Powerplay in Solo

[Chase Quinnell]

Ah yes. The regular "Take away things from Solo" thread. Keep dreaming.

 

[Rubbernuke]

In the particular case of Powerplay, I've agreed (several times now) that the challenge posed by NPCs could be increased, while noting that, even if increased, it's unlikely to be raised to a level that would satisfy some players.

But thats the problem: it has to be at a level that affects the game, otherwise, whats the point of it? Because then you have half effective NPCs still and players who are not as restricted- i.e. the issue has not changed.

Introduce a mode bonus and the block feature may be used by those who want the bonus and don't like PvP.

There's no restriction on use of the block feature - it's left up to each player to decide when to use it.

In the general game I agree with you- however Powerplay does not operate like that. Here block can be used to advantage and exploited.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But thats the problem: it has to be at a level that affects the game, otherwise, whats the point of it? Because then you have half effective NPCs still and players who are not as restricted- i.e. the issue has not changed.

The issue (or feature, dependent on ones preference or lack thereof for the play-style), at its source, is that PvP is optional - and I doubt that that will change.

In the general game I agree with you- however Powerplay does not operate like that. Here block can be used to advantage and exploited.

It could be used to advantage by players engaged in any activity, if they choose. Powerplay is not special in that regard.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The issue (or feature, dependent on ones preference or lack thereof for the play-style), at its source, is that PvP is optional - and I doubt that that will change.

No its not-its the threat level (which currently players provide( to such a degree that can affect the efficiency of your play. In solo its almost impossible not to be 100% efficient, while in Open that can be drastically reduced.

It could be used to advantage by players engaged in any activity, if they choose. Powerplay is not special in that regard.

Not so. The BGS is not affected like Powerplay is, since the BGS is set up properly between modes.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No its not-its the threat level (which currently players provide( to such a degree that can affect the efficiency of your play. In solo its almost impossible not to be 100% efficient, while in Open that can be drastically reduced.

.... and Frontier choose not to set NPCs at the same threat level as players - and have also noted that PvP is not just about the challenge, remembering Sandro's statement in that regard.

Not so. The BGS is not affected like Powerplay is, since the BGS is set up properly between modes.

The BGS is no different to Powerplay with respect to the game modes - PvE actions affect both features in all modes.

 

[Rubbernuke]

.... and Frontier choose not to set NPCs at the same threat level as players - and have also noted that PvP is not just about the challenge, remembering Sandro's statement in that regard.

And in the same statement Sandro acknowledges Open poses more challenge than the others 'whatever way he cuts it'. There is still a gap whatever you say.

The BGS is no different to Powerplay with respect to the game modes - PvE actions affect both features in all modes.

But only players can stop other players in Powerplay- most of Powerplay involves you traveling into rival territories where NPCs should challenge you but don't. In solo and PG you have free reign. This is what I mean about NPC scaling- an NPC functions well in a mission where it has a limited role. In Powerplay that role is expanded to such a degree it beomes ineffectual. So, currently its players filling the capability gap in open, hence why the modes are not the same.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And in the same statement Sandro acknowledges Open poses more challenge than the others 'whatever way he cuts it'. There is still a gap whatever you say.

Indeed - however participating in the skill gapped activity remains optional.

But only players can stop other players in Powerplay- most of Powerplay involves you traveling into rival territories where NPCs should challenge you but don't. In solo and PG you have free reign. This is what I mean about NPC scaling- an NPC functions well in a mission where it has a limited role. In Powerplay that role is expanded to such a degree it beomes ineffectual. So, currently its players filling the capability gap in open, hence why the modes are not the same.

NPCs could scale with Powerplay rank.

The modes are demonstrably not the same - however that does not mean that they are not equal and valid choices.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indeed - however participating in the skill gapped activity remains optional.

Optional in a competitive mode- if each mode is deemed 'valid' then you can't make one the only choice to win in, can you?

NPCs could scale with Powerplay rank.

They could- it would certainly target the correct pledges (i.e. more effort / more resistance). But at the same time its where those NPCs attack you to slow you down. Its this problem that needs work- my solution would remove merit drop points from stations and use the hidden trader POI mechanic. This way you have no protection other than NPCs or players present, and that your drop point can be destroyed- significantly slowing you down.

The modes are demonstrably not the same - however that does not mean that they are not equal and valid choices.

They are valid choice, but see my first answer- if one mode is the most efficient by default Open can't be considered equal.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Optional in a competitive mode- if each mode is deemed 'valid' then you can't make one the only choice to win in, can you?

Indirect and asynchronous competition, yes - as players in all modes affect it. It's up to each player to choose which mode to engage in it from, noting that each player chooses for themself and does not need to consider the wishes of others players.

They are valid choice, but see my first answer- if one mode is the most efficient by default Open can't be considered equal.

Equal and valid choices does not mean equal - there are differences between modes, differences that can make the multi-player modes both significantly less of a challenge and more rewarding than Solo, while Open can be particularly challenging at times in particular locations.

It comes down to each player's choice - and the choice of whether or not to interact with other players is the first choice one makes when starting each game session (if one can even play in the multi-player game modes). Players choose to play in Open - just as players choose their ship, outfitting, engineering, etc..

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indirect and asynchronous competition, yes - as players in all modes affect it. It's up to each player to choose which mode to engage in it from, noting that each player chooses for themself and does not need to consider the wishes of others players.

Which does not address the inequality. All that suggests is that those in Open are wrong and should choose Solo where no opposition exists to win.

Equal and valid choices does not mean equal - there are differences between modes, differences that can make the multi-player modes both significantly less of a challenge and more rewarding than Solo, while Open can be particularly challenging at times in particular locations.

Which has no material impact, which does not provide equality of outcome. Hence why weighting acknowledges one is harder than the other and provides a material impact in risking more.

It comes down to each player's choice - and the choice of whether or not to interact with other players is the first choice one makes when starting each game session (if one can even play in the multi-player game modes). Players choose to play in Open - just as players choose their ship, outfitting, engineering, etc..

Which is a red herring here. Its consistency and capability of opposition regardless thats the problem. Currently there is no credible NPC threat, meaning you can't be stopped in solo and that you can in Open.

In a competitive feature you need some basic rules and an even gameboard, otherwise it results in the chaos we have now. At some point rules need to be imposed.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

Rubbernuke seriously? Again with this? We just talked about this yesterday....

Hold on, let me find the South Park horse .gif again....

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which does not address the inequality. All that suggests is that those in Open are wrong and should choose Solo where no opposition exists to win.

It suggests that the choice of some players to play among those who may engage them in PvP may hamper their effectiveness in engaging in a feature that does not require PvP.

Which has no material impact, which does not provide equality of outcome. Hence why weighting acknowledges one is harder than the other and provides a material impact in risking more.

Each player risks a rebuy, regardless of mode. A simplistic mode weighting is a participation award, not a measure of increased risk - as no hazard may be encountered.

Which is a red herring here. Its consistency and capability of opposition regardless thats the problem. Currently there is no credible NPC threat, meaning you can't be stopped in solo and that you can in Open.

Not currently - that could be changed.

In a competitive feature you need some basic rules and an even gameboard, otherwise it results in the chaos we have now. At some point rules need to be imposed.

There are basic rules and the game board is even, in a competitive feature that does not require PvP - that some players choose to reduce their effectiveness by engaging in optional PvP is their choice, just as choice of ship changes effectiveness.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It suggests that the choice of some players to play among those who may engage them in PvP may hamper their effectiveness in engaging in a feature that does not require PvP.

Which would be fine if both sides had fixed numbers in that mode.

Each player risks a rebuy, regardless of mode. A simplistic mode weighting is a participation award, not a measure of increased risk - as no hazard may be encountered.

Participation in a mode where the full spectrum of engineering, ships, skills etc comapred to one which is a small subset.

There are basic rules and the game board is even, in a competitive feature that does not require PvP - that some players choose to reduce their effectiveness by engaging in optional PvP is their choice, just as choice of ship changes effectiveness.

Which does not address the problems I outline above. Since you can never know relative numbers you then make open not a valid mode, and that the modes then become unequal. In your sad version of Powerplay its best to haul in solo to remove obstacles by default, farm merits in PG due to the wing bonus and avoid other players by not using Open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which would be fine if both sides had fixed numbers in that mode.

How many players there are in each mode, on each platform and in each timezone has no bearing on the fact that some players choose to engage in PvP in a feature that does not require it.

Participation in a mode where the full spectrum of engineering, ships, skills etc comapred to one which is a small subset.

Some players reduce their risks to a minimum through engineering and honing skills, even if they do choose to play in Open, yes - which is their choice. Frontier can't force anyone to play with them.

Which does not address the problems I outline above. Since you can never know relative numbers you then make open not a valid mode, and that the modes then become unequal. In your sad version of Powerplay its best to haul in solo to remove obstacles by default, farm merits in PG due to the wing bonus and avoid other players by not using Open.

PvP exists because players can shoot at anything they instance with, however I would contend that it's not the focus of the game - as no feature requires the player to engage in it, by design (apart from CQC, which is out-of-game).

The "sad version" is the one that Frontier chose to implement approaching six years ago in all three game modes. There's no requirement to play in Open if one doesn't want to (even if one can).

 

[Rubbernuke]

How many players there are in each mode, on each platform and in each timezone has no bearing on the fact that some players choose to engage in PvP in a feature that does not require it.

Well it does, if they are to be considered an equal challenge. Since you can never know it exerts pressure downwards to solo.

Some players reduce their risks to a minimum through engineering and honing skills, even if they do choose to play in Open, yes - which is their choice. Frontier can't force anyone to play with them.

Which applies to solo, since no other Powerplay NPC has engineering at all. In Open the vast, vast majority will be engineered to your level so I can't really see that as lessening anything.

PvP exists because players can shoot at anything they instance with, however I would contend that it's not the focus of the game - as no feature requires the player to engage in it, by design (apart from CQC, which is out-of-game).

And again you are seeing PvP and not the actual problem- if NPCs provided a structured resistance then there would be no need to weight things. Players do that, NPCs don't. Unless FD retool Powerplay to properly address this, its going to remain a broken mess.

The "sad version" is the one that Frontier chose to implement approaching six years ago in all three game modes. There's no requirement to play in Open if one doesn't want to (even if one can).

Even FD realised that the modes failed in Powerplay, enough to contemplate changes. And you still don't get the absurdity of using modes to your advantage, rather than making each mode have value that reflects the work needed to take part in that mode.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well it does, if they are to be considered an equal challenge. Since you can never know it exerts pressure downwards to solo.

I don't think it's achievable in a game played by players all around the world at whatever time they choose in which ever game mode they choose on their platform of choice.

Which applies to solo, since no other Powerplay NPC has engineering at all. In Open the vast, vast majority will be engineered to your level so I can't really see that as lessening anything.

"vast, vast majority" of what?

And again you are seeing PvP and not the actual problem- if NPCs provided a structured resistance then there would be no need to weight things. Players do that, NPCs don't. Unless FD retool Powerplay to properly address this, its going to remain a broken mess.

I have no issues with an increase in challenge posed by Powerplay NPCs.

Even FD realised that the modes failed in Powerplay, enough to contemplate changes. And you still don't get the absurdity of using modes to your advantage, rather than making each mode have value that reflects the work needed to take part in that mode.

There certainly has been an amount of reconsideration regarding Powerplay, both in Mar'16 (that came to naught) and May'18 (that we're still awaiting the outcome of) - whether it changes, in any way, remains to be seen.

If the game rewarded actual risk, regardless of game mode, I'd have little issue - noting that players in stock Sidewinders would do quite well out of it in terms of their reward for an activity in comparison to that of another player undertaking the exact same activity in a more capable ship.

 

[Hooplah]

Greetings,

Let's see if I have this right knowing a little about Power Play to be dangerous posting anything about it. Don't trust my opinions!

A player signs up to obtain some Power Play toys. Near the end of week 3 they fly a cargo ship to obtain 750+ merits. It will cost them 7.5m in credits loading up PP cargo. Credits are easy (see my Money for Nothing lyrics and smile). Depending upon ship size maybe 30 min - 4 hrs. Another player does the same thing but goes for combat vouchers getting 10 merits per kill = 75 ships. Maybe 2 - 4 hrs or longer depending upon the ship design and combat skills and in my opinion a lot more fun.

My guess is that once these players have access to the current toys they purchase then they move on to another power or whatever. In one perspective they are insignificant with regards to ongoing Power Play. Meanwhile players dedicated to Power Play use combat to capture cargo and deliver it or go with combat kill vouchers. Maybe there are some with billions of credits to purchase PP cargo if it turns the tide for a specific control moment. They have 'Money for Nothing' to invest.

All I have suggested can be accomplished in Solo or Group mode versus Open with players looking for kills in their play style. Like so many threads on the Forum many are so very narrowed on the specific play styles of a player not thinking globally. Either side can do this and it seems balanced as one can deliver PP cargo while others with friends can deliver PP cargo as well as undermine their deliveries with combat. Seems to work out.

What isn't balanced. A mass of world wide ED players say 250 are only awaiting Thursday's update to unlock Denton Patreus's shiny Advanced Plasma Accelerators. I still have two weeks to go. That is a minimum of 187,500 merits which can add a lot of CC cheese! What if there are many more players? I don't have the numbers. But it seems to totally mess up dedicated Power Play fans going past four weeks.

An idea if the above is somewhat correct or not. Keep the 4 weeks for a player to get access to the Power Play toys. Get them interested in Power Play was the Devs idea? Let's revisit that. Then they only need to deliver 10 PP cargo receiving 10 merits to complete the requirements. Thus the players who love Power Play can easily deal with this and the players who don't care about Power Play get their toys and move on. It works out for everyone. Doing 750 merits totally messes up any serious Power Play fans working the BGS. Then they can get on with more Forum threads loving to argue about Solo, Group and Open modes.

Thinking out of the box. Add to it.

Regards and always Fly Safe

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't think it's achievable in a game played by players all around the world at whatever time they choose in which ever game mode they choose on their platform of choice.

Thats immaterial- its the underlying conceit thats the issue there. Unless you know by design everything has a semblance of equality you can't pretend that it is, which is whats being done now. The only certainty is solo has less opposition in it.

"vast, vast majority" of what?

People you come across in the game. Unless they are very new the majority of pledges are engineered- unlike the NPCs stuck in a 2015 timewarp 100% of the time.

I have no issues with an increase in challenge posed by Powerplay NPCs.

It would be fantastic if they did- but it comes down to how that is applied. The only universal place that is common to all powers is SC currently, and NPC SC interdiction is childsplay to evade. NPCs need other places to roam and come into contact with players.

There certainly has been an amount of reconsideration regarding Powerplay, both in Mar'16 (that came to naught) and May'18 (that we're still awaiting the outcome of) - whether it changes, in any way, remains to be seen.

I know, I'd be interested in seeing what they do in the end.

If the game rewarded actual risk, regardless of game mode, I'd have little issue - noting that players in stock Sidewinders would do quite well out of it in terms of their reward for an activity in comparison to that of another player undertaking the exact same activity in a more capable ship.

I'd have no problem either, because you could then apply that risk calculation to any situation regardless. However it should reward the result, and not the means otherwise it introduces absurd concepts of having to hobble yourself.

 

[LeoBartlet]

It's always nice to see when the forum gets bored the greatest hits return.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Thats immaterial- its the underlying conceit thats the issue there. Unless you know by design everything has a semblance of equality you can't pretend that it is, which is whats being done now. The only certainty is solo has less opposition in it.

Frontier's decision to make PvP optional means that no pan-modal features require PvP - which is arguably unfair to those who prefer PvP - however we all bought or backed a game with optional PvP. Player opposition, in any game feature (apart from CQC), with the challenge that it may offer, is therefore optional for those who wish to engage in it. Frontier also choose not to increase the challenge posed by NPCs in general to levels that would make the game unfun for players at the lower end of the skill distribution.

People you come across in the game. Unless they are very new the majority of pledges are engineered- unlike the NPCs stuck in a 2015 timewarp 100% of the time.

Thanks for the clarification. Maybe the few who have bothered to spend their time unlocking Engineers, gathering materials, theorycrafting their builds,

It would be fantastic if they did- but it comes down to how that is applied. The only universal place that is common to all powers is SC currently, and NPC SC interdiction is childsplay to evade. NPCs need other places to roam and come into contact with players.

Indeed.

I know, I'd be interested in seeing what they do in the end.

Quite.

I'd have no problem either, because you could then apply that risk calculation to any situation regardless. However it should reward the result, and not the means otherwise it introduces absurd concepts of having to hobble yourself.

It would have the consequence that those who consciously choose to use OP gear would receive less reward though.