Powerplay proposal: split tasks to suit each mode, elaborates on Sandros last ideas

It sounds less like that, and more like you're describing a challenge.

That's...technically true. If you really tilt your head and squint. In the sense that what Sisyphus experienced was a 'challenge'. :rolleyes:

But no matter how you look at it, actual pvp would be pretty much nonexistent. Actually staying to fight someone will never be time efficient, so they'll always run away and try again. There will be no reason to kill the defenders because they'll be back in 2 minutes anyway, so the only functional way to disable them is to just constantly interdict them in a faster ship over and over until they feel their time is being wasted and they log off.

Congratulations, you've just invented griefing.

If you actually want pvp, as you claim, then this is complete opposite of how to achieve it. All you're really creating is game-mandated ganking and trolling on a massive scale.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Yes, this is the problem.
The fact that PvP is optional in all main game features is undoubtedly a problem for those who don't accept that players don't need to play with them to affect the game. To other players it's a feature - as there's no requirement to play with other players to affect main game features, much less engage in PvP (and not all players enjoy or even tolerate PvP).
Powerplay and CQC aren't "PvP dominated features" they are PvP features.
I agree that CQC is a PvP feature - as the only way to affect ones CQC rank is to engage in PvP in a PvP-gated feature. Powerplay, with its pan-modal implementation, would be a very odd PvP feature - as it does not require any player to engage in PvP to affect it. Powerplay, as implemented, does offer consensual PvP - as those players who choose to pledge can choose to engage in it in Open where they may meet other players.
Again, you're doing a good job out outlining the problem.
What is a problem for some is a feature to others.
 
Last edited:
The fact that PvP is optional in all main game features is undoubtedly a problem for those who don't accept that players don't need to play with them to affect the game. To other players it's a feature - as there's no requirement to play with other players to affect main game features, much less engage in PvP (and not all players enjoy or even tolerate PvP).

I agree that CQC is a PvP feature - as the only way to affect ones CQC rank is to engage in PvP in a PvP-gated feature. Powerplay, with its pan-modal implementation, would be a very odd PvP feature - as it does not require any player to engage in PvP to affect it. Powerplay, as implemented, does offer consensual PvP - as those players who choose to pledge can choose to engage in it in Open where they may meet other players.

What is a problem for some is a feature to others.
How do you defend a system from being undermined in powerplay then? The flaw is that you can't when the underminer is in solo, yet they are engaging in PvP by destroying the work it took to fortify it. They're effectively not in the system at all from the point of view of players who are actually playing. Yet their actions still hurt your systems. They attack you and you can't defend yourself because if this giant design flaw.
 
The only changes I am really against, are any sort of open bonus or requirement, or solo pg nerfs. A lot of the rest is actually quite reasonable and may even help.

It's the open requirement, and the inevitable escalation that will be required when people serious about winning PP circumvent that requirement. Using router tricks and the block function to make open solo. Will lead to demands block be weakened or removed or that players with crap internet be shadow banned from having an effect on PP.
Yeah, I would want some of that, for competitive Powerplay. In Powerplay should be chat-only, it shouldn't affect instancing. Ideally instancing for players in Powerplay should be like Wing instancing: it should be prioritised.
Imo, the fix for router-fiddling in a hypothetical Open-Only Powerplay should be dummy connection requests from masked IPs, sent from frontier's own servers, with randomised connection characteristics. These should be indistinguishable from genuine connection requests, and a player's setup repeatedly refuses to connect to them, then that player should get automated help emails & then be subsequently barred from participating. Ive instanced adequately
with players on the other side of the planet, while both using 4G tethers (and mine was officially 'out of range'). What kind of connection type are you suggesting as a low-bar? dial-up?
I'm sorry, but this is a hilariously bad strawman. "The fact Open is only a choice is equivalent to slavery!"

Lmao
Youve created the only strawman yourself, right then. well done for knocking it down.
I was demonstrating how youre being so reductive as to lose all relevance & meaning. By substituting that one word, you could turn your sig into a defence of slavery. And it would have exactly as much weight of meaning, ie. none. If you want to turn that into a strawman and feel the need to defend slavery, thats on you, but I never suggested it.
The fact of the matter is, countless choices have no reward beyond the enjoyment of doing them. If I choose to do a CZ in an Eagle, I've made my life much more difficult, but that doesn't mean I deserve a greater reward for doing so.
That is a dev design choice, to encourage players to buy more powerful ships more fit for the purpose.

The devs do not intend for players to go through the same process in Powerplay with modes, and come to the logical conclusion that private modes are the only place to be to get merits moved.

That was an unintended consequence, hence why we're here, in this thread, proposing a fix, yet again.
And that is the fundamental nature of Open. In every respect, you are simply making your life more difficult for the enjoyment of doing so; there is no tangible benefit over that enjoyment. If you can argue that powerplay should have benefits for playing in open, you can make the exact same arguments about literally every competitive aspect of the game, which is very obviously nonsense.

And therefore making powerplay open only is equally nonsense.
You can make the same argument about anything. Everything is not equal as a consequence.

Every game feature has its own characteristics and is more or less suited to Open-only because of its nature. Powerplay is particularly well suited above every other feature for all the reasons listed endlessly in many threads on the topic.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
How do you defend a system from being undermined in powerplay then? The flaw is that you can't when the underminer is in solo, yet they are engaging in PvP by destroying the work it took to fortify it. They're effectively not in the system at all from the point of view of players who are actually playing. Yet their actions still hurt your systems. They attack you and you can't defend yourself because if this giant design flaw.
If undermining cannot be countered with fortification then that sounds like a flaw that needs to be fixed, regardless of which game mode the fortifiers and underminers choose to play in.
 
That's...technically true. If you really tilt your head and squint. In the sense that what Sisyphus experienced was a 'challenge'. :rolleyes:
I think you underestimate player ability.
But no matter how you look at it, actual pvp would be pretty much nonexistent. Actually staying to fight someone will never be time efficient, so they'll always run away and try again. There will be no reason to kill the defenders because they'll be back in 2 minutes anyway, so the only functional way to disable them is to just constantly interdict them in a faster ship over and over until they feel their time is being wasted and they log off.

Congratulations, you've just invented griefing.

If you actually want pvp, as you claim, then this is complete opposite of how to achieve it. All you're really creating is game-mandated ganking and trolling on a massive scale.
I don't know what the invented griefing is about, I think it already exists. Serial interdiction without context is already an example of this, if that's what you mean. But doing it to defend a hauler isn't griefing, even if it might be irritating to attackers.

Anyway, I'm seeing you still using theory from a inside a windowless room as an argument for why what I observe outside that room (no matter how I look at it) can't exist. I can't really argue with that beyond stating that observation invalidates your theory. Even in a recent cycle when our opponents did frequently use small ships to disrupt UMing and attacks on haulers. It was not completely ineffective and was viewed as irritating, but it was also considered one of the best cycles for organic PvP in powerplay history, and that's with probably the majority of haulers staying out of open.

At best you're extrapolating wildly and simplistically as to what the result of an adjustment in the overall playstyle demographic of open PP would be. And it ignores another change in that demographic - returning disillusioned PPers and new interest from players who find the feature attractive now that direct oppositional play is the default in contested situations. Overall it introduces an interesting point but it's not a credible projection to anyone who understands the parameters of open powerplay from experience.
 
Last edited:
If undermining cannot be countered with fortification then that sounds like a flaw that needs to be fixed, regardless of which game mode the fortifiers and underminers choose to play in.
Unfettered fortification vs. unfettered undermining leads by default to the "cancelled" state. With the ability to oppose directly you have the possibility of defending against undermining and are able to fortify, leading to a fully fortified status. Likewise the underminer side can suppress your haulers and defend their underminers to complete their task, leading to a fully undermined status. So it introduces another level of fluidity in the outcome that depends on the priorities and strengths of each side.

The impact is limited in control systems due to the 100%-of-trigger cap (100% undermining and fortification are both hard to prevent). In expansions there is no cap and it's highest percentage wins so the impact is open ended.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Unfettered fortification vs. unfettered undermining leads by default to the "cancelled" state.
Which means that claims that Solo undermining cannot be opposed aren't accurate.
With the ability to oppose directly you have the possibility of defending against undermining and are able to fortify, leading to a fully fortified status. Likewise the underminer side can suppress your haulers and defend their underminers to complete their task, leading to a fully undermined status. So it introduces another level of fluidity in the outcome that depends on the priorities and strengths of each side.
Indeed - between participants who choose to play with each other.
 
Fortifying and undermining could be set up to be opposing ofrces on a scale, which will end up in one direction or another by the end of the week depending on who piled the most on his side. Weight gets added by doing jobs in a control system for your faction through a faction contact. PvP kills get added as weight depending on the insurance damage incurred. One could limit how much weight can be added per day on a system to prevent "flash-mobs" from tipping a system in the last hour. So, really, it would be then a daily competitive CG for who gets to pile their daily weight allowance on the system. This will also move the focus away from the PP capital system, will allow players to "adopt" systems to care for and motivate drifters to participate in more systems instead of the nearest one they can drop off commodities. The jobs could use the mission generation system offering missions fitting to the tactics and attitudes of the Power. Competitive PvE still qualifies as PvP, no?
 
Yeah, I would want some of that, for competitive Powerplay. In Powerplay should be chat-only, it shouldn't affect instancing. Ideally instancing for players in Powerplay should be like Wing instancing: it should be prioritised.
Imo, the fix for router-fiddling in a hypothetical Open-Only Powerplay should be dummy connection requests from masked IPs, sent from frontier's own servers, with randomised connection characteristics. These should be indistinguishable from genuine connection requests, and a player's setup repeatedly refuses to connect to them, then that player should get automated help emails & then be subsequently barred from participating. Ive instanced adequately
with players on the other side of the planet, while both using 4G tethers (and mine was officially 'out of range'). What kind of connection type are you suggesting as a low-bar? dial-up?
Some ISP's muck with P2P traffic to screw with torrenting as a start. They don't differentiate. I don't even thing that is the problem.
I have issues with a new router, new modem, new everything on my 100/20 connection. More than a couple others in my instance and PvP would be impossible no matter how good I was, or well outfit and engineered my ship. Ships banding and teleporting around, colored snake messages the momentt someone decides to launch a fighter. ED's networking is trash, It really is.
Vermintide 2, Space Hulk, Arizona Sunshine, Dakka Squadron, Space Engineers, almost any other MP online game I want to play runs fine for me. Not ED though, not even when I go someplace else and use a different PC and internet connection.

Any open only/bonus whatever anyone wishes to apply to this game is going to be opposed on the grounds of crappy networking at the very start. Then we can move on to the PS+ and Gold being required for console players, the fact that the game was sold as all three modes and platforms having an equal effect, then the absolute temerity of demanding other people play the way this small vocal group wants them to or be disenfranchised, and I am just going to oppose it.

That is the nature of the drain we are circling here. Your arguments failed to reach us, they can't reach us, they don't have any legs, and ours fail to reach you. So here we are saying the same things over and over, around and around, both certain the other is wrong.
 
I think you underestimate player ability.

I don't know what the invented griefing is about, I think it already exists. Serial interdiction without context is already an example of this, if that's what you mean. But doing it to defend a hauler isn't griefing, even if it might be irritating to attackers.

Anyway, I'm seeing you still using theory from a inside a windowless room as an argument for why what I observe outside that room (no matter how I look at it) can't exist. I can't really argue with that beyond stating that observation invalidates your theory. Even in a recent cycle when our opponents did frequently use small ships to disrupt UMing and attacks on haulers. It was not completely ineffective and was viewed as irritating, but it was also considered one of the best cycles for organic PvP in powerplay history, and that's with probably the majority of haulers staying out of open.

At best you're extrapolating wildly and simplistically as to what the result of an adjustment in the overall playstyle demographic of open PP would be. And it ignores another change in that demographic - returning disillusioned PPers and new interest from players who find the feature attractive now that direct oppositional play is the default in contested situations. Overall it introduces an interesting point but it's not a credible projection to anyone who understands the parameters of open powerplay from experience.
I find it hilarious that you say i'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about when

A: You have no more idea than I do what will happen when a bunch of non-pvp players are forced into Open, so you're just as much in the dark as I am, and yet

B: You actively admit that exactly what I'm talking about is already happening!

It doesn't matter how many old pvpers you draw back, the game will ultimately be dominated by those who play most efficiently, just like now, and there is no scenario where fighting your enemies is the most efficient way to play.
 
I was demonstrating how youre being so reductive as to lose all relevance & meaning.

No, you were creating your own enemy and then burning it. Also known as a strawman. Get out.


The devs do not intend for players to go through the same process in Powerplay with modes,

That's undebatably wrong, as those exact devs made the game exactly as it currently is. Where players 'go through the same process in powerplay' in every mode equally.

So...lol. You're wrong on literally every count.
 
No, you were creating your own enemy and then burning it. Also known as a strawman. Get out.
Ok lets try explaining this again, in brief: If you look again, you will see I was pointing out that the meaning of your signature is so basic, you could apply it to defend any inequity, even slavery. & as I said, the consequence of such oversimplification is losing context & meaning. That isnt a strawman argument. You can use examples to highlight a point, thats ok, even on the internet.

Ive enjoyed the irony of being falsely accused of doing the very thing you've been doing in order to accuse me of it. But that's enough now.



Because, as ive been saying throughout this exchange: context matters im including my full quote below, which you were replying to..

That is a dev design choice, to encourage players to buy more powerful ships more fit for the purpose.

The devs do not intend for players to go through the same process in Powerplay with modes, and come to the logical conclusion that private modes are the only place to be to get merits moved.

That was an unintended consequence, hence why we're here, in this thread, proposing a fix, yet again.
That's undebatably wrong, as those exact devs made the game exactly as it currently is. Where players 'go through the same process in powerplay' in every mode equally.

So...lol. You're wrong on literally every count.
You've missed the point yet again. And, it seems insulting to assume that was not deliberate. But let me clarify regardless:

What I am saying there, is that the developers intended for players to go through a process where they have a reason to migrate from say, an eagle, into more powerful ships that are more fit for the purpose. (It gives a reason to sacrifice agility in favour of firepower & durability)

However, the devs did not intend for players to go through that same process in Powerplay, by migrating from Open mode, into Solo/PG, since they are more fit for the purpose. (as you can move more merits, safer & without hindrance, particularly when it matters most strategically.)

The developers did not intend for Powerplayers to be driven from Open into Solo/PG. But that is the pressure the mechanics apply, and it is to the detriment of complexity of gameplay, teamwork & emergent content. It was an unintended consequence that i'd like to see fixed.
 
you will see I was pointing out that the meaning of your signature is so basic, you could apply it to defend any inequity, even slavery.
Except, of course, that's nonsense, because as you yourself say later in the post, context matters.

From the conception of the game, each different game mode was meant to be equal. That means that swapping from solo to open isn't like swapping from an eagle to an anaconda, it's like swapping from an eagle to a hauler.

By contrast, creating your own comparison that's obviously unequal is the textbook definition of a strawman argument. Get out.


However, the devs did not intend for players to go through that same process in Powerplay, by migrating from Open mode, into Solo/PG, since they are more fit for the purpose.

From the very inception of the game, they conceptualized it as being three separate but equal game modes, all with equal impact on the universe.

Or for a more unbiased comparison, it's like a Corvette vs a T9. One is great at hauling, one is great at combat, but neither one is outright better than the other, and players are free to choose between them however they see fit.

Exactly like solo vs open. Players are free to choose between these separate but equal options as they see fit, and this has been the case since the design phase of the game, and functioning exactly as intended.
 
Except, of course, that's nonsense, because as you yourself say later in the post, context matters.

From the conception of the game, each different game mode was meant to be equal. That means that swapping from solo to open isn't like swapping from an eagle to an anaconda, it's like swapping from an eagle to a hauler.

By contrast, creating your own comparison that's obviously unequal is the textbook definition of a strawman argument. Get out.




From the very inception of the game, they conceptualized it as being three separate but equal game modes, all with equal impact on the universe.

Or for a more unbiased comparison, it's like a Corvette vs a T9. One is great at hauling, one is great at combat, but neither one is outright better than the other, and players are free to choose between them however they see fit.

Exactly like solo vs open. Players are free to choose between these separate but equal options as they see fit, and this has been the case since the design phase of the game, and functioning exactly as intended.
Separate but equal is, inherently, unequal. There is no other way to look at this. Perhaps you should look at Brown v. Board of Education as it pertains to this issue as well, might be enlightening to you.

As for telling people to leave because they disagree with you, please respect other people opinion and express some level of decorum when replying to people. If you are unable to speak respectfully to others perhaps it would be best to remain silent. Think a lot of peoples mothers once said 'If you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all.' Be respectful.

As far as game modes, they are not equal do to the different benefits of each mode. To argue equality would be like arguing that you have three roads you can take from A to B and they are as follows;

Solo Road - You can travel alone on this interstate with little to no hindrance other than your own ignorance or stupidity.
PG Road - You can travel with friends on this interstate with little to no hindrance other than your own and your friends ignorance or stupidity.
Open Road - You can travel a jam packed road with chances of running into bandits and all types of strife.

To say, all roads are equal would be borderline insanity and one that very few would actually agree on in any realistic scenario. Any risk management company would tell you to avoid the open road due to risks in profit loss.
 
Last edited:
Which means that claims that Solo undermining cannot be opposed aren't accurate.

Indeed - between participants who choose to play with each other.
I mean, I think I outlined the difference between the predictable solo vs. solo outcome and the more dynamic possibilities if both sides play in open, do with it what you will.
 
Except, of course, that's nonsense, because as you yourself say later in the post, context matters
The point of your sig is simply that Open is it's own reward. It is The Joy of Open. So too the Joy of Solo & PG. It's meaningless. Its a simple statement that serves to support any status-quo, no matter the inequity.

The slavery reference wasnt a strawman, it was just poking fun at a vacuous slogan.

My point stands just fine on it's own, and im not at all surprised you dont want to engage with that because it refutes the approach youve taken to this whole topic, which is overgeneralised pure speculation from an entrenched viewpoint that is deeply ignorant of the feature that is actually under discussion.

From the very inception of the game, they conceptualized it as being three separate but equal game modes, all with equal impact on the universe
There is nothing in any of the discussions, marketing, or any conception of the 'spirit of the game' that precludes Powerplay being restricted to Open-only, or weighting merits in favour of Open, or splitting activities between the modes as per the OP.
The obvious citation for that is the dev's proposed the most extreme variants themselves. The OP is a softer more inclusive compromise than fdev came out with.

Exactly like solo vs open. Players are free to choose between these separate but equal options as they see fit, and this has been the case since the design phase of the game, and functioning exactly as intended.
When two of the modes serve to undercut and smother the gameplay of the third, your holy trinity breaks down. It is uniquely relevant for Powerplay which the devs themselves have said is best played-out in Open.
 
I find it hilarious that you say i'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about when

A: You have no more idea than I do what will happen when a bunch of non-pvp players are forced into Open, so you're just as much in the dark as I am, and yet

B: You actively admit that exactly what I'm talking about is already happening!

It doesn't matter how many old pvpers you draw back, the game will ultimately be dominated by those who play most efficiently, just like now, and there is no scenario where fighting your enemies is the most efficient way to play.
I knew you might jump on those points in that way, but it's still disappointing you went for them with such desperation. I find your reaching objections and unrelenting clutch to a lost theory more laughable, if that's not too impolite. You do know powerplay has been going on for some years now? And people still predoninantly attack in mamba/FDLs.

If your approach to projecting were a good one, open powerplay would be dead by now and the powers with strong open play culture would be losing these cycles, not winning them. I agree about the unpredictability of the effect of a change in the open demographic. But I'm in a much better position than you to suggest how that might pan out. That I don't even aim to make predictions with the level of specificity that you do is actually consistent with that.
 
As far as game modes, they are not equal do to the different benefits of each mode.
Incorrect; they are absolutely, completely equal, because they have identical game mechanics.

They may not be equitable, but achieving equitability is impossible, so long as there are any meaningful differences between the different game modes. And if there are no differences between the game modes, there's no point in having separate game modes in the first place.

The fact of the matter is, the game was designed to have three separate game modes; separate in equitability, but absolutely equal in that each has identical game mechanics. That is 100%, absolutely true now, just as it was when the game was released, and I see no reason to change it now.
 
As for telling people to leave because they disagree with you, please respect other people opinion and express some level of decorum when replying to people. If you are unable to speak respectfully to others perhaps it would be best to remain silent. Think a lot of peoples mothers once said 'If you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all.' Be respectful.
I dont think I nor DemiserofD have been respectful to each other over the supposed-strawman tiff but I dont mind a heated debate when theres more than just insults or trolling involved. Weve both trampled on the line but I dont think we've crossed it. But that's my opinion and the moderators are the arbiters.
 
Top Bottom