Powerplay in Solo

[DemiserofD]

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.

That's not the argument. If your argument is "players should play in open more", then my response is going to be "no", and we sit at a brick wall forever because your argument is based purely on personal opinion. Why should I care about players taking sub-optimal paths? Why is that better for me? It's better for you, because you get to fight and kill to your heart's content. But it does absolutely nothing for me, so naturally I will fight against it tooth and nail until the cows come home, and you can't prove me wrong because the only arguments are based on what we like, not what's good.

Which is why the actual argument that has been thrown around is 'Open is more dangerous, and therefore should pay more'. This is, in theory, a solid argument based on gameplay balance, something we can actually quantify beyond 'like' and 'dislike'.

Except its fundamental presuppositions aren't true. Open is not dangerous. You can't have things both ways; you can't reward EVERYONE for the MAXIMUM danger they could possibly face, because 99% of the time that danger is never realized. The only way you can have that sort of reward is if you only get it when you actually face danger - IE, when you actually get attacked. (I'd like to point out that I support an idea like this. If players were heavily rewarded for being attacked, then it would solve the problem perfectly. But apparently, this isn't an acceptable solution?) The ONLY other choice is that players are rewarded based on their overall risk, which as anyone who plays in Open can tell you, is very, very low the vast majority of the time. Which means the reward would be far too small to matter.

And then, when you have people proposing the game be changed to make open powerplay more dangerous, just to justify changes to make it also be more rewarding, you end up making massive changes specifically to benefit a portion of the playerbase while alienating another part, and that will never fly, because those players bought the same game as you, and have the same rights to it as you.

Fundamentally, you're asking for the game to change to suit your desires, while they want it to stay the same, and given that you both have equal rights as owners of the game, the default position is always going to be 'no change'. Which is exactly what has happened for the past two years.

What needs to happen are suggestions made that improve the quality of the game in ways that please both parties. This does not require the alienation of a significant portion of the playerbase to succeed, and could in fact encourage transition to Open play by making players want to play there, rather than by making them feel forced to play there.

Which won't work, anyway, because it's ultimately a game, not a job. People will quit long before they play a game they fundamentally don't enjoy.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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.

In Open, you have to anticipate risk, and either chance using a cheap ship or invest more time, money and materials into a better one- in short you price in danger at this level. My argument makes total sense, since you can never know what you face 100%, so you have to prepare since who you face has equal access to the same things you do.

Powerplay has no average risk, because thats not how it works, its chance encounters (with that chance increasing or decreasing depending on where you are). You are conflating the idea of merit weighting (which is a generic uplift) with separating out Open (which has no linked bonus). The latter is done to simplify how powers interact in this phase, and belongs to a totally separate idea.

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.

Weighting certainly- but then it would go hand in hand with the changes described. Plus you sidestep Powerplay runs by its own rules- it has ways of making areas 'hot' at random with dangerous meta ships.

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

Which is a fair point, because if you could do that you could apply it to all modes. But again thats not possible with the current setup, because you need to reward kills (but in a way thats not exploitable) but also reward escapes. You can't do that in Powerplay since there is no set CZ like situation, and would require set teams. At most (as what we have now) you reward at the point of delivery or by stopping the oppositions plans. Its not ideal, but with a free form setup like we have its the only application possible.

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.

Open generally is 'safe' when you prepare for it, and when you can use the advantage of going to random places. Powerplay inverts that by having fixed places you have to go or fly through. The mooted changes further restrict that- so you have to go to one place. Uncapped UM means you have to go to the system under attack to save it. Prep races over the same places (which would be a thing since more territory would be free) would be dangerous since you have the option of destroying those who deliver there (or them you). The changes make fighting more common, and increase the chances of conflict because you can't hide behind maths, consolidation etc.

And really, weighting open is more about solo and its inept NPCs. Having random player danger is light years above the comical NPCs. Its why I posted that suggestion which would sort the problem out by actually having set missions. But it seems you did not read it to get that point.

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.

Er, I demonstrate how hung up I am by posting an idea to even PvE danger in solo at a base level.....okay. Or that I post several other ideas that don't have weighting or split modes in them (admittedly several pages back).

 

[DemiserofD]

Powerplay has no average risk

its chance encounters

This is the only thing I'm going to reply to, because it's pretty much the assumption upon which the rest of your response is contingent.

You can always tabulate an average risk. In point of fact, this is precisely what averages are for. Calculating chances! You take every player doing open powerplay over the entire amount of time powerplay has existed, and calculate how often they face setbacks. This will give you a virtually perfect average of exactly how dangerous it actually is.

But you don't need that to know that, since you can just use a general approximation of the average player's experience, and for the vast majority of cases, that danger is very low.

Your entire argument is dependent on the idea that open is dangerous, but open is not dangerous.

 

[Rubbernuke]

You can always tabulate an average risk. In point of fact, this is precisely what averages are for. Calculating chances! You take every player doing open powerplay over the entire amount of time powerplay has existed, and calculate how often they face setbacks. This will give you a virtually perfect average of exactly how dangerous it actually is.

But you don't need that to know that, since you can just use a general approximation of the average player's experience, and for the vast majority of cases, that danger is very low.

Your entire argument is dependent on the idea that open is dangerous, but open is not dangerous.

This is the only thing I'm going to reply to, because it's pretty much the assumption upon which the rest of your response is contingent.

Weighting certainly. But as I said in the last reply, don't mix that with making segements open only which have no reward. The ideas are separate.

I'm only going from my own experiences of conflict from Powerplay- where powers that do fight, seek you out and stop you. I would not have written it otherwise.

How do you tabulate average risk then in Powerplay, where ships (in design and number), players (pledges and PMFs), territory, rules, NPCs (sometimes) are in constant flux? Its why I said no average exists, because things can change in each run.

I'm all for rewarding, I mention it in the proposal I posted, but thats the only possible way of doing it with what we have currently (flaws and all).

 

[Bashy81]

That's not the argument. If your argument is "players should play in open more", then my response is going to be "no", and we sit at a brick wall forever because your argument is based purely on personal opinion. Why should I care about players taking sub-optimal paths? Why is that better for me? It's better for you, because you get to fight and kill to your heart's content. But it does absolutely nothing for me, so naturally I will fight against it tooth and nail until the cows come home, and you can't prove me wrong because the only arguments are based on what we like, not what's good.

youre not the gatekeeper, thankfully. btw, who 'are' you in the context of this discussion. ive lost that along the way. What is your stake in all this? for the moment im going to assume you are a solo powerplayer, as thats the position your posts infer. A solo powerplayer at present has an inherent advantage: Fact
Solo players are myopic to that for the most part, not least because it is very convenient for them to be blind to their advantages. Fact is, youre not going to be happy with any changes worth a damn, because they need to address that natural imbalance between modes.
Since you are happy with an unfair status-quo, you are not going to be happy with any solution to the problem.

Which is why the actual argument that has been thrown around is 'Open is more dangerous, and therefore should pay more'. This is, in theory, a solid argument based on gameplay balance, something we can actually quantify beyond 'like' and 'dislike'.

its a fair enough peripheral argument, it helps explain the imbalance to those unfamiliar with Powerplay and the dynamics between playergroups.

Except its fundamental presuppositions aren't true. Open is not dangerous. You can't have things both ways; you can't reward EVERYONE for the MAXIMUM danger they could possibly face, because 99% of the time that danger is never realized. The only way you can have that sort of reward is if you only get it when you actually face danger - IE, when you actually get attacked. (I'd like to point out that I support an idea like this. If players were heavily rewarded for being attacked, then it would solve the problem perfectly. But apparently, this isn't an acceptable solution?) The ONLY other choice is that players are rewarded based on their overall risk, which as anyone who plays in Open can tell you, is very, very low the vast majority of the time. Which means the reward would be far too small to matter.

youve had many explanations why this is garbage, but i'll give you another angle which may get through to you. So youve heard anecdotally from a few powerplayers that Open Powerplay isnt dangerous most of the time and theyve only had a few rebuys. Presumably they were trying to coax you into Open as its not so bad afterall, lol. What they may have neglected to tell you, while trying to allay your fears, is that if they had not taken mitigating action, with builds reducing cargo capacity ( and thus efficiency) and hi-waked on many occasion, then they would have been destroyed many dozens or hundreds of times. if theyd blithely carried on like you could in solo, at maximum efficiency, and in a way that allows maximum staying-power ingame, then they wouldve died a lot. Ive known players for years in my Power's playergroup who take approaches near both extremes. Some just plow on and take their losses as an occupational hazard, only taking mitigating action in the face of repeated attack, others avoid it where possible and fly shielded all the time, and switch to a combat build ASAP to take on the attackers directly. Those that for the most part, just Carry On and Keep Hauling, can count their deaths in the dozens or even hundreds. That is an efficiency bottle-neck lol

It isnt really about danger so much as what that means for efficiency, and that is where the unfairness lies between modes.

And then, when you have people proposing the game be changed to make open powerplay more dangerous, just to justify changes to make it also be more rewarding, you end up making massive changes specifically to benefit a portion of the playerbase while alienating another part, and that will never fly, because those players bought the same game as you, and have the same rights to it as

you do not have an inherent right to an unfair advantage, just because you've had an unfair advantage up to now. It is particularly perverse as Powerplay is a natural fit for playing in Open, (as Sandro pointed out in the preamble to his flash-topic) and yet Solo/PG are the most effective modes to participate in Powerplay in.

What needs to happen are suggestions made that improve the quality of the game in ways that please both parties

No, as ive said above, youre never going to be happy with a fair solution as youve internalised your unfair advantage as your' 'right'. Hopefully one day you see things differently, but in the mean time your pleasure is not a requirement of an adequate fix for Powerplay. In fact, given your obstinate hardline stance on the imbalances, your displeasure is a requirement, sadly. More even-minded players in your cohort will not feel so alienated, thankfully, as you see from many of the comments from them in the flash topics.

This does not require the alienation of a significant portion of the playerbase to succeed, and could in fact encourage transition to Open play by making players want to play there, rather than by making them feel forced to play there.

Which won't work, anyway, because it's ultimately a game, not a job. People will quit long before they play a game they fundamentally don't enjoy.

Thats not how games work. you will always feel forced to do things at times, it creates the need to overcome obstacles, and difficulty. have you met engineering grind at all, or guardian grind? if youve never felt forced to do something in ED at times, or any every other game for that matter, then you mustve always been playing dopamine-drip pay2win on mobile, or youre simply setting an unrealistic bar in this case to preserve your opposition to having your perverse advantage get a balance-pass.
And what is this 'Powerplay is a game not a job' nonsense. Have you ever even pledged? Try leading a group sometime, it is absolutely a job and youre lucky if you get any game out of it at all, lol. That same applies to all large groups in the BGS, canon, fuel rats & so on. You cant organise and be there when your players need you if you arent professional about it, ie. treat it like a job.

What we could definitely use in Powerplay to help with that, is more intuitve info available via galmap so the average/random player can have a more meaningful view and therefore input on strategy, as at present they almost always go for the short-term impact which is a long-term disaster, and for the most part have no idea theyre doing it, or the consequences.

That is a mutual benefit. Will you see it that way? Probly not when you have your precious modes advantage to defend..

 

[DaveB]

In Open, you have to anticipate risk, and either chance using a cheap ship or invest more time, money and materials into a better one- in short you price in danger at this level. My argument makes total sense, since you can never know what you face 100%, so you have to prepare since who you face has equal access to the same things you do.

Now, I'll admit up front that I'm NOT the typical target of many of the arguments about "hiding in solo" or however a poster might choose to phrase it, but I've never NOT built my ships in that way - From the earliest alpha and beta days I have NEVER flown an unarmed or unshielded ship. When I built a trader it was built with enough tankiness to run away and/or enough teeth to minimise a pirate's profit even if he "won" and got some goods out of the expanding cloud of debris that used to be my ship. I would quietly chuckle at the tales of woe posted on here from players that did that as much as any hardcore PvPer. I play in all modes, so whatever mode I happen to be in when building out a ship I'm assuming that at some point I will be flying it in open.

It's just that for a completely different reason open is not where I spend the majority of my time.

For me it's not about risk, it's about who I'm willing to play with, about whether certain folks are online at the time, about where my head is at in that particular moment.

I'm a member of quite a few PGs. One is "RL mates only" and most definitely doesn't ban PvP, I think we've killed each other at least as often as we've winged up and worked on something else. Several are 'net-buddies from various contexts who all happen to also be E: D players.

I spend more of my time in those PGs not because I want to avoid the risk of unexpected PvP but because in any particular group we're all on the same discord server, whether we're "on the same side" or even "in the same place" or not. Emergent stuff happens. "Hey, looks like Fred needs some help. Anyone else up for giving him a hand? - I'll be jumping my carrier to his location in a few minutes..... " or when PvP happens the responses on the vox channel are more like "You sneaky sod, I need payback now...." than the puerile comments you often see in game chat. It's just a better play environment for us than open would be because of the built-in respect that comes from knowing each other in other contexts than in E: D

At the same time I've been known to have a "bad day at the office" and just drop into open and go looking for casual PvP....

This is the huge benefit to the modes and matchmaking in ED that the proponents of benefiting one mode over another are - maybe unintentionally - seeking to destroy. That you can always choose who you are willing to play with at any given time and the effectiveness of your play on any part of the persistent galaxy will not change as a result. I genuinely get the arguments about "risk" or about the way folks who focus on PvP may feel slighted by that design because of the way it makes it possible for folks who don't want to engage with them to not engage with them... but you can't have both. The two are entirely mutually exclusive. This was FDs design decision. For me, much as I enjoy PvP when I'm in the mood for it and with the right people, it was a good one. This, on a purely selfish level, is why I will never stop opposing any move to differentiate between the modes as anything more than what they are now, directives to the matchmaking code about who you wish to be instanced with.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Now, I'll admit up front that I'm NOT the typical target of many of the arguments about "hiding in solo" or however a poster might choose to phrase it, but I've never NOT built my ships in that way - From the earliest alpha and beta days I have NEVER flown an unarmed or unshielded ship. When I built a trader it was built with enough tankiness to run away and/or enough teeth to minimise a pirate's profit even if he "won" and got some goods out of the expanding cloud of debris that used to be my ship. I would quietly chuckle at the tales of woe posted on here from players that did that as much as any hardcore PvPer. I play in all modes, so whatever mode I happen to be in when building out a ship I'm assuming that at some point I will be flying it in open.

It's just that for a completely different reason open is not where I spend the majority of my time.

For me it's not about risk, it's about who I'm willing to play with, about whether certain folks are online at the time, about where my head is at in that particular moment.

I'm a member of quite a few PGs. One is "RL mates only" and most definitely doesn't ban PvP, I think we've killed each other at least as often as we've winged up and worked on something else. Several are 'net-buddies from various contexts who all happen to also be E: D players.

I spend more of my time in those PGs not because I want to avoid the risk of unexpected PvP but because in any particular group we're all on the same discord server, whether we're "on the same side" or even "in the same place" or not. Emergent stuff happens. "Hey, looks like Fred needs some help. Anyone else up for giving him a hand? - I'll be jumping my carrier to his location in a few minutes..... " or when PvP happens the responses on the vox channel are more like "You sneaky sod, I need payback now...." than the puerile comments you often see in game chat. It's just a better play environment for us than open would be because of the built-in respect that comes from knowing each other in other contexts than in E.

At the same time I've been known to have a "bad day at the office" and just drop into open and go looking for casual PvP....

This is the huge benefit to the modes and matchmaking in ED that the proponents of benefiting one mode over another are - maybe unintentionally - seeking to destroy. That you can always choose who you are willing to play with at any given time and the effectiveness of your play on any part of the persistent galaxy will not change as a result. I genuinely get the arguments about "risk" or about the way folks who focus on PvP may feel slighted by that design because of the way it makes it possible for folks who don't want to engage with them to not engage with them... but you can't have both. The two are entirely mutually exclusive. This was FDs design decision. For me, much as I enjoy PvP when I'm in the mood for it and with the right people, it was a good one. This, on a purely selfish level, is why I will never stop opposing any move to differentiate between the modes as anything more than what they are now, directives to the matchmaking code about who you wish to be instanced with.

And thats cool- I honestly want Powerplay in all modes, but done in a way that does not undercut each other. The problem in Powerplay is that solo allows easy hauling, which makes supporting large areas of control easy (meaning less instability).

The issue in Powerplay is one of opposition, be it NPC or player- currently only other players are capable enough to provide it. Design in risk via PvE and you are a fair way to making Powerplay better though- its not impossible. The bigger issue is how much FD are willing to change. For example: one of my ideas was is that you create solo and PG sections of powerplay that generate merits (i.e. merits are not infinite- only players can 'make' them) and that people in open deliver them- in essence becoming the NPCs we never have to chase people about. Another idea made hauling cargo amounts equate to risk (i.e. large cargo = more / harder NPCs to deal with). This approach works too, since you remove the RNG of NPCs and price in risk, and use mission stacking to make that risk more.

 

[DaveB]

And thats cool- I honestly want Powerplay in all modes, but done in a way that does not undercut each other. The problem in Powerplay is that solo allows easy hauling, which makes supporting large areas of control easy (meaning less instability).

The issue in Powerplay is one of opposition, be it NPC or player- currently only other players are capable enough to provide it. Design in risk via PvE and you are a fair way to making Powerplay better though- its not impossible. The bigger issue is how much FD are willing to change. For example: one of my ideas was is that you create solo and PG sections of powerplay that generate merits (i.e. merits are not infinite- only players can 'make' them) and that people in open deliver them- in essence becoming the NPCs we never have to chase people about. Another idea made hauling cargo amounts equate to risk (i.e. large cargo = more / harder NPCs to deal with). This approach works too, since you remove the RNG of NPCs and price in risk, and use mission stacking to make that risk more.

And there are ways FD can acknowledge the high skill levels required to be effective in PvP without ever touching the matchmaking or other underlying mechanics. There are combat bonds, there are bounties. Turning these in impacts BGS, CGs - maybe even powerplay too, I have only rarely dipped my toe into that swamp so I don;t recall for certain - And their impact is all based on their value. I'd have zero objection to bond/bounty vouchers having a significant multiple attached to their value if earned against a player rather than an NPC. You get this amount of credits as a combat bond for blowing up that ship at that rank in a CZ, make it X times as much if it was a hollow icon as well. I know that something like this will attract whingers about credit farming, like two players in cheap ships hitting a CZ and continually taking turns to blow each other up but seriously? credit farming? After all the mining bonanzas - that horse is already out of the barn and let's face it, players will always find a way to game the meta. It's how the best PvP ship builds have happened!

What you don't change is the impact on anything from "a ship got blown up or didn't" - there can be no difference in the result for the persistent galaxy from a ship making it to its destination unopposed in solo or in "open but just not instanced with the opposition", because to the underlying game engine there is no difference.

 

[Rubbernuke]

And there are ways FD can acknowledge the high skill levels required to be effective in PvP without ever touching the matchmaking or other underlying mechanics. There are combat bonds, there are bounties. Turning these in impacts BGS, CGs - maybe even powerplay too, I have only rarely dipped my toe into that swamp so I don;t recall for certain - And their impact is all based on their value. I'd have zero objection to bond/bounty vouchers having a significant multiple attached to their value if earned against a player rather than an NPC. You get this amount of credits as a combat bond for blowing up that ship at that rank in a CZ, make it X times as much if it was a hollow icon as well. I know that something like this will attract whingers about credit farming, like two players in cheap ships hitting a CZ and continually taking turns to blow each other up but seriously? credit farming? After all the mining bonanzas - that horse is already out of the barn and let's face it, players will always find a way to game the meta. It's how the best PvP ship builds have happened!

What you don't change is the impact on anything from "a ship got blown up or didn't" - there can be no difference in the result for the persistent galaxy from a ship making it to its destination unopposed in solo or in "open but just not instanced with the opposition", because to the underlying game engine there is no difference.

And thats what FD need to sort out, the game loop. Currently its go to a place, generate merits (or buy them) and go to another place and drop them off. The gaps between are the problem, because its too efficent in two modes when it should be much harder- the upshot being if those merits don't arrive then your power has met a setback. Its why solo PvE opposition is a key part of the issue, it needs to be more apparent to make deliveries much less routine. There is very little pressure on Powers here, when there should be a lot more.

 

[DemiserofD]

Weighting certainly. But as I said in the last reply, don't mix that with making segements open only which have no reward. The ideas are separate.

I'm only going from my own experiences of conflict from Powerplay- where powers that do fight, seek you out and stop you. I would not have written it otherwise.

How do you tabulate average risk then in Powerplay, where ships (in design and number), players (pledges and PMFs), territory, rules, NPCs (sometimes) are in constant flux? Its why I said no average exists, because things can change in each run.

I'm all for rewarding, I mention it in the proposal I posted, but thats the only possible way of doing it with what we have currently (flaws and all).

Trouble is, most of the time powers aren't actively fighting. Neither one of us could calculate the average risk, because we don't have access to the stats that Fdev do, but they can do it fairly easily. Just find the total amount of time players spend with merits in their hold and then find how often players carrying merits get interdicted or destroyed. This will be unfair to some parties that spend the majority of their time fighting, but at the same time excessively generous to parties that spend the least time fighting, but overall fair for everyone.

Unfortunately, because you can't reward players engaging in average gameplay for maximum risk they might face, this reward will almost certainly be extremely low, to the point where it will almost certainly not make a difference.

As you yourself point out, powerplay has vast differences in relative difficulty. Fortifying a random system in the bottom of aisling space is pretty much a 0% chance of danger, while fortifying a system under attack is substantially more dangerous, depending, of course, on the time of day. You can't balance these two situations with one universal modifier that simultaneously makes players want to keep playing in the dangerous scenarios without disproportionately rewarding them in the non-dangerous scenarios.

Fundamentally, it comes down to this; you want players to want to fight. You want them to want to run the blockade, to risk the danger. At best, proposed solutions make them not want to do the alternative, which is a completely different thing.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Trouble is, most of the time powers aren't actively fighting. Neither one of us could calculate the average risk, because we don't have access to the stats that Fdev do, but they can do it fairly easily. Just find the total amount of time players spend with merits in their hold and then find how often players carrying merits get interdicted or destroyed. This will be unfair to some parties that spend the majority of their time fighting, but at the same time excessively generous to parties that spend the least time fighting, but overall fair for everyone.

Unfortunately, because you can't reward players engaging in average gameplay for maximum risk they might face, this reward will almost certainly be extremely low, to the point where it will almost certainly not make a difference.

As you yourself point out, powerplay has vast differences in relative difficulty. Fortifying a random system in the bottom of aisling space is pretty much a 0% chance of danger, while fortifying a system under attack is substantially more dangerous, depending, of course, on the time of day. You can't balance these two situations with one universal modifier that simultaneously makes players want to keep playing in the dangerous scenarios without disproportionately rewarding them in the non-dangerous scenarios.

Fundamentally, it comes down to this; you want players to want to fight. You want them to want to run the blockade, to risk the danger. At best, proposed solutions make them not want to do the alternative, which is a completely different thing.

And this is Powerplays biggest issue- Powers were supposed to fight and fight to the death. This was to drive territorial gain (turmoil) and Power collapse (Powerplays defeat condition). What happened was that impetus was taken away and only some fight all the time (Imps and Feds) The Kumo (who early on faced all four Imp Powers). The other neutrals and Alliance powers don't fight because they don't have to. Add to that its too easy to defend and hold territory has led to what we have. Powerplay was never supposed to be the BGS, and people have forgotten what Powerplay is actually about- which in some ways is not their fault since FD left it broken and incomplete.

Regards rewards- Open only segements 'reward' by allowing direct action against enemies. In this situation its perfect because actions stop other actions. In the specific roles for modes idea because people face off like for like it works out and there is no need for weighting.

Weighting is crude- but the weighting is to make up for the lack of NPCs in solo. Even though the danger is random, its still extra to solo which only has minimal NPCs. Some caveats- if AFK turretboats were nullified in my other suggestion (i.e. use new CZ style for combat expansions) the weighting can be less onerous, because one of weightings roles was to offset this problem. So rather than an 80 / 20 split (which brings AFK bots down to 10K merits per week from real world testing) it can be something higher (from memory Sandro was looking at between a 40% and 60% uplift). If other changes happen like uncapped UM then thats fair, because you are compacting more spaces and adding pressures to Open that won't exist in solo.

FD liked weighting because it was easy to implement, but it was very much a slim option.

Open is really about making the bare bones of Powerplays PvE better. Its replacing non functional NPCs with players to disrupt the simplistic roles you are given- now, if that was done via NPCs then great- I've outlined here and elsewhere it is possible using what we have in game now, it just takes the will from FD to do it.

 

[DemiserofD]

And this is Powerplays biggest issue- Powers were supposed to fight and fight to the death. This was to drive territorial gain (turmoil) and Power collapse (Powerplays defeat condition). What happened was that impetus was taken away and only some fight all the time (Imps and Feds) The Kumo (who early on faced all four Imp Powers). The other neutrals and Alliance powers don't fight because they don't have to. Add to that its too easy to defend and hold territory has led to what we have. Powerplay was never supposed to be the BGS, and people have forgotten what Powerplay is actually about- which in some ways is not their fault since FD left it broken and incomplete.

Regards rewards- Open only segements 'reward' by allowing direct action against enemies. In this situation its perfect because actions stop other actions. In the specific roles for modes idea because people face off like for like it works out and there is no need for weighting.

Weighting is crude- but the weighting is to make up for the lack of NPCs in solo. Even though the danger is random, its still extra to solo which only has minimal NPCs. Some caveats- if AFK turretboats were nullified in my other suggestion (i.e. use new CZ style for combat expansions) the weighting can be less onerous, because one of weightings roles was to offset this problem. So rather than an 80 / 20 split (which brings AFK bots down to 10K merits per week from real world testing) it can be something higher (from memory Sandro was looking at between a 40% and 60% uplift). If other changes happen like uncapped UM then thats fair, because you are compacting more spaces and adding pressures to Open that won't exist in solo.

FD liked weighting because it was easy to implement, but it was very much a slim option.

Open is really about making the bare bones of Powerplays PvE better. Its replacing non functional NPCs with players to disrupt the simplistic roles you are given- now, if that was done via NPCs then great- I've outlined here and elsewhere it is possible using what we have in game now, it just takes the will from FD to do it.

I really don't see how you can justify more potent PVE either, tbh. It's not like the game can determine which systems should be dangerous and which ones should be average, so you'll end up with exactly the same problem as merit weighting, only in reverse. The only way to justify better npcs is if open were actually dangerous, which it isn't the vast majority of the time.

So your NPC difficulty would either be WAY too hard everywhere, or be basically unchanged from currently. If it were the first, then human interaction would become virtually irrelevant, because you'd have fully-engineered npcs running around interdicting people nonstop(to be fair, this would also have to happen in open), so you'd basically not even notice if human attackers got involved. If the second, then it would be no different from currently.

Neither way does it work.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I really don't see how you can justify more potent PVE either, tbh. It's not like the game can determine which systems should be dangerous and which ones should be average, so you'll end up with exactly the same problem as merit weighting, only in reverse. The only way to justify better npcs is if open were actually dangerous, which it isn't the vast majority of the time.

So your NPC difficulty would either be WAY too hard everywhere, or be basically unchanged from currently. If it were the first, then human interaction would become virtually irrelevant, because you'd have fully-engineered npcs running around interdicting people nonstop(to be fair, this would also have to happen in open), so you'd basically not even notice if human attackers got involved. If the second, then it would be no different from currently.

Neither way does it work.

PvE in Powerplay is poor to non existent, to the point where it has no bearing in places it should.

In a pure PvE situation, those who decide to do more should see more NPC attention, since it would be these people needing to be stopped or at least challenged more than they are- otherwise Powerplay is just boring haul races or grindy shooting against identical NPCs, one of the main reasons its never been popular.

The only way to justify better npcs is if open were actually dangerous, which it isn't the vast majority of the time.

Er, no. You are really mixing stuff up now. Powerplay requires stong NPCs to provide a standard level of challenge, since they will be generated across all modes. Its what they should be doing. Without them, people can ferry in safety across modes (in solo all the time, in open when its quiet). NPC disruption is key to making each run unique and require more from the player than jamming J x times.

So your NPC difficulty would either be WAY too hard everywhere, or be basically unchanged from currently. If it were the first, then human interaction would become virtually irrelevant, because you'd have fully-engineered npcs running around interdicting people nonstop(to be fair, this would also have to happen in open), so you'd basically not even notice if human attackers got involved. If the second, then it would be no different from currently.

Neither way does it work.

In my mind it does not matter if its NPCs or players, as long as that pushback is there. My previous example makes all hauling have random locations, the drop point open to attack (and destruction), allows you to pick your opposition (but scale risk and reward to that)- all in PvE. It actually allows NPCs to attack you as they should be doing, and if they did that you'd not need weighting at all, and then you can reward direct kills for PvP like I described.

If NPCs are harder, then it means PG has value since its a co-operative venture, inverting PvP so its players against harder NPCs (like a wing mission). This also bleeds into open, where harder NPCs provide scaled challenge, and that defenders can have a target to attack, or, attackers assist NPCs present.

You also misunderstand what my suggestion is as well. Currently SC interdiction is overused (since its the only place NPCs can attack universally)- but if you carve out extra places NPCs can drop in to complicate matters. Hidden trader mechanics randomises (within reason) cargo drop points with NAV scans to find the drop POI (which are not station end points). This makes dropping cargo vulnerable to pursing NPCs who do not have NFZ inconsistencies to deal with. So at every point (based on what level you choose to engage at) NPCs have places to ambush you, and make your life difficult.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

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.

You are speaking for the majority with this. Yet when anyone says this, we are shouted down.

PP isn't really viewed as some grand strategic thing we're all personally invested in. I get Rubbernuke is, big time. But that's just...not a thing most of us care about. Pledge for 4 weeks, get the goodies, then gtfo. That's just what PP is.

 

[JosiahD]

You are speaking for the majority with this. Yet when anyone says this, we are shouted down.

PP isn't really viewed as some grand strategic thing we're all personally invested in. I get Rubbernuke is, big time. But that's just...not a thing most of us care about. Pledge for 4 weeks, get the goodies, then gtfo. That's just what PP is.

Precisely, which is why incentivising open or making powerplay open only won't work. Neither really entices sufficient players (indeed would put many players off) to consider powerplay a truly mainstream activity. What is needed is something that makes powerplay enticing to as many players as possible, regardless of the mode being played - and importantly, enticing players to play powerplay in an enduring fashion. Right now I'm unsure of what that solution needs to be, but I am certain that incentivising open or making powerplay open only ain't it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

You are speaking for the majority with this. Yet when anyone says this, we are shouted down.

PP isn't really viewed as some grand strategic thing we're all personally invested in. I get Rubbernuke is, big time. But that's just...not a thing most of us care about. Pledge for 4 weeks, get the goodies, then gtfo. That's just what PP is.

And play it at a certain level and it does just that- it unifies ship, BGS and Powerplay features like no other part of ED does. Its not for everyone though, which is fine. Not everyone wants to do the BGS either for example.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Precisely, which is why incentivising open or making powerplay open only won't work. Neither really entices sufficient players (indeed would put many players off) to consider powerplay a truly mainstream activity. What is needed is something that makes powerplay enticing to as many players as possible, regardless of the mode being played - and importantly, enticing players to play powerplay in an enduring fashion. Right now I'm unsure of what that solution needs to be, but I am certain that incentivising open or making powerplay open only ain't it.

When you already have a fully developed system like the BGS that does what you want, Powerplay has to offer something different otherwise you are cannibalizing your own audience. Making Powerplay require teamwork either to overcome harder NPCs (just like Thargoid gameplay) or making Powerplay like Drews Salome event (just in miniature) are ways of achieving that.

 

[Bashy81]

You are speaking for the majority with this. Yet when anyone says this, we are shouted down.

PP isn't really viewed as some grand strategic thing we're all personally invested in. I get Rubbernuke is, big time. But that's just...not a thing most of us care about. Pledge for 4 weeks, get the goodies, then gtfo. That's just what PP is.

yes, and no. Yes, because it provides modules you want. modules are an arm twisted behind your back to get you to try it. many people arent interested in the strategic or teamplay element because theyre not interested in strategy or MMO teamplay in this game. Thats fine. Unfortunately, the mechanics are so weak and compromised, and the necessary interaction with the real feature is so utterly banal when done alone, that it doesnt serve as an effective recruitment tool for Powerplay either. No, because the good in Powerplay isnt found either through the mechanics, or alone.

Precisely, which is why incentivising open or making powerplay open only won't work. Neither really entices sufficient players (indeed would put many players off) to consider powerplay a truly mainstream activity. What is needed is something that makes powerplay enticing to as many players as possible, regardless of the mode being played - and importantly, enticing players to play powerplay in an enduring fashion. Right now I'm unsure of what that solution needs to be, but I am certain that incentivising open or making powerplay open only ain't it.

Powerplay isnt a mainstream activity. it's endgame. thats not a problem, that's it's niche. Thats why proposals from Powerplayers are modest in their aspirations. Powerplay fits in as a more hardcore version of the BGS. more focused for playergroups to directly compete. But it fails because it isnt optimised to it's role, tries to accommodate everyone and instead fails us all.

At it's core is a highly organised and knowledgeable bunch of playergroups that given the right mechanics could flourish and make Powerplay far more popular than it is now, but until then, it languishes as a laughing stock, with the nightlight kept on by the playergroups as we watch it crumple under the innevitable death-spiral of its flawed-from-inception mechanics.

 

[Pug]

I'm not sure you Nuke is indeed Rubber.

I think it has All the bells and whistles
Belter of a reasoned rant bud.
Pug

 

[DemiserofD]

PvE in Powerplay is poor to non existent, to the point where it has no bearing in places it should.

In a pure PvE situation, those who decide to do more should see more NPC attention, since it would be these people needing to be stopped or at least challenged more than they are- otherwise Powerplay is just boring haul races or grindy shooting against identical NPCs, one of the main reasons its never been popular.


Er, no. You are really mixing stuff up now. Powerplay requires stong NPCs to provide a standard level of challenge, since they will be generated across all modes. Its what they should be doing. Without them, people can ferry in safety across modes (in solo all the time, in open when its quiet). NPC disruption is key to making each run unique and require more from the player than jamming J x times.


In my mind it does not matter if its NPCs or players, as long as that pushback is there. My previous example makes all hauling have random locations, the drop point open to attack (and destruction), allows you to pick your opposition (but scale risk and reward to that)- all in PvE. It actually allows NPCs to attack you as they should be doing, and if they did that you'd not need weighting at all, and then you can reward direct kills for PvP like I described.

If NPCs are harder, then it means PG has value since its a co-operative venture, inverting PvP so its players against harder NPCs (like a wing mission). This also bleeds into open, where harder NPCs provide scaled challenge, and that defenders can have a target to attack, or, attackers assist NPCs present.

You also misunderstand what my suggestion is as well. Currently SC interdiction is overused (since its the only place NPCs can attack universally)- but if you carve out extra places NPCs can drop in to complicate matters. Hidden trader mechanics randomises (within reason) cargo drop points with NAV scans to find the drop POI (which are not station end points). This makes dropping cargo vulnerable to pursing NPCs who do not have NFZ inconsistencies to deal with. So at every point (based on what level you choose to engage at) NPCs have places to ambush you, and make your life difficult.

I mean, I'd be game for more significant pve in powerplay, but I don't see any reason why that should be limited by mode. If you wanted to apply more aggressive pve aspects in general, I think people would absolutely be behind that.

The only problem comes when you want to introduce them exclusively in solo and not in open. This is because humans will never provide the same degree of consistency that would be provided by npcs. Open just isn't very dangerous on average, so npcs that provide the same average risk might as well not exist at all.

You keep claiming that open is dangerous and solo needs something to balance it, but that just isn't true. Open is almost completely safe 99% of the time.