aligned players. The local players though can totally justifiable attack those players beacuse of their WANTED status any time the so wish whiule the undermining party has in principle no reason to attack them (other than a good pvp fight for the sake of it). The local wing has the initiative. Players defending control systems from undermining will have no incentive WHATSOEVER to show their flag up. This is compunded with the fact that eliminating hostile ships in local territory does not produce any reward PP-wise and therefore there is no need at all to activate the PP flag locally when on patrol duty.

So, you see where this is going. After a few of those attacks by "not aligned" players In Open Play, players in general will start to look very suspiciously at ANY other player they detect in their scannerthat has, in appearance, not pledged to a Power, and this will very often result in pre emptive interdictions without distinction. Now, dont get me wrong, PvP players will find this a great thing no doubt but those players that really are non pledged and want to play unaligned will probably have to run for their lives much more often than today.

 

[Tarman]

Hello Commanders!

Just another update for you folk.

The clear consensus is that a return to the old system of merit rating, even with the addition of favours, would not be wanted. So, going further down this line, I want to pose another question for you to consider: merit decay is present specifically to reward Commanders who put in more effort over time than their peers. This is true, even in the current implementation, even though you don't actually compete.

So my question is: would you prefer to see the merit system mutate into something like the favour system, rather than have both active at the same time (I think something along those lines has cropped up a couple of times)? Before you respond, have a think about what would be gained versus what would be lost: the system would be simpler, but less dynamic. In essence, it would likely be a little more like a XP bar/resource.

Now, whilst I'm reflective mode

Clearly, everyone wants missions. Understood. So do we! It's a matter of timing.

Also pretty unanimous is a desire for stronger connection to minor factions. Again, we're down with this. However, it's important to remember that A) powers and minor factions are on a different scale, and that B) both systems are pretty complex. But that's just a caveat, really - we'll certainly spend some more time going over options here (the great thing about brainstorming early is that we can look at all the angles).

The Powerflag seems to have a lot of support, but has two potential challenges: exploitation and the dilution of pledging.

The Up/Down vote has a lot of love; it looks like the only folk objecting are doing so because they want more communication tools. We'd like more as well, but there are resource and technical restraints to consider (but in time, we *will* consider them).

As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, this is very similar to how the DDF worked. Which means the same concepts apply to how we use this feedback. So, to be completely clear: nothing in this thread is guaranteed or promised. It would be remiss to act that way as we simply don't know what might happen in the future.

Instead, this is closer to a plan of intent; we use your feedback to help us shape what goals we want to hit going forward. That does not mean we will blindly implement suggestions. We still have to listen to our own hearts and heads as well. But, as with the DDF, this process is very useful at generating ideas from the folk who are playing the game, and at forcing us to reassess our choices, making sure they're robust enough.

Right, that's all for now, again, thanks for taking to time, Commanders!

All this thread has really said to me is that we're stuck with Powerplay as a mostly separate strategic game unto itself, and not an integrated element of Elite-as-a-spaceship-game.

You haven't addressed the fundamental problem between the way Powerplay functions mechanically and the way Powerplay should connect to the galactic narrative that was already in-game. It's wholly disheartening. There are amazing suggestions in this thread from long-time respectable members of this community that would be far more successful at both providing the gameplay you want to provide and not trodding all over the storyline you introduced before this was bolted on top.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Viajero!

I'm not sure I understand your concern.

In your example, the wing that had turned the Powerplay flag ON to undermine would always be at risk from everyone in the system they were undermining, thanks to Powerplay ships and the WANTED status they would get. This is realistically zero change from the current implementation (fact is, if I'm undermining in a system and I see a combat capable ship on my sensors, I already assume that it could be a bounty hunter out to profit from my demise).

The covert players defending would however, *have* to wait until the wing actually committed crimes before they could respond, and would be doing so only as standard bounty hunters, as opposed to the right to freely attack they would have as visible Powerplayers.

Non-Powerplay ships would, in my opinion, not have anything new to worry about - if they were secret Powerplayers in an enemy system, they'd have to leave, go back to a control system of their own and toggle their Powerplay flag on before they could cause any trouble. In essence, any non Powerplayn ship in a system *could* not be a Powerplay threat to it.

In addition, Commanders already have the opiuon of playing in solo or private groups so I don't really see how this would make things worse. If anything, I'd suggest that the flag might tempt folk into open a little, as they would have finer control over their level of engagement in Powerplay.

Of course, I could be misunderstanding, apologies if so.