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

[Redgum]

Gents,

Thanks for bringing us Elite back from the ages.

I have to echo earlier concerns vis-a-vis unintentionally discriminating against those of us with other committments such as families and jobs. We love the game, but its not our lives.

That said:

* Like the idea of favor.
* Power play is ok, but I'd voice stronger support if indeed there was a gadget I could buy that would 'cloak' my loyalties (consider it a transponder jammer or hack device) so that I could switch it on upon arriving in an otherwise hostile system so I could get some trading done. Of course, limited activation time, prone to distance -vs- effectiveness and consumes energy. But useful for those of us sneaky bastiges lurking around in the backwaters of other controlled systems.)

* LOVE what I read today re: Landing on planets. Know this is off-topic, but YES PLEASE!
* Must agree w/others re: Want more immersion - RPG or other. If you will recall a game back in the day around the same time as original recipe Elite, it was called StarFlight, created by 'Binary Systems.' Nicely done for the day - love to see some alien races / more interaction / rare artifacts to do cool stuff to ships.
* Please - Powerplay is fun, but smacks of earth-bound issues. How about shoving in an alien meance EVERYONE can agree to defend against? And perhaps one to like, as a balance?

* Up/Down votes. *meh* -- might be more effective if you considered scaling merit points against distance from HQ. I see TONS of re-enforcements at CLOSE systems, because they're only a few LY away, but systems that need support arent getting it b/c they're a hundred or more LY from HQ and the merits are the same for something 10 LY away. Fix that, and the up/down votes thing may just find itself obsolete.

* Consider adding two features please:
1. Some way of logging WHERE the hell I've been. Sometimes I get fines or rewards in places that don't translate to star system names and it's impossible to find a star system based on regional political tribe names listed on bounties/fines/claims. E.g I have a 300CR fine in "Morten for Equality" -- where the hell is that???

2. Some way of marking your favorite trade routes in the Galaxy map and being able to click on them by name and have the computer plot a route from where you're at and go there. This is akin to GPS...surely I've got a spaceship, shouldn't I also get a Nav system with memory?

Thanks for listening / reading. Have played all of the Elite games since Commodore 64 release, and this is the BEST yet.
Keep up the good work!

And have a sugar filled pastry while yer at it ;-)

_RED_ (Retired and Extremely bloody Dangerous)

 

[JemyM]

One of our greatest challenges for us every cycle is to defeat preparation grinders. We are forced to mass credits and take our time away fortification and expansion to block preparation-grinders who got their weekly voucher from preparing loss systems, looking more like hired terrorists than actual players. Knowing that we have to waste time to defeat our own players because of a poor user interface is very frustrating.

Preparation top-10 and preparation competition needs to be separated. Over-preparing loss systems shouldn't give rewards. Nominations need to matter. Being Rank 5 (250) means nothing when a preparation grinder put 800 commodities in a low-profit system over 3 high-profit systems (3x800=2400).

 

[playfuldreamer]

As someone who does not engage in Powerplay, I think my suggestion would be to find more lore-friendly ways to obfuscate what sounds like a very gamey experience. Reading the proposals, it sounds like Powerplay is more like a table top card game--not so much a system within a living and breathing universe which reacts to the player. Percentages, flags, merits, and ethos min-maxing... it's all very sterile and soulless.

How can Powerplay be made more friendly in a narrative sense so as to retain its complexity but not at the cost of immersion?

 

[Raynn]

As a casual player enrolled in power play I find it really hard to keep up with and feel absolutely discouraged by the merit decay. Putting a few hours in the game is hard enough to find so knowing that it will decay is a really bad experience. Right now I feel like I need to grind every week or this is pointless.

Also, right now it is maybe me but I find it really hard to find someone to play with. I would like to see some kind of automatic grouping (wing) feature to go destroy (raid) some kind of target or other objective. That would make the game a lot more flexible and spontaneous. As an analogy (coming from world of warcraft) at the beginning we used to sit somewhere yelling on the chat to find some groups. This was really time consuming but also not flexible at all. Then they introduced auto grouping features that made the game A LOT MORE FUN because you could login and easily find a group to play together. I think elite should learn from that.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Sugarat]

Have been wondering how powerplay will fit in with planetary landings? Will we be able to undermine/fortify/expand planetside? Must say the idea of attacking ground based targets planetside appeals

 

[NeilF]

Can a couple of folks run this notion in your heads, and see if you think it could work? (I suspect it's similar to what others have already voiced too)


Quite simply Powers are more akin to Factions in stations... If you are aligned with a Power (Faction) any task (occupations) you do at a system controlled/influenced (etc) by them works towards their success in that system. And/or it works against the opposing Powers in that system etc.

Depending upon the state of that system, different actions (trading, bounty hunting etc) simpy has a great/lesser effect for your power (against others). I'd suggest small Power/Faction based rewards are offered in certain situations. eg: If you trade between two of the Power's systems you get a small bonus?

And importantly, NEW MISSIONS would appear in the bulletin board (or be used for the community goal) for your Power (Faction) which would also help them specifically, or potentially give you great rewards too.

...and that's basically it...


There could them be ranks/tiers and rewards based upon effort you've applied to the Power, but it would be a small side matter. Would it be weekly based? Not sure..?

A handful of key FLAG moves/tasks could existing for a Power at any time. These are the important/main tasks the Power is undertaking at the time, and would basically form something akin to a community goal. ie: Taking over a specific system. Defending a specific system. If you're truly keen on helping your power, you could put your efforts towards these...


Systems would still change "state" and move between Powers, but it would all be automated depending on results, and moves would be decided again automatically. ie: A Power would decide to start undermining a neighbouring system and its Faction (Power) would become available to in that system etc. If a Power completely loses control of a system, it would simply no longer exist as a Faction there.


So it's ultra simple, and you can continue doing what you normally do to a certain degree and still help your Power. People could sign up to a Power and do as little/much as they like, paying a little/much attention to the Power's goals as they like.

As tempting as it is to assign systems "worth" to make some systems more valuable than others, I fear this is really of no importance to the community/players. Hence getting rid of all the complexity of the "board game". IMHO working for your Power should be as "business as usual" but with the benefits of potentially more rewards mainly in the shape of interesting gameplay, and some reasonable financial ones to if you do it well/wisely.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Before someone criticizes my attitude, allow me to express my gratitude for the communication between devs and the playerbase.

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.

Good to know Sandro's really stepping up on communication, it pleases the community.

Favour

I strongly agree, in the sense that this will attract more players to participate in PP. We keep the competitive part and open up a channel for less-competitive/less invested players to participate and feel rewarded.

Powerplay Flag

I would love to see this expanded into PvP and PvE flag for Open, a system that allows more Cmdr freedom is definitely something to look into. I personally know a lot of people frustrated by continuous interdiction by NPC and getting frustrated by PP.

I hope that it will indeed be seriously examined to prevent exploitation.

Up/Down Vote

Not very keen with this one. The 5th column situation will be escalated by this kind of mechanic. I understand that a complex communication system is difficult to create and perfect, but something simplistic as this might encourage even more 5th column action that is already loathed by the community.

I'm all for a up/down vote system for display, but if it actually inherently affects PP decisions such as what system gets prepared simply by up/down vote, we might be looking at some massive issues.

I say give it an experimental cycle.

Freedom Fighters

I think this is great, allowing players to follow their own ethos and organize around that will create even more diverse player groups with different beliefs. Coming from the Code, the reason we left PP as a syndicate was that we don't want to be restrained by certain ethos and fit ourselves into a mold. We want to cut our own paths. (And no, that cytoscrambler didn't help, I'll get to that later in the post)

However, I hope that your word on increased risk for Freedom Fighters stay true and get a serious balance look. I believe it should be less effective than an actually pledged pilot, but not ineffective to the point that no one wants to participate.

More Powerful Ethos versus Government Effect

I say we look more into this when we fix the "background simulation," I think you know why I put it in quotes, so I won't explain. As it stands, it's whoever do more missions in solo for a faction wins, which is another mechanic that people cannot effectively counter, like 5th columning. Therefore I advice strong caution with this mechanic.

Missions, Variety and Rewards

Good to know. I am not vocal about the issue but this is definitely a great addition.

(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...)

No no no no, do you think bullying smaller power is fun or something? I get that FD loves Empire to death and wants everything else dead, but this is not how you hide favoritism.

If you don't give disadvantaged/small powers some way to counter something like this, why would anyone pledge/help small powers that get hated on by everyone?

After your 5x multiplier to triggers, the increase to undermining rewards, contemplation of increasing fortification triggers (I don't even...), and now you're pulling this? Stop giving all the advantage to the a power for simply having sheer numbers, what you're doing is not game-balance, it's pure discrimination against diversity and makes no sense as a gameplay mechanic that is suppose to keep people interested in PP.

On a related note. Faction Module balance, please, we've waited, can we please address that since module collectors are a portion of the PP and sometimes the core problem of merit farmers that induce bad preparation and mindless undermining.

 

[NeilF]

Faction Modules
They in no way achieve their desired goal of rewarding loyalty. Infact they often do the opposite in reality with CMDRs joining up for just 4 weeks to get them.

Infact I can vouch to this as after having left PP weeks ago, I rejoined last night with the plan of doing absolutely nothing within PP for 3 weeks, then simply grinding 25 ships to get my module. I don't care where those ships are, what they are doing, or what affect my actions have on my Power's goals... Just like a huge number of people in PP I guess!


So, I'd suggest the modules would be better served offered only sold within certain systems, or via certain missions etc. And I'd also suggest if it's via criteria, once you've gained access to them, you retain access to them.

 

[palazo]

I leave my humble opinion and I hope you read it.
It is something with which we agree many people in my community.

Excuse my language,

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!

I agree with this point but it is also necessary to motivate why play the powerplay,

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?

You can not meet everybody, I think there are people who just want a simulator safely.
But that can play in solomode, I think the solomode is the reason for this problem.
They should try to isolate people playing in solomode of people who do not.
The power play should be only for those who are in open play sooner or later going to specify defend a system.

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?

I like this idea, but it can be complicated to implement in any case not directly affect the benefits received by the player using the powerplay.

I think before you need to motivate the players on the power play.

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?

Approve 100% freedom fighters but Im not one.
I like the queen.
If not excist freedom fighters the game loses dangerous, and Its Also elite.
XD

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.

I think the expancion systems and fortifications become meaningless for the player because they do not directly benefit at all.

If players could actually be part of a faction or be a sub-faction controlling a system that would be very useful and would challenge the players.
It's complicated but I think this within the possibilities of the game.

(Group Players want to have a gateway or outpost) At the end the NPC Groups have a station and players not. NPC have more fun than the players. XD

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.

I think they should have more rewards than a shield and a weapon or imperial credits.
More weapons and unique modules of each faction.
More ships.
Ability to attack a faction and earn their rewards.
If you already have many credits them becomes meaningless and thus the power play.

I like the concept of performing missions. But I think you have to give the player more involved in the story.

 

[Space Fan]

Abandon PP altogether and concentrate effort on planetary landings, missions, and future features. Then I am sure Elite will have a bright future.

 

[Soulstain]

My feedback is ditch powerplay altogether. Your time would be far better spent working on the core game that 100% of your players play. I, for one, will never join a power. They are too cartoony and disconnected from the rest of your universe.

You have reams of unaddressed DDA stuff that would be far better for the future of the game than wasting more resources to rescue PP.

I wish more people would speak up like you. +1

 

[emacinnes]

Powerplay needs to be more inclusive and not just be an endgame mechanic, as it's the major visible story driver in the game. If it's mechanics are endgame only, then it eliminates people from the story until they've already "ended" their game, as such.

Definitely glad to see an emphasis on missions, variety & rewards, it's what puts me off the most about it as bounty hunting in powerplay has no interesting hunting aspect to it, just go to spot X and shoot/interdict all that come past. It is the RES bounty farming of powerplay. Crime sweeps are the dregs of the universe IMO, and should not be mentioned in polite company anywhere near a bounty hunter.

Re: rewards. I don't want to get to rank 5, or 2, or get the purple laser of doom, I want to be able to jump into powerplay on an ad-hoc basis and assist where necessary, community goal-style, without having to then get into a 2-3 week commitment of effort & time to get anything meaningful out of it. Similar to Freedom fighters, I'd propose a Mercenary role for Powerplay:

Mercenary works just like the regular player, need to Pledge to a Power, but as a Mercenary, not a Soldier, and rewards are then doled out in Powerplay missions according to this new role type. Claims not Vouchers, and any merits generated are internal and contribute to the powerplay total only, not the player's rank (don't care, I got credits, I can buy stuff, I'd rather the pledging thing gave access to toys, not rewarded them with it). If the outcome is successful, again, community-goal like reward tiers for contributions made, but these are one-time things and reset each powerplay tick. Once pledged as a mercenary, then must wait 2 powerplay rounds to re-pledge as a solider, or pledge to another power.

That kind of thing, I'd bother with. Cold hard credits for effort spent. without any merit voucher degrading PP rank funkiness that's about as interesting as dry cardboard.

As for Freedom Fighters themselves, why not just have these be specific missions given out in-system to any and all takers, without having to pledge anything, and then the success or failure of said mission adjusts powerplay very slightly and adjusts the player's reputation with each faction & power accordingly. This kind of interpretive action (and likewise to a degree with Mercenary) is more consistent with how Elite generally operates as a game outside of powerplay, free form & blazing the trail, not pigeonholed into this side or that side or this power or that power.

 

[Caspar]

Been playing ED since beta. Not playing PP at the moment because, frankly, I don't know where to start. THAT is my biggest problem. It's a large fronted building and I can't be bothered to find the entrance.

 

[h347h]

Powerplay needs to be more inclusive and not just be an endgame mechanic, as it's the major visible story driver in the game. If it's mechanics are endgame only, then it eliminates people from the story until they've already "ended" their game, as such.

Definitely glad to see an emphasis on missions, variety & rewards, it's what puts me off the most about it as bounty hunting in powerplay has no interesting hunting aspect to it, just go to spot X and shoot/interdict all that come past. It is the RES bounty farming of powerplay. Crime sweeps are the dregs of the universe IMO, and should not be mentioned in polite company anywhere near a bounty hunter.

Re: rewards. I don't want to get to rank 5, or 2, or get the purple laser of doom, I want to be able to jump into powerplay on an ad-hoc basis and assist where necessary, community goal-style, without having to then get into a 2-3 week commitment of effort & time to get anything meaningful out of it. Similar to Freedom fighters, I'd propose a Mercenary role for Powerplay:

Mercenary works just like the regular player, need to Pledge to a Power, but as a Mercenary, not a Soldier, and rewards are then doled out in Powerplay missions according to this new role type. Claims not Vouchers, and any merits generated are internal and contribute to the powerplay total only, not the player's rank (don't care, I got credits, I can buy stuff, I'd rather the pledging thing gave access to toys, not rewarded them with it). If the outcome is successful, again, community-goal like reward tiers for contributions made, but these are one-time things and reset each powerplay tick. Once pledged as a mercenary, then must wait 2 powerplay rounds to re-pledge as a solider, or pledge to another power.

That kind of thing, I'd bother with. Cold hard credits for effort spent. without any merit voucher degrading PP rank funkiness that's about as interesting as dry cardboard.

As for Freedom Fighters themselves, why not just have these be specific missions given out in-system to any and all takers, without having to pledge anything, and then the success or failure of said mission adjusts powerplay very slightly and adjusts the player's reputation with each faction & power accordingly. This kind of interpretive action (and likewise to a degree with Mercenary) is more consistent with how Elite generally operates as a game outside of powerplay, free form & blazing the trail, not pigeonholed into this side or that side or this power or that power.

Frankly you are wrong. I started Power Play in a Vulture. I no way shape or for is it only an end game type of thing. There is no "end game" in Elite Dangerous. You are merely thinking rich=endgame. That's not how it works.

 

[CMDR StackOfCups]

I realize my voice is among thousands but hopefully a dev makes it this far and reads it.

Favor? Isn't this just a bandaid on the fact that merits fade over time? Just make them fade slower, or make them only fade when you're, oh I don't know, playing the game? I hate timers that tick outside the game. As SOON as you do that you officially drag the game into real life. Games are just that. Games. They're escapes. Don't make it a job.

Freedom fighters, sounds rad!
The whole ethos bit, also rad.

Implement the voting right meow! That sounds crucial and the only real reason I haven't bothered with PP. I just don't know what to do and where and I don't want to waste my time. I would glady head to the next system on the voted up list that wasn't completed yet. Gladly.

 

[Space Fan]

Been playing ED since beta. Not playing PP at the moment because, frankly, I don't know where to start. THAT is my biggest problem. It's a large fronted building and I can't be bothered to find the entrance.

Exactly my emotions regarding PP. I saw the concept, and it instinctively felt like puff rather than content. Selling that concept to me was like tempting an animal rightist with grilled kitten.

Absolutely instinctive zero interest for me to go there - and I was right - because I still observe endless threads and posts here with players (and devs) trying to figure out how it works.

So, in my opinion, not only an unappealing concept - but a deeply flawed one. (But if you apply a bit of simplicity to the thinking - if a concept is unappealing, surely it is never going to work.)

I hope that's not too harsh, but a good general knows when to withdraw..

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

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.

I agree with this idea. Would make power play so much better and interesting.

 

[Space Fan]

I agree with this idea. Would make power play so much better and interesting.

I really admire all the effort that has gone into some of these posts; particularly the very long post you are responding to 'Kronos - but I honestly think that this horse can't withstand any more flogging, and that PP was a strategic mistake in the path of this game's development. It should be dropped.

There are 3 major factions already - undeveloped. if I were building a house, I'd use the tree trunks cut already - not leave them in the yard and start breaking off branches..

 

[obliterator]

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.

I think a good start would be to tweak the powerplay modules so that they aren't a downgrade from everything else. And having multiple classes of the same module would also help (nobody cares about a special weapon if it's limited to a small hardpoint). I would like to see those modules as true sidegrades.

 

[Krait_79]

Good to see this being looked at. Would really like to see mercenary options for Powerplay to get me involved with it again. Essentially this would be aiding powers for just credits instead of merits.