Powerplay in Solo

[Rubbernuke]

The trouble is, 'hazard pay' is typically based on the chance of losing your one, limited, life. The odds of death don't have to be very high for hazard pay to be disproportionately higher, because once you die, that's it.

Ingame, death is a mild inconvenience at best. Add to this the fact that death, even in open, is extremely rare, and any argument for this being in any way 'hazardous' quickly goes out the window. So how can you rationally reward players when 99% of them aren't actually in any sort of situation worthy of reward?

There's always potential for exploitation with a pvp-focused system, but in my mind, that's better than a system that is essentially being constantly exploited by everyone playing in open who doesn't actually face danger equivalent to the reward they're being given for no reason. Especially since there are ways to fix and avoid 5C pvp, but once you add global multipliers there's not really anything you can do past that.

1: 'hazardous' I think refers to the capability of someone you meet being able to deter you enough to change the outcome of that encounter.

2: the chance of coming across an NPC that can do that is zero, considering all PP NPCs have no engineering, and don't use the full set of weapons players do.

3: 'hazardous' also refers to the potential as well as the actual outcome. You still have to prepare for the worst or gamble.

4: None of this is designed to thwart 5C. Weighting is the only real (IMO) 5C counter in the proposed changes.

5: You are ultimately weighing the effect of solo and no opponents against the possibility of having capable enemies with weighting.

6: Its arguable (depending on your POV) that solo and PG are the exploits- solo for uninhibited hauling, PG for wing multiplied UM and expansions without danger.

 

[DemiserofD]

1: 'hazardous' I think refers to the capability of someone you meet being able to deter you enough to change the outcome of that encounter.

2: the chance of coming across an NPC that can do that is zero, considering all PP NPCs have no engineering, and don't use the full set of weapons players do.

3: 'hazardous' also refers to the potential as well as the actual outcome. You still have to prepare for the worst or gamble.

4: None of this is designed to thwart 5C. Weighting is the only real (IMO) 5C counter in the proposed changes.

5: You are ultimately weighing the effect of solo and no opponents against the possibility of having capable enemies with weighting.

6: Its arguable (depending on your POV) that solo and PG are the exploits- solo for uninhibited hauling, PG for wing multiplied UM and expansions without danger.

You missed my point about 5c, sorry if I was unclear there; what I meant was, if there's a reward for being attacked, then you would be advantaged to have a 5c account to briefly accost your hauler to boost your efforts. I see this risk as being worth dealing with, since I think it could be dealt with via clever coding and balance, and because it requires additional effort on behalf of the 5c party but not on behalf of the defending party, therefore by default helping the defender more than the attacker.

Anyways, that aside, hazardous has broad limits. I live in the flight path of an airport. In theory, I could have a plane crash into my house. The chances of this, however, are very low, albeit higher than someone living outside of the flight path. Is living in my home hazardous? Not enough for the airport to pay me to live here. Not enough to reduce the price of my house. The potential for danger does not imply the existence of danger, which is why I don't think playing in Open alone is enough to justify rewards.

Honestly, weighting biased towards Open would actually make 5c WORSE, since the enemy would be killing only the good haulers but not the bad haulers. Yes, you could counteract this, but the default effect would be to emphasize the work of hostile actors, which isn't a good start.

 

[Rubbernuke]

You missed my point about 5c, sorry if I was unclear there; what I meant was, if there's a reward for being attacked, then you would be advantaged to have a 5c account to briefly accost your hauler to boost your efforts. I see this risk as being worth dealing with, since I think it could be dealt with via clever coding and balance, and because it requires additional effort on behalf of the 5c party but not on behalf of the defending party, therefore by default helping the defender more than the attacker.

Anyways, that aside, hazardous has broad limits. I live in the flight path of an airport. In theory, I could have a plane crash into my house. The chances of this, however, are very low, albeit higher than someone living outside of the flight path. Is living in my home hazardous? Not enough for the airport to pay me to live here. Not enough to reduce the price of my house. The potential for danger does not imply the existence of danger, which is why I don't think playing in Open alone is enough to justify rewards.

Honestly, weighting biased towards Open would actually make 5c WORSE, since the enemy would be killing only the good haulers but not the bad haulers. Yes, you could counteract this, but the default effect would be to emphasize the work of hostile actors, which isn't a good start.

With traditional weighting there is no difference between 'good' or 'bad' haulers- its a flat uplift. Also, 5C 'killing' is not really 5C, its more random noise- if you have loose cannons going about hobbling and disrupting randomly thats actually good, because its emulating what NPCs are supposed to do.

Powerplay has sites of activity, if they are less numerous then they are now (as proposed) and more important, people will be there (or the chances very high). If everyone hauls fort to their capital, or have an expansion, or have a system caught in a mega UM attack you know others are there.

5C in PvP: it became exploitable before because you mixed power gains with personal ones. If you can separate the two, and destroying people for a personal reward (say for a bonus) that stops the rival doing its objective then you can't exploit the game to win.

The biggest problem is abstraction: the BGS uses it to advantage but should Powerplay? The more abstraction you build into the system the less dynamic and spontaneous Powerplay becomes really. A lot of people liked Sandros first proposal because it essentially took away a lot of abstracted layers- it was you, an environment and a self defined team goal (with others doing the same).

 

[DemiserofD]

With traditional weighting there is no difference between 'good' or 'bad' haulers- its a flat uplift. Also, 5C 'killing' is not really 5C, its more random noise- if you have loose cannons going about hobbling and disrupting randomly thats actually good, because its emulating what NPCs are supposed to do.

Powerplay has sites of activity, if they are less numerous then they are now (as proposed) and more important, people will be there (or the chances very high). If everyone hauls fort to their capital, or have an expansion, or have a system caught in a mega UM attack you know others are there.

5C in PvP: it became exploitable before because you mixed power gains with personal ones. If you can separate the two, and destroying people for a personal reward (say for a bonus) that stops the rival doing its objective then you can't exploit the game to win.

The biggest problem is abstraction: the BGS uses it to advantage but should Powerplay? The more abstraction you build into the system the less dynamic and spontaneous Powerplay becomes really. A lot of people liked Sandros first proposal because it essentially took away a lot of abstracted layers- it was you, an environment and a self defined team goal (with others doing the same).

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear again.

Assume that the same team is both attacking a Power's haulers AND 5cing them. They will obviously not attack their own 5c haulers, who are hauling to sub-optimal expansion locations, but WILL attack the ones that are hauling to optimal locations. Thereby helping the 5c effort. The bad expansion haulers are the bad haulers.

Anyways, as for the rest of your comment; If you're proposing significant changes that will make open actually be hazardous, I would say that those changes must take place first. You can't just reward open players for nothing, since as we've seen, Fdev doesn't have the best track record of actually going in and doing the second half. Those sorts of changes I would be inclined to support, however, and then reconsider weighting towards open at a later date, when it makes more sense.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear again.

Assume that the same team is both attacking a Power's haulers AND 5cing them. They will obviously not attack their own 5c haulers, who are hauling to sub-optimal expansion locations, but WILL attack the ones that are hauling to optimal locations. Thereby helping the 5c effort. The bad expansion haulers are the bad haulers.

Anyways, as for the rest of your comment; If you're proposing significant changes that will make open actually be hazardous, I would say that those changes must take place first. You can't just reward open players for nothing, since as we've seen, Fdev doesn't have the best track record of actually going in and doing the second half. Those sorts of changes I would be inclined to support, however, and then reconsider weighting towards open at a later date, when it makes more sense.

Ah, I see. In that case 5C is really fought via system weighting (i.e. at a mechanic level rather than via PvP) so that it takes more 5C deliveries than non 5C (at the expense of weaponized expansions).

I agree with with you here as well- the changes have to be a package otherwise there is no point to them. In isolation some are harmful even.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Powerplay should be an Open only activity. Influencing Powerplay by fortifying systems or even opposing systems in solo is something that shouldn't be possible, no one can stop you! Powerplay is meant to be a struggle between factions/powers working against one another. Groups of players targeting specific systems with other groups intervening. That seems like the ideal vision, not a bunch of invisible pilots carrying pamphlets to various stations and calling it a day.

What really sucks, in my opinion, is having a group of people in open that are actively trying to push a specific system a certain way, but are unable to do so since there can be dozens of players in Solo, their own little universe, stopping players in open.

I can understand wanting to play in solo, but Powerplay itself shouldn't be influenceable in Solo, is all I am trying to say. I know this has been brought up before, but is there any specific reason why it is?

Edit: I was also thinking, if this idea of mine of Powerplay in Solo is REALLY that desired, perhaps we can keep Powerplay in Solo and simply halve the merits and influence that players actions have in solo? That way they can still have an effect, however to be as efficient as possible, you would need to enter into Open!

Well I don't know if this is true for most PP soloers, but only reason I did PP was to get nice stuff. After that good bye PP. And yes I did it in solo to minimise costs.

 

[DemiserofD]

Ah, I see. In that case 5C is really fought via system weighting (i.e. at a mechanic level rather than via PvP) so that it takes more 5C deliveries than non 5C (at the expense of weaponized expansions).

I agree with with you here as well- the changes have to be a package otherwise there is no point to them. In isolation some are harmful even.

That's just it; they don't need to happen as a package, they CAN happen incrementally, it just has to be in the correct order. You can't buff open powerplay without making open dangerous first, but you can absolutely re-order powerplay with the intent of making it dangerous to do in open, and then, once that's done, make open more valuable.

Of course, that raises the question of ends and means. Your objective is to make open worth more, so you change powerplay to make it more dangerous in open to justify making open worth more, but now you've just changed two things to achieve a goal of dubious value. Isn't it possible that dev time would be better spent elsewhere?

The one thing we can agree on is that powerplay, as it currently stands, isn't an effective system. It's stagnant and doesn't particularly motivate the sort of conflict OR community it should theoretically produce.

But I'd argue that the best changes would be ones that motivate players to play together, not ones that motivate them to fight others. Players generally need no additional incentive to fight, but they do need motivation to form groups and friends. I think that, if the support for the average player to join were added, much of the rest would sort itself out in time. And even if it doesn't, at least powerplay will be in a better spot when it's finally changed to fix the other issues.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That's just it; they don't need to happen as a package, they CAN happen incrementally, it just has to be in the correct order. You can't buff open powerplay without making open dangerous first, but you can absolutely re-order powerplay with the intent of making it dangerous to do in open, and then, once that's done, make open more valuable.

Of course, that raises the question of ends and means. Your objective is to make open worth more, so you change powerplay to make it more dangerous in open to justify making open worth more, but now you've just changed two things to achieve a goal of dubious value. Isn't it possible that dev time would be better spent elsewhere?

The one thing we can agree on is that powerplay, as it currently stands, isn't an effective system. It's stagnant and doesn't particularly motivate the sort of conflict OR community it should theoretically produce.

But I'd argue that the best changes would be ones that motivate players to play together, not ones that motivate them to fight others. Players generally need no additional incentive to fight, but they do need motivation to form groups and friends. I think that, if the support for the average player to join were added, much of the rest would sort itself out in time. And even if it doesn't, at least powerplay will be in a better spot when it's finally changed to fix the other issues.

Some do have to happen together though, while others can happen at any time. For example, the vote on votes, weighting etc can happen at any time, before the Open focused changes. Its the tightly integrated changes that have most impact together (fort direction, mega UM, Open / weighting).

The objective is to reward (as is best possible) the effort of being in open. If the open focused changes happened danger would be much more apparent.

However, the reason for open in the first place is a failure of solo to present NPCs that offer danger thats enough to slow down (and thus break) the insane efficiency possible. Now, this is possible too (I've proposed several ideas that achieve that) but then the question falls on how much FD are willing to change. I'm assuming they are not going to start over but tinker at the edges, if thats the case then what Sandro proposed is the base minimum to expect that can change.

I have no opposition to better comms tools, I liked your idea about PP 'clubhouses' in capitals to foster 'belonging'. Where I diverge is the reason to play together. In Open you do play together as a team, making open more important makes that bond stronger in my view. At the same time I want really to make all modes important (as seen in my split mode idea) so that you have focused tasks inside modes.

 

[DemiserofD]

Some do have to happen together though, while others can happen at any time. For example, the vote on votes, weighting etc can happen at any time, before the Open focused changes. Its the tightly integrated changes that have most impact together (fort direction, mega UM, Open / weighting).

The objective is to reward (as is best possible) the effort of being in open. If the open focused changes happened danger would be much more apparent.

However, the reason for open in the first place is a failure of solo to present NPCs that offer danger thats enough to slow down (and thus break) the insane efficiency possible. Now, this is possible too (I've proposed several ideas that achieve that) but then the question falls on how much FD are willing to change. I'm assuming they are not going to start over but tinker at the edges, if thats the case then what Sandro proposed is the base minimum to expect that can change.

I have no opposition to better comms tools, I liked your idea about PP 'clubhouses' in capitals to foster 'belonging'. Where I diverge is the reason to play together. In Open you do play together as a team, making open more important makes that bond stronger in my view. At the same time I want really to make all modes important (as seen in my split mode idea) so that you have focused tasks inside modes.

The trouble is, there's functionally no difference between open and solo 99% of the time. So what if there aren't npc's that delay you in solo? There aren't any in Open, either, and the vast majority of the time, you won't face player opposition, either. You can't reward players in general for playing in Open when there's no additional risk in doing so.

You're trying to change this by focusing powerplay into a few specific systems, but why bother doing that when you're only doing it to increase the risk of playing in Open and thereby justify increasing the reward?

Basically, your chain of logic goes

Open is dangerous → Open should be rewarded more.

Only, Open isn't dangerous. So your chain becomes much more convoluted.

Open isn't dangerous → Open should be rewarded more → Open can't be rewarded more without being more dangerous → Open isn't dangerous → etc

This is a classic case of circular reasoning. You try to break it by making Open more dangerous, thereby justifying the rest of the logic, but that raises the question of, why?

 

[Rubbernuke]

The trouble is, there's functionally no difference between open and solo 99% of the time. So what if there aren't npc's that delay you in solo? There aren't any in Open, either, and the vast majority of the time, you won't face player opposition, either. You can't reward players in general for playing in Open when there's no additional risk in doing so.

You're trying to change this by focusing powerplay into a few specific systems, but why bother doing that when you're only doing it to increase the risk of playing in Open and thereby justify increasing the reward?

Basically, your chain of logic goes

Open is dangerous → Open should be rewarded more.

Only, Open isn't dangerous. So your chain becomes much more convoluted.

Open isn't dangerous → Open should be rewarded more → Open can't be rewarded more without being more dangerous → Open isn't dangerous → etc

This is a classic case of circular reasoning. You try to break it by making Open more dangerous, thereby justifying the rest of the logic, but that raises the question of, why?

The problem with NPCs in Powerplay is that the underpinning structure of where they lurk does not scale well to how Powerplay works. NPCs are also cripplingly predictable.

Its why in my mode agnostic suggestion I remove fixed point to point hauling, allowing NPCs to roam and stations taken out of the equation on the return leg.

And there is the potential (the chance of which increases depending on who and where you fight) of encountering a dangerous player. You either gamble a min / max ship or have to compromise and hedge your bets. In solo you can bet 100% on a min max ship, and remove the element of opposition.

Condensing Open is good for gameplay (since it means actions have actual repercussions at a higher strategic level) so outcomes are less certain in lieu of NPC inability.

Open is dangerous → Open should be rewarded more.

Only, Open isn't dangerous. So your chain becomes much more convoluted.

Open isn't dangerous → Open should be rewarded more → Open can't be rewarded more without being more dangerous → Open isn't dangerous → etc

This is a classic case of circular reasoning. You try to break it by making Open more dangerous, thereby justifying the rest of the logic, but that raises the question of, why?

You are conflating issues.

1: Open mode (and risking more) has to be worth more, because in solo you are risking less and gaining the same advantage. Open you risk PP NPC RNG, other pledges and other players (such as from PMFs). Thats far more potential danger to take into account.

Your mistake in your statement is assuming Open is not dangerous- it is more dangerous, depending on the situation which is not fixed. You can be totally safe in Open in Powerplay in one place, and guaranteed to be turned inside out in others. But you can't assume you'll be safe. Merit weighting is crude but assumes a median reward, while pure Open only (in whole or in part) makes sucess depending on survival, which is more representative. But for it to be representative you need to limit how players interact.

2: Making Open the defacto way of doing the legwork makes real time team based PvP relevant and have an impact on the outcome (which is not the case with solo). Its why I want it for the delivery / CZ PvE part, because its here where disruption actually hurts. It also dovetails into the above.

 

[DemiserofD]

The problem with NPCs in Powerplay is that the underpinning structure of where they lurk does not scale well to how Powerplay works. NPCs are also cripplingly predictable.

Its why in my mode agnostic suggestion I remove fixed point to point hauling, allowing NPCs to roam and stations taken out of the equation on the return leg.

And there is the potential (the chance of which increases depending on who and where you fight) of encountering a dangerous player. You either gamble a min / max ship or have to compromise and hedge your bets. In solo you can bet 100% on a min max ship, and remove the element of opposition.

Condensing Open is good for gameplay (since it means actions have actual repercussions at a higher strategic level) so outcomes are less certain in lieu of NPC inability.


You are conflating issues.

1: Open mode (and risking more) has to be worth more, because in solo you are risking less and gaining the same advantage. Open you risk PP NPC RNG, other pledges and other players (such as from PMFs). Thats far more potential danger to take into account.

Your mistake in your statement is assuming Open is not dangerous- it is more dangerous, depending on the situation which is not fixed. You can be totally safe in Open in Powerplay in one place, and guaranteed to be turned inside out in others. But you can't assume you'll be safe. Merit weighting is crude but assumes a median reward, while pure Open only (in whole or in part) makes sucess depending on survival, which is more representative. But for it to be representative you need to limit how players interact.

2: Making Open the defacto way of doing the legwork makes real time team based PvP relevant and have an impact on the outcome (which is not the case with solo). Its why I want it for the delivery / CZ PvE part, because its here where disruption actually hurts. It also dovetails into the above.

Again, the potential for danger does not imply the existence of danger. I've talked with several people I know who do powerplay exclusively in open, and the number of times they've actually died as a result, in years of play, can be counted on the fingers on one hand.

So you cannot claim that open is significantly more dangerous than solo.

Every other change you propose is based on this incorrect assumption, but it's just not true.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Again, the potential for danger does not imply the existence of danger. I've talked with several people I know who do powerplay exclusively in open, and the number of times they've actually died as a result, in years of play, can be counted on the fingers on one hand.

And you mistake destruction equaling everything. Its not just that, its coming across other ships that can stop you, or slow you down enough to affect the outcome in a fixed period of time. Its why I have it in for NPCs, because they can never do this while players can. And while some powers rarely fight, there are others that rip each other to shreds each week. I can remember fighting ZYADA- one week it was Grom who we hardly saw, the next was ALD players who came at us and did not stop.

So you cannot claim that open is significantly more dangerous than solo.

Well lets look at it on paper? Solo has RNG NPCs with no engineering, no special weapons who are not persistent or organised. Hell, even the the most fearsome (defection police) don't even have interdictors. Compare that to players, full engineering, persistent, organised. Which is the more potent?

Every other change you propose is premeditated by this incorrect assumption, but it's just not true.

And like I said before, Powerplay is not a uniform risk. Some places will be quiet. Others (such as expansions, capitals of certain powers) will be hairy places to fly though. My own capital has two hostile PMFs near it, Imperial pledges who KOS any Kumo pledge.

The above is even before we bring in Sandros changes, that condense the feature down even more. Uncapped UM for example forces you to defend while others attack. Unifed fort direction makes capitals a choke point. If you have one power who needs to fortify to generate CC they have to ensure they are fortified in good time- if thats disrupted the chance of turmoil is much higher.

 

[DemiserofD]

And you mistake destruction equaling everything. Its not just that, its coming across other ships that can stop you, or slow you down enough to affect the outcome in a fixed period of time. Its why I have it in for NPCs, because they can never do this while players can. And while some powers rarely fight, there are others that rip each other to shreds each week. I can remember fighting ZYADA- one week it was Grom who we hardly saw, the next was ALD players who came at us and did not stop.


Well lets look at it on paper? Solo has RNG NPCs with no engineering, no special weapons who are not persistent or organised. Hell, even the the most fearsome (defection police) don't even have interdictors. Compare that to players, full engineering, persistent, organised. Which is the more potent?

And like I said before, Powerplay is not a uniform risk. Some places will be quiet. Others (such as expansions, capitals of certain powers) will be hairy places to fly though. My own capital has two hostile PMFs near it, Imperial pledges who KOS any Kumo pledge.

The above is even before we bring in Sandros changes, that condense the feature down even more. Uncapped UM for example forces you to defend while others attack. Unifed fort direction makes capitals a choke point. If you have one power who needs to fortify to generate CC they have to ensure they are fortified in good time- if thats disrupted the chance of turmoil is much higher.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense.

You can't reward players universally for danger that exists only in a tiny number of places. You could with the exact same reasoning say that all open players should get, say, doubled mission rewards, because of the risks posed by gankers. But gankers only play in a very small number of locations, so rewarding players for something they will very rarely if ever encounter just doesn't make any sense.

The vast majority of players in powerplay won't encounter enemy players at all. Not even talking about death here, even though death is little more than a slap on the wrist in this game.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense.

You can't reward players universally for danger that exists only in a tiny number of places.

Its why I said weighting is crude in comparison to open only (in whole or in part), along with the changes outlined. Less places = greater amount of players.

You could with the exact same reasoning say that all open players should get, say, doubled mission rewards, because of the risks posed by gankers. But gankers only play in a very small number of locations, so rewarding players for something they will very rarely if ever encounter just doesn't make any sense.

Its why Powerplay was considered to be condensed down, and that features like uncapped UM funnel players even more to pressurize groups.

The vast majority of players in powerplay won't encounter enemy players at all. Not even talking about death here, even though death is little more than a slap on the wrist in this game.

The other thing to remember is that some powers don't fight because they don't have to. Its why I say Powerplay is dysfunctional, because it was supposed to be sink or swim with other powers tripping you up. Right now Powers can stand still and not get involved at all.

 

[DemiserofD]

Its why I said weighting is crude in comparison to open only (in whole or in part), along with the changes outlined. Less places = greater amount of players.


Its why Powerplay was considered to be condensed down, and that features like uncapped UM funnel players even more to pressurize groups.

The other thing to remember is that some powers don't fight because they don't have to. Its why I say Powerplay is dysfunctional, because it was supposed to be sink or swim with other powers tripping you up. Right now Powers can stand still and not get involved at all.

If you want players rewarded for risk, I'm all for that. Reward players for actual risk, for actually encountering and being attacked by enemy players. But you cannot reasonably claim that open is inherently dangerous when even players participating in powerplay exclusively in open for long periods of time face zero significant danger.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions to justify the changes you want. But when you get right down to it, you're making changes entirely to justify making changes, and not necessarily in a way that's best for powerplay or the game as a whole.

 

[DaveB]

It's amazing the loops of pretzel logic folks try to use to justify why their preferred play stye should be the dominant one. Personally, sometimes I'm up for PvP and sometimes I'm not and I'm fine with the fact that E: D allows me the full spectrum of game mechanics either way.

But, the bottom line is this... We knew, going in, that PvP was always going to be an optional component of anything in the game, that we could take it or leave it as we chose. It's been openly and specifically designed that way with PvP - or the risk thereof - not having any impact on the persistent galaxy or the effects we can have upon it.

I appreciate that there are folks out there in the playerbase who are much better at blowing up other player's ships than I am and who feel that their superior skills are not recognised by the games mechanics. But the question they face is not "how should the game change to accommodate my desires?" It is "Is the fact that this game doesn't do that a dealbreaker?"

If it is, then nobody is going to to demand they continue to play a game they don't like. If it isn't then just suck it up and play the game rather than trying to turn it into a different one.

 

[DemiserofD]

It's amazing the loops of pretzel logic folks try to use to justify why their preferred play stye should be the dominant one. Personally, sometimes I'm up for PvP and sometimes I'm not and I'm fine with the fact that E: D allows me the full spectrum of game mechanics either way.

But, the bottom line is this... We knew, going in, that PvP was always going to be an optional component of anything in the game, that we could take it or leave it as we chose. It's been openly and specifically designed that way with PvP - or the risk thereof - not having any impact on the persistent galaxy or the effects we can have upon it.

I appreciate that there are folks out there in the playerbase who are much better at blowing up other player's ships than I am and who feel that their superior skills are not recognised by the games mechanics. But the question they face is not "how should the game change to accommodate my desires?" It is "Is the fact that this game doesn't do that a dealbreaker?"

If it is, then nobody is going to to demand they continue to play a game they don't like. If it isn't then just suck it up and play the game rather than trying to turn it into a different one.

I think that the feelings, if nothing else, are valid. People who like pvp feel like they're disconnected from the game, which in a real sense, they are. But I also think people latch onto the wrong reasons for this, and then come to invalid conclusions trying to solve these perceived problems.

I'd like to see pvp revamped to make it a more valid aspect of various parts of the game. If players want to pvp in Community Goals, for example, there should be more to it than just killing helpless noobs for kicks, like right now. It should reward players for killing other players, but in such a way that encourages them to kill players near their own skill level.

Powerplay could easily apply a similar system. Having the best pvpers in your team should be an aspect of play - not a dominant aspect, like some would like, but an aspect that plays a role. If another team doesn't have as good of pvpers, they should have to counteract them in different ways. For example, if you could spend CC on other things than expansion, you might purchase an ATR response in certain systems, so they show up in short order and assist the members of your team, evening the odds of success.

 

[Rubbernuke]

If you want players rewarded for risk, I'm all for that. Reward players for actual risk, for actually encountering and being attacked by enemy players. But you cannot reasonably claim that open is inherently dangerous when even players participating in powerplay exclusively in open for long periods of time face zero significant danger.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions to justify the changes you want. But when you get right down to it, you're making changes entirely to justify making changes, and not necessarily in a way that's best for powerplay or the game as a whole.

Again, it depends on which Power you are with, and when-those powers that do fight will see more danger in the places that are strategically important. Its because there are so many ways to sidestep that we have a feature that has entered heat death, with no real moves left to drive the feature so there is more to fight over. Right now you can sit back because there is no drive to survive, with it being too easy to defend and keep your gains- its easy to be neutral when you are not under pressure to make choices.

But you cannot reasonably claim that open is inherently dangerous when even players participating in powerplay exclusively in open for long periods of time face zero significant danger.

You seem to think this is universally true, its not. Play in a Federal Power or the Kumo for example and see how you go. If all powers fought to survive (as was intended) and push each other down there would be fewer 'safe' places because everyone would have more to lose. The uncapped UM proposal for example makes any system a magnet for attack that draws more players in.

I think that the feelings, if nothing else, are valid. People who like pvp feel like they're disconnected from the game, which in a real sense, they are. But I also think people latch onto the wrong reasons for this, and then come to invalid conclusions trying to solve these perceived problems.

I'd like to see pvp revamped to make it a more valid aspect of various parts of the game. If players want to pvp in Community Goals, for example, there should be more to it than just killing helpless noobs for kicks, like right now. It should reward players for killing other players, but in such a way that encourages them to kill players near their own skill level.

Powerplay could easily apply a similar system. Having the best pvpers in your team should be an aspect of play - not a dominant aspect, like some would like, but an aspect that plays a role. If another team doesn't have as good of pvpers, they should have to counteract them in different ways. For example, if you could spend CC on other things than expansion, you might purchase an ATR response in certain systems, so they show up in short order and assist the members of your team, evening the odds of success.

The reasons are easy, you have three modes that operate at different levels. Hauling is easy in solo (absence of enemies to slow you), PG is best for wing merits (with no opposition) while Open has everything possible. The main thrust of any design is to either untangle these incompatible threads or design a system that sidesteps the problems. Its possible- you can read the ones I came up with here and elsewhere. None of them exclude any mode- the one being most radical ironically being based on the devs own proposal but adding a whole new PvE mission based section for solo and PG.

In the end its really down to what you want Powerplay to 'be' and to offer. Open only (in whole or in part) is really removing abstractions and making everything close to 1:1 as possible, something that is different to the BGS. You can do that in whole (as Sandro suggested) or in part by making the delivery / combat expansion part Open ( as I put forward, i.e. in part) and making the Solo aspect totally mission driven (which then actually has NPCs that can have a difficulty curve).

What you don't want is anything that relies on voting that is coupled with value- thats how 5C has so much power. Its why the BGS is 5C proof, because this link does not exist.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-in-solo.565581/page-9#post-8961161 for example is one way to make Solo PvE actually representative of the risk (the PvP aspect is less well thought through, however).

 

[DemiserofD]

You seem to think this is universally true, its not. Play in a Federal Power or the Kumo for example and see how you go. If all powers fought to survive (as was intended) and push each other down there would be fewer 'safe' places because everyone would have more to lose. The uncapped UM proposal for example makes any system a magnet for attack that draws more players in.

It's exactly because it's NOT universally true that your argument holds no weight. You want players to be rewarded for the maximum possible risk, which isn't logical. Players, if they should be rewarded at all, should be rewarded for the average risk.

Which as anyone who plays in Open will tell you, is very, very low 99% of the time. You cannot justify rewards based on danger under the current system, as on average, it just isn't very dangerous.

Not unless you tie those rewards DIRECTLY to threat, as in ACTUALLY being attacked.

Let me repeat this in case I wasn't clear.

Open is not any more dangerous than Solo 99% of the time. Therefore, any reward for playing in Open should also be virtually zero 99% of the time.

That is, if you really care about danger, and not just rewarding players for being in Open for no reason, which increasingly seems to be the case the more you dodge around this inescapable point.

 

[Bashy81]

It's exactly because it's NOT universally true that your argument holds no weight. You want players to be rewarded for the maximum possible risk, which isn't logical. Players, if they should be rewarded at all, should be rewarded for the average risk.

Which as anyone who plays in Open will tell you, is very, very low 99% of the time. You cannot justify rewards based on danger under the current system, as on average, it just isn't very dangerous.

Not unless you tie those rewards DIRECTLY to threat, as in ACTUALLY being attacked.

Let me repeat this in case I wasn't clear.

Open is not any more dangerous than Solo 99% of the time. Therefore, any reward for playing in Open should also be virtually zero 99% of the time.

That is, if you really care about danger, and not just rewarding players for being in Open for no reason, which increasingly seems to be the case the more you dodge around this inescapable point.

You miss the point entirely. Firstly, weighted merits are the least favourable of the 3 main solutions discussed here. Secondly, if we're talking about weighted merits, sigh, its not about reward-per-risk based on some spurious % u may put on it. Weighted merits are to incentivise players to stay in Open not only when it seems low-risk, but also when the going gets tough.

With a weighting effect incentive for playing in Open (all personally-received merits & benefits would be fine remaining the same across the modes) Players are incentivised to take otherwise suboptimal measures to succeed, such as coordinating with teammates to break a blockade, or using hybrid / survivable builds to get through, leading to the opposition adapting their tactics to overcome that in return.

And so it creates a 'Battle of the Atlantic' scenario where tactics and strategies have space to evolve, and Powerplay transcends from the much lamented simplistic grind, into the kind of emergent gameplay the devs always wax lyrical about.

This isnt theorycrafting based on wishful fantasy, we've had good tasters of it, but it is always crippled by the overwhelming incentive to opt-out of opposition when the going gets tough, and simply drop to solo/pg for the sake of efficiency.

It is absolutely not about rewarding people for damage taken or even risk: That is just the method. it is about what ive already explained, and about balancing incentives so that, at the very least, the optimal choice isnt always the easiest choice, always achieved before even entering the game.
Particularly because that choice comes at such a cost to teamplay in a game feature that is fundamentally about teamplay, in many forms.